Strategies for Coping with Work Stressors and Family Stressors: Scale Development and Validation

Purpose

Both individuals and organizations benefit when workers can effectively cope with stressors in the work and family domains. This study takes an inductive approach to the development of a work stressor coping scale and a family stressor coping scale.

Design/Methodology/Approach

In phase one, a comprehensive list of coping strategies was generated through a multi-step content analysis of qualitative interviews. In phase two, the content validity of the work stressor and family stressor coping strategy scales was established using data from three samples; and in phase three, convergent, discriminant, and criterion-related validity evidence were obtained using data from two samples.

Findings

A multi-step content analysis of qualitative interview data was used to develop a list of 365 coping strategy statements (182 work and 183 family) representing 11 work and 14 family stressor coping strategies. Multiple samples were used to reduce the number of scale items, and establish evidence for the scales’ content, construct, and criterion-related validity. The final work stressor coping scale consisted of 36 items assessing 12 different strategies, and the final family stressor coping scale consisted of 45 items assessing 15 different strategies.

Implications

Findings from the present study suggest that individuals may use a wider variety of strategies to cope with work stressors and family stressors than previously thought, and these strategies may be differentially effective depending on the stressor domain (i.e., work or family) and outcome (e.g., work-to-family conflict vs. family-to-work conflict).

Originality/Value

The inductive nature of our study resulted in a comprehensive and domain-specific scales assessing how individuals cope with work stressors and family stressors.     

Selection history: How reward modulates selectivity of visual attention

Visual attention enables us to selectively prioritize or suppress information in the environment. Prominent models concerned with the control of visual attention differentiate between goal-directed, top-down and stimulus-driven, bottom-up control, with the former determined by current selection goals and the latter determined by physical salience. In the current review, we discuss recent studies that demonstrate that attentional selection does not need to be the result of top-down or bottom-up processing but, instead, is often driven by lingering biases due to the “history” of former attention deployments. This review mainly focuses on reward-based history effects; yet other types of history effects such as (intertrial) priming, statistical learning and affective conditioning are also discussed. We argue that evidence from behavioral, eye-movement and neuroimaging studies supports the idea that selection history modulates the topographical landscape of spatial “priority” maps, such that attention is biased toward locations having the highest activation on this map.     

Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) over the Intraparietal Sulcus Does Not Influence Working Memory Performance

Mixed results of the impact of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) on working memory have been reported. Contrarily to previous studies who focused mainly on stimulating the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, we modulated the left intraparietal sulcus (IPS) area which is considered to support attentional control aspects of working memory. Using a within-participant experimental design, participants completed three different conditions: anodal stimulation of the IPS, cathodal stimulation of the IPS, and sham stimulation of the IPS. Both visual and verbal working memory tasks were administered. In the visual task, participants had to memorize a random set of colored figures. In the verbal task, participants had to memorize a string of letters. Working memory load was manipulated in both tasks (six figures/letters vs. two figures/letters). No significant differences in accuracy or reaction time between the anodal, cathodal and sham conditions were found. Bayesian analysis supported evidence for an absence of effect. The results of the present study add to the growing body of contradictory evidence regarding the modulatory effects of single session tDCS on working memory performance.     

Challenge and Hindrance Stressors and Work Outcomes: the Moderating Role of Day-Level Affect

Journal of Business and Psychology - Our research examined the role of challenge and hindrance stressors, as well as the interactive effects of these stressors with positive and negative affect, in...     

A Standardized Set of 380 Pictures for Lebanese Arabic: Norms for Name Agreement,Conceptual Familiarity,Imageability, and Subjective Frequency

Journal of Psycholinguistic Research - Research on language processing requires language-specific norms of pictorial and linguistic experimental stimuli across different psycholinguistic variables....     

Examining Gender-Specific Modeling in the Intergenerational Transmission of Parenting Style and Physical Child Abuse Risk

Journal of Child and Family Studies - Although research demonstrates intergenerational transmission of parenting attitudes and child abuse risk, greater clarity on the potential mechanisms in this...     

Vigilance for threat: effects of anxiety and defensiveness

Eysenck’s (1997) theory that attentional biases for threat vary as an interactive function of trait anxiety and defensiveness was tested using a visual probe task. Two stimulus exposure conditions were used to explore a secondary issue concerning attentional allocation over time. Results indicated that, among high trait anxious participants, only those with low levels of defensiveness showed vigilance for threatening faces presented for 500 ms. They also showed an attentional preference for neutral faces, relative to happy faces, irrespective of exposure condition. This pattern was reversed in high trait anxious participants with high levels of defensiveness, who showed an attentional bias towards happy faces (relative to neutral faces) under both exposure conditions. The findings are discussed in relation to their implications for (a) the significance of measures of defensiveness for the conceptualization of high trait anxious individuals, and (b) the status of anxiety-related biases at different stages of information processing.