Annoyance is a feeling of regret about something that has not come true. Lazarus coping test. Assessment of behavior in difficult life situations

The technique is intended to determine coping mechanisms, ways to overcome difficulties in various fields mental activity, coping strategies. This questionnaire is considered the first standard technique in the field of measuring coping. The technique was developed by R. Lazarus and S. Folkman in 1988, adapted by T.L. Kryukova, E.V. Kuftyak, M.S. Zamyshlyaeva in 2004.

Theoretical basis

Coping with life's difficulties, according to the authors of the methodology, is the constantly changing cognitive and behavioral efforts of an individual in order to manage specific external and (or) internal requirements which he assesses as testing or exceeding his resources. The task of coping with negative life circumstances is to either overcome difficulties, or reduce their negative consequences, or avoid these difficulties, or endure them. Coping behavior can be defined as purposeful social behavior that allows one to cope with a difficult life situation (or stress) in ways that are adequate. personal characteristics and situations - through conscious strategies of action. This conscious behavior is aimed at actively changing, transforming a situation that can be controlled, or adapting to it if the situation is not controllable. With this understanding, it is important for the social adaptation of healthy people. His styles and strategies are seen as individual elements conscious social behavior with the help of which a person copes with life's difficulties.

Procedure

The subject is offered 50 statements regarding behavior in a difficult life situation. The subject must evaluate how often these behaviors occur in him.

Processing the results

1. count the points, summing up for each subscale:

never - 0 points;
rarely - 1 point;
sometimes - 2 points;
often - 3 points

2. calculate using the formula: X = sum of points / max point*100

The questionnaire numbers (in order, but different) work on different scales, for example, in the “confrontational coping” scale questions are 2, 3, 13, 21, 26, 37, etc. The maximum value on a question that a subject can score is 3, and for all questions of the subscale the maximum is 18 points, the subject scored 8 points: 8/18*100=44,4% - this is the level of tension of confrontational coping.

3. It can be determined more simply by the total score:

0-6 - low level of tension, indicates an adaptive version of coping;
7-12 - average, adaptive potential of a person in a borderline state;
13-18 - high intensity of coping, indicates pronounced maladjustment.

Key

Confrontational coping - points: 2, 3, 13, 21, 26, 37.
Distancing - points: 8, 9, 11, 16, 32, 35.
Self-control - points: 6, 10, 27, 34, 44, 49, 50.
Seeking social support - points: 4, 14, 17, 24, 33, 36.
Taking responsibility - points: 5, 19, 22, 42.
Flight-avoidance - points: 7, 12, 25, 31, 38, 41, 46, 47.
Planning to solve a problem - points: 1, 20, 30, 39, 40, 43.
Positive revaluation - points: 15, 18, 23, 28, 29, 45, 48.

Interpretation of results

Description of subscales

Confrontation. Resolving a problem through not always targeted behavioral activity or the implementation of specific actions. Often the strategy of confrontation is considered as non-adaptive, but when used in moderation, it ensures the individual’s ability to resist difficulties, energy and enterprise in resolving problem situations, and the ability to defend one’s own interests;
Distancing. Overcoming negative experiences in connection with a problem by subjectively reducing its significance and the degree of emotional involvement in it. Characteristic is the use of intellectual techniques of rationalization, switching attention, detachment, humor, devaluation, etc.;
Self-control. Overcoming negative experiences in connection with the problem through targeted suppression and containment of emotions, minimizing their influence on the perception of the situation and the choice of behavioral strategy, high control of behavior, the desire for self-control;
Seeking social support. Resolving the problem by attracting external (social) resources, searching for informational, emotional and effective support. Characterized by a focus on interaction with other people, expectation of support, attention, advice, sympathy, specific effective help;
Taking responsibility. Recognition by the subject of his role in the emergence of the problem and responsibility for its solution, in some cases with a distinct component of self-criticism and self-accusation. The expression of this strategy in behavior can lead to unjustified self-criticism and self-flagellation, feelings of guilt and chronic dissatisfaction with oneself;
Escape-avoidance. An individual’s overcoming of negative experiences due to difficulties through an evasion-type response: denial of the problem, fantasizing, unjustified expectations, distraction, etc. With a clear preference for the avoidance strategy, infantile forms of behavior in stressful situations may be observed;
Planning to solve a problem. Overcoming a problem through targeted analysis of the situation and possible options behavior, developing a strategy for resolving the problem, planning one’s own actions taking into account objective conditions, past experience and available resources;
Positive revaluation. Overcoming negative experiences in connection with a problem by reframing it positively, viewing it as an incentive for personal growth. Characterized by a focus on transpersonal, philosophical understanding problematic situation, including it in the broader context of the individual’s work on self-development.

Coping test answer sheet

	Once in difficult situation, I...	never	rarely	Sometimes	often
1	... focused on what I needed to do next - the next step	0	1	2	3
2	... started doing something, knowing that it wouldn’t work anyway, the main thing was to do at least something	0	1	2	3
3	...tried to persuade his superiors to change their minds	0	1	2	3
4	...spoke to others to learn more about the situation	0	1	2	3
5	...criticized and reproached himself	0	1	2	3
6	... tried not to burn bridges behind me, leaving everything as it is	0	1	2	3
7	...hoped for a miracle	0	1	2	3
8	... resigned myself to fate: sometimes I’m unlucky	0	1	2	3
9	...acted as if nothing had happened	0	1	2	3
10	... tried not to show my feelings	0	1	2	3
11	... tried to see something positive in the situation	0	1	2	3
12	... slept more than usual	0	1	2	3
13	... took my frustration out on those who got me into trouble	0	1	2	3
14	... was looking for sympathy and understanding from someone	0	1	2	3
15	...I felt the need to express myself creatively	0	1	2	3
16	...tried to forget it all	0	1	2	3
17	... turned to specialists for help	0	1	2	3
18	...changed or grew as a person in positive side	0	1	2	3
19	... apologized or tried to make amends	0	1	2	3
20	... made a plan of action	0	1	2	3
21	... tried to give some way out to my feelings	0	1	2	3
22	... realized that he himself caused this problem	0	1	2	3
23	...gaining experience in this situation	0	1	2	3
24	...spoke to anyone who could specifically help with this situation	0	1	2	3
25	...tried to make myself feel better by eating, drinking, smoking or taking drugs	0	1	2	3
26	... took reckless risks	0	1	2	3
27	... tried not to act too hastily, trusting the first impulse	0	1	2	3
28	...found new faith in something	0	1	2	3
29	...rediscovering something important for myself	0	1	2	3
30	... changed something so that everything was settled	0	1	2	3
31	... generally avoided interacting with people	0	1	2	3
32	... I didn’t let it get to me, trying not to think about it too much	0	1	2	3
33	...asked advice from a relative or friend whom he respected	0	1	2	3
34	... tried not to let others know how bad things were	0	1	2	3
35	... refused to take it too seriously	0	1	2	3
36	...talked about how I feel	0	1	2	3
37	... stood his ground and fought for what he wanted	0	1	2	3
38	... took it out on other people	0	1	2	3
39	... I used past experience - I have already found myself in such situations	0	1	2	3
40	... knew what to do and redoubled his efforts to get everything right	0	1	2	3
41	... refused to believe that this really happened	0	1	2	3
42	... I made a promise that next time everything would be different	0	1	2	3
43	... found a couple of other ways to solve the problem	0	1	2	3
44	... tried not to let my emotions interfere too much with other things	0	1	2	3
45	... changed something in myself	0	1	2	3
46	... wanted all this to happen or end sooner somehow	0	1	2	3
47	... imagined, fantasized how it all could turn out	0	1	2	3
48	... prayed	0	1	2	3
49	.. was going over in my mind what should I say or do	0	1	2	3
50	... thought about how a person I admire would act in this situation and tried to imitate him	0	1	2	3

Kryukova T.L., Kuftyak E.V. Coping Questionnaire (adapted from WCQ) / Journal practical psychologist. M.: 2007. No. 3 P. 93-112.

The technique is intended to determine coping mechanisms, ways to overcome difficulties in various areas of mental activity, and coping strategies.

This questionnaire is considered the first standard technique in the field of measuring coping.

The technique was developed by R. Lazarus and S. Folkman in 1988, adapted by T.L. Kryukova, E.V. Kuftyak, M.S. Zamyshlyaeva in 2004, additionally standardized at the NIPNI named after. Bekhetereva L.I. Wasserman, B.V. Iovlev, E.R. Isaeva, E.A. Trifonova, O.Yu. Shchelkova, M.Yu. Novozhilova.

Theoretical basis

Coping with life's difficulties, according to the authors of the methodology, is an individual's constantly changing cognitive and behavioral efforts in order to manage specific external and (or) internal demands that are assessed by him as testing him or exceeding his resources. The task of coping with negative life circumstances is to either overcome difficulties, or reduce their negative consequences, or avoid these difficulties, or endure them. Coping behavior can be defined as purposeful social behavior that allows one to cope with a difficult life situation (or stress) in ways that are adequate to personal characteristics and the situation - through conscious strategies of action. This conscious behavior is aimed at actively changing, transforming a situation that can be controlled, or adapting to it if the situation is not controllable. With this understanding, it is important for the social adaptation of healthy people. His styles and strategies are considered as separate elements of conscious social behavior with the help of which a person copes with life's difficulties.

The effectiveness of a particular strategy depends on the characteristics of the current situation and available personal resources, therefore it is incorrect to talk about the adaptability/maladaptation of individual coping strategies. Strategies that are effective in one situation may be ineffective and even harmful in another. At the same time, a number of psychosocial factors are identified that contribute to adaptation to stressful situations, relatively independently of the characteristics of these situations. These include a complex of adaptive individual-typological (mainly cognitive-style) features (for example, coping competence, optimism, self-esteem, internal locus of control, resilience, etc.), as well as properties social network and the adequacy of social support.

History of creation and validation

The questionnaire was created based on the first methodological development Folkman & Lazarus (1980) - the Ways of Coping Checklist (WCC) questionnaire, which consisted of 68 item-statements formulated on the basis of conceptual developments and the results of empirical research. Subsequently, the content and structure of the questionnaire were revised and re-evaluated. As amended in 1998, the questionnaire contains 66 statements combined into 8 scales.

In 2004, the technique was slightly reduced to 50 points and validated on the Russian population.

At NIPNI named after. The Beheterva technique has been restandardized. The already validated version of 50 questions was subjected to reformulation of the questions, and validated on a sample of 1600 subjects - both mentally healthy and sick.

Internal structure

The questionnaire consists of 50 statements grouped into 8 scales. The questionnaire numbers (in order, but different) work on different scales, for example, in the “confrontational coping” scale questions are 2, 3, 13, 21, 26, 37, etc.

Confrontation

The confrontation strategy involves attempts to resolve the problem through not always targeted behavioral activity, the implementation of specific actions aimed either at changing the situation or at responding negative emotions due to difficulties encountered. With a pronounced preference for this strategy, impulsivity in behavior (sometimes with elements of hostility and conflict), hostility, difficulties in planning actions, predicting their results, correcting behavioral strategies, and unjustified perseverance can be observed. In this case, coping actions lose their purposefulness and become primarily the result of a release of emotional tension. Often the confrontation strategy is considered maladaptive, but when used in moderation, it ensures the individual’s ability to resist difficulties, energy and initiative in resolving problematic situations, the ability to defend one’s own interests, and cope with anxiety in stressful conditions.

Positive aspects: the ability to actively confront difficulties and stressful effects. Negative sides: insufficient focus and rational validity of behavior in a problem situation.

Distancing

The distancing strategy involves attempts to overcome negative experiences in connection with a problem by subjectively reducing its significance and the degree of emotional involvement in it. The use of intellectual techniques of rationalization, switching attention, detachment, humor, devaluation, etc. is typical.

Positive aspects: the ability to reduce the subjective significance of intractable situations and prevent intense emotional reactions to frustration. Negative aspects: the likelihood of devaluing one’s own experiences, underestimating the significance and possibilities of effectively overcoming problematic situations.

Self-control

The self-control strategy involves attempts to overcome negative experiences in connection with a problem by purposefully suppressing and restraining emotions, minimizing their influence on the assessment of the situation and the choice of behavior strategy, high behavioral control, and the desire for self-control. With a clear preference for the self-control strategy, an individual may experience a desire to hide from others his feelings and motives in connection with a problematic situation. Often this behavior indicates a fear of self-disclosure, excessive demands on oneself, leading to over-control of behavior.

Positive aspects: the ability to avoid emotional, impulsive actions, the predominance of a rational approach to problem situations. Negative aspects: difficulties in expressing experiences, needs and motivations in connection with a problematic situation, overcontrol of behavior.

Finding social support

The strategy of seeking social support involves attempts to resolve the problem by attracting external (social) resources, searching for informational, emotional and effective support. Characterized by a focus on interaction with other people, an expectation of attention, advice, and sympathy. The search for primarily informational support involves seeking recommendations from experts and acquaintances who, from the respondent’s point of view, have the necessary knowledge. The need primarily for emotional support is manifested by the desire to be listened to, to receive an empathic response, and to share one’s experiences with someone. When searching for predominantly effective support, the leading factor is the need for help with specific actions.

Positive aspects: the ability to use external resources to resolve a problem situation. Negative aspects: the possibility of developing a dependent position and/or excessive expectations in relation to others.

Taking responsibility

The strategy of accepting responsibility involves the subject recognizing his role in the emergence of the problem and responsibility for its solution, in some cases with a distinct component of self-criticism and self-blame. When used moderately, this strategy reflects the individual’s desire to understand the relationship between one’s own actions and their consequences, the willingness to analyze one’s behavior, and look for the causes of current difficulties in personal shortcomings and mistakes. At the same time, the expression of this strategy in behavior can lead to unjustified self-criticism, feelings of guilt and dissatisfaction with oneself. These features are known to be a risk factor for the development of depressive conditions.

Positive aspects: the ability to understand the personal role in the emergence of current difficulties. Negative aspects: the possibility of unfounded self-criticism and taking on excessive responsibility.

Escape-avoidance

The escape-avoidance strategy involves an individual’s attempts to overcome negative experiences due to difficulties by reacting in an evasive manner: denying the problem, fantasizing, unjustified expectations, distraction, etc. With a clear preference for an avoidance strategy, unconstructive forms of behavior can be observed in stressful situations: denial or complete ignoring of the problem, avoidance of responsibility and actions to resolve difficulties, passivity, impatience, outbursts of irritation, immersion in fantasies, overeating, drinking alcohol, etc. , in order to reduce painful emotional stress. Most researchers consider this strategy as non-adaptive, but this circumstance does not exclude its usefulness in certain situations, especially in the short term and in acute stressful situations.

Positive aspects: the ability to quickly reduce emotional tension in a stressful situation. Negative aspects: the impossibility of resolving the problem, the likelihood of accumulation of difficulties, the short-term effect of actions taken to reduce emotional discomfort.

The strategy for planning a solution to a problem involves attempts to overcome the problem through a targeted analysis of the situation and possible behavior options, developing a strategy for resolving the problem, planning one’s own actions taking into account objective conditions, past experience and available resources. The strategy is considered by most researchers as adaptive, contributing to constructive resolution of difficulties.

Positive aspects: the ability to purposefully and systematically resolve a problem situation. Negative aspects: the likelihood of excessive rationality, insufficient emotionality, intuitiveness and spontaneity in behavior.

Positive revaluation

The strategy of positive reappraisal involves attempts to overcome negative experiences in connection with a problem by reframing it positively, viewing it as a stimulus for personal growth. It is characterized by a focus on transpersonal, philosophical understanding of the problem situation, its inclusion in the broader context of the individual’s work on self-development.

Positive aspects: the opportunity to positively rethink a problematic situation. Negative aspects: the likelihood of an individual underestimating the possibilities of effectively resolving a problem situation.

Procedure

The subject is offered 50 statements regarding behavior in a difficult life situation. The subject must evaluate how often these behaviors occur in him.

Processing and interpretation of results

Raw Points Key

Confrontational coping- points: 2, 3, 13, 21, 26, 37.
Distancing- points: 8, 9, 11, 16, 32, 35.
Self-control- points: 6, 10, 27, 34, 44, 49, 50.
Finding social support- points: 4, 14, 17, 24, 33, 36.
Taking responsibility- points: 5, 19, 22, 42.
Escape-avoidance- points: 7, 12, 25, 31, 38, 41, 46, 47.
Planning to solve a problem- points: 1, 20, 30, 39, 40, 43.
Positive revaluation- points: 15, 18, 23, 28, 29, 45, 48.

Adapted by Kryukova et al.

1. We calculate points by summing up for each subscale:

never – 0 points;
rarely – 1 point;
sometimes – 2 points;
often - 3 points

2. calculated using the formula: X = sum of points / max point*100 The maximum score for a question that a subject can score is 3, and for all questions of the subscale the maximum is 18 points.

For example, if the subject scored 8 points:

\frac(8)(18)*100 = 44.4%

This is the level of tension of confrontational coping.

3. It can be determined more simply by the total score:

0-6 – low level of tension, indicates an adaptive version of coping;
7-12 – average, adaptive potential of a person in a borderline state;
13-18 – high intensity of coping, indicates pronounced maladjustment.

Adapted by Wasserman et al.

After calculating the “raw” indicators on the scales, it is necessary to convert them into standard T-scores using the developed tables. Tables for converting “raw” indicators into standard T-scores are compiled based on statistical analysis results of a survey of a representative sample of 1627 people.

The degree of preference for the subject’s strategy for coping with stress is determined based on the following conditional rule:

score less than 40 points – rare use of the appropriate strategy;
40 points ≤ score ≤ 60 points – moderate use of the appropriate strategy;
a score of more than 60 points indicates a strong preference for the corresponding strategy.

Table for converting raw grades to standard scores

Practical significance

The technique can be used to study behavioral characteristics in problematic and difficult situations for the individual, and to identify characteristic ways of overcoming stress in different groups of subjects. The questionnaire can be effective in solving problems of professional selection (especially for work in stressful conditions), identifying risk factors for mental maladjustment under stressful conditions. The questionnaire, in combination with other methods, can be used to assess the effectiveness of psychocorrectional measures and psychotherapy. Indications for the use of the questionnaire are also mass screening studies within the framework of psychohygienic and psychoprophylactic programs.

Relative contraindications to the use of the SSP questionnaire include the age of the subject under 14 and over 60 years. The use of the technique in these age groups of subjects reduces the level of validity of the test results obtained.

Experimental results

Group of patients with endogenous psychoses

The technique has shown its effectiveness as a component of complex psychodiagnostics in the clinic. So, at NIPNI im. Bekhterev proposed a comprehensive psychodiagnostic technique for patients with endogenous psychoses, including examination using the questionnaires life style index, TOBOL and the Lazarus coping test. The results obtained from this study are presented below and on the corresponding methods pages.

The examination was carried out on a sample of 410 patients: schizotypal disorder (82 people), paranoid schizophrenia (93 people), schizoaffective disorder (26 people) and bipolar disorder (73 people), who were treated in the department of community psychiatry of the NIPNI clinic named after. Bekhterev.

Type of coping behavior	Diagnosis
	Schizopic disorder		Paranoid schizophrenia		Schizoaffective disorder		Bipolar affective disorder
	χ avg	σ	χ avg	σ	χ avg	σ	χ avg	σ
Confrontation	40.35	14.68	52.47	16.08	43.03	13.08	48.74	12.71
Distancing	45.03	16.76	50.00	19.62	49.43	13.06	53.03	11.34
Self-control	62.41	13.18	59.79	14.99	61.01	10.01	67.1	10.23
Finding social support	65.78	22.92	65.72	21.39	66.29	16.02	74.48	12.78
Taking responsibility	68.42	23.17	59.72	18.80	64.61	16.34	74.03	12.03
Escape-avoidance	49.78	12.54	53.01	18.73	53.45	10.6	56.02	10.04
Planning	60.82	20.66	56.79	18.33	58.45	15.12	63.88	12.17
Positive revaluation	49.62	18.67	52.91	12.85	55.35	16.30	55.41	11.01

Bold The values for which significant differences were obtained are highlighted.

A group of military personnel who experienced traumatic events

For the purpose of experimental psychological assessment of stress-coping behavior strategies of individuals whose professional activities take place in stressful conditions, 168 military personnel were examined. The first group consisted of military personnel from the submarine crew (61 people in total, average age 32.96 + 0.8 years, average length of service in officer positions 13.19 + 0.8 years.) The military personnel were examined at a naval base Northern Fleet Russian Navy, located in the city of Severomorsk, Murmansk region. The second group is first-year students at the St. Petersburg University of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia (70 people in total) who agreed to participate in the study. The average age of the subjects was 18.78+0.13 years. The third group included military personnel with a clinically verified diagnosis of adaptation disorder (F 43.2 according to ICD-10).

The study was conducted on the basis of psychiatric clinics in the city of St. Petersburg - Military District Hospital No. 442 named after. Z.P. Solovyov, Psychiatry Clinic of the Military Medical Academy named after. CM. Kirov. All studied patients (a total of 37 people aged 24–51 years, average age 32.2±1.83 years) were in hospital treatment at the time of the examination. Among the reasons that determined the formation of adaptation disorders, problems in interpersonal (most often family) relationships, as well as problems in the professional and labor sphere, prevailed. Data on the predominant forms of stress-coping behavior in subgroups are presented in the table.

Coping strategy	Submariners	Cadets	Military personnel with adjustment disorder
Confrontation	48.21±1.18	50.45±1.16	51.16±1.23
Distancing	47.36±1.31	50.62±1.10	52.39±1.48
Self-control	46.95±1.19	46.44±1.21	46.83±1.80
Finding social support	49.38±1.26	53.38±1.11	49.81±1.99
Taking responsibility	44.66±0.93	45.25±1.05	47.23±1.73
Escape-avoidance	45.92±1.13	47.00±0.89	53.03±1.48
Planning the solution	51.02±1.09	54.52±1.22	44.39±1.70
Positive revaluation	46.64±1.08	52.75±1.06	44.53±1.81

Bold The values for which significant differences between the group and the group of military personnel with adaptation disorder were obtained were highlighted.

Stimulus material

Test material

Literature

Kryukova T.L., Kuftyak E.V. Questionnaire of ways of coping (adaptation of the WCQ technique) / Journal of a practical psychologist. - M.: 2007. No. 3. - P. 93-112.
Techniques psychological diagnostics patients with endogenous disorders. Advanced medical technology. SPb NIPNI im. Bekhetereva, St. Petersburg, 2007
A technique for psychological diagnostics of ways to cope with stressful and personally problematic situations. A manual for doctors and medical psychologists of the NIPNI named after. Bekhetereva, St. Petersburg, 2009

Description of the technique

The technique is intended to determine coping mechanisms, ways to overcome difficulties in various areas of mental activity, and coping strategies. This questionnaire is considered the first standard technique in the field of measuring coping. The technique was developed by R. Lazarus and S. Folkman in 1988, adapted by T.L. Kryukova, E.V. Kuftyak, M.S. Zamyshlyaeva in 2004.

Theoretical basis

Coping with life's difficulties, according to the authors of the methodology, is a constantly changing cognitive and behavioral behavior of the individual in order to manage specific external and (or) internal demands that are assessed by him as testing or exceeding his resources. The task of coping with negative life circumstances is to either overcome difficulties, or reduce their negative consequences, or avoid these difficulties, or endure them. Coping behavior can be defined as purposeful social behavior that allows one to cope with a life situation (or stress) in ways that are adequate to personal characteristics and through conscious strategies of action. This conscious behavior is aimed at actively changing, transforming a situation that can be controlled, or adapting to it if the situation is not controllable. With this understanding, it is important for the social adaptation of healthy people. His styles and strategies are considered as separate elements of conscious social behavior with the help of which a person copes with life's difficulties.

Procedure

The subject is offered 50 statements regarding behavior in a difficult life situation. The subject must evaluate how often these behaviors occur in him.

Processing the results

1. count the points, summing up for each subscale:

never – 0 points;
rarely – 1 point;
sometimes – 2 points;
often – 3 points

2. calculate using the formula: X = sum of points / max point*100

– these are the tensions of confrontational coping.

3. It can be determined more simply by the total score:

0-6 – low level of tension, indicates an adaptive version of coping;
7-12 – average, adaptation potential in a borderline state;
13-18 – high intensity of coping, indicates pronounced maladjustment.

Key

Confrontational coping –: 2, 3, 13, 21, 26, 37.
Distancing – points: 8, 9, 11, 16, 32, 35.
Self-control – points: 6, 10, 27, 34, 44, 49, 50.
Seeking social support – points: 4, 14, 17, 24, 33, 36.
Taking responsibility – points: 5, 19, 22, 42.
Escape-avoidance – points: 7, 12, 25, 31, 38, 41, 46, 47.
Planning the problem - points: 1, 20, 30, 39, 40, 43.
Positive revaluation – points: 15, 18, 23, 28, 29, 45, 48.

Interpretation of results Description of subscales

Confrontational coping. Aggressive efforts to change the situation. Involves a certain degree of hostility and risk-taking.
Distancing. Cognitive efforts to disassociate from a situation and reduce its significance.
Self-control. to regulate your feelings and actions. Items:
Seeking social support. Efforts in searching for effective and emotional support.
Taking responsibility. Recognizing your role in the problem with the accompanying theme of trying to solve it.
Escape-avoidance. Mental and behavioral efforts aimed at escape or problems.
Planning to solve a problem. Arbitrary problem-focused efforts to change the situation, an analytical approach to the problem.
Positive revaluation. Efforts to positive value with a focus on the individual. also measurement.

Coping test answer sheet

	Finding myself in a difficult situation, I...	never	rarely	Sometimes	often
1	... focused on what I needed to do - the next step	0	1	2	3
2	... started doing something, knowing that it wouldn’t work anyway, the main thing was to do at least something	0	1	2	3
3	...tried to persuade his superiors to change their minds	0	1	2	3
4	...spoke to others to learn more about the situation	0	1	2	3
5	...criticized and reproached himself	0	1	2	3
6	... tried not to burn bridges behind me, leaving everything as it is	0	1	2	3
7	...hoped for a miracle	0	1	2	3
8	... resigned myself to fate: sometimes I’m unlucky	0	1	2	3
9	...acted as if nothing had happened	0	1	2	3
10	... tried not to show my feelings	0	1	2	3
11	... tried to see something positive in the situation	0	1	2	3
12	... slept more	0	1	2	3
13	... took my frustration out on those who got me into trouble	0	1	2	3
14	... was looking for sympathy and understanding from someone	0	1	2	3
15	...I felt the need to express myself creatively	0	1	2	3
16	...tried to forget it all	0	1	2	3
17	... turned to specialists for help	0	1	2	3
18	... changed or grew in a positive way	0	1	2	3
19	... apologized or tried to make amends	0	1	2	3
20	... made a plan of action	0	1	2	3
21	... tried to give some way out to my feelings	0	1	2	3
22	... realized that he himself caused this problem	0	1	2	3
23	...gaining experience in this situation	0	1	2	3
24	...spoke to anyone who could specifically help with this situation	0	1	2	3
25	...tried to make myself feel better by eating, drinking, smoking or taking drugs	0	1	2	3
26	... took reckless risks	0	1	2	3
27	... tried not to act too hastily, trusting the first impulse	0	1	2	3
28	...found new faith in something	0	1	2	3
29	...rediscovering something important for myself	0	1	2	3
30	... changed something so that everything was settled	0	1	2	3
31	... generally avoided interacting with people	0	1	2	3
32	... I didn’t let it get to me, trying not to think about it too much	0	1	2	3
33	...asked advice from a relative or friend whom he respected	0	1	2	3
34	... tried not to let others know how bad things were	0	1	2	3
35	... refused to take it too seriously	0	1	2	3
36	...talked about how I feel	0	1	2	3
37	... stood his ground and fought for what he wanted	0	1	2	3
38	... took it out on other people	0	1	2	3
39	... I used past experience - I have already found myself in such situations	0	1	2	3
40	... knew what to do and redoubled his efforts to get everything right	0	1	2	3
41	... refused to believe that this really happened	0	1	2	3
42	... I made a promise that next time everything would be different	0	1	2	3
43	... found a couple of other ways to solve the problem	0	1	2	3
44	... tried not to let my emotions interfere too much with other things	0	1	2	3
45	... changed something in myself	0	1	2	3
46	... wanted all this to happen or end sooner somehow	0	1	2	3
47	... imagined, fantasized how it all could turn out	0	1	2	3
48	... prayed	0	1	2	3
49	.. was going over in my mind what should I say or do	0	1	2	3
50	... thought about how a person I admire would act in this situation and tried to imitate him	0	1	2	3

Kryukova T.L., Kuftyak E.V. Questionnaire of ways of coping (adaptation of the WCQ technique) / Journal of a practical psychologist. M.: 2007. No. 3 P. 93-112.

The technique is intended to determine coping mechanisms, ways to overcome difficulties in various areas of mental activity, and coping strategies.

Processing the results

1. count the points, summing up for each subscale:

never – 0 points;
rarely – 1 point;
sometimes – 2 points;
often – 3 points

2. calculate using the formula: X = sum of points / max point*100

The questionnaire numbers (in order, but different) work on different scales, for example, in the “confrontational coping” scale questions are 2, 3, 13, 21, 26, 37, etc. The maximum value for a question that a subject can score is 3, and for all questions of the subscale the maximum is 18 points, the subject scored 8 points: 8/18*100 = 44.4%

– this is the level of tension of confrontational coping.

3. It can be determined more simply by the total score:

0-6 – low level of tension, indicates an adaptive version of coping;
7-12 – average, adaptive potential of a person in a borderline state;
13-18 – high intensity of coping, indicates pronounced maladjustment.

Key

Confrontational coping – points: 2, 3, 13, 21, 26, 37.
Distancing – points: 8, 9, 11, 16, 32, 35.
Self-control – points: 6, 10, 27, 34, 44, 49, 50.
Seeking social support – points: 4, 14, 17, 24, 33, 36.
Taking responsibility – points: 5, 19, 22, 42.
Escape-avoidance – points: 7, 12, 25, 31, 38, 41, 46, 47.
Planning to solve a problem - points: 1, 20, 30, 39, 40, 43.
Positive revaluation – points: 15, 18, 23, 28, 29, 45, 48.

Interpretation of results

Description of subscales

Confrontational coping. Aggressive efforts to change the situation. Involves a certain degree of hostility and risk-taking.
Distancing. Cognitive efforts to disassociate from a situation and reduce its significance.
Self-control. Efforts to regulate one's feelings and actions. Items:
Seeking social support. Efforts to find informational, effective and emotional support.
Taking responsibility. Recognizing your role in the problem with the accompanying theme of trying to solve it.
Escape-avoidance. Mental drive and behavioral efforts aimed at escaping or avoiding a problem.
Planning to solve a problem. Voluntary problem-focused efforts to change the situation, including an analytical approach to the problem.
Positive revaluation. Efforts to create positive meaning with a focus on personal growth. Also includes a religious dimension.

Coping test answer sheet

	Finding myself in a difficult situation, I...	never	rarely	Sometimes	often
1	... focused on what I needed to do next - the next step	0	1	2	3
2	... started doing something, knowing that it wouldn’t work anyway, the main thing was to do at least something	0	1	2	3
3	...tried to persuade his superiors to change their minds	0	1	2	3
4	...spoke to others to learn more about the situation	0	1	2	3
5	...criticized and reproached himself	0	1	2	3
6	... tried not to burn bridges behind me, leaving everything as it is	0	1	2	3
7	...hoped for a miracle	0	1	2	3
8	... resigned myself to fate: sometimes I’m unlucky	0	1	2	3
9	...acted as if nothing had happened	0	1	2	3
10	... tried not to show my feelings	0	1	2	3
11	... tried to see something positive in the situation	0	1	2	3
12	... slept more than usual	0	1	2	3
13	... took my frustration out on those who got me into trouble	0	1	2	3
14	... was looking for sympathy and understanding from someone	0	1	2	3
15	...I felt the need to express myself creatively	0	1	2	3
16	...tried to forget it all	0	1	2	3
17	... turned to specialists for help	0	1	2	3
18	... changed or grew as a person in a positive way	0	1	2	3
19	... apologized or tried to make amends	0	1	2	3
20	... made a plan of action	0	1	2	3
21	... tried to give some way out to my feelings	0	1	2	3
22	... realized that he himself caused this problem	0	1	2	3
23	...gaining experience in this situation	0	1	2	3
24	...spoke to anyone who could specifically help with this situation	0	1	2	3
25	...tried to make myself feel better by eating, drinking, smoking or taking drugs	0	1	2	3
26	... took reckless risks	0	1	2	3
27	... tried not to act too hastily, trusting the first impulse	0	1	2	3
28	...found new faith in something	0	1	2	3
29	...rediscovering something important for myself	0	1	2	3
30	... changed something so that everything was settled	0	1	2	3
31	... generally avoided interacting with people	0	1	2	3
32	... I didn’t let it get to me, trying not to think about it too much	0	1	2	3
33	...asked advice from a relative or friend whom he respected	0	1	2	3
34	... tried not to let others know how bad things were	0	1	2	3
35	... refused to take it too seriously	0	1	2	3
36	...talked about how I feel	0	1	2	3
37	... stood his ground and fought for what he wanted	0	1	2	3
38	... took it out on other people	0	1	2	3
39	... I used past experience - I have already found myself in such situations	0	1	2	3
40	... knew what to do and redoubled his efforts to get everything right	0	1	2	3
41	... refused to believe that this really happened	0	1	2	3
42	... I made a promise that next time everything would be different	0	1	2	3
43	... found a couple of other ways to solve the problem	0	1	2	3
44	... tried not to let my emotions interfere too much with other things	0	1	2	3
45	... changed something in myself	0	1	2	3
46	... wanted all this to happen or end sooner somehow	0	1	2	3
47	... imagined, fantasized how it all could turn out	0	1	2	3
48	... prayed	0	1	2	3
49	.. was going over in my mind what should I say or do	0	1	2	3
50	... thought about how a person I admire would act in this situation and tried to imitate him	0	1	2	3

Theoretical basis

Procedure

The subject is offered 50 statements regarding behavior in a difficult life situation. The subject must evaluate how often these behaviors occur in him.

Processing the results

1. count the points, summing up for each subscale:

never – 0 points;
rarely – 1 point;
sometimes – 2 points;
often – 3 points

2. calculate using the formula: X = sum of points / max point*100

– this is the level of tension of confrontational coping.

3. It can be determined more simply by the total score:

0-6 – low level of tension, indicates an adaptive version of coping;
7-12 – average, adaptive potential of a person in a borderline state;
13-18 – high intensity of coping, indicates pronounced maladjustment.

Key

Confrontational coping – points: 2, 3, 13, 21, 26, 37.
Distancing – points: 8, 9, 11, 16, 32, 35.
Self-control – points: 6, 10, 27, 34, 44, 49, 50.
Seeking social support – points: 4, 14, 17, 24, 33, 36.
Taking responsibility – points: 5, 19, 22, 42.
Escape-avoidance – points: 7, 12, 25, 31, 38, 41, 46, 47.
Planning to solve a problem - points: 1, 20, 30, 39, 40, 43.
Positive revaluation – points: 15, 18, 23, 28, 29, 45, 48.

Interpretation of results

Description of subscales

Confrontation. Resolving a problem through not always targeted behavioral activity or the implementation of specific actions. Often the strategy of confrontation is considered as non-adaptive, but when used in moderation, it ensures the individual’s ability to resist difficulties, energy and enterprise in resolving problem situations, and the ability to defend one’s own interests;
Distancing. Overcoming negative experiences in connection with a problem by subjectively reducing its significance and the degree of emotional involvement in it. Characteristic is the use of intellectual techniques of rationalization, switching attention, detachment, humor, devaluation, etc.;
Self-control. Overcoming negative experiences in connection with the problem through targeted suppression and containment of emotions, minimizing their influence on the perception of the situation and the choice of behavioral strategy, high control of behavior, the desire for self-control;
Seeking social support. Resolving the problem by attracting external (social) resources, searching for informational, emotional and effective support. Characterized by a focus on interaction with other people, expectation of support, attention, advice, sympathy, specific effective help;
Taking responsibility. Recognition by the subject of his role in the emergence of the problem and responsibility for its solution, in some cases with a distinct component of self-criticism and self-accusation. The expression of this strategy in behavior can lead to unjustified self-criticism and self-flagellation, feelings of guilt and chronic dissatisfaction with oneself;
Escape-avoidance. An individual’s overcoming of negative experiences due to difficulties through an evasion-type response: denial of the problem, fantasizing, unjustified expectations, distraction, etc. With a clear preference for the avoidance strategy, infantile forms of behavior in stressful situations may be observed;
Planning to solve a problem. Overcoming a problem through a targeted analysis of the situation and possible behavior options, developing a strategy for resolving the problem, planning one’s own actions taking into account objective conditions, past experience and available resources;
Positive revaluation. Overcoming negative experiences in connection with a problem by reframing it positively, viewing it as a stimulus for personal growth. It is characterized by a focus on transpersonal, philosophical understanding of the problem situation, its inclusion in the broader context of the individual’s work on self-development.

Coping test answer sheet

	Finding myself in a difficult situation, I...	never	rarely	Sometimes	often
1	… focused on what I needed to do next—the next step	0	1	2	3
2	... started doing something, knowing that it wouldn’t work anyway, the main thing was to do at least something	0	1	2	3
3	... tried to persuade his superiors to change their minds	0	1	2	3
4	...spoke to others to learn more about the situation	0	1	2	3
5	...criticized and reproached himself	0	1	2	3
6	... tried not to burn bridges behind me, leaving everything as it is	0	1	2	3
7	...hoped for a miracle	0	1	2	3
8	… resigned myself to fate: sometimes I’m unlucky	0	1	2	3
9	...acted as if nothing had happened	0	1	2	3
10	... tried not to show my feelings	0	1	2	3
11	… tried to see something positive in the situation	0	1	2	3
12	… slept more than usual	0	1	2	3
13	... took my frustration out on those who got me into trouble	0	1	2	3
14	... looking for sympathy and understanding from someone	0	1	2	3
15	…I felt the need to express myself creatively	0	1	2	3
16	...tried to forget it all	0	1	2	3
17	... turned to specialists for help	0	1	2	3
18	… changed or grew as a person in a positive way	0	1	2	3
19	... apologized or tried to make amends	0	1	2	3
20	... made a plan of action	0	1	2	3
21	... tried to give some way out to my feelings	0	1	2	3
22	... realized that he himself caused this problem	0	1	2	3
23	...gaining experience in this situation	0	1	2	3
24	...spoke to anyone who could specifically help with this situation	0	1	2	3
25	… tried to make myself feel better by eating, drinking, smoking or taking drugs	0	1	2	3
26	... took a reckless risk	0	1	2	3
27	... tried not to act too hastily, trusting the first impulse	0	1	2	3
28	...found new faith in something	0	1	2	3
29	…rediscovering something important for myself	0	1	2	3
30	...changed something so that everything worked out	0	1	2	3
31	… generally avoided interacting with people	0	1	2	3
32	... I didn’t let it get to me, trying not to think about it too much	0	1	2	3
33	…asked advice from a relative or friend whom you respected	0	1	2	3
34	... tried not to let others know how bad things were	0	1	2	3
35	... refused to take it too seriously	0	1	2	3
36	...talked about how I feel	0	1	2	3
37	... stood his ground and fought for what he wanted	0	1	2	3
38	... took it out on other people	0	1	2	3
39	... I used past experience - I have already found myself in such situations	0	1	2	3
40	... knew what to do and redoubled his efforts to get everything right	0	1	2	3
41	... refused to believe that this really happened	0	1	2	3
42	... I made a promise that next time everything would be different	0	1	2	3
43	... found a couple of other ways to solve the problem	0	1	2	3
44	... tried not to let my emotions interfere too much with other things	0	1	2	3
45	... changed something in myself	0	1	2	3
46	... wanted all this to happen or end sooner somehow	0	1	2	3
47	... imagined, fantasized how it all could turn out	0	1	2	3
48	... prayed	0	1	2	3
49	.. was going over in my mind what should I say or do	0	1	2	3
50	... thought about how a person I admire would act in this situation and tried to imitate him	0	1	2	3

Kryukova T.L., Kuftyak E.V. Questionnaire of ways of coping (adaptation of the WCQ technique) / Journal of a practical psychologist. M.: 2007. No. 3 P. 93-112.