Ways of Coping Scale (Revised)

Abstract

The Ways of Coping Scale (Revised) (WOCS-R) is a widely utilized psychological scale designed to measure the specific behavioral and cognitive efforts individuals employ when managing a stressful encounter. Developed by Susan Folkman and Richard S. Lazarus, this instrument is foundational to the study of the transactional theory of stress and coping. The revised version consists of 66 items rated on a 4-point frequency scale, capturing a broad spectrum of coping strategies, typically categorized into problem-focused and emotion-focused domains. Its utility lies in its ability to assess coping as a dynamic, context-specific process rather than a fixed personality trait.

Keywords

Coping, Stress management, Lazarus and Folkman, Problem-focused coping, Emotion-focused coping, Stress appraisal, Psychometric instrument, Psychological assessment, Coping strategies

Authors

Susan Folkman, Richard S. Lazarus

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Ways of Coping Scale (Revised) is to provide a detailed, process-oriented assessment of how individuals respond to specific stressful situations. Unlike earlier measures that treated coping as a trait, the WOCS-R requires respondents to identify a particular stressful event and then report the extent to which they used each coping strategy in that context. This methodology allows researchers and clinicians to analyze the dynamic nature of the coping process and its relationship to psychological outcomes.

The scale serves as a crucial tool for examining the differential effectiveness of various coping methods across diverse populations and types of stressors. It is instrumental in understanding how cognitive appraisals of a stressor influence the selection of coping mechanisms, thereby linking the theoretical model of stress and coping to empirical measurement.

Construct

The WOCS-R is fundamentally rooted in the Transactional Model of Stress and Coping developed by Lazarus and Folkman. This model views stress as an interaction between the person and the environment, mediated by cognitive processes. The central construct measured is coping, defined as constantly changing cognitive and behavioral efforts to manage specific external and/or internal demands that are appraised as taxing or exceeding the person’s resources.

The scale distinguishes between two major types of coping: Problem-Focused Coping, which involves efforts to alter the stressor or the stressful relationship (e.g., planning, seeking actionable advice), and Emotion-Focused Coping, which involves efforts to regulate the emotional response to the stressor (e.g., distancing, positive reappraisal, avoidance). The subscales derived from factor analysis reflect these core theoretical distinctions, allowing for a multifaceted understanding of an individual’s stress response.

Validity

The validity of the Ways of Coping Scale (Revised) has primarily been established through extensive construct validation, particularly via factor analytic studies across different populations. The instrument demonstrates strong theoretical validity, as its subscales align closely with the dual nature of coping (problem-focused vs. emotion-focused) proposed by the transactional model.

While the factor structure often varies slightly between student and community samples—highlighting the context-specific nature of coping—the consistent emergence of core dimensions such as Seeking Social Support, Planful Problem-Solving, and Escape-Avoidance supports its structural validity. Furthermore, the scale has shown predictive validity, correlating meaningfully with various health and psychological outcomes, demonstrating that specific coping styles predict adjustment to stress.

Reliability

The internal consistency reliability of the WOCS-R is typically assessed using Cronbach’s alpha for its derived subscales. Reliability coefficients vary depending on the sample population and the specific factors identified during analysis. The provided data illustrates the reliability across two distinct groups:

• Student Sample Reliability (Cronbach’s Alpha):
• Problem-focused coping (alpha = .88)
• Wishful thinking (alpha = .86)
• Seeking social support (alpha = .82)
• Self-blame (alpha = .76)
• Detachment (alpha = .74)
• Focusing on the positive (alpha = .70)
• Keep to self (alpha = .65)
• Tension reduction (alpha = .59)
• Community Sample Reliability (Cronbach’s Alpha):
• Positive reappraisal (alpha = .79)
• Seeking social support (alpha = .76)
• Escape-Avoidance (alpha = .72)
• Confrontive coping (alpha = .70)
• Self-controlling (alpha = .70)
• Planful problem-solving (alpha = .68)
• Accepting responsibility (alpha = .66)
• Distancing (alpha = .61)

Generally, the major factors (e.g., Problem-focused coping, Seeking social support) exhibit good to excellent internal consistency (alphas typically ranging from .70 to .88), while certain smaller or highly specific factors (e.g., Tension reduction, Distancing) may show lower, yet acceptable, reliability coefficients.

Factor Analysis

Factor analysis of the 66 items often yields divergent structures depending on the population studied, reinforcing the idea that coping strategies cluster differently based on life context (e.g., age, primary stressors). Two common factor structures are presented here:

Student Sample Factor Structure (8 Factors):

• Problem-focused coping: Items 2, 26, 35, 39, 46, 48, 49, 52, 54, 62, and 64.
• Wishful thinking: Items 11, 55, 57, 58, and 59.
• Detachment: Items 4, 12, 13, 21, 24, and 53.
• Seeking social support: Items 8, 18, 28, 31, 42, 45, and 60.
• Focusing on the positive: Items 15, 20, 23, and 38.
• Self-blame: Items 9, 29, and 51.
• Tension reduction: Items 32, 33, and 66.
• Keep to self: Items 14, 40, and 43.

Community Sample Factor Structure (8 Factors):

• Confrontive coping: Items 6, 7, 17, 28, 34, and 46.
• Distancing: Items 12, 13, 15, 21, 41, and 44.
• Self-controlling: Items 10, 14, 35, 43, 54, 63, and 64.
• Seeking social support: Items 8, 18, 22, 31, 42, and 45.
• Accepting responsibility: Items 9, 25, 29, and 51.
• Escape-Avoidance: Items 11, 16, 33, 40, 47, 50, 58, and 59.
• Planful problem-solving: Items 1, 26, 39, 48, 49, and 52.
• Positive reappraisal: Items 20, 23, 30, 36, 38, 56, and 60.

Instrument

Test Type: Self-report psychological scale

Format: 66 items scored on a 4-point Likert scale.

Language Available: Primarily English, with translations available in numerous languages due to its global use in stress research (e.g., Spanish, Chinese, German).

Population Group: Clinical and non-clinical populations.

Age Group: Typically utilized with adolescents and adults (late teens onward).

Population Details: Originally validated on middle-aged community samples and college student populations, but applicable broadly where respondents can articulate and reflect on a specific stressful encounter.

Test Methodology: Respondents are asked to recall a specific stressful event and then rate how often they used each of the 66 coping strategies in relation to that event using the following scale:

• 0 = Not Used
• 1 = Used Somewhat
• 2 = Used Quite A Bit
• 3 = Used A great deal

Keywords

Coping strategies, Stress response, Psychological assessment, Cognitive appraisal, Health psychology, Transactional model, Self-controlling, Distancing

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: N/A (Information not provided in source)

Affiliation Email addresses: N/A (Information not provided in source)

Correspondence Address: N/A (Information not provided in source)

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The original version of the Ways of Coping Scale was introduced in 1980, with the revised, 66-item version being prominently used in research published around 1985 and 1986. Given its age and widespread academic use, the scale is often accessible for non-commercial research purposes, though formal permissions may still be required. Researchers should contact the authors or their affiliated institutions (University of California, Berkeley and University of California, San Francisco) for formal usage rights and potential fees.

The original PDF instruments can be downloaded here: https://prevention.ucsf.edu/uploads/tools/surveys/pdf/Ways%20of%20coping.pdf and here: http://www.selfcareinsocialwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/WAYS-OF-COPING-was-designed-by-Lazarus-and-Folkman.pdf

Reference’s

• Folkman‚ S. & Lazarus‚ R. S. (1980). An Analysis of Coping in a Middle-Aged Community Sample. Journal of Health and Social Behavior‚ 21(3)‚ 219-239.
• Folkman‚ S. & Lazarus‚ R. 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.
• Folkman‚ S.‚ Lazarus‚ R. S.‚ Dunkel-Schetter‚ C.‚ DeLongis‚ A.‚ & Gruen‚ R. (1986). The dynamics of a stressful encounter: Cognitive appraisal‚ coping and encounter outcomes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology‚ 50‚ 992-1003.

Items of the Ways of Coping Scale (Revised)

IMPORTANT: The following scale items must be preserved in their original language and must not be changed in any way.

1. Just concentrated on what I had to do next – the next step.

2. I tried to analyze the problem in order to understand it better.

3. Turned to work or substitute activity to take my mind off things.

4. I felt that time would make a difference – the only thing to do was to wait.

5. Bargained or compromised to get something positive from the situation.

6. I did something which I didn’t think would work‚ but at least I was doing something.

7. Tried to get the person responsible to change his or her mind.

8. Talked to someone to find out more about the situation.

9. Criticized or lectured myself.

10. Tried not to burn my bridges‚ but leave things open somewhat.

11. Hoped a miracle would happen.

12. Went along with fate; sometimes I just have bad luck.

13. Went on as if nothing had happened.

14. I tried to keep my feelings to myself.

15. Looked for the silver lining‚ so to speak; tried to look on the bright side of things.

16. Slept more than usual.

17. I expressed anger to the person(s) who caused the problem.

18. Accepted sympathy and understanding from someone.

19. I told myself things that helped me to feel better.

20. I was inspired to do something creative.

21. Tried to forget the whole thing.

22. I got professional help.

23. Changed or grew as a person in a good way.

24. I waited to see what would happen before doing anything.

25. I apologized or did something to make up.

26. I made a plan of action and followed it.

27. I accepted the next best thing to what I wanted.

28. I let my feelings out somehow.

29. Realized I brought the problem on myself.

30. I came out of the experience better than when I went in.

31. Talked to someone who could do something concrete about the problem.

32. Got away from it for a while; tried to rest or take a vacation.

33. Tried to make myself feel better by eating‚ drinking‚ smoking‚ using drugs or medication‚ etc.

34. Took a big chance or did something very risky.

35. I tried not to act too hastily or follow my first hunch.

36. Found new faith.

37. Maintained my pride and kept a stiff upper lip.

38. Rediscovered what is important in life.

39. Changed something so things would turn out all right.

40. Avoided being with people in general.

41. Didn’t let it get to me; refused to think too much about it.

42. I asked a relative or friend I respected for advice.

43. Kept others from knowing how bad things were.

44. Made light of the situation; refused to get too serious about it.

45. Talked to someone about how I was feeling.

46. Stood my ground and fought for what I wanted.

47. Took it out on other people.

48. Drew on my past experiences; I was in a similar situation before.

49. I knew what had to be done‚ so I doubled my efforts to make things work.

50. Refused to believe that it had happened.

51. I made a promise to myself that things would be different next time.

52. Came up with a couple of different solutions to the problem.

53. Accepted it‚ since nothing could be done.

54. I tried to keep my feelings from interfering with other things too much.

55. Wished that I could change what had happened or how I felt.

56. I changed something about myself.

57. I daydreamed or imagined a better time or place than the one I was in.

58. Wished that the situation would go away or somehow be over with.

59. Had fantasies or wishes about how things might turn out.

60. I prayed.

61. I prepared myself for the worst.

62. I went over in my mind what I would say or do.

63. I thought about how a person I admire would handle this situation and used that as a model.

64. I tried to see things from the other person’s point of view.

65. I reminded myself how much worse things could be.

66. I jogged or exercised.