The Psychological Record, 2010, 60, 643–658
Proactive and Preventive Coping
IN Adjustment to College
Yiqun Gan, Yueqin Hu, and Yiwen Zhang
Peking University
The current study compared the relative importance of proactive coping and preventive coping in the adjustment to university life among
403 freshmen at a Chinese university and evaluated the function
of proactive coping in the stress process. Participants completed the
Future-Oriented Coping Inventory (Gan, Yang, Zhou, & Zhang, 2007),
the Student-Life Stress Inventory (Gadzella, 1994), and the College Maladjustment Scale (Kleinmuntz, 1960). Bolger and Zuckerman’s (1995)
differential exposure model of personality was borrowed to examine
whether the students were exposed to different levels of current stress
and to explore the impact of stress on maladjustment. The results suggest that stress has a mediating effect between proactive coping and
maladjustment but not between preventive coping and maladjustment.
The results also suggest that only proactive coping plays an important
role in university adjustment, and proactive coping is a dispositional
trait rather than a coping strategy.
Key words: proactive coping, mediating effect, freshman, adjustment
Adjusting to university life is a major transition for young adults, as
they have to overcome the unfamiliarity of the university environment
(Blimling & Miltenberger, 1981). Therefore, entering college is by nature a
stressful experience. According to a survey by Fan (2000), 86.6% of first-year
Chinese students perceived high stress in their academic life, 55.3% in their
social life, and 32.5% in their finances. These academic, interpersonal, and
financial challenges require adequate coping responses in order to avoid
maladjustment, which has been suggested to be a major cause of poor academic performance and dropouts (e.g., Baker & Siryk, 1984). Considering the
pivotal role of adjustment, a great amount of research has been conducted
to explore the factors contributing to the successful adjustment of college
students. These factors can be classified into three categories—dispositional,
environmental, and situational variables.
Self-esteem and personality are the most frequently studied dispositional variables influencing freshman adjustment (e.g., Devonport & Lane,
This research was supported in part by grants from the Chinese National Office for Education
Sciences Planning (Project Number: DBA080173).
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Yiqun Gan, Department of
Psychology, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China. E-mail: [email protected]
644
Gan et al.
2006). In one study, Sasaki and Yamasaki (2007) examined the role of dispositional coping and found that dispositional emotion-focused coping
predicts poor health status in university freshmen. Environmental variables,
such as perceived stress, parental education, living environment, and so
forth, also contribute to college adaptation (e.g., Hertel, 2002). With respect
to situational variables, coping is the most frequently investigated factor.
Aspinwall and Taylor (1992) found that most of the predicted effects of
relative factors on adjustment were mediated by coping methods. Several
other studies examined the role of different coping tactics on adjustment
(e.g., Jorgensen & Dusek, 1990; Piko, 2001). In the current study, we focused
on the effects of dispositional coping, stress level, and situational coping on
freshman adjustment, especially the effects of proactive coping and preventive coping, which serve as both dispositional and situational variables.
The Concept of Proactive and Preventive Coping
The concept and theory of proactive coping and preventive coping comes
from the theoretical tradition of Lazarus and colleagues (Lazarus, 1993; Lazarus
& Folkman, 1984). In this view, coping is defined as “the cognitive, behavioral
efforts to manage particular external and/or internal demands that are appraised as taxing or exceeding resources of the person” (Lazarus & Folkman,
1984, p. 141). Although anticipation of harm or loss is essential to this widely
accepted definition, traditional coping models emphasize the reactive nature of
coping and focus attention on how people cope with past or ongoing stressors.
Therefore, it is also called reactive coping by Schwarzer and Taubert (2002).
In contrast, proactive and preventive coping deal with anticipated stressful events that have not occurred. In the extant literature on stress and coping, proactive coping and preventive coping represent the influence of positive psychology (Aspinwall & Taylor, 1997).
According to Schwarzer’s proactive coping theory (Schwarzer, 2000;
Schwarzer & Taubert, 2002), an emphasis on the time perspective distinguishes reactive, preventive, and proactive coping. Proactive coping is defined as efforts to strive actively to seek new challenges, create new opportunities, and facilitate promotion toward challenging goals so that they will
be less negative, whereas preventive coping refers to the process by which a
person builds up resources and resistance “just in case” possible stressors
occur in the distant future (Schwarzer, 2000).
Proactive and preventive coping therefore differ in two ways. First,
proactive coping is based on challenge appraisal while preventive coping
is based on threat appraisal (Schwarzer & Taubert, 2002). Second, in proactive coping, individuals take more constructive and purposeful actions
(Greenglass, Schwarzer, & Taubert, 1999), while in preventive coping, individuals employ more defensive and general strategies (saving resources for
future needs). In short, proactive coping is “goal management” and preventive coping is “risk management” (Schwarzer & Taubert, 2002).
With respect to the function of proactive and preventive coping, some
researchers regard them as dispositional variables, while others treat them
as transactional variables. In fact, coping is naturally a combination of dispositional and situational components. Carver, Scheier, and Weintraub (1989)
related various coping styles to personality variables and found a moderate correlation. They also demonstrated a situational component to coping.
Proactive Coping and Adjustment
645
Therefore, they conceptualized coping strategies as “stable preferences that
may or may not be identified as personality traits” (p. 268). Proactive and
preventive coping were positioned either as dispositional variables or transactional variables. For example, Ouwehand, de Ridder, and Bensing (2006) conducted an experiment examining the dispositional and situational predictors
for proactive behaviors, and they employed proactive coping as a dispositional
variable. In contrast, Gan et al. (2007) put proactive coping between stress
and academic burnout and found a significant mediating effect. Therefore, it
seems that the status of proactive and preventive coping is not clear.
Measurement of Proactive and Preventive Coping
Although it has been more than 10 years since Aspinwall and Taylor
(1997) first developed a comprehensive model for preventive coping (they
labeled it as proactive coping), there have been few instruments that adequately measure these constructs. Most empirical studies have focused on a
specific stage or aspect of proactive and preventive coping (e.g., cognitive appraisal) and have seldom taken into consideration the whole construct. Yet,
even when the whole construct is accounted for, researchers often assess it
according to a specific situation (e.g., Ouwehand et al., 2006). In response to
this gap in the literature, Greenglass, Schwarzer, and Jakubiec (1999) developed a multidimensional instrument consisting of 14 subscales to measure
proactive coping. Seven of the subscales demonstrate adequate psychometric properties with respect to their item-total correlations and Cronbach’s
alphas (Greenglass et al., 1999). Based on their work, Gan et al. (2007) revised
and validated the Future-Oriented Coping Inventory for Chinese university
students. This instrument contains both a proactive and a preventive coping subscale, each consisting of eight items. The Cronbach’s alphas for both
subscales are above 0.80 (Gan et al., 2007).
At the present time, research extending our understanding of proactive
and preventive coping among university students is limited. Most of the extant research on proactive coping has focused on populations that include
the elderly, individuals who are functionally disabled, or persons diagnosed
with severe mental illness. For example, Greenglass, Fiksenbaum, and Eaton
(2006) examined the use of proactive coping among the elderly and its relationship to depression and functionality. The results showed that proactive
coping was negatively associated with functional disability and depression
(Greenglass et al., 2006). Uskul and Greenglass (2005) found that proactive
coping and optimism predicted depression among Turkish-Canadian immigrants. In a study involving Chinese university students, Gan et al. (2007)
found that proactive coping fully mediated the relationship between stress
and engagement, whereas preventive coping partially mediated this relationship (Gan et al., 2007). However, to date, this is the only study that has examined proactive and preventive coping among university students.
Proactive coping and preventive coping have important implications
for new students making the transition to university life. On the one hand,
freshmen who possess the potential for proactive coping may see opportunities and enhance their own capacities. On the other hand, those with preventive coping skills may be able to recognize potential stressors, thereby
eliminating problems at an earlier stage and experiencing fewer frustrations, such as failure in exams, financial strain, or interpersonal problems.
646
Gan et al.
The Research Paradigm of
Stressor Exposure and Stressor Reactivity
The current study employed Bolger and Zuckerman’s (1995) differential
exposure model of personality. Bolger and Zuckerman divided the stress
process into two fundamental stages: stressor exposure and stressor reactivity. Exposure refers to the extent to which an individual experiences a
stressful event. Reactivity refers to the extent to which an individual shows
an emotional or physical reaction to a stressful event. Based on whether a
personality variable affects either of the two stages, a two-by-two matrix
can be obtained. There are therefore four conditions. In the first condition,
personality does not affect either exposure or reactivity to stressors. This
condition is called the null model. In the second condition, personality affects exposure but not reactivity to stressors. This condition is called the differential exposure model. In this condition, personality leads to exposure to
stress, which, in turn, leads to outcomes. Stress acts as a mediator between
personality and the outcomes of stress. In the third condition, there are personality differences in reactivity to stressors but no personality differences
in exposure. In this condition, personality acts as a moderator between the
effects of stressful events and their outcomes. This condition is referred to
as the differential reactivity model. In the last condition, personality affects
both exposure and reactivity to stressors. This condition is called the differential exposure-reactivity model. In this condition, mediating and moderating
processes occur simultaneously.
The Current Study
Theoretical inferences and empirical studies have demonstrated the
positive impact of proactive coping and preventive coping on individual
adjustment. Moreover, much research has reviewed the common points of
proactive coping and preventive coping (e.g., Greenglass, 2002). However,
the relative importance of proactive coping, preventive coping, and the
mechanism of functioning has not been carefully delineated by the extant
literature. In particular, there has been little empirical exploration of the
differences between proactive coping and preventive coping. Therefore,
the first objective of the current study was to compare the role of proactive
coping and preventive coping in adjustment to university life among new
students at a Chinese university.
Because the function of proactive and preventive coping is still ambiguous, in this study we employed both dispositional and transactional perspectives in order to clarify the issue. If there are transactional components
in proactive and preventive coping, they should mediate the relationship
between stress and adjustment as found by Aspinwall and Taylor (1992)
and Gan et al. (2007). Meanwhile, if there are dispositional components in
proactive and preventive coping, we could follow the research paradigm of
stressor exposure and stressor reactivity (Bolger & Zuckerman, 1995) and
regard proactive and preventive coping as personality in the model. In short,
the second objective was to explore the extent to which proactive and preventive coping could be regarded as personality characteristics.
Moreover, we were curious about where the effect of dispositional
proactive and preventive coping takes place. Could it serve to reduce
the stresses to which an individual is exposed, or could it influence the
Proactive Coping and Adjustment
647
relationship between stress and maladjustment? The third objective of this
study, therefore, was to explore the mechanism of dispositional proactive
and preventive coping and its inf luence on fresh man adjustment by
applying Bolger and Zuckerman’s (1995) model.
Based on this discussion, we proposed four hypotheses. First, proactive coping will be more highly correlated with maladjustment than preventive coping. Second, proactive and preventive coping will influence
maladjustment through the mediating effect of stress. Third, proactive
and preventive coping will moderate the relationship between stress and
maladjustment. Fourth, proactive and preventive coping will mediate
the relationship between stress and maladjustment, as previous studies
have shown. If this mediating effect is smaller than that in Hypothesis 2,
proactive/preventive coping is more of a dispositional variable; otherwise, proactive/preventive coping is proved to be a transactional variable.
Methods
Participants
Four hundred and twenty-three college freshmen were recruited from two
major universities in Beijing, four weeks after their college orientation. Twenty
students had incomplete data or random responses and their records were excluded. Within the remaining sample of 403 students, 213 were male (52.9%)
and 188 were female (46.7%). Participants’ ages ranged from 16 to 20 years, with
a mean age of 18.30 years (SD = 0.76). One hundred and thirty-five (61.4%) participants majored in liberal arts and social sciences, 77 (35%) participants majored in science, and 8 (3.6%) participants did not indicate their college major.
Measures
The Future-Oriented Coping Inventory. The Future-Oriented Coping
Inventory (Gan et al., 2007) was based on the Proactive Coping Inventory
originally developed by Greenglass et al. (1999). It includes a proactive coping subscale and a preventive coping subscale, each consisting of eight
items. The scales describe participants’ potential behaviors and attitudes in
response to future stressors. Participants are required to give a numerical
response based on a four-point Likert-scale indicating their agreement with
each sentence (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = agree, 4 = strongly
agree). The Future-Oriented Coping Inventory has demonstrated good reliability and validity among Chinese university students (Gan et al., 2007).
The Cronbach’s alphas of these two scales were found to be 0.77 and 0.74,
respectively, in the current study.
Student-Life Stress Inventory. The Student-Life Stress Inventory (SSI) was
originally developed by Gadzella (1994). It was adapted for Chinese participants by Wang and Wang (1998). The SSI is a 51-item questionnaire designed
for university students with a Likert-scale rating indicating frequency of
specific stressor experiences (1 = never, 2 = seldom, 3 = occasionally, 4 = often, 5 = most of the time). The SSI consists of two sections: Types of Stressors
and Reactions to Stressors. Only the Types of Stressors section, consisting
of 23 items, was used in the current study. The Reactions to Stressors section overlaps with the College Maladjustment Scale and thus was not used
648
Gan et al.
in the current study. The Types of Stressors section is comprised of five categories: frustrations, conflicts, pressures, changes, and self-imposed stressors. Scores are calculated for each category and section by summing the
responses for each item. The SSI has previously demonstrated good internal
consistency and reliability (Gadzella, 1994). In the current study, four out of
five scales had Cronbach’s alphas over 0.60. The self-imposed stressors scale
had a low Cronbach’s alpha and was deleted in further analyses.
College Maladjustment Scale (Mt). The College Maladjustment Scale (Mt)
was developed by Kleinmuntz (1960). This scale consists of 43 items that were
selected from the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory item pool. The
response form is in a yes/no format. The measure was adapted for Chinese
participants by Ji (2004). In the current study, confirmatory factor analysis
indicated a one-factor structure of this scale. The scale has been validated and
demonstrates adequate psychometric properties indicating that it is a sensitive instrument for measuring college maladjustment (Merker & Smith, 2001).
In the current study, the measure had a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.81.
Procedure
Data were collected in two batches. The first batch (220 cases) was collected in September of 2006. The second batch (203 cases) was collected in
September of 2007. Participants were selected through convenience sampling. There were no significant differences between the two groups in
terms of demographics and questionnaire responses. All participants completed the questionnaires anonymously and on a voluntary basis. Each participant received a gift of a book after completing the questionnaires.
Results
Descriptive statistics and correlations. The means, standard deviations,
and correlations among proactive and preventive coping, sources of stress,
and maladjustment are shown in Table 1. The results indicated that different sources of stress were all significantly correlated to maladjustment, with
Table 1
The Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations Among Variables Under
Study (n = 403)
M
SD
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1. Frustrations
16.70 3.82 0.67
2. Conflicts
5.23 1.88 .35** 0.66
3. Pressures
12.65 2.81 .52** .34** 0.62
4. Change
8.71 2.27 .43** .34** .52** 0.77
5. Sum of stressors 43.30 8.25 .84** .60** .80** .73** 0.83
6. Proactive coping 25.53 3.51 -.37** -.16** -.21** -.14** -.32** 0.77
7. Preventive coping 26.03 3.31 -.11* -.07
.02
-.03
-.06
.43** 0.74
8. Maladjustment
18.55 6.69 .48** .23** .46** .48** .56** -0.42** -0.20* 0.81
Note. Numbers in bold indicate the Cronbach’s alpha of each subscale.
**p < .05 (two-tailed). **p < .01 (two-tailed).
their sum revealing the highest correlation (r = 0.56). Proactive and preventive coping showed diverse correlation patterns with stressors. Proactive
Proactive Coping and Adjustment
649
coping was significantly correlated with all of the stressors, while preventive
coping was correlated with frustration only. Both of the coping measures
were significantly correlated to maladjustment. The correlation between proactive coping and maladjustment was −0.42, while the correlation between
preventive coping and maladjustment was −0.198. The difference between
these two correlation coefficients is significant, z = −3.63, p < 0.001.
The Mediating Effect of Stress in the Relationships Between Proactive
and Preventive Coping and Maladjustment. In order to explore the mediating effect of stress in the relationships between proactive and preventive coping and maladjustment, Baron and Kenny’s (1986) approach was
followed. Model 1 was first specified to depict the relationships between
proactive and preventive coping and maladjustment. Due to the relatively
small case–variable ratio, item parceling (Hall, Snell, & Singer Foust, 1999)
was performed according to item loading rankings that were derived from
an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) conducted prior to the path analysis
procedure. Thus, three manifest variables (parcels) were found to load on
proactive coping and preventive coping, respectively. Maladjustment was a
single-indicator latent variable.
If an independent variable does not significantly correlate with the dependent variable, it is impossible for a third variable to mediate its relationship.
Therefore, in the process of model fitting, the preventive coping variable was
dropped because of its insignificant pathway coefficient with maladjustment.
In Model 1, there are two latent variables: proactive coping and maladjustment.
Model 1 resulted in a good fit (according to Hu & Bentler, 1999), χ2/df = 2.575 < 3,
CFI = 0.99, RMSEA = 0.064. Other fit indices are shown in Table 2. In Model 1,
the path between proactive coping and maladjustment was −.44.
Table 2
Fit Indices of the Path Models (n = 403)
Model
χ2
df
χ2/df
p
GFI
AGFI
AIC
CAIC
CFI
RMSEA
22.83
62.45
0.99
0.064
0.96
0.073
84.94
0.98
0.073
255.34 384.33
0.89
0.010
1
5.15
2
2.575
0.069
0.99
0.96
1a
54.97
18
3.054
0.000
0.95
0.91
2
15.33
5
3.066
0.009
0.98
0.95
2a
207.68
40
5.192
0.000
0.91
0.86
112.3
35.33
201.6
Note. GFI = goodness of fit index; AGFI = adjusted goodness of fit index;
AIC = Akaike’s information criteria; CAIC = consistent Akaike’s information criteria;
CFI = comparative fit index; RMSEA = root mean square error approximation.
Next, stress was examined as a hypothesized mediator, which resulted
in Model 1a. Stress has four manifest variables: frustration, conflicts, pressures, and changes. Model 1a resulted in an acceptable fit to the data,
χ2/df = 3.05 < 5, CFI = 0.96, RMSEA = 0.073. (For other fit indices please refer to
Table 2.) The direct effect of proactive coping on maladjustment was reduced to
−0.28. The indirect effect was −0.22. Sobel’s test (Sobel, 1988) indicated that the
indirect effect of proactive coping on maladjustment was significant, z = −5.24,
p < 0.001. The path diagram of this mediating effect is shown in Figure 1.
In order to explore an alternative model (i.e., the mediating effects of
proactive coping and preventive coping in the relationship between stress
Gan et al.
650
and maladjustment), we exchanged the positions of stress and proactive/
preventive coping, using coping as the mediator. The initial model was called
Model 2. In Model 2, there were two latent variables: stress and maladjustment. Model 2 resulted in an acceptable fit, χ2/df = 3.066 < 5, CFI = 0.98,
RMSEA = 0.073. The path between stress and maladjustment was 0.63.
.53
.62
Parcel 1
.68
-.40
.52
Proactive
Coping
Parcel 2
.71
.41
Stress
Parcel 3
.50
Conflicts
.78
.66 Pressures
.55
.59
-.28
.22
Frustrations
.48
Changes
.55
Maladjustment
.18
Maladjustment
.88
.90
Figure 1. Stress as a mediator between proactive coping and maladjustment (Model 1a).
Next, proactive coping and preventive coping were examined as hypothesized mediators, which resulted in Model 2a. Stress again has four
manifest variables: frustration, conflicts, pressures, and changes. The
direct effect of stress on maladjustment was reduced to 0.55. The indirect effect of proactive coping was −1.15. Sobel’s test indicated that the
indirect effect of proactive coping on maladjustment was significant,
.54
Proactive
Coping
.53
.81
-.39
Frustrations
Conflicts
.69
.71
Parcel 2
.63
Parcel 3
.17
.56
-.06
Stress
Preventive
Coping
Pressures
.51
.92
.66
.57
.91
-.17
.44
.72
.48
.60
Parcel 1
.55
-.07
Parcel 1
.69
Parcel 2
.74
Parcel 3
.15
Changes
Maladjustment
.90
Maladjustment
.18
Figure 2. Future-oriented coping as a mediator between stress and maladjustment
(Model 2a).
Proactive Coping and Adjustment
651
z = −3.23, p < 0.01. Model 2a resulted in a poor fit to the data, χ2/df = 5.083 > 5,
CFI = 0.89 < 0.90, RMSEA = 0.010 > 0.08, which indicates that the former order
is more explanatory. (For other fit indices please refer to Table 2.) The indirect
effect of preventive coping was −0.49. Sobel’s test indicated that the indirect
effect of preventive coping to maladjustment was insignificant, z = −1.61,
p > 0.05. The path diagram of this mediating effect is shown in Figure 2.
The Moderating Effects of Proactive and Preventive Coping in the
Relationship Between Stressors and Maladjustment. In order to examine the
moderating effects of proactive and preventive coping in the relationship between stressors and maladjustment, we followed the regression method described by Baron and Kenny (1986). First, proactive and preventive coping and
stressors were centered, and their products were obtained to produce an interaction term. Hierarchical regression analyses were then applied. Age, gender,
and major were entered in the first block, and stress was entered in the second block. In the third block, proactive and preventive coping variables were
entered into the equation, and the interaction terms were entered in the fourth
block. The incremental R2 and regression coefficients are shown in Table 3.
Table 3
The Coefficients and ΔR2 of Hierarchical Regression Model Predicting Maladjustment
Block
1
Independent variables
age
gender
major
Beta
.033
−.003
−.147
t
.636
−.059
−2.867
ΔR2 = 2.2%, p < .05
age
gender
major
stress
.009
.025
−.085
.549
.209
.571
−1.965
12.822
ΔR2 = 29.7%, p < .001
.835
.569
.050
< .001
age
gender
major
stress
proactive
preventive
.000
.004
−.054
.473
−.238
−.075
−.002
.108
−1.321
11.033
−5.056
−1.673
ΔR2 = 7.0%, p < .001
.998
.914
.187
< .001
< .001
.095
age
gender
major
stress
proactive
preventive
Stress × proactive
Stress × preventive
.001
.004
−.054
.474
−.241
−.077
−.017
−.011
.034
.104
-1.305
10.625
−5.072
−1.695
−.352
−.231
ΔR2 = 0.1%, ns
R2
2
R2
3
R2
4
R2
Sig.
.525
.953
.004
.973
.917
.193
.000
.000
.091
.725
.817
652
Gan et al.
The results of the hierarchical regression analyses indicated that coping did not have a moderating effect in both cases: for proactive coping, β =
−0.02, t = −.35, p > 0.05; for preventive coping, β = −0.01, t = −0.23, p > 0.05.
Discussion
The goal of the current study was to compare the role of proactive coping and preventive coping in adjustment to university life among new students at a Chinese university, and to explore to what extent proactive coping
and preventive coping could be regarded as personality characteristics. The
mechanism by which proactive and preventive coping takes place in the adjustment process was also examined.
One major difficulty with utilizing a cross-sectional design to study proactive coping is the manipulation of time. The stress that proactive coping deals
with is in the future, so there should be a time lag between proactive coping
and stress. Therefore, we applied the stress exposure-reactivity paradigm
(Bolger & Zuckerman, 1995), which allowed us to examine the presence of a proactive coping transaction during the experienced stress of the transition to university life. By utilizing this model of the stress process, we were able to capture
a retrospective perspective of each student’s proactive coping before he or she
entered the university, to examine whether students were exposed to different
levels of current stress, and also to understand its impact on maladjustment. Of
course, proactive and preventive coping lead to different exposures to stress,
which, in turn, lead to different outcomes (i.e., maladjustment). Therefore, if low
levels of stress are experienced, those who possess more proactive and preventive coping strategies should have a better adjustment to university life.
Overall Results
Hypothesis 1 was fully supported. Both proactive coping and preventive coping were negatively correlated with maladjustment, suggesting that
proactive coping and preventive coping play positive roles in freshman adjustment. This result converges with the findings of past research, namely
that proactively creating better living conditions and higher performance
levels is beneficial (Schwarzer & Taubert, 2002). As proposed, the correlation between proactive coping and maladjustment was significantly stronger, which suggests that proactive coping has a more significant impact than
preventive coping during the adjustment to university life. These results are
similar to findings from other situations, such as engagement in schoolwork
(Gan et al., 2007).
Hypothesis 2 was partially supported, for only proactive coping could
influence maladjustment through stress. Hypothesis 3 was not supported
by our empirical data. Neither proactive coping nor preventive coping
moderated the association between stress and maladjustment. Finally, for
Hypothesis 4, the current study indicated that it is better to regard proactive coping as a dispositional variable rather than a transactional variable. A
detailed discussion is presented in the next section.
Comparison: Proactive Coping and Preventive Coping
In the current study, we found that the relationship between proactive coping and maladjustment was mediated by stress. However, the same
Proactive Coping and Adjustment
653
mediating model did not apply to preventive coping. Moreover, when the
positions of coping and stress were exchanged, proactive coping could still
mediate the relationship between stress and maladjustment, whereas preventive coping could not mediate this relationship. From zero-order correlations, we found that preventive coping was not actually involved in specific
real-life stressors. This result is not surprising given that, in preventive coping, efforts are concentrated toward building up general resources that are
not aimed at targeting actual stressful events in the near future. In other
words, unlike proactive coping, preventive coping is assumed to respond
to personality traits more than to chronic or acute stressors (Schwarzer
& Taubert, 2002). Therefore, the impact of preventive coping on freshman
adjustment did not function through the process of exposure to stress.
Freshman adjustment to university life in our study involves many possible
time-limited and concrete stressful events that do not adequately correspond to the role of preventive coping. While the traditional view emphasizes the significance of preventive coping (Aspinwall & Taylor, 1997), recent
empirical findings indicate that the concept of proactive coping proposed by
Schwarzer and Taubert (2002) deserves more attention.
Proactive Coping: Dispositional or Transactional?
In the current study, proactive coping could have served as a personality trait to influence maladjustment through the mediating effect of stress.
However, when using coping to mediate the relationship between stress and
maladjustment, the model was evaluated as having a poor fit and its mediating effect was negligible. This could imply that proactive coping as measured by Greenglass et al. (1999) contains more dispositional components
than transactional components. This result is consistent with the increased
inclination to emphasize the dispositional aspects of coping (e.g., Ptacek,
Pierce, & Thompson, 2006).
Researchers have found that the range of coping behavior is limited in
an individual, there is a strong association between coping style and coping
responses, and previous coping response is a strong predictor of coping in
new situations (Ouwehand et al., 2006). All of this evidence solidifies the
dispositional perspective of coping. Moreover, compared with other types of
coping, such as problem-focused coping and emotion-focused coping, proactive coping contains less situational information. By definition (Schwarzer,
2000), proactive coping includes problem-focused behavior, as well as
emotion- and cognition-focused behavior. Therefore, it does not seem to be a
coping strategy specified for a certain situation but a tendency to act ahead
of time. Taking into account all the previous evidence and the results of the
current study, we would prefer to regard proactive coping as a sort of dispositional trait or, in other words, a coping style rather than a coping strategy.
Effects of Stressor Exposure or Stressor Reactivity
By borrowing Bolger and Zuckerman’s (1995) model of exposure–­
reactivity on the stress process, we were able to take a retrospective perspective on the proactive coping of students before they entered the university
and examine whether they were exposed to different levels of current stress,
in addition to examining the impact of stress on maladjustment. The results
654
Gan et al.
indicated that proactive coping could influence only the process of stressor
exposure, not the process of stressor reactivity.
For the process of stressor exposure, stress had a mediating effect between proactive coping and maladjustment. High proactive coping was associated with low stress levels in university transition, which led to less maladjustment. This reveals that proactive coping acted as an effective buffer
to the maladjustment resulting from the transition to university life. This
result is consistent with the results from the study of Pancer, Hunsberger,
Pratt, and Alisat (2000), which suggested that complex expectations about
university life could serve as a stress buffer against freshman maladjustment. It is possible that students with higher scores on proactive coping put
more forethought into their future university life, and this careful consideration helps them reduce the stress encountered. The process might be as
follows: These students regard stressful situations as challenges and new
opportunities and believe in the rich potential brought on by change, they
use proactive coping techniques to change their environment, and therefore
they experience lower stress levels upon entering the university. In turn,
these students are less likely to experience maladjustment.
For the process of stressor reactivity, however, the proposed moderating
effect was not supported by the data. The stressor reactivity model posits
that a third variable may affect the impact of stressors on maladjustment.
This third variable is usually dispositional, so variation of the association
between stress and maladjustment may happen among different levels. In
the current study, we anticipated dispositional proactive/preventive coping
could play the role of moderator. However, neither proactive coping nor preventive coping was found to play a moderating role between the transition
to university life and maladjustment in this study. Therefore, we cannot
infer that those who possessed more proactive coping and preventive coping strategies were less likely to be negatively affected by the transition to
university life. This is contrary to our hypothesis. The specificity of proactive coping and preventive coping might shed light on this result. As we have
discussed, proactive coping is more of a coping style than a coping strategy,
which only represents an inclination to think and act in advance. It is not
a specified coping strategy corresponding to a certain situation and consequently cannot help reduce the effect of stressors on students once they are
encountered. Still, the students may be able to use proactive coping to reduce the level of stress they experience and, through this, adjust to the new
transition.
Implications
The current study distinguishes the functions of proactive coping and
preventive coping and supports the positive role of proactive coping. While
previous research suggests that both proactive coping and preventive coping
have some functions in buffering stress (Gan et al., 2007), this study emphasizes the sole value of proactive coping that Schwarzer and Taubert (2002)
proposed. Therefore, should the construct of preventive coping be modified
to ensure its adaptive value? Or does preventive coping function at a different
stage of coping? Further research could investigate these two possibilities.
Finally, the current study also makes an attempt to explore the dispositional versus transactional nature of proactive coping. Through mediation
Proactive Coping and Adjustment
655
analyses, we concluded that proactive coping, at least by its current measure, is more dispositional than transactional.
This study has several practical implications. To freshmen just entering college, adjustment to university life is a primary goal. Some students
with excellent performance in high school may become passive or even
overwhelmed by university life. The reason may be due to an inability to
cope during the transition from high school to college. The current study
provides support for the value of proactive coping programs to be integrated
into mental health education for new students entering college. For example, workshops on coping strategies and peer relationships could be set up
during university orientation for new students. The idea of proactive coping could be conveyed to students so that they can take an active role in
the face of stressors in ways that enhance personal growth. Additionally,
focusing only on the development of personal resources geared toward academic challenges (e.g., exams) may not be sufficient for freshman students.
Instead, individuals should prepare a variety of skills to deal with many different types of challenges.
Limitations and Directions to Future Research
The current study has some limitations that should be taken into consideration. First, although an effort was made to overcome the limitation of the
time manipulation, the study still has a cross-sectional nature, which may not
capture the reality of how the effect of proactive coping may emerge after a
period of time. Therefore, further research should include follow-up results,
which would be better able to reveal the dynamic process of stress, preventive
coping, and adjustment. Second, future studies should include experimental
manipulations, such as the Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure (IRAP;
Barnes-Holmes, Hayden, Barnes-Holmes, & Stewart, 2008; Barnes-Holmes,
Waldron, Barnes-Holmes, & Stewart, 2009), to provide a more comprehensive
understanding of the process of adjustment to university life.
References
Aspinwall, L. G., & Taylor, S. E . (1992). Modeling cognitive adaptation: A
longitudinal investigation of the impact of individual differences and
coping on college adjustment and performance. Journal of Personality &
Social Psychology, 63 (6), 989–1003.
Aspinwall, L. G.,& Taylor, S. E. (1997). A stitch in time: Self-regulation and
proactive coping. Psychological Bulletin, 121 (3), 417–436.
Baker, R.W., & Siryk, B. (1984). Measuring adjustment to college. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 31, 179–189.
Barnes-Holmes, D., Hayden, E., Barnes-Holmes, Y., & Stewart, I. (2008).
The Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure (IRAP) as a response-time
and event-related-potentials methodology for testing natural verbal
relations: A preliminary study. The Psychological Record, 58, 497–515.
Barnes-Holmes, D., Waldron, D., Barnes-Holmes, Y., & Stewart, I.
(2009). Testing the validity of the Implicit Relational Assessment
Procedure and the Implicit Association Test: Measuring attitudes toward
Dublin and country life in Ireland. The Psychological Record, 59, 389–
406.
656
Gan et al.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable
distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and
statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
51(6), 1173–1182.
Blimling, G. S., & Miltenberger, L. J. (1981). The resident assistant: Working
with college students in residence halls (2nd ed.). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/
Hunt.
Bolger, N., & Zuckerman, A. (1995). A framework for studying personality
in the stress process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 5,
890–902.
Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. F., & Weintraub, J. K. (1989). Assessing coping
strategies: A theoretically based approach. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 56(2), 267–283.
Devonport, T., & Lane, A. (2006). Cognitive appraisal of dissertation stress
among undergraduate students. The Psychological Record, 56, 259–266.
Fan, F. (2000). A stress and coping survey among university students. Youth
Studies: 2000, 9(6), 40–45.
Gadzella, B. M. (1994). Student-life stress inventory: Identification of and
reactions to stressors. Psychological Reports, 74(2), 395–402.
Gan, Y., Yang, M., Zhou, Y., & Zhang,Y. (2007). The two-factor structure of
future-oriented coping and its mediating role in student engagement.
Personality and Individual Difference, 43(4), 851–863.
Greenglass, E. (2002). Proactive coping. In E. Frydenberg (Ed.), Beyond
coping: Meeting goals, vision, and challenges (pp. 37–62). London: Oxford
University Press.
Greenglass, E., Fiksenbaum, L., & Eaton, J. (2006) The relationship
between coping, social support, functional disability and depression in
the elderly. Anxiety, Stress and Coping, 19(1), 15–31.
Greenglass, E., Schwarzer, R., & Jakubiec, D. (1999, July). The Proactive
Coping Inventory (PCI): A multidimensional research instrument. Paper
presented at the 20th International Conference of the Stress and
Anxiety Research Society (STAR), Cracow, Poland.
Hall, R. J., Snell, A. F., & Singer Foust, M. (1999). Item parceling strategies
in SEM: Investigating the subtle effects of unmodeled secondary
constructs. Organizational Research Methods, 2, 233–256.
Hertel, J. B. (2002). College student generational status: Similarities,
differences, and factors in college adjustment. The Psychological Record,
52, 3–18.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance
structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives.
Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.
Ji, S. (2004). MMPI: Latest advances and interpretation of additional clinical
scales. Beijing: Science Press.
Jorgensen, R. S., & Dusek, J. B. (1990). Adolescent adjustment and coping
strategies. Journal of Personality, 58(3), 503–513.
Kleinmuntz, B. (1960). Identification of maladjusted students. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 7, 209–211.
Lazarus, R. S. (1993). Coping theory and research: Past, present, and future.
Psychosomatic Medicine, 55, 234–247.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress appraisal and coping. New York:
Springer.
Proactive Coping and Adjustment
657
Merker, B. M., & Smith, J. V. (2001). Validity of MMPI-2 college maladjustment
scale. Journal of College Counseling, 4, 3–9.
Ouwehand, C., de Ridder, D. T. D., & Bensing, J. M. (2006). Situational
aspects are more important in shaping proactive coping behavior than
individual characteristics: A vignettes study among adults preparing for
aging. Psychology and Health, 21(6), 809–825.
Pancer, S. M., Hunsberger, B., Pratt, M. W., & Alisat, S. (2000). Cognitive
complexity of expectations and adjustment to university in the first
year. Journal of Adolescent Research, 15(1), 38–58.
Piko, B. (2001). Gender differences and similarities in adolescents’ ways of
coping. The Psychological Record, 51, 223–235.
Ptacek, J. T., Pierce, G. R., & Thompson, E. L. (2006). Finding evidence of
dispositional coping. Journal of Research in Personality, 40(6), 1137–1151.
Sasaki, M., & Yamasaki, K. (2007). Stress coping and the adjustment
process among university freshmen. Counseling Psychology Quarterly,
20(1), 51–67.
Schwarzer, R. (2000). Manage stress at work through preventive and
proactive coping. In E. A. Locke (Ed.), The Blackwell handbook of
principles of organizational behavior (pp. 342–355). Oxford, UK:
Blackwell.
Schwarzer, R., & Taubert, S. (2002). Tenacious goal pursuits and striving
toward personal growth: Proactive coping. In E. Frydenberg (Ed.), Beyond
coping: Meeting goals, visions and challenges (pp. 19–35). London: Oxford
University Press.
Sobel, M. E. (1988). Direct and indirect effect in linear structural equation
models. In J. S. Long (Ed.), Common problems/proper solutions: Avoiding
error in quantitative research (pp. 46–64). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Uskul, A. K., & Greenglass, E. (2005). Psychological well-being in a
Turkish-Canadian sample. Anxiety, Stress and Coping, 18, 169–178.
Wang, X., & Wang, X. D. (1998). The comparison on college student life
stress between different classes. Health Psychology, 6 (4), 411–413.
658