Journal tifCenmiology: PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCES In the Public Do

19X9. Vol. 44. No. 6. PI6I-I69

Age Differences and Changes in the

Use of Coping Mechanisms
Robert R. McCrae

Gerontology Research Center, National Institute on Aging.

Two cross-sectional studies of coping conducted on 405 men and women aged 21 to 91 in 1980 (McCrae, 1982)
formed the basis for longitudinal analyses in 1987. At Time 2,191 of the original subjects were retested, and data were

Downloaded from http://geronj.oxfordjournals.org/ at Penn State University (Paterno Lib) on February 20, 2016
also gathered from a new sample of 207 men and women. Subjects reported on a single event classified as a loss,
threat, or challenge; responses were scored for 28 specific coping mechanisms and 2 broad coping factors. Cross-
sectional analyses showed evidence of age or cohort differences in the use of several coping mechanisms, but none of
these effects was consistently paralleled by changes in repeated measures and cross-sequential analyses. These
findings suggest that aging has little effect on coping behavior in a community-dwelling sample. Retest correlations
demonstrated modest stability of individual differences in most coping mechanisms, suggesting that coping responses
are in part a function of enduring characteristics of the individual.

A LTHOUGH stress has been a familiar topic in social

science research for decades, the systematic study of
coping processes is relatively new (Costa & McCrae, 1989).
Studies documenting the harmful effects of stress have
generally reported only modest associations (Schroeder &
Costa, 1984), and even major stressors such as bereavement
tend to have relatively short-term effects (McCrae & Costa,
1988). Clearly, most people find ways to deal with stress,
and researchers in the past decade have begun to study these
ways of coping.
Gerontologists have a natural interest in the ways in which
aging individuals cope with the characteristic stressors of
each phase of the life span. Do older individuals bring
wisdom and experience to their coping efforts, or are the
stressors of old age compounded by a declining ability to
cope? Maturational theories of coping and defense (e.g.,
Pfeiffer, 1977; Vaillant, 1977) received little support from
early cross-sectional studies of coping, which showed few
age differences in the use of coping mechanisms (Lazarus &
DeLongis, 1983; McCrae, 1982). Such findings suggested
that, like personality (Costa & McCrae, 1988), coping styles
and abilities were stable in adulthood.
More recently, however, cross-sectional age differences
have been reported. Folkman, Lazarus, Pimley, & Novacek
(1987) found that older respondents were less likely to seek
social support or use confrontive coping; they were more
likely to use distancing and positive reappraisal. Irion and
Blanchard-Fields (1987) replicated the association of age
with the decreased use of confrontive coping, but only when
dealing with stressors that could be classified as threats.
Cross-sectional differences in styles of defense have also
been noted: Costa, Zonderman, and McCrae (in press)
suggested that older men and women were "more forgiving
and willing to meet adversity cheerfully, and less prone to
take offense or to vent frustrations on others."
With the exception of Vaillant's (1977) research on the
maturity of coping mechanisms between late adolescence
and middle adulthood, all these studies have relied on cross-
sectional methods that confound generational differences
with maturational changes. This article reports a 7-year
longitudinal study of coping in adults initially aged 21 to 91
(McCrae, 1982), and thus offers the opportunity to examine
age changes over a reasonably long interval as well as age
differences.
Two parallel studies were conducted in 1980. In the first,
255 men and women completed a 118-item Coping Ques-
tionnaire (CQ) concerning the ways in which they had dealt
with a single event they had previously reported on a check-
list of life events. The event was selected and classified by
the investigator as a loss, threat, or challenge. In the second
study, 150 men and women completed a shortened, 50-item
version of the CQ for each of three events. These events
were selected by the subject as instances of loss, threat, and
challenge. Age differences were examined for 28 specific
coping mechanisms in the first study. After controlling for
the type of stressor, eight mechanisms showed significant
effects; only two of these, however, were replicated in the
second study. In both studies, middle-aged and older sub-
jects were less likely than younger adults to use hostile
reactions and escapist fantasy in dealing with stress.
In 1987 the full CQ was administered to 398 subjects aged
20 to 93. Cross-sectional analyses of these data provide one
way to estimate age effects, but aging is confounded with
generational differences and sampling biases. About half of
the subjects tested in 1987 were from the initial 1980 sample;
on these subjects, repeated measures analyses could be
performed to assess changes over time. These longitudinal
analyses control for cohort differences, but may be suscepti-
ble to practice and time of measurement effects. Because the
CQ had not been previously administered to the other half of
the 1987 sample, it was also possible to conduct cross- and
time-sequential analyses (Schaie, 1977). Cross-sequential
analyses compare groups of people born at the same time but
tested at different times for example, one subsample of
people born in 1900 might be tested in 1960, at age 60; a
second subsample might be tested in 1980, at age 80.

P161
P162
Differences between these two groups could not be due to
birth cohort effects (because subjects were born at the same
time) or to practice effects, and may indicate maturational
change. Time-sequential analyses, which compare individ-
uals tested at the same ages but at different times, allow an
estimation of time of measurement effects. Taken together,
these analyses allow reasonable inferences about which
effects may be attributed to maturation.
It should be noted that the topic of coping presents both
conceptual and methodological challenges to longitudinal
research. Repeated measures and cross-sequential designs
normally examine changes in the same variable over time.
Coping behavior, however, is by definition situation-
specific. An individual might have been asked at Time 1 how
he or she coped with a recent bereavement. The same
question seven years later is not really the same question:
Most individuals will long since have adapted to the stress of
widowhood (McCrae & Costa, 1988). It is unlikely that
many individuals would be found who recently faced the
same stressor that they had reported on seven years earlier.
Operationally, this entails a change in the design for nomi-
nating stressors; conceptually, it means that the measures are
"repeated" only approximately.
This does not, however, invalidate the logic of longitudi-
nal research. Both cross-sectional and longitudinal studies of
age and coping examine one or a few instances of coping
behavior as a sample of general coping styles. If there were
no consistent individual differences in coping if all coping
behavior were determined entirely by the specifics of the
situation then it would make no sense to speak of age
differences or changes in coping. Any such differences
would be the result of age differences in the stressors
encountered. If, however, maturation has broad effects on
the ways individuals deal with stress, then these should
appear even when different stressors are sampled at different
times.
Although the same stressor cannot be examined at both
times, it is possible to introduce some control by requiring
that the same type of stressor be examined. For this purpose,
stressful events have been classified as losses, threats, or
challenges. This classification, suggested by Lazarus and
Launier (1978), was used in the original cross-sectional
study and has proven useful in understanding situational
determinants of coping (McCrae, 1984). Other dimensions
of the stressor, including severity, chronicity, and controlla-
bility, may also affect coping responses. Although they were
not controlled in the present design, these features, as rated
by a judge (McCrae, in press), were weakly related to age
(I r | s = .08 to . 19), and so are unlikely to affect the results
of age analyses.
Longitudinal studies offer a direct approach to the ques-
tion of individual consistency versus situational specificity
in coping. Correlations of coping measures across time can
suggest the degree to which coping behavior is a stable
characteristic of the individual. A few studies have exam-
ined stability in broad styles of defense (Haan, 1977; Vail-
lant, Bond, & Vaillant, 1986) and reported modest but
significant associations over 10-year intervals. Additional
studies have examined the stability of specific coping mech-
anisms, but over considerably shorter periods of time. For
MCCRAE
example, Felton and Revenson (1984) reported 7-month
retest reliability coefficients of .58 and .63 for measures of
information seeking and wish-fulfilling fantasy, respec-
tively, as mechanisms for coping with chronic illnesses.
Solomon, Mikulincer, and Avitzur (1988) reported one-year
retest coefficients for four coping mechanisms ranging from
.38 to .58 in a sample of Israeli soldiers who had experienced
a combat stress reaction. The present study will examine the
7-year stability of individual differences in the use of a
variety of coping mechanisms.
One of the unresolved issues in contemporary coping
research is the number, nature, and breadth of coping mech-
anisms. Although it is universally recognized that there are
Downloaded from http://geronj.oxfordjournals.org/ at Penn State University (Paterno Lib) on February 20, 2016
many different ways to cope, researchers disagree on how
these specific behaviors can be meaningfully combined into
useful scales. Should we examine a few broad categories like
problem-focused and emotion-focused coping (Folkman &
Lazarus, 1980), several mid-level mechanisms such as con-
frontive coping and distancing (Folkman, Lazarus, Dunkel-
Schetter, DeLongis, & Gruen, 1986), or many fine-grained
mechanisms (McCrae, 1982)? In the present study, mecha-
nisms at two levels are examined. In addition to the 28
specific mechanisms examined in the original study, two
broad factors Neurotic Coping and Mature Coping
derived from analysis of these 28 mechanisms (McCrae &
Costa, 1986) are also considered. (Analyses were also per-
formed on the Folkman et al., 1986, scales; the results were
similar to those found for the other coping scales and so have
been omitted.)
METHOD
Because two related studies were carried out in 1980, a
number of different longitudinal and sequential comparisons
are possible. An overview of the design is presented in Table
1, which summarizes some characteristics of the subsamples
used in the present study. The subsamples are identified by
letters. Note that A' is the subset of A that returned complete
data in 1987; similarly, B' is the subset of B who completed
the full CQ in 1987. The short CQ can be scored from the full
version to permit longitudinal analyses of B' data. Subsam-
Table 1. Characteristics of Subsamples and Data
for Two Administrations
Time 1 (1980)
Subsample B
255 150
% Male 60.4 53.3
Age range 24-91 21-90
Instrument Full CQ Short CQ
Time 2 (1987)
Subsample A' B' C
N 113 78 207
% Male 56.6 57.7 50.2
Age range 34-89 33-89 20-93
Instrument Full CQ Full CQ Full CQ
Note: CQ = Coping Questionnaire. The Full CQ contains the 68 items of
the Folkman and Lazarus (1980) Ways of Coping plus 50 additional items;
the Short CQ contains only the 50 additional items.
 LONGITUDINAL ANALYSES OF COPING
pie C is composed of subjects first tested in 1987. Individual
analyses will be described in terms of this Table.
Subjects. All participants were members of the Aug-
mented Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging (ABLSA).
The BLSA sample itself is composed of generally healthy,
well-educated, community-dwelling volunteers (Shock et
al., 1984); the ABLSA consists of a subsample of BLSA
participants, augmented by the addition of their spouses,
who have agreed to complete a variety of psychological
questionnaires at home. Recruitment into the BLSA is con-
tinuous, so that new participants joined the study after the
initial data collection in 1980.
In 1980, 255 ABLSA participants (Subsample A) com-
pleted the CQ in the first of two parallel studies. Their
responses provide Time 1 data for repeated measures and
cross-sequential analyses on the full CQ. An additional 150
participants (Subsample B) completed an abbreviated ver-
sion of the CQ with regard to three self-selected stressors;
their data are used in supplementary repeated measures and
cross-sequential analyses. Subsamples A' and B' also pro-
vide data for correlational analyses of the stability of individ-
ual differences in coping. In 1987, responses to the full
Coping Questionnaire were obtained from 207 ABLSA
participants (Subsample C) who had not previously com-
pleted either version of the CQ. The age ranges and sex
ratios of all these groups are given in Table 1.
Procedure. In 1979, ABLSA participants completed a
life events checklist. The 255 subjects in Subsample A were
selected because they indicated that they had experienced a
life event that could be categorized as a loss, threat, or
challenge within the past year. These subjects were sent the
118-item CQ in 1980 and asked to complete it with regard to
the selected event. The 150 subjects in Subsample B had not
experienced any of the designated life events within the past
year. They were therefore asked to nominate three events
a loss, a threat, and a challenge which had occurred in the
past six months, and to complete a 50-item version of the CQ
with regard to each. Further details are given in McCrae
(1982)."
In 1987, participants in Subsamples A', B', and C were
mailed one of three questionnaires which asked them to
recall a stressful event they had experienced in the past six
months. The first asked about harm or loss, and instructed
subjects to recall an event "in which you were hurt, disap-
pointed, or lost something of value to you"; the second
asked about threat ("some kind of threat or clanger, in which
you were worried about how things would turn out"); the
third asked about challenge ("some challenge or big oppor-
tunity"'). All subjects were asked to describe the incident in a
paragraph, rate its stressfulness, and then decide whether
they had ever used each of the 118 coping responses in
dealing with the stressor. As in the original study, subjects
were told to leave blank inapplicable items. Subjects in
Subsample A were assigned the same type of stressor at
Time 2 as they had reported on at Time 1; other individuals
were randomly assigned to one of the three types.
Because the original study involved investigator-
P163
classified events and the follow-up employed self-selected
events, the validity of the classification at Time 2 must be
assessed. A judge, blind to the type of questionnaire as-
signed, read each of the narrative paragraphs describing the
stressful event and coded it as a loss, threat, or challenge.
Overall agreement between assigned and judged type of
stressor was 47%, showing less-than-perfect agreement, but
well over the 33% to be expected by chance, ^ 2 (4, N =
378) = 64.10, p < .001. When examined by categories,
most discrepancies concerned confusions between threats
and losses. This is understandable, given the association
between these two categories: Threats are often potential
losses, and some losses (e.g., loss of a job) pose threats to
Downloaded from http://geronj.oxfordjournals.org/ at Penn State University (Paterno Lib) on February 20, 2016
future well-being. Further, most of the situational effects on
the choice of coping mechanisms contrast challenges with
threats and losses (McCrae, 1984). When the threat and loss
categories were combined, agreement between rater and
assigned condition increased to 74%. There was, then,
substantial agreement on the most important distinction
among types of stressor.
Measures. The Coping Questionnaire (CQ) consists of
118 items. The first 68 items were taken from the Ways of
Coping (Folkman & Lazarus, 1980); 50 additional items
were written to cover a wide range of coping mechanisms
identified in a review of the literature (McCrae, 1982). The
abbreviated version of the CQ consisted only of the 50 new
items and differed also in some details: Subjects were of-
fered a "does not apply" category and were also asked to
rate the perceived effectiveness of the coping strategy de-
scribed by the item.
Responses to the full CQ were scored for use of each of 28
specific coping mechanisms; these are listed in Table 2. The
number of items in each mechanism ranged from 1 to 7; for
scales with two or more items, internal consistency in the
initial study ranged from .35 to .83, with a median of .67
(McCrae, 1984), suggesting moderate reliability, t h e scales
have shown validity and utility in studies of environmental
and dispositional determinants of coping (Costa & McCrae,
1989; McCrae, 1984; McCrae & Costa, 1986). Twenty-
seven of the specific coping mechanisms were also scored
from the short version of the CQ, although the scales were
necessarily shorter. Table 2 gives the number of items in
both versions of each of the scales. Scores were computed
separately for each of the three types of stressor for each
subject in Subsample B.
Parallel factor analyses of mechanisms from the 1980
administrations of the long and short versions of the CQ
showed two well-replicated factors (McCrae & Costa, 1986).
Neurotic coping was defined by loadings on hostile reaction,
escapist fantasy, self-blame, sedation, withdrawal, passiv-
ity, and indecisiveness; each of these specific mechanisms
was found to be associated with the personality dimension of
Neuroticism. Mature coping was defined by rational action,
perseverance, positive thinking, restraint, and self-adapta-
tion. These mechanisms were summed to estimate the factors
in the present study; coefficient alphas for the composites
were .74 for both factors. (The other coping mechanisms
loaded on different factors in the two different analyses.)
PI 64 McCRAE

Table 2. Correlations and Stability Coefficients for Coping Mechanisms

Time 2 Correlations Stability Coefficients
Coping mechanism Gender Education Age Subsample A' Subsample B'
Individual mechanisms
Hostile reaction (7,6) 1 Q** *
-.09 _ |7*** 22* 37***
Rational action (7,4) -.01 .03 -.12* .28** .20
Seeking help (5,2) -.01 .07 -.07 .20* -.10
Perseverence (3.1) .08 .04 .02 .09 .18
Isolation of affect (2.1) -.06 -.05 .10* .16 -.07
Fatalism (6,2) .03 -.06 .12* 32*** .13
Expression of feelings (5,1) .15** -.06 -.25*** 39*** 43***
Positive thinking (7,3) -.01 -.04 _ 22*** .21* .25*
Distraction (2,1) .23*** -.06 -.04 .18 .20

Downloaded from http://geronj.oxfordjournals.org/ at Penn State University (Paterno Lib) on February 20, 2016
Escapist fantasy (5,2) .09 -.05 _ 23*** 43*** .24*
Intellectual denial (4,3) -.02 -.13* .05 .22* 29**
Self-blame (4,1) -.02 -.02 -.08 .22* .15
Taking one step at a time (2, ) .00 -.06 .11* .18
Social comparison (1,1) .08 .04 .01 .18 .31**
Sedation (3,1) 29*** -.12* -.14** .26** .60***
Substitution (1,1) .12* .01 -.08 27** .25*
Restraint (4,2) -.05 .00 - .12* .24* -.01
Drawing strength from adversity (5,1) -.03 -.01 -.02 47*** .07
Avoidance (1,1) .07 -.10 .05 .12 -.07
Withdrawal (2,1) .07 -.07 -.10* 33*** 55***
Self-adaptation (5,3) -.04 -.13* 39*** .29*
Wishful thinking (4,1) 2| *** -.13* -.05 .26** 41 ***
Active forgetting (3,1) .00 -.17** .09 .05 .26*
Humor (3.1) .03 -.05 -.16** 29** .03
Passivity (3,2) .12* -.08 .03 .45*** 34**
Indecisiveness (2,1) .16** -.09 .00 27** .28*
Assessing blame (1,1) -.01 -.12* .00 .16 .12
Faith (1,1) -.02 -.06 14** 4Q*** .27*
Coping Factors
Neurotic coping (26,14) Ig*** -.11* 15** 51 *** .55***
Mature coping (26,13) .06 .00 -.16** .38*** 34**

Note: The number of items in each scale for the full and short version of the Coping Questionnaire are given in parentheses. /Vs = 398 for gender and age,
315 for education, 113 for Subsample A', and 78 for Subsample B'. Stability coefficients for Subsample. B' are based on the short version of the Coping
Questionnaire; the coping mechanism Taking one step at a time was not measured in the short version. Gender is coded I for males, two for females.
*p < .05; **p < .01; ***/; < .001.

RESULTS Costa & McCrae, 1988, for details on personality measure-

Maturational effects are best inferred from converging
evidence from several different designs (Costa & McCrae,
1982). Cross-sectional, longitudinal, and sequential analy-
ses are considered separately for the long and short versions
of the CQ, and results are then compared across the designs.
None of the coping mechanisms shows a consistent pattern
of maturational effects, suggesting that ways of coping do
not change predictably with age.
Cross-sectional analyses. Cross-sectional age relations
are examined by correlating age with scores on the coping
mechanisms at Time 2 for Subsamples A', B', and C. These
398 subjects represented 57% of the 704 participants active
in the ABLSA in 1987. The subjects who responded with
complete data were slightly better educated and higher in the
personality disposition of Conscientiousness than were non-
respondents, but the two groups did not differ in age,
gender, or the personality dispositions of Neuroticism, Ex-
traversion, Openness to Experience, or Agreeableness (see
ment). The respondents appear to be a fairly representative
subgroup of ABLSA participants.
Because coping is determined in part by type of stressor,
and because types of stressor vary with age, some control for
type of stressor is needed in cross-sectional analyses. Two
dummy variables representing the three types of stressors
were therefore partialed from each of the coping mechanism
scores to provide event-adjusted measures. Table 2 gives
correlations of these adjusted scores with gender, education,
and age. (A comparison of unadjusted scores shows a very
similar pattern of results.)
Women appear more likely to use hostile reaction, expres-
sion of feelings, distraction, sedation, self-adaptation, wish-
ful thinking, passivity, and indecisiveness in dealing with
stress; overall, they are somewhat higher on the use of
neurotic coping mechanisms. These findings are consistent
with previous evidence that women are higher in the person-
ality disposition of Neuroticism, which is a determinant of
neurotic coping (McCrae & Costa, 1986). Education is not
 LONGITUDINAL ANALYSES OF COPING P165

strongly related to the use of coping mechanisms, although it
appears that better educated individuals are somewhat less
likely to use intellectual denial, sedation, wishful thinking,
active forgetting, and assessment of blame.
Half of the 28 specific coping mechanisms are related to
age at Time 2. Only four of these findings, however, repli-
cate the cross-sectional results from Time I analyses of
Subsample A (McCrae, 1982). In both studies, older men
and women were less likely to use hostile reaction, escapist
fantasy, and sedation, and more likely to use faith. In the
present study there are relatively strong negative correlations
between age and the use of expression of feelings and
positive thinking, but neither of these effects was seen at
both Time 1 and Time 2, and repeated measures analyses
were conducted for these subjects on all coping mechanisms.
Because of attrition from the larger study and nonresponse
at Time 2, only 44% of Subsample A was retested. The
subjects in A' were four years younger and had had one year
more of education than the dropouts and nonrespondents.
They did not differ from them, however, in gender, in the
personality dispositions of Neuroticism, Extraversion,
Openness, Agreeableness, or Conscientiousness, or in the
use of mature or neurotic coping mechanisms at Time 1. It
appears unlikely that results of the repeated measures analy-
ses are seriously affected by attrition.
Because each individual had been assigned the same type

Time I. Overall, older individuals are slightly less likely to
use neurotic coping mechanisms, but also less likely to use
mature coping mechanisms. The direction and significance
of cross-sectional age effects are summarized in the first
column of Table 3.
Repeated measures analyses. For the 113 subjects in
Subsample A', complete data on the CQ were available at
Downloaded from http://geronj.oxfordjournals.org/ at Penn State University (Paterno Lib) on February 20, 2016
of stressor at Time 2 as he or she had reported on at Time 1,
this variable was controlled. By measuring the same individ-
ual twice, repeated measures designs also control for birth
cohort, sex, education, and other variables that are constant
for the individual. Subjects were cross-classified by gender
and type of stressor. Effects of gender generally paralleled
those shown in Table 2, in part because the two samples
overlap at Time 2. Main effects for type of stressor were

Table 3. Summary of Effects for Age-Related Analyses

Repeated Measures Cross-Sequential

Coping mechanism Cross-sectional Subsample A' Subsample B' Full CQ Short CQ
Specific mechanisms
Hostile reaction _ *** 0 0 0 0
Rational action _* 0 0 0 0
Seeking help 0 0 _* 0 0
Perseverance 0 0 0 0 0
Isolation of affect +* _* 0 _* _ #**
Fatalism +* 0 +* _* -j. + * *

Expression of feelings _ *** 0 +* 0 0

Positive thinking 0 0 _ ** 0
Distraction 0 0 0 0 +*
Escapist fantasy 0 0 0 0"
Intellectual denial 0 _** 0 0 0
Self-blame 0 0 0 0 0
Taking one step at a time +* 0 0
_j_ * *
Social comparison 0 0 0 0
Sedation _ ** 0 0 0 0
Substitution 0 0 0 0 0
Restraint _* 0 0 0 +*
Drawing strength from adversity 0 _ ** 0 0
Avoidance 0 0 0 0 0
Withdrawal _* 0 0 0 0
Self-adaptation _* _* _* 0 0
Wishful thinking 0 0 +*
Active forgetting 0 _ ** 0 0 0
Humor _ ** 0 0 0 0
Passivity 0 0 0 0 +*
Indecisiveness 0 0 0 0 0
Assessing blame 0 0 0 0 0
Faith + ** _ *** 0 _ ** 0
Coping Factors
Neurotic coping _ ** 0 _* 0 0
Mature coping _ ** 0 0 0 0

Note: Minus signs indicate a decrease in the variable with age or time and plus signs indicate an increase; zeros indicate no significant effect. The coping
strategy Taking one step at a time was not measured in the Subsample B' analyses.
*/J < .05; **/> < .01: ***/; < .001.
P166 McCRAE
consistent with previous research on the situational determi-
nants of coping responses (McCrae, 1984).
The second column of Table 3 indicates the direction and
significance of main effects for time. Between 1980 and
1987, the use of isolation of affect, intellectual denial,
drawing strength from adversity, self-adaptation, active for-
getting, and faith declined; the use of wishful thinking
increased. The largest effects were for wishful thinking and
faith, but even here time accounted for less than 2% of the
variance in coping scores.
In general, results of the longitudinal analysis do not
square with those from the cross-sectional analysis. A com-
parison of the first and second columns in Table 3 shows
only a single replication of age differences by age changes
for self-adaptation. In the cases of isolation of affect and
faith there are direct contradictions: Cross-sectional results
point to an increase in the use of these coping mechanisms,
whereas longitudinal results point to a decrease. In other
cases, significant effects in one design are not significant in
the other. These discrepancies suggest that cohort differ-
ences may be responsible for the cross-sectional correla-
tions, or that practice or time of measurement effects or
procedural differences between the two administrations
may be responsible for the repeated measures effects.
Sequential analyses. An alternative way to estimate
age changes is provided by the cross-sequential design, in
which two different samples, matched on date of birth, are
compared at two different times. In the present study, Time
1 data from Subsample A were compared with Time 2 data
from Subsamples B' and C. Subjects were cross-classified
by type of event to control for its effects, and were also
classified by gender and seven-year birth cohorts composed
of individuals born between 1907 and 1956. Data from 451
subjects were included in this range of birth years. Multivari-
ate analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were conducted for the
28 specific coping mechanisms. Significant multivariate
effects were found for gender, event type, birth cohort, and
administration main effects.
The fourth column of Table 3 summarizes the effects of
administration of the CQ in 1980 versus 1987. Over this
interval there were declines in the use of isolation of affect,
fatalism, positive thinking, drawing strength from adversity,
and faith; there was an increase in the use of wishful
thinking. In general, this pattern of results resembles that
found in the repeated measures analyses, but not that found
in cross-sectional analyses.
The effects seen in repeated measures and cross-sequen-
tial analyses might represent true maturational effects that
failed to appear in cross-sectional analyses because they
were somehow masked by cohort differences. Alternatively,
they might be time of measurement effects that reflect
differences between the 1980 and 1987 administrations. By
comparing individuals matched for age at time of testing but
tested on two different occasions, time-sequential analyses
can be used to test this hypothesis. When 495 subjects, aged
26 to 81 at time of testing, were compared on the use of
coping mechanisms in a time-sequential analysis, 7 of the 8
significant administration effects seen in the cross-sequential
analyses were replicated. Because subjects are matched on
age in time-sequential designs, these differences could not
be due to age. Administration, rather than aging, seems to be
responsible for these effects.
In the present design, the second administration differed
from the first not only in time, but also in the procedure for
determining the stressor. Stressful events were selected by
the investigator at Time 1; they were nominated by the
subject at Time 2. Although an attempt was made to control
for type of stressor, subjectively selected events may differ
in many ways from investigator-assigned stressors.
Supplementary longitudinal analyses. In the analyses
of the full CQ, historical time period changes associated
Downloaded from http://geronj.oxfordjournals.org/ at Penn State University (Paterno Lib) on February 20, 2016
with social events between 1980 and 1987 is confounded
with procedural changes in the way the stressor was selected.
It is possible to separate these two effects by employing
coping mechanism scores derived from the short version of
the CQ. Data from Subsamples B and B' can be used in
repeated measures analyses; data from Subsample B and
Subsamples A' and C can be used in cross-sequential analy-
ses. In these analyses, the procedure for selecting stressors is
the same, so any effects ought to be the result of time of
measurement or maturation.
For the repeated measures analyses, the responses of the
78 subjects in Subsample B' were examined at Times 1 and
2. At Time 1, subjects had responded to three separate
events; for this analysis, only data from the same type of
event as that assigned at Time 2 were considered. Thus, 31
individuals were compared on responses to self-selected
losses at two times; 28 individuals were compared on self-
selected threats; and 19 were compared on self-selected
challenges. Subjects were cross-classified by gender and
type of event.
Main effects for time of administration were seen for
seeking help, self-adaptation, and neurotic coping, which
decreased, and for fatalism and expression of feelings,
which both increased between 1980 and 1987. These effects
are shown in column 3 of Table 3. All the effects were small
in magnitude, and only one the decline in use of self-
adaptation replicated the findings of repeated measures
analyses conducted on the full CQ scales. The increased use
of fatalism and decreased use of self-adaptation and neurotic
coping are consistent in direction with the cross-sectional
findings, but the increased use of expression of feelings is
inconsistent with the significant negative cross-sectional
correlation.
It is also possible to conduct cross-sequential analyses on
scales from the short version of the CQ. Subjects in Subsam-
ple B provided data on all three types of events in 1980;
subjects in Subsamples A' and C provided data on one event
in 1987. When cross-classified by birth cohort (with dates of
birth between 1907 and 1956), comparisons of these two
groups can be used to estimate age changes.
Note that this analysis differs from traditional cross-
sequential analyses in that the same individuals provide three
sets of measures at Time 1, whereas different individuals
provide measures for each of the three types of stressor at
Time 2. Administration X Event Type interactions would be
difficult to interpret in this design, but the main effects for
administration, which collapse data across type of event, are
 LONGITUDINAL ANALYSES OF COPING
probably meaningful and preferable to separate analyses
within type of event; these would multiply opportunities for
capitalizing on chance. Results must, however, be inter-
preted with caution.
Significant main effects for administration were found for
isolation of affect, which decreased, and for fatalism, dis-
traction, social comparison, restraint, wishful thinking, and
passivity, which all increased between 1980 and 1987.
These findings are summarized in the fifth column of Table
3. Only the increase in the use of fatalism replicated the
results of the repeated measures analyses of the short version
of the CQ. As a whole, this pattern of results also fails to
replicate either cross-sectional or cross-sequential analyses
of scales from the full CQ.
It appears from the supplementary analyses of the short
CQ scales that many of the effects seen in the longitudinal
analyses of the full CQ may be due to procedural differences
in the 1980 and 1987 administrations. Neither age nor time
of measurement itself appears to be systematically related to
the changes seen there.
Summary of mean level differences and changes.
Maturational changes in the use of coping mechanisms
might be seen in cross-sectional differences, in increases or
decreases over time in repeated measures analyses, or in
differences between administrations in cross-sequential
analyses. The most meaningful pattern of effects would
show changes or differences in the same direction for all
these kinds of analyses (Costa & McCrae, 1982). Analyses
on the full CQ and supplementary analyses on the short
version summarized in Table 3 gave five opportunities for
maturational effects to occur; none of the coping mecha-
nisms showed a consistent pattern of replicated effects
across all five sets of analyses. The closest approximations
are found for self-adaptation and wishful thinking. Evidence
for a maturational decline in self-adaptation is found in the
cross-sectional analyses and the two repeated measures
analyses. Cross-sequential analyses did not show significant
effects for self-adaptation. Increases in wishful thinking are
suggested by the two cross-sequential analyses and the
repeated measures analysis of Subsample A', but not by the
repeated measures analysis of Subsample B', nor by the
cross-sectional results.
Reporting inconsistent results across methods of analysis
is not unusual when cross-sectional, longitudinal, and cross-
sequential designs are all employed in the same data set
(e.g., Costa & McCrae, 1988). When large samples are
used, as in the present study, very subtle effects of sampling
bias, practice, or time of measurement effects can appear as
significant findings. In isolation, they might be misinter-
preted as evidence of maturational change. Together, their
mutual inconsistency suggests that there are no robust age
effects in this sample of community-dwelling individuals.
Retest stability. Correlations between 1980 data and
1987 data can be used to assess the stability of individual
differences in the use of coping mechanisms. As in studies of
mean levels, these analyses are complicated by the fact that
individuals coped with different specific events at the two
times. In consequence, the retest correlations estimate con-
P167
sistency of coping across both time and situations and give a
conservative estimate of stability.
The fourth column of Table 2 gives retest correlations for
the 113 individuals in Subsample A' who completed the full
CQ at both times. Of the 30 correlations, 22 are significant;
the median correlation is .26. It might be argued that the
magnitude of the correlations is inflated by the fact that the
same type of stressor is assessed at each time, and consist-
ency of stressor may account for the observed stability.
When retest correlations are examined within type of
stressor, Ns are greatly reduced, so many correlations fail to
attain significance. The general pattern of results, however,
appears to be similar, and the median correlation across the
Downloaded from http://geronj.oxfordjournals.org/ at Penn State University (Paterno Lib) on February 20, 2016
three types of stressors is .26. These analyses suggest mod-
est stability for a wide variety of coping mechanisms.
The fifth column of Table 2 gives correlations between
scores on 27 of the specific coping mechanisms and the two
coping factors for the 78 individuals in Subsample B'. As in
the repeated measures analyses, only Time 1 responses for
the same type of stressor as that assessed at Time 2 are
scored. Of the 29 correlations, 17 are significant; the median
correlation is .25.
It should be recalled that the correlations for Subsample
B' are based on short versions of the scales in a smaller
sample. The fact that 13 of the significant stability coef-
ficients from the analyses of the full CQ are replicated under
these conditions is remarkable. In addition, analyses of
Subsample B' suggest significant stability for two mecha-
nisms social comparison and active forgetting that are
not significant in analyses of Subsample A'. Together, 22 of
28 coping mechanisms show some consistency in coping
with two different events separated by seven years.
There appear to be patterns of differential stability among
coping mechanisms. Six of the seven coping mechanisms
that define neurotic coping show significant retest stability in
both studies; by contrast, only two of the five coping mecha-
nisms from the mature coping factor show this pattern. It
appears that coping mechanisms related to the personality
disposition of Neuroticism are moderately stable over a
period of seven years. By contrast, coping mechanisms that
are determined more directly by situational requirements
show lower levels of stability.
DISCUSSION
Do ways of coping change as people age? Consistent with
most of the literature, the present study suggests that such
changes, if they occur at all, are quite subtle in their in-
fluence. Cross-sectional analyses show significant associa-
tions of age with many different coping mechanisms, but all
the associations are modest in magnitude, and only a few
replicate previous findings. Further, changes over a seven-
year period assessed by both repeated measures and cross-
sequential designs provide no support for the view that age
differences are due to maturation. Instead, they might better
be interpreted as cohort effects.
Perhaps the most consistent cross-sectional finding is that
older individuals use less interpersonal aggression in dealing
with stress. In both Time 1 and Time 2 analyses, age was
negatively associated with the use of hostile reaction. (In
cross-sectional analyses of the Folkman et al. scales, older
P168 MCCRAE
subjects used confrontive coping less, as Folkman et al.,
1987, and Irion & Blanchard-Fields, 1987, had reported
earlier.) Felton and Revenson (1987) similarly found that
older subjects were less prone to use emotional expression,
which resembles hostile reaction. Finally, Costa, Zonder-
man, and McCrae (in press) found that older men and
women were more forgiving and less likely to vent frustra-
tions on others. Younger cohorts apparently have a greater
tolerance for aggression; they may believe that the expres-
sion of hostility is an effective and healthy way to respond to
frustration and conflict. Although this is a common notion in
popular psychology, it may be incorrect: Hostile reaction
was rated as one of the least effective ways to cope with
stress by those who had used it (McCrae & Costa, 1986).
The reliability of coping scales is a concern in the present
study. The original research (McCrae, 1982) was explor-
atory; a large number of coping mechanisms were examined
in order to detect possible age differences. Precision of
measurement was traded for scope: Many coping mecha-
nisms were assessed by a single item or a very brief scale.
These features were carried into the follow-up study. It is, of
course, possible that age differences and changes might be
identified if the coping mechanisms examined here were
more reliably measured. This is particularly true for some of
the single-item scales such as avoidance and assessing
blame, which fail to show significant retest correlations.
However, other single-item scales, such as faith and wishful
thinking in the short form of the CQ, show substantial
stability across seven years; such scales must possess at least
moderate reliability and could be expected to show age
changes if they were present. It is also important to recall
that many of the scales do show acceptable levels of reliabil-
ity. Hostile reaction and escapist fantasy, which have shown
consistent cross-sectional associations with age, have alpha
reliabilities of .83 and .68, respectively (McCrae, 1984)
yet neither shows any evidence of longitudinal change.
Similarly, the two coping factors are broad, reliable, and
stable, but fail to show maturational effects.
It is useful to recall that the present study examines coping
in response to a single event, which provides a limited
sample of coping behavior. In order to see the systematic
effects of age on coping, it may be necessary to aggregate
coping responses to a large number of stressful events. It
might also be necessary to extend the retest interval. Al-
though long in comparison with other published studies, it is
short in comparison with the full adult life span. Over seven
years, slowly progressing changes may not be seen. A
definitive study would need to cover a longer interval, use
more reliable measures, aggregate over many events, and
use the same procedure for selecting the stressors at each
time point. In the meantime, however, there is little evidence
of pervasive maturational effects on coping, and a conserva-
tive assessment would be that the influence of aging on
coping processes is at best "limited in scope and modest in
strength" (Felton & Revenson, 1987, p. 168).
If age is not a major determinant of coping, what is?
Certainly characteristics of the situation play a major role; in
the present study, for example, rational action was used
more in dealing with challenge, faith more in dealing with
threat and loss. However, there also appear to be consistent
individual differences in coping. The retest correlations in
Table 2 are modest in comparison to those typically found
for personality measures (e.g., Costa & McCrae, 1988), but
considering the reliability of the individual scales, the differ-
ences in the stressor on the two occasions, and the lack of
aggregation across stressors, the retest correlations in Table
2 may be seen as remarkably high. The 7-year stability
coefficients for neurotic coping approach the level of
7-month and 1-year retest reliabilities of coping mechanisms
(Felton & Revenson, 1984; Solomon et al., 1988). Further,
there is strong agreement on the stability of individual
mechanisms between two studies conducted on independent
samples using different versions of the CQ. Some of the
Downloaded from http://geronj.oxfordjournals.org/ at Penn State University (Paterno Lib) on February 20, 2016
stability of coping behaviors can be attributed to enduring
personality variables, such as Neuroticism, which influence
the choice of coping mechanisms. However, coping behav-
iors may also be learned and retained independently of
personality. Longitudinal studies that include measures of
both personality and coping behaviors can address that issue.
The fact that age does not seem to have a central impact on
coping does not mean that gerontologists should abandon
interest in the topic. The major issue in coping research is the
ultimate effectiveness of different coping strategies in help-
ing individuals deal with stress (Aldwin & Revenson, 1987;
McCrae & Costa, 1986). Basic research on coping can offer
a rational and systematic basis for interventions designed to
help older people cope with such stressors as physical
impairment, cognitive decline, and bereavement.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author thanks Stephanie Stone for coding characteristics of the
stressors.
Address correspondence and reprint requests to Dr. Robert R. McCrae,
Personality, Stress, and Coping Section, Gerontology Research Center,
4940 Eastern Avenue, Baltimore, MD 21224.
REFERENCES
Aldwin, C. M., & Revenson, T. A. (1987). Does coping help? A reexami-
nation of the relation between coping and mental health. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 337-348.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1982). An approach to the attribution of
age, period, and cohort effects. Psychological Bulletin, 92, 238-250.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1988). Personality in adulthood: A six-
year longitudinal study of self-reports and spouse ratings in the NHO
Personality Inventory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54,
853-863.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1989). Personality, stress, and coping:
Some lessons from a decade of research. In K. S. Markides & C. L.
Cooper (Eds.), Aging, stress and health, (pp. 267-283). New York:
Wiley.
Costa, P. T., Jr., Zonderman, A. B., & McCrae, R. R. (in press).
Personality, stress, and coping in older adulthood. In A. L. Greene,
E. M. Cummings, & K. H. Karraker (Eds.), Life-span developmental
psychology. Vol. 11: Perspectives on stress and coping. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Felton, B. J., & Revenson, T. A. (1984). Coping with chronic illness: A
study of illness controllability and the influence of coping strategies on
psychological assessment. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychol-
ogy. 52, 343-353.
Felton, B. J., & Revenson, T. A. (1987). Age differences in coping with
chronic illness. Psychology and Aging, 2, 164-170.
Folkman. S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1980). An analysis of coping in a middle-
aged community sample. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 21,
2*19-239.
Folkman, S., Lazarus, R. S., Dunkel-Schetter, C , DeLongis, A., &
 LONGITUDINAL ANALYSES OF COPING
Gruen, R. J. (1986). Dynamics of a stressful encounter: Cognitive
appraisal, coping, and encounter outcomes. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 50, 992-1003.
Folkman. S., Lazarus, R. S., Pimley, S., & Novacek, J. (1987). Age
differences in stress and coping processes. Psychology and Aging, 2,
171-184.
Haan. N. (1977). Coping and defending. New York: Academic Press.
Irion, J. C & Blanchard-Fields, F. (1987). A cross-sectional comparison
of adaptive coping in adulthood. Journal of Gerontology, 42, 502-504.
Lazarus, R. S., & DeLongis, A. (1983). Psychological stress and coping in
aging. American Psychologist, 38, 245-254.
Lazarus, R. S., & Launier, R. (1978). Stress-related transactions between
person and environment. In L. A. Pervin & M. Lewis (Eds.), Perspec-
tives in interactional psychology (pp. 287-327). New York: Plenum.
McCrae, R. R. (1982). Age differences in the use of coping mechanisms.
Journal of Gerontology, 37, 454-460.
McCrae, R. R. (1984). Situational determinants of coping responses: Loss,
threat, and challenge. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46,
919-928.
McCrae, R. R. (in press). Situational determinants of coping. In B. N.
Carpenter (Ed.), Personal coping: Theory, research, and applications.
New York: Praeger.
McCrae. R. R.. & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1986). Personality, coping, and coping
effectiveness in an adult sample. Journal of Personality, 54, 385-405.
McCrae, R. R.. & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1988). Psychological resilience among
widowed men and women: A 10-year followup of a national survey.
Journal of Social Issues, 44, 129-142.
P169
Pfeiffer, E. (1977). Psychopathology and social pathology. In J. E. Birren
& K. W. Schaie (Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of aging (1st ed.,
pp. 650-671). New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Schaie, K. W. (1977). Quasi-experimental research designs in the psychol-
ogy of aging. In J. E. Birren & K. W. Schaie (Eds.), Handbook of the
psychology of aging (1st ed., pp. 36-69). New York: Van Nostrand
Reinhold.
Schroeder, D. H., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1984). Influence of life event stress
on physical illness: Substantive effects or methodological Raws'? Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 853-863.
Shock, N. W., Greulich, R. C , Andres, R., Arenberg, D., Costa, P. T.,
Jr., Lakatta, E. G., & Tobin, J. D. (1984). Normal human aging: The
Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging (NIH Publication No. 84-2450).
Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health.
Solomon, Z., Mikulincer, M., & Avitzur, E. (1988). Coping, locus of
control, social support, and combat-related posttraumatic stress disorder:
Downloaded from http://geronj.oxfordjournals.org/ at Penn State University (Paterno Lib) on February 20, 2016
A prospective study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55,
279-285.
Vaillant, G. E. (1977). Adaptation to life. Boston: Little, Brown.
Vaillant, G. E., Bond, M., & Vaillant, C. O. (1986). An empirically
validated hierarchy of defense mechanisms. Archives of General Psychi-
atry, 43, 786-794.
Received September 26, 1988
Accepted February 14, 1989