Ways of Coping Scale (WOCS)

Abstract

The Ways of Coping Scale (Revised) is a comprehensive, 66-item psychological instrument developed by Susan Folkman and Richard Lazarus. It is designed to measure the specific cognitive and behavioral efforts—or coping mechanisms—an individual employs when dealing with a particular, defined stressful event or encounter. Crucially, the measure is conceptualized as a process measure, focusing on the dynamic, situation-specific strategies utilized, rather than attempting to assess generalized coping styles or personality traits. Subjects typically describe the stressful encounter in detail before responding to the questionnaire, indicating the extent to which they used each coping strategy on a 4-point Likert scale.

Keywords

Coping, Stress and Appraisal, Process Measure, Folkman, Richard Lazarus, Stressful Encounters, Coping Strategies, Psychological Assessment

Authors

Susan Folkman, Richard S. Lazarus

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Ways of Coping Scale (Revised) is to identify and quantify the specific repertoire of thoughts and actions an individual uses in response to the internal and/or external demands presented by a singular, clearly defined stressful encounter. This focus on process allows researchers to examine the shifting nature of coping strategies over time or across different contexts, such as medical treatment, academic pressure, or interpersonal conflict.

Construct

The scale measures Situation-Specific Coping Processes, aligning with Lazarus and Folkman’s transactional model of stress and coping. This model posits that coping is a dynamic process where individuals constantly reappraise and react to environmental demands. The scale captures two broad categories of coping strategies: Problem-Focused Coping (actions aimed at changing the source of stress or the environment) and Emotion-Focused Coping (cognitive or behavioral strategies aimed at regulating emotional responses to the stressor).

Validity

Validity for the Ways of Coping Scale (Revised) is primarily supported through extensive construct validation derived from factor analytic studies. The original research, which employed large community and student samples, demonstrated that the items cluster into conceptually coherent scales representing distinct coping dimensions. The differentiation between the factor structures observed in the community sample (e.g., Confrontive Coping, Planful Problem-Solving) and the student sample (e.g., Problem-focused coping, Wishful Thinking) further supports the instrument’s sensitivity to contextual and population differences in coping patterns.

Reliability

The internal consistency, a key aspect of psychometrics, for the subscales derived from the factor analyses is reported using coefficient alpha. For the Community Sample (Set #1), the alpha coefficients ranged from 0.61 (Distancing) to 0.79 (Positive Reappraisal). For the Student Sample (Set #2), which included both empirically and rationally constructed scales, the alpha coefficients were generally higher, ranging from 0.59 (Tension Reduction) to 0.88 (Problem-focused coping). These values generally indicate acceptable to good reliability across the various dimensions of coping measured.

Factor Analysis

Two major factor analytic studies defined the scale’s structure, reflecting the instrument’s adaptability to different contexts:

Community Sample Factor Structure (Folkman et al., 1986)

This analysis involved 75 married couples (750 observations pooled across five monthly interviews). The analysis used principal factoring with oblique rotation on 50 items, yielding eight distinct factors, accounting for 46.2% of the variance. Oblique rotation was chosen based on the theoretical expectation that coping strategies are often used concurrently rather than exclusively. The resulting eight scales are:

• Confrontive Coping (alpha = 0.70)
• Distancing (alpha = 0.61)
• Self-controlling (alpha = 0.70)
• Seeking Social Support (alpha = 0.76)
• Accepting Responsibility (alpha = 0.66)
• Escape-Avoidance (alpha = 0.72)
• Planful Problem-Solving (alpha = 0.68)
• Positive Reappraisal (alpha = 0.79)

Student Sample Factor Structure (Folkman & Lazarus, 1985)

This study involved 108 undergraduates coping with a college examination. The factor analysis on 57 items resulted in a six-factor solution, which was then rationally assigned into eight scales (one problem-focused, six emotion-focused, and one mixed scale) for greater theoretical clarity. The scales include:

• Problem-focused coping (alpha = 0.88)
• Wishful thinking (alpha = 0.86)
• Detachment (alpha = 0.74)
• Seeking social support (alpha = 0.82)
• Focusing on the positive (alpha = 0.70)
• Self-blame (alpha = 0.76) – Rationally created
• Tension reduction (alpha = 0.59) – Rationally created
• Keep to self (alpha = 0.65) – Rationally created

Investigators are typically advised to select the scale set (Community or Student) most appropriate for their specific population and type of stressor being investigated.

Instrument

Test Type: Self-report questionnaire, Process Measure

Format: 66 items, utilizing a 4-point Likert scale (0 = does not apply and/or not used; 3 = used a great deal).

Language Available: English (Original), likely translated into many others due to its widespread use.

Population Group: Adults and College Students

Age Group: Adolescent through Adult

Population Details: Originally validated on middle-aged married couples (Community Sample) and undergraduates (Student Sample).

Test Methodology: Subjects are first asked to describe a specific stressful encounter. They then rate the extent to which they used each coping strategy listed in the questionnaire related to that specific event. The measure is designed for repeated administration to track coping processes over time (intraindividual analysis).

Keywords

Coping behaviors, Stress measurement, Emotion-focused coping, Problem-focused coping, Psychological stress, Coping strategies, Psychological appraisal

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: Not provided in source.

Affiliation Email addresses: Not provided in source.

Correspondence Address: Not provided in source.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The original Ways of Coping Checklist was introduced in 1980 (Folkman & Lazarus). The widely used Revised version was published in 1985 (Folkman & Lazarus). The scale is often cited as being available through the Centre for AIDS Prevention Studies (CAPS), which is listed as the “Author of Tool” in the source content, though the primary intellectual property rests with Folkman and Lazarus. Information regarding current usage fees or permissions should be sought directly from the copyright holders or authorized distributors.

Reference’s

• Folkman S, Lazarus RS. (1980). An analysis of coping in a middle-aged community sample. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 21(3), 219–239.
• Folkman S, Lazarus RS. (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 RS, Gruen RJ, and DeLongis A (1986). Appraisal, coping, health status, and psychological symptoms. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology 50(3): 571–579.
• 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 (CAPS)

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

Please read each item below and indicate, by using the following rating scale, to what extent you used it in the situation you have just described.

0 1 2 3

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.