To be able to predict which persons are capable to perform under acute stress is important for the selection and training of professionals in the military, police, and fire-fighting domain. The present study examines how individual differences in coping (style, efficacy, and behavior) explain differences in performance and anxiety under acute stress. Cadets (n = 124) of the Netherlands Defence Academy were examined during a realistic stressful exercise. Person characteristics obtained from questionnaires well before the exercise were related to performance and behavior indices obtained during the exercise. Coping style predicted anxiety and performance, which was mediated by behavior during the exercise.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BanduraA. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
2.
Ben-ZurH. (1999). The effectiveness of coping meta-strategies: Perceived efficiency, emotional correlates and cognitive performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 26, 923–939.
3.
CarverC. S.ScheierM. F. (1994). Situational coping and coping dispositions in a stressful transaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 184–195.
4.
CohenJ.CohenP. (1983). Applied multiple regression / correlational analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.) Hilsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
5.
DelahaijR.GaillardA.W.K.SoetersJ.M.L.M. (2008). Performance under acute stress: The role of individual differences. Paper presented at 23nd Conference of Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San Francisco.
6.
EndlerN. S.ParkerJ. D. A. (1990). Multidimensional assessment of coping: A critical evaluation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 844–854.
7.
EndlerN. S.ParkerJ. D. A. (1994). Assessment of multidimensional coping strategies: Task, emotion, and avoidance strategies. Psychological Assessment, 6, 50–60.
8.
EndlerN. S.SpeerR.JohnsonJ. M.FlettG. L. (2000). Controllability, coping, efficacy, and distress. European Journal of Personality, 14, 245–264.
9.
FolkmanS.LazarusR. S. (1985). If it changes it must be a process: Study of emotion and coping during three stages of a college examination. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 150–170.
10.
GaillardA. W. K. (2001). Stress, Workload, and Fatigue as Three Biobehavioral States: A General Overview. In: HancockP. A.DesmondP. A., Stress, Workload, and Fatigue (pp. 623–639). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
11.
GaillardA. W. K. (2008). Concentration, Stress and Performance. In: HancockP. A.SzalmaJ. L., Performance under Stress (pp. 59–75). Aldershot, UK: Ashgate Publishing.
12.
LazarusR. S.FolkmanS. (1984). Stress, appraisal and coping. New York: Springer.
13.
MatthewsG.CampbellS. E. (1998). Task-induced stress and individual differences in coping. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, USA, 42, 821–825.
14.
PreacherK. J.HayesA. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 36, 717–731.
15.
PtacekJ. T.PierceG. R.ThompsonE. L. (2006). Finding evidence of dispositional coping. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 1137–1151.
16.
StaalM. A. (2004). Stress, cognition, and human performance: A literature review and conceptual framework (NASA report/TM-2004–212824). Moffett Field, California. Ames Research Centre
17.
SzalmaJ. L. (2008). Individual differences in stress reactions. In HancockP. A.SzalmaJ. L., Performance under Stress (pp. 323–357). Aldershot, UK: Ashgate Publishing.
18.
TerryD. J.HynesG. J. (1998). Adjustment to low-control situation: Reexamining the role of coping responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1078–1092.
