1. 1
Measuring the relationship between personality, coping, social
support and gender with stress appraisals: Exploring the self-
categorization model of stress
Daniel Mark Horsley
BSc Psychology
Psychology Division
School of Social Sciences
Nottingham Trent University
N0507233
Blerina Kellezi
April 2016

2. 2
Abstract
Until recently, models of stress appraisals have often only focused on the individual, however
a new theoretical development suggests that social identity processes may play an important
role in cognitive appraisal processes. Using a cross-sectional survey design, a battery of
questionnaires relating to personality, coping, social support and gender were administered to
a sample of 163 students to explore this idea further. Participants were required to rate four
scenarios on their level of stressfulness. The social context of these scenarios was
manipulated so that they were either student-specific or they were general scenarios, in that
anybody from the general public could experience them. Findings revealed that student-
specific scenarios were rated as more stressful than general scenarios. Additionally, no
differences were found in the relationships between the predictor variables and the ratings of
scenarios in either social context, as only gender and emotion-orientated coping were
significant predictors of the student-specific and general scenario’s ratings. Specifically,
females and higher levels of emotion-orientated coping strategies predicted higher ratings of
the scenarios stressfulness. Findings and implications are discussed along with limitations and
potential directions for future research.

3. 3
Measuring the relationship between personality, coping, social support and gender with stress
appraisals: Exploring the self-categorization approach to stress
Research has shown that stress can have devastating effects on the individual, for
example stress is associated with the development of depression, post-traumatic stress
disorder and pathological aging (Janick-deverts & Miller, 2007; Lord, Andrews & Fiocco,
2011). Stress has also been shown to link with damage to hippocampal regions of the brain,
leading to the weakening of our memory and our ability to learn (Bremner, 1999). These
findings show just how damaging stress can be on the human body, both physically and
mentally and thus highlighting the importance for research in this area.
Much contemporary literature identifies students to be a particularly vulnerable
population to stress, for example perceived stress levels in student samples have been found
to be very high (Ford, Olotu, Thach, Roberts & Davis, 2014; Kulsoom and Afsa, 2015). In a
review of the literature surrounding student stress, Hurst, Baranik and Daniel (2012) found a
number of stressors contributing to this increased level of stress in student samples, including
relationships, lack of resources, academics, the environment, expectations, diversity,
transitions and other stressors such as health, careers, personal experience and extracurricular
activities. Clearly then students are particularly vulnerable to the exposure of a large variety
of stressful situations, providing a strong need to explore student stress further.
According to Lazarus (1966) stress arises when individuals perceive that they cannot
adequately cope with the demands being made on them or with threats to their wellbeing.
Lazarus further suggests that stress is a two-way process, involving the production of
stressors from the environment and the response to these stressors by the individual. This
conception of stress has led to the theory of cognitive appraisal. The theory of cognitive
appraisal (Lazarus and Folkman, 1984) is a well-established theory within the literature
regarding stress that suggests that there are two types of cognitive appraisal processes
associated with stress and coping. Primary appraisal is the individual’s assessment of a
situation/stressor for its potential threat. Secondary appraisal is the evaluation of the
individuals coping resources needed to deal with the stressor/situation. Stress results from an
imbalance between these two processes; when the demands of a stressor outweigh the
resources available to cope with that stressor (See figure 1).

4. 4
Until recently, the cognitive appraisal model has only looked at the individual, this is a
big limitation to Lazarus and Folkman’s (1984) transactional stress model, however a new
theoretical development in stress research asserts that social identity processes play an
important role in the stress appraisal process. Social identity theory (SIT; Tajfel & Turner,
1979, 1986) asserts that people generally strive to achieve a positive sense of self and that this
is achieved through identifying themselves in terms of group memberships and therefore
positively differentiating their own group, when such a group membership is made salient.
The self-categorization theory (SCT; Turner, 1985; Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher &
Wetherell, 1987) was later developed to help expand the explanatory scope of the SIT from
intergroup relations to group processes. The SCT suggests that there are three levels at which
people define themselves: at the superordinate (human vs non-human), at the intermediate
level (‘we’ vs ‘they’) and at the subordinate level (‘I’ vs ‘you’). It is suggested that to
understand individuals’ interactions with the social world around them, it is essential to
appreciate the way in which these individuals define and understand themselves in a given
context or situation (Jetten, Haslam & Haslam, 2011). This idea has opened up a huge line of
research within the stress literature (which will be discussed shortly), which questions
whether individuals’ level of self-definition contributes to the way in which they perceive and
deal with threats.
Coping is a fundamental aspect of the stress process and is most often defined as the
“constant changing of cognitive and behavioural efforts to manage specific external and/or
internal demands that are appraised as taxing or exceeding the resources of the person”
(Lazarus and Folkman, 1984). Despite its pronounced importance within the cognitive
appraisal process and the vast amount of literature dedicated towards studying coping, it is
still difficult to report any external factors that coping may be associated with. This is due to
Figure 1. The transactional model of stress (Lazarus and Folkman, 1984)
Stressor
Primary
Appraisal
“Is this
stressful?”
Eustress
Secondary
Appraisal
“Can I cope?”
Distress

5. 5
the inconsistent use of coping measures throughout the literature and that there is no generally
accepted model of the dimensions of coping (Vollrath, 2001; Delongis & Holtzman, 2005).
Folkman and Lazarus (1980) conception of coping strategies are most commonly used
throughout the literature. They suggested that coping efforts serve two main functions:
management or alteration of the person-environment relationship that is the source of the
stress (problem-focused), and the regulation of stressful emotions (emotion-focused). It is
suggested however that the weakness in most coping measures lies in their unsatisfactory
psychometric properties, unstable factor structures, and lack of cross-validation (Schwarzer &
Schwarzer. 1996). Endler and Parker (1990a, 1990b), however, in an accurate and rigorous
way, developed the Coping Inventory for Stressful Situations (CISS), whereby they suggested
that three coping styles exist, namely: task-, emotion- and avoidance-orientated coping. Task-
and emotion-orientated coping are very similar to problem-focused and emotion-focused
coping, however avoidance-orientated coping generally refers to an individuals’ distancing
themselves from a stressful situation. Avoidance-orientated coping can either be person-
orientated (seeking social support) or task-orientated (engaging in other activities).
The effectiveness of coping strategies is often measured by the reduction of
psychological arousal (LeBlanc et al., 2011) or assessing the long-term effects of coping on
psychological health and wellbeing (Seiffge-Krenke & Klessinger, 2000). Such studies for
example have found that task-orientated coping styles are often the most effective in coping
with stressful events and exacerbating the negative effects of stress (Lavoie, 2013; LeBlanc et
al., 2011; Ben-Zur, 1999). On the other hand, emotion-orientated coping styles are often
shown to be more maladaptive (LeBlanc et al, 2011), as they lead to greater psychological
distress following a stressful event and are positively associated with negative health
variables such as anxiety and depression (Yung, Dugas, O'Loughlin, Karp & Low, 2013;
Endler, Parker & Summerfeldt 1993). Lavoie (2013) suggests that this is because emotion-
orientated coping strategies obstruct the management of negative emotions (Lavoie, 2013).
Finally, studies have suggested that avoidance-orientated coping strategies are often effective
in mitigating stress in the short term (Lavoie, 2013; LeBlanc et al., 2011; Moos, 2002), but
are found to be more maladaptive in the long term, as individuals that tend to engage in these
coping styles are also more likely to develop depressive symptoms (Seiffge-Krenke &
Klessinger, 2000; Mcintosh & Rosselli, 2012).
Much research has found that personality is in many ways associated with the stress
process (Schneider, Rench, Lyons & Riffle, 2012; Kaiseler, Polman, Remco & Nicholls,
2012; Carver & Connor-smith, 2010; Penley & Tomaka, 2002; Vollrath, 2001) and

6. 6
throughout the literature surrounding personality and stress, Costa and McCrae’s (1992) Big
Five personality factors are perhaps the most widely used personality traits when measuring
personality, as Vollrath (2001) notes that since the 1980s, an increasing number of scholars
have adopted the Big Five model as the best comprehensive system of basic, independent
personality factors. The Big Five factor model is a well-established and strongly validated
model of personality. It consists of five personality traits, namely: Neuroticism (N),
Extraversion (E), Openness (O), Conscientiousness (C) and Agreeableness (A). These traits
can be further subdivided into six facets. Neuroticism is the tendency toward negative
affectivity, emotional distress and anxiety. Extraversion is the tendency toward positive
affectivity, being energetic and social and enjoying others’ company. Openness is the
tendency toward original and imaginative thinking, broad interests and being daring.
Agreeableness is the tendency toward being trusting, sympathetic, compassionate and
cooperative. Finally, Conscientiousness is the tendency to be hard working careful, thorough
and have self-control.
Vollrath (2001) suggested that the Big Five personality factors are important in every
aspect of the stress process. N is the personality trait that is most consistently found to relate
to stress, for example highly Neurotic individuals tend to interpret even banal everyday
situations as threatening or damaging and report high levels of daily hassles and interpersonal
stress, whilst also reporting their coping resources as low (Schneider et al., 2012; Kaiseler et
al., 2012; Carver & Connor-Smith, 2010; Penley & Tomaka, 2002; Vollrath, 2001).
Conversely, a plethora of evidence exists to suggest that more Conscientious and Extraverted
individuals are more likely to perceive events as challenges as opposed to threats and report
lower ratings of stress intensity and daily hassles (Carver & Connor-Smith, 2010; Penley &
Tomaka; 2002 Vollrath, 2001). Fewer studies have been able to find significant relationships
between stress appraisals and O and A, however those that have found significant
relationships suggest that both O and A are negatively related to stress intensity, whilst O is
positively related to perceived coping ability (Kaiseler et al, 2012; Penley & Tomaka, 2002).
Connor-Smith and Flachsbart (2007) analysed the findings of 165 studies and found
that Neuroticism predicted less problem-focused coping, more emotion-orientated coping and
more social support seeking. Conversely, Conscientiousness and Extraversion predicted more
task-orientated coping, with Extraversion also predicting more social support seeking
behaviour. It is important to note however that despite the consistency across studies, the
relationships between personality and coping styles, and personality and stress intensity are
often quite weak, with the exception being Neuroticism, where relationships are still often

7. 7
only quite moderate, for example Zhang (2012) found that high N most strongly predicted
occupational stress, followed by low C, E, O and finally, A.
Social support is an additional factor that has been shown to relate to stress (Cohen &
Wills, 1985). Chao (2011) suggests that social support in students is unstable or at least
decreasing, further suggesting a importance for assessing the role of social support in student
stress. Social support, coping and stress are very closely related, such that social support
seeking can act as problem-focussed (when the individual receives information that can be
used to resolve a stressful event) or emotion-focussed coping (when the support helps to
regulate emotional responses arising from the stressful event), in the attempt to exacerbate the
overwhelming effects of stress (Lazarus and Folkman, 1991). The buffering hypothesis is a
dominant model within the social support literature. This model suggests that social support
‘buffers’ the effects of stressful events on the individuals’ health by intervening between the
stressful event and a stress reaction, by attenuating or preventing a stress appraisal response
and also by aiding the individual in selecting more adaptive coping strategies for a given
situation (Cohen & Wills, 1985). Research suggests for example that students who are
encouraged to use social support as a coping mechanism have decreased levels academic
stress (Baqutayan, 2011), whereas individuals that report low levels of satisfaction with their
overall social support are more inclined to engage in ruminative coping (DeLongis and
Holtzman, 2005). Conversely, it has been suggested that engaging in certain types of coping
can lead to poorer social support, as individuals may fail to provide social cues to their social
network and thus these potential support providers will fail to provide support (DeLongis and
Holtzman, 2005). Furthermore, Shan, Lee, Suchday and Wylie-rosett (2012) found that
increased levels of perceived social support predicted smaller changes in heart rate reactivity
when recalling a stressful event.
It is clear then that social support and the stress process are very closely interrelated,
as social support can intervene in the appraisal of stressful events and the selection of
adaptive coping mechanisms. Further to this, some research has found that personality and
social support are in some ways related. For example Tong et al. (2004) found significant
associations between N, E, A, C and satisfaction with social support and between E, O, A and
amount of social support, although it is important to note that these correlations were very
small. Typically however, research only tends to find relationships between E and social
support, suggesting that as E increases, so do the size of the individuals social networks
(Vollrath, 2001), the use of social support (Carver & Connor-Smith, 2010) and the seeking of
social support (Kaiseler et al., 2012).

8. 8
Finally, gender differences are consistently found to take place within the cognitive
appraisal process. For instance, it is often found that morbidity rates are higher in females
than in males (Mayor, 2015). This can be attributed to the fact that females often report higher
levels of stress than males and appraise stressful events as more severe (McDonough &
Walters, 2001; Matud, 2004; Kimhi & Shamai, 2006; Simmons, 2010; Ben-Zur & Zeidner,
2012). Additionally, more recent research has began focusing on gender traits and has found
that masculinity (as opposed to femininity) is positively related to challenge appraisals
(Sarrasin, Mayor & Faniko, 2014; Mayor, 2015). In addition to this, research suggests that
gender differences exist with regards to the types of coping strategies deployed by men and
women. In a meta analytic review for example, Tamres, Janicki and Helgeson (2002) found
that women are more likely to engage in most coping strategies than men. However, research
suggests specifically that women are more likely to engage in more maladaptive coping
strategies, such as emotion- and avoidance-orientated coping (Ashley & Kleinpeter, 2008;
Matud, 2004), whereas men are more likely to engage in more active coping strategies
(Devonport & Lane, 2006). Lastly, gender differences have also been found to exist within
personality. It is typically found for example that females report higher levels of all
personality traits, particularly N, E, A and C (Vianello, Schnabel, Sriram & Nosek, 2013;
Lehmann, Denissen, Allemand & Penke, 2012;, Weisberg, De Young & Hirsh, 2011, Schmitt,
Realo, Voracek, & Allik, 2008; Budaev, 1999).
Thus far, research has been highlighted suggesting that personality, coping, social
support and gender are linked considerably to how individuals appraise an event. As
previously mentioned however, Lazarus and Folkman’s (1984) transactional model has been
criticised for its highly individualistic views on stress. A new theoretical development, termed
the social categorisation model of stress, suggests that because individuals can identify
themselves at different levels of abstraction (‘I’ vs ‘you’, ‘us’ vs ‘they’ or human vs non-
human), stressful events can be appraised differently depending on how they relate to an
individuals’ social identity and which identities are most salient for that individual. To
illustrate this further, Levine and Reicher (1996) and Levine (1999) found that when making
an identity salient (either as a PE student or as a female), scenarios were rated as more or less
stressful according to whether they threatened the salient identity or not. For example when a
scenario threatened the participants’ identity as a female (e.g. scar on face), participants
would rate this scenario as more stressful compared to when their identity as a female was
made salient. In addition to this, research also suggests that social identities also play an
important role in secondary appraisals, as strong levels of social identity with a particular

9. 9
group can affect an individuals ability to cope with a stressful event (Haslam & Reicher,
2007; Kellezi & Reicher, 2011), the likelihood of receiving social support (Haslam &
Reicher, 2006; Haslam, O’Brien, Jetten, Vormedal, & Penna, 2005.; Levine, Prosser, Evans &
Reicher, 2005) and the manner in which social support is construed (Gallagher, Meaney &
Muldoon, 2014; Haslam, Jetten, O’brien and Jacobs, 2004).
The present study aims to contribute to the current literature in a number of ways.
Firstly, using a number of potentially stressful scenarios, the present study aims to further
support the SCT model of stress, by assessing whether students appraise stressful scenarios
that are specific to their identity (student-specific scenarios) as more stressful than scenarios
that are not specific to their identity (general scenarios). Secondly, research has been
highlighted showing how personality, coping, social support and gender relate to stress and
how coping and social support relate to stress when social identities are threatened. The
present study aims to expand this knowledge by exploring the differences between these
relationships when scenarios are threatening to both a personal identity and to a social identity
(student-specific scenarios), compared to when they are only threatening to a personal identity
(general scenarios). Finally, the present study aims to test the relationships between these
aforementioned variables across all scenarios and thus provide a clearer picture of these
variables and their relation to stress.
Based on the research outlined above, it is hypothesised that students will appraise
student-specific scenarios as more stressful than general scenarios, as they are not only
threatening to their personal identity, but also to their social identity. With regards to the
second aim, it is predicted that some differences will exist in the relationships between
personality, coping strategies, social support and gender with the appraisal of student-specific
scenarios and general scenarios; however the nature of current research does not enable
predictions to be made towards the exact nature of these differences. Finally, it is
hypothesised that the relationships between personality, coping strategies, perceived social
support and gender with stress appraisals will support those previously mentioned in this
article, such that higher levels of N, O, A, emotion- and avoidant-orientated coping strategies
will predict higher ratings of the stressful scenarios, whereas higher levels of E, C, task-
orientated coping and perceived social support will predict lower ratings of the stressful
scenarios. With regards to gender, it is predicted that a significant relationship will exist, such
that females are predicted to appraise scenarios as more stressful.

10. 10
Method
Design
A cross-sectional design, using an online survey was used to test the aims and
hypotheses of the present study. Stress appraisals were treated as the outcome variable,
whereby four stressful scenarios were split into two groups; student-specific scenarios and
general scenarios. Personality, coping strategies, social support and gender were used as
predictor variables of the outcome measure.
Participants
The current study consisted of 163 students, 103 (63.19%) of which were female and
61 were male (36.81%). Participants had an overall mean age of 21.44 (SD=3.77).
Participants were recruited either through an online forum (www.thestudentroom.co.uk),
social media, or the Nottingham Trent University research participation scheme. In the latter
case, participants were rewarded with research credits.
Materials
The materials included in this study consisted of four scales measuring personality,
coping strategies, perceived social support and stress appraisals.
Personality. Personality was measured using the 50-item IPIP representation of the
revised NEO personality inventory (NEO-PI-R) (Costa and McCrae, 1992). The NEO-PI-R is
perhaps one of the most powerful measures of personality and consists of five 10-item scales
measuring five personality traits: Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness to Experience,
Agreeableness and Conscientiousness. Each scale contains ten items in total, five of which are
reverse coded. Each item is measured on a scale 5-point likert scale (1 =very inaccurate to 5 =
very accurate), meaning that the minimum score for each trait is ten and the maximum score
is fifty. Strong concurrent validity has been found for the IPIP representation of the NEO-PI-
R and internal Cronbach’s alphas for the NEO-PI-R have been found to be typically high (see
table 1 for cronbach’s alphas associated with this study) (Costa and McCrae, 1992), strongly
supporting the use of these scales for research on personality.
Coping Strategies. Coping was measured using the 48-item Coping Inventory for
Stressful Situations Scale (CISS) (Endler and Parker, 1990b). The CISS consists of three
scales (16 questions each) measuring the participant’s use of task-, emotion- and avoidant-

11. 11
orientated coping strategies with 48 questions in total. Questions are answered on a 5-point
likert scale (1 = not at all to 5 = very much) meaning that for each scale, the minimum
possible score is 16 (suggesting low usage of the associated coping strategy) and the
maximum score is 80 (suggesting high usage of the associated coping strategy). Support for
the use of the CISS has been provided by Endler and Parker (1994) who found that the CISS
has strong construct and concurrent validity when compared with responses on previously
used measures of coping. Internal alpha reliability scores were also found to be moderately
high in the present study (see table 1).
Stressful scenarios. Four stressful scenarios were created for the purpose of
measuring primary appraisals in this study (see appendix A). Two scenarios were designed to
be ‘student-specific’ (e.g. computer crashing after doing half an hour of productive work on
an assignment), whereas the remaining two were designed to be general in the sense that
anybody from the general population could experience them (e.g. spilling coffee down
yourself). Six scenarios were originally created, however after piloting these scenarios to a
group of undergraduate students at Nottingham Trent University, two scenarios were removed
due to the fact that a ceiling effect was found. The remaining scenarios were refined
according to feedback, specifically the length of each scenario was shortened and some
irrelevant details were removed. Scenarios were kept relatively brief and participants were
asked to rate them on the level of stress that they would experience in each scenario on a scale
from 1 (No Stress At All) to 10 (Overwhelming Stress). For each group of scenarios then
(student scenarios and non-student scenarios) the minimum score possible was 2 and the
maximum score was 20, whereas for all four scenarios, the minimum score was 4 and the
maximum score was 40.
Social Support. Social support was measured using the Social Support
Questionnaire—Short Form (SSQ; Sarason, Sarason, Shearin & Pierce 1987), however this
scale was revised slightly so that it could be applied to an online survey design, as the original
SSQ is designed for pencil and paper responses. The original SSQ contains 6 questions
obtained from the original 27-item Social Support Questionnaire (Sarason, Levine, Basham &
Sarason 1983). In the 6-item SSQ, participants are required to list up to nine individuals
(giving their initials and their relationship to them), whom they feel that they can rely on for
support in six different situations. In addition to this, participants are asked to score their level
of satisfaction with this overall support on a 6-point likert scale (1 = very dissatisfied to 6 =
very satisfied) in each situation. Two scores are then provided by the SSQ. SSN refers to the
total number of individuals listed by the participant as being available for support across all

12. 12
six situations. A maximum score of 54 indicates a large amount of social support, whereas a
minimum score of 0 indicates a low amount of social support. SSS refers to the overall
satisfaction with this support. A maximum score of 36 indicates high overall satisfaction with
social support, whereas a minimum score of 6 indicates low overall satisfaction with social
support. For the purposes of this study however, the original 6-item SSQ was modified
slightly to suit the use of administration on an online survey. This revision involved editing
the SSN responses, such that participants were asked to list as many people that they thought
they could rely on for social support in stressful times. A minimum score of 0 then indicated a
low amount of social support whereas there was no possible maximum score, as participants
were able to list as many people as they wanted. The internal reliability alpha for this revised
scale was very high and similar to the alpha score reported in the original study (Sarason et
al.,1983), however this revision eventually required the removal of the SSN measure, due to
the fact that a large number of participants failed to follow the instructions provided, meaning
that many of their responses made it difficult to interpret their overall amount of social
support.
Procedure
A survey was created using the Bristol Online Surveys website,
http://www.survey.bris.ac.uk. This website was chosen to develop the survey as it was free,
easy to use and advertised friendly and prompt support. Using an online survey method was
most appropriate, given that the sample consisted of students, an audience known to be
particularly savvy with technology. In addition to this, an online survey design allowed for
the collection of a larger number of participants. The nature of this study however made
contact with participants somewhat difficult, meaning that some ethical issues raised,
particularly the right to withdraw. To overcome this, researchers requested that each
participant provided a unique identifier that could be used so that they could later withdraw
their data from the study, whilst also staying anonymous. Participants were required to give
informed consent at the beginning of the survey and were debriefed at the end.
Results
Prior to all analyses presented below, all assumptions were tested and proved to be
satisfied. The means and standard deviations for all of the variables are presented in table 1,

13. 13
along with internal Cronbach’s alpha scores. Intercorrelations between all variables are
displayed in table 2.
To test whether social identity processes influence the appraisal of stressful events, the
responses for student specific and non-student specific scenarios were compared using a
paired samples t-test. There was an overall significant difference between the appraisal of
student scenarios (mean = 13.34, SD = 3.42) and non-student scenarios (mean = 11.85, SD =
3.85); t(163)=5.51, p<0.001.
Table 1
Descriptive Statistics Displaying Means, Standard Deviations and Cronbach’s
Alpha’s for all Variables.
To test whether social identity influences the appraisal of stressful events, the
responses for student-specific and general scenarios were compared using a paired samples t-
test. There was an overall significant difference between the appraisal of student scenarios
(mean = 13.34, SD = 3.42) and non-student scenarios (mean = 11.85, SD = 3.85);
t(163)=5.51, p<0.001.
In order to test the relationship between personality, coping, social support and gender
with the appraisal of stressful scenarios across the two social contexts (student and general
scenarios), two multiple linear regression analyses were conducted. The predictor variables
were able to significantly account for 32% of the variance in the appraisal of student-specific
scenarios; F(10,152)=7.22, p<0.001 and 29% of the variance in the appraisal of general
Mean SD Cronbach’s
alpha
All Scenarios 25.19 6.43 0.62
Student Scenarios 13.34 3.42 0.49
General Scenarios 11.85 3.85 0.22
Neuroticism 28.09 8.02 0.87
Extraversion 30.92 7.65 0.88
Openness 35.01 6.31 0.79
Agreeableness 36.90 6.06 0.82
Conscientiousness 32.92 6.94 0.86
Task-Coping 55.94 9.54 0.90
Emotional-Coping 48.10 11.08 0.89
Avoidant-Coping 49.21 10.23 0.83
Social Support Satisfaction 30.28 5.87 0.93
Scenario 1 7.25 1.85
Scenario 2 6.10 2.33
Scenario 3 6.67 2.67
Scenario 4 5.18 2.47

14. 14
scenarios; F(10,152)=6.21, p<0.001. Emotion-orientated coping and gender were the only
significant predictors for the appraisal of both student-specific scenarios and general
scenarios, such that higher levels of emotion-orientated coping predicted higher appraisals of
the stressful scenarios and females were predicted to rate the scenarios as more stressful than
males. Both of these relationships were moderately weak (see table 3).
Table 2
Intercorrelations Between All Variables.
Note. *p<0.05 **p<0.01, ***p<0.001; N=Neuroticism, E=Extraversion, O=Openness,
A=Agreeableness, C=Conscientiousness, TC=Task-orientated Coping, EC=Emotion-
orientated Coping, AC=Avoidant-orientated Coping, SS=Social Support Satisfaction,
SSc=Student Scenarios, GSc=Generak Scenarios, ASc=All Scenarios.
A third regression analysis was conducted to assess the relationships between
personality, coping, social support and gender with the appraisal of all four of the scenarios
together and indicated that these variables were able to significantly account for 37% of the
variance in the appraisal of all four of the scenarios together; F(10,152)=8.99, p<0.001.
Emotion-orientated coping and gender were the only significant predictors for the appraisal of
all four scenarios together, such that higher levels of emotion-orientated coping predicted
higher ratings of the four scenarios and females were predicted to rate the scenarios as more
stressful than males. Both of these relationships were again moderately weak (see table 3).
Given that gender was consistently significant across all three regression analyses,
further tests were conducted to explore this finding further. Firstly, two paired samples t-tests
were carried out to assess whether both males and females rated student-specific scenarios as
more stressful than the general scenarios. Findings showed that both males t(59)=2.96,
p<0.001 and females t(102)=4.85, p<0.001 rated the student-specific scenarios as more
stressful than the general scenarios. Following this, four regression analyses were carried out
E O A C TC EC AC SS SSc GSc ASc
N -.47*** .045 -.25** -.285*** -.406*** .698*** .001 -.273*** .29*** .32*** .35***
E .07 .15 .18* .19* -.34*** .19* .24** -.21** -.20* .23**
O .28*** .03 .11 -.03 .01 .04 -.04 .02 -.01
A .30*** .14 -.30*** .00 .14 .09 -.01 .04
C .53*** .31*** .06 .15 .14 -.03 .06
TC -.24** .16* .19* .02 -.14 -.07
EC .22** -.09 .36*** .41*** .44***
AC .21** .10 .02 .06
SS .05 -.01 .02
SSc .56*** .87***
GSc .90***

15. 15
to explore the relationships between personality, coping and social support with the appraisal
of student-specific scenarios and general scenarios for males and for females, separately. The
predictor variables were able to significantly predict 18.6% of the variance in females ratings
of student-specific scenarios; F(9, 93)=2.36, p=0.019 and 28% of the variance in females
ratings of general scenarios; F(9, 93)=4.02, p<0.001. Neither models for males ratings of
student-specific scenarios and general scenarios were however significant.
The regression models indicated that females’ emotion-orientated coping was a
significant predictor of females’ ratings of the student-specific scenarios, such that higher
levels of emotion-orientated coping in females predicted higher ratings of student-specific
scenarios. Additionally, emotion-orientated and avoidance-orientated coping were significant
predictors for females’ ratings of general scenarios, whereby higher levels of emotion-
orientated coping in females predicted higher ratings and avoidance-orientated coping
predictor lower levels of general scenarios. None of the predictor variables were however able
to significantly predict males ratings of student-specific scenarios and general scenarios. See
table 3 for a summary of all regression analyses.
Finally, in addition to the consistent finding that gender is significantly able to predict
the ratings of stressful scenarios, emotion-orientated coping was also consistently found to be
able to significantly predict ratings in stressful scenarios. Therefore, an independent samples
t-tests was conducted to assess if a significant difference existed in the use of emotion-
orientated coping styles between males and females. Results indicated that in this sample, the
use of emotion-orientated coping was significantly higher for females (mean = 50.14, SD =
10.17) than for males (mean = 44.60, SD = 11.75); t(161)=3.16, p=0.002.

16. 16
Table 3
Summary of all Regression Analyses with Model Summaries and Significant Predictor
Variables.
Note. *p<0.05 **p<0.01, ***p<0.001.
Discussion
The present study had three aims. These aims were tested using a cross-sectional
survey design, whereby a battery of questionnaires measuring personality, coping, perceived
social support and gender were administered to a sample of students. In addition to this,
participants were asked to rate four stressful scenarios on their level of stressfulness, these
scenarios were designed to be either student-specific, so that they threatened participants
social identity or general, such that anybody from the general public could experience them.
The first aim was to provide support for the SCT model of stress by assessing whether
students appraise student-specific scenarios as more stressful than general scenarios. Based on
previous research it was hypothesized that students would rate student-specific scenarios as
more stressful, as they threaten participants’ social identity and personal identity, whereas the
general scenarios only threaten participants’ personal identity.
Support was provided for the SCT model of stress, as participants rated the student-
specific scenarios as more stressful than the general scenarios. This is arguably due to the fact
that these scenarios were more threatening to participants’ social identities. According to
Tajfel (1979), social identities are an important source of an individual’s pride and self-
esteem, which would perhaps explain why these scenarios were rated as more stressful. This
finding also supports those of previous research. For example Levine and Reicher (1996) and
Levine (1999) found very similar findings suggesting that when participants’ identity is made
Dependent Variable 𝑹 𝟐 SE(𝜷) p Gender Emotio
n
Coping
Avoidance
Coping
All Scenarios 0.37 5.26 <0.001 -0.35*** 0.37***
Student Scenarios 0.32 2.91 <0.001 -0.30*** 0.28**
General Scenarios 0.29 3.35 <0.001 -0.32*** 0.37***
Females – Student
Scenarios
0.19 2.77 0.019 0.29*
Females – General
Scenarios
0.28 3.22 <0.001 0.28*** -0.24*
Males – Student
Scenarios
0.17 3.35 0.34
Males – General
Scenarios
0.14 3.46 0.560

17. 17
salient (as a female for example), they are much more likely to rate scenarios that threaten this
identity (scar on face), as more severe than scenarios that do not threaten this identity. As
these studies are somewhat dated, the findings of the present study provide up to date support
for the SCT model of stress.
A second aim was to explore the SCT model of stress further by assessing the
differences in the relationships between the ratings of student-specific scenarios and general
scenarios with personality, coping strategies, perceived social support and gender. It was
hypothesized that differences would exist amongst these relationships however research in
this area is limited, meaning that the exact nature of these differences was not possible to
predic. No differences were however found in the relationships between the predictor
variables and the appraisal of student-specific scenarios and general scenarios, as only
emotion-orientated coping and gender were significant predictors across both groups of
scenarios. This finding suggests that despite the fact that students perceive student-specific
scenarios as more stressful than general scenarios, the factors that are involved in the
appraisal process do not differ, regardless of whether a stressful event is threatening to the
individuals social identity or not.
Additional analyses suggested however that gender differences existed in the
relationships between coping and stress appraisals. Specifically, emotion-orientated coping
was a significant predictor of females’ ratings of student-specific scenarios. In addition to
this, females’ ratings of general scenarios were predicted by avoidance-orientated coping, as
well as emotion-orientated coping, such that increased levels of avoidance-orientated coping
predicted lower ratings of general scenarios. None of the predictor variables were however
significant for males’ ratings of student-specific and general scenarios. This provides
moderate support for the second hypothesis, as females used a wider variety of coping
strategies for general scenarios compared to student-specific scenarios.
A possible explanation for why avoidance-orientated coping was a significant
predictor of females’ ratings of general scenarios, but not for student-specific scenarios, may
be that general scenarios were seen as easier to avoid than student-specific scenarios, as they
did not threaten their social identity. This may further explain why student-specific scenarios
were rated as more stressful, as participants were unable to use avoidance-orientated coping
styles, which they may have preferred to use, evidenced by the reasonably high scores of the
avoidance-orientated coping.
Finally, the third aim of this study was to test the relationships between the
personality, coping, social support and gender with stress appraisals across all four scenarios

18. 18
and thus create a clearer picture of how these variables relate to stress. It was hypothesized
that the relationships between these variables with stress appraisals would support those of
previous research, whereby higher levels of N, O, A, emotion- and avoidant-orientated coping
strategies will predict higher ratings of the stressful scenarios. Whereas E, C, task-orientated
coping and perceived social support would predict lower ratings of the stressful scenarios.
With regards to gender, it was predicted that a significant relationship would exist, such that
females would be predicted to appraise scenarios as more stressful. Only moderate support
was found for this third hypothesis, as across all four scenarios only emotion-orientated
coping and gender were significantly able to predict the variance in stress appraisals, such that
females and individuals that reported higher usage of emotion-orientated coping were
predicted to rate scenarios as more stressful.
Social support typically buffers the effects of stress on health and wellbeing (Cohen
and Wills, 1985) and has positive effects on academic stress when used as a coping
mechanism (Baqutayan, 2011). The findings of the present study however suggest that social
support had no effect on the way in which events are appraised, which contradicts previous
research (Gidron & Nyklicek, 2009). This contradiction with previous research can perhaps
be explained by the fact that the measure of stress appraisals in the present study involved
reading imaginary scenarios. To evidence this point, Gidron and Nyklicek (2009) used a
similar design to the present study, using a series of scenarios to measure estimated levels of
distress. However, a significant difference however was that social support was embedded
into each scenario, for example some scenarios stated that the participants were with friends,
whereas other scenarios did not. This yielded the finding that social support significantly
affected the levels of estimated distress reported by participants, suggesting that by actively
making participants imagine that friends exist in a stressful situation, social support can have
a positive effect on estimated distress. Upon re-reading the scenarios in the present study, an
important factor was found that very likely confounded the relationship between social
support and stress appraisals. For instance, in one of the scenarios (scenario three),
participants were explicitly told that they were alone, whereas in two of the remaining
scenarios, it can be assumed that participants imagined themselves to be alone (scenarios one
and four). In line with the findings of Gidron and Nyklicek (2009), this is a likely reason for
why social support failed to significantly predict stress appraisals, as participants likely
imagined themselves to be alone in three of the four scenarios.
With regards to personality, it is surprising that none of the five personality traits were
significant predictors of stress appraisals, as previous research consistently reports a

19. 19
relationship between personality traits and stress appraisals (Schneider et al., 2012; Kaiseler et
al., 2012). Carver & Connor-Smith (2010) and Connor-Smith and Flachsbart (2007) suggest
that personality facets may reveal relationships with coping styles that are not seen at trait
level and it is suggested that this could be extended to a relationship between personality
facets and stress appraisals to indicate a more clear-cut relationship between personality and
stress appraisals (Schneider et al., 2012). Similarly, Carver and Connor-smith (2010) also
suggest that the relationships between personality and coping are best revealed in high
intensity stressors (e.g. bereavement and chronic illness). This may again be the case for the
relationship between personality and stress appraisals, though the scenarios in the present
study were designed to only elicit small amounts of stress. This possibly explains why no
significant relationships were found between personality and stress appraisals. An alternative
explanation may again arise from the fact the scenarios in this study may not have adequately
reflected real life events and thus provided little room of individual differences to operate.
The fact that gender was a significant predictor of the ratings of all four scenarios is in
line with previous research, as research often shows that females appraise events as more
severe than males (McDonough & Walters, 2001; Matud, 2004; Kimhi & Shamai, 2006;
Simmons, 2010; Ben-Zur & Zeidner, 2012), which subsequently leads to an increased
vulnerability to higher morbidity rates in females (Mayor, 2015). Similarly, the fact that
emotion-orientated coping was a consistent predictor of higher stress appraisals across both
types of scenarios is also in line with previous research, as research shows that emotion-
orientated coping styles are associated with increased levels of depressive symptoms (Yung et
al., 2013; Endler et al., 1993). This suggests that students that tend to engage in more
emotion-orientated coping styles subsequently appraise situations as more stressful, which
perhaps makes them more vulnerable to developing negative health issues such as anxiety and
depression. Further to this idea, findings of the present study indicated that female
participants reported that they engaged in emotion-orientated coping styles significantly more
than males did. This is also in line with previous research that suggests that females often tend
to engage in more maladaptive coping strategies such as emotion- and avoidance-orientated
coping (Ashley & Kleinpeter, 2008; Matud, 2004). This strongly suggests that a link may
exist between females’ use of coping strategies and their overall health outcomes, as it is
likely that these negative health outcomes are caused by the use of more maladaptive coping
strategies.
These gender differences somewhat concur with the current literature as Tamres et al.
(2002) suggests that females are more likely to engage in most styles of coping, specifically

20. 20
more maladaptive coping strategies such as emotion-orientated and avoidance-orientated
coping. Moreover, the fact that avoidance-orientated coping predicted lower female appraisals
of general scenarios can be explained by the fact that avoidance-orientated coping is typically
effective in reducing the effects of stress in the short term (Lavoie, 2013; LeBlanc et al.,
2011; Moos, 2002). Importantly, research agrees that excessive use of avoidance-orientated
coping styles can have damaging effects in the long term. A recent meta-analytic review
found for example that in females living with HIV, the use of avoidance-orientated coping
predicts more severe mental health outcomes and substance abuse (Mcintosh & Rosselli,
2012). As such, students should be advised not to engage in avoidance-orientated coping
strategies.
It is important to note that a number of limitations existed within the present study.
Firstly and most importantly, the scenarios that were created for the purposes of this study
may not have been psychometrically sound, as they were only piloted once to a sample of
students, suggesting that findings should be interpreted with caution. Secondly, it may have
been that the student-specific scenarios were in fact just more stressful than the general
scenarios and that this stressfulness cannot be attributed to the SCT approach to stress.
Additionally, as already discussed above, the use of imaginary scenarios may not have
adequately reflected real life events and findings can therefore not be generalized far beyond
this study. Thirdly, a strong weakness of the present study is the use of a cross-sectional
design, as DeLongis and Holtzman (2005) point out, a weakness of cross-sectional and panel
designs is the heavy reliance on retrospective accounts of stress and coping processes. Finally,
a key issue arises when measuring dispositional coping styles is that, although there is
evidence to suggest that coping styles are consistent and stable over time (Endler & Parker,
1990), Lazarus and Folkman (1984) describe coping as a process that can vary across
situations.
In accordance with the findings and limitations of the present study, a number of
directions exist for future research. Firstly, the findings of the present study could be
strengthened, given that slight revisions are made to the outcome measure. More specifically,
using a wider variety of stressful scenarios across both a student-specific and a general
context would allow for a more realistic view on how personality, coping, social support and
gender operate within the stress process, both when social identity processes are considered
and when they are not. Secondly, stronger support for the SCT approach to stress would arise
from a comparative study design, comparing the ratings of student-specific and general
scenarios across a student sample and a non-student sample. This could ultimately provide

21. 21
clear-cut evidence that the increased ratings of student-specific scenarios are attributed to the
way in which individuals identify themselves. Thirdly, in the present study, neither
personality, coping or social support appeared to be a significant predictor of males’ ratings of
stressful scenarios, whereas coping could predict some of the variance in females’ ratings of
stressful scenarios. This should be an area for future research to address. Finally,
contemporary research suggests that personality facets may be better able to explain the
relationship between personality and stress that cannot be seen at trait level. This is something
that future research should consider when studying personality and stress.
To conclude, the findings of the present study provided strong support for the SCT
model of stress and have given further insight into the factors that are involved in the
cognitive appraisal process. Most specifically, students appraised student-specific scenarios as
more stressful than general scenarios and coping appeared to be a significant predictor of
these appraisals, but only for female participants. A number of limitations of the study design
have however been highlighted which have ultimately guided potential directions for future
research.

22. 22
References
Ashley, N. R., & Kleinpeter, C. H. (2008). Gender Differences in Coping Strategies of
Spousal Dementia Caregivers, 1359(February 2015), 37–41.
Baqutayan, S. (2011). Stress and social support. Indian journal of psychological medicine,
33(1), 29.
Ben-Zur, H. (1999). The effectiveness of coping meta-strategies: Perceived efficiency,
emotional correlates and cognitive performance. Personality and Individual Differences,
26(5), 923–939.
Ben-Zur, H., & Zeidner, M. (2012). Gender differences in loss of psychological resources
following experimentally-induced vicarious stress. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 25(4),
457–75.
Bibbey, A., Carroll, D., Roseboom, T. J., Phillips, A. C., & de Rooij, S. R. (2013). Personality
and physiological reactions to acute psychological stress. International Journal of
Psychophysiology, 90(1), 28–36.
Bremner, J. D. (1999). Does stress damage the brain?. Biological psychiatry, 45(7), 797-805.
Budaev, S. V. (1999). Sex di€erences in the Big Five personality factors: Testing an
evolutionary hypothesis. Personality and Individual Differences, 26, 801–813.
Carver, C. S., & Connor-Smith, J. (2010). Personality and Coping. Annual Review of
Psychology, 61(1), 679–704.
Chao, R. C. (2011). Coping , and Avoidant Coping. Journal of Counseling & Development,
89, 338–349.
Cohen, S., & Wills, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis.
Psychological bulletin, 98(2), 310.
Connor-Smith, J. K., & Flachsbart, C. (2007). Relations between personality and coping: A
meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(6), 1080–1107.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (Neo-PI-R)
and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI): Professional manual. Odessa, FL:
Psychological Assessment Resources.
DeLongis, A., & Holtzman, S. (2005). Coping in context: The role of stress, social support,
and personality in coping. Journal of Personality, 73(6), 1633–1656.
Devonport, T. J., & Lane, A. M. (2006). Cognitive appraisal of dissertation stress among
undergraduate students. The Psychological Record, 56(2), 259.
Endler, N. S., & Parker, J. D. A. (1990a). Coping Inventory for Stressful Situations (CISS):
Manual. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.

23. 23
Endler, N. S., & Parker, J. D. A. (1990b). Multidimensional assessment of coping: A critical
evaluation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 844-854.
Endler, N. S., Parker, J. D., & Summerfeldt, L. J. (1993). Coping with health problems:
Conceptual and methodological issues. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue
canadienne des sciences du comportement, 25(3), 384.
Endler, N. S., & Parker, J. D. (1994). Assessment of multidimensional coping: Task, emotion,
and avoidance strategies. Psychological assessment, 6(1), 50.
Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1980). An analysis of coping in a middle-aged community
sample. Journal of health and social behavior, 219-239.
Ford, K., Olotu, B., Thach, A., Roberts, R., & Davis, P. (2014). Factors contributing to
perceived stress among doctor of pharmacy (PharmD) students. College Student Journal,
48(2), 189-198.
Gallagher, S., Meaney, S., & Muldoon, O. T. (2014). Social identity influences stress
appraisals and cardiovascular reactions to acute stress exposure. British Journal of
Health Psychology, 19(3), 566–579.
Haslam, S. A., Jetten, J., O’Brien, A., & Jacobs, E. (2004). Social identity, social influence
and reactions to potentially stressful tasks: Support for the self-categorization model of
stress. Stress and Health, 20(1), 3–9.
Haslam, A. S., O’Brien, A., Jetten, J., Vormedal, K., & Penna, S. (2005). Taking the strain:
Social iden- tity, social support, and the experience of stress. British Journal of Social
Psychology, 44, 355–370.
Haslam, A. S., & Reicher, S. D. (2006). Stressing the group: Social identity and the unfolding
dynamics of responses to stress. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1037–1052.
Haslam, A. S., & Reicher, S. D. (2007). Social identity and the dynamics of organizational
life: In- sights from the BBC prison study. In S. B. C. Bartel & A. Wrzesniewski (Ed.),
Identity and the modern organization (pp. 135–166). New York, NY: Erlbaum.
Hurst, C. S., Baranik, L. E., & Daniel, F. (2013). College student stressors: A review of the
qualitative research. Stress and Health, 29(4), 275-285. Janicki-deverts, D., & Miller, G.
E. (2007). Psychological Stress and Disease, 298(14), 1685–1687.
Jetten, J., Haslam, S. A. & Haslam, C. (2011). The case for a social identity analysis in health
and well-being. In The social cure: Identity, health, and well-being (pp. 22–37). New
York, NY: Psychology Press.
Kaiseler, M., Polman, R. C. J., & Nicholls, A. R. (2012). Effects of the Big Five personality
dimensions on appraisal coping, and coping effectiveness in sport. European Journal of
Sport Science, 12(1), 62–72.
Kellezi, B., & Reicher, S. D. (2011). “Social cure or social curse?:” The psychological impact
of ex- treme events during the Kosovo conflict. In C. H. J. Jetten, C. Haslam, & S. A.

24. 24
Haslam (Eds.), The social cure: Identity, health, and well-being (pp. 217–233). New
York, NY: Psychology Press.
Kimhi, S., & Shamai, M. (2006). Are Women at Higher Risk Than Men? Gender Differences
Among Teenagers and Adults in Their Response to Threat of War and Terror. Women &
Health, 43(3), 123–137.
Kulsoom, B., & Afsar, N. A. (2015). Stress, anxiety, and depression among medical students
in a multiethnic setting. Neuropsychiatric disease and treatment, 11, 1713.
Lavoie, J. A. A. (2013). Eye of the Beholder: Perceived Stress, Coping Style, and Coping
Effectiveness Among Discharged Psychiatric Patients. Archives of Psychiatric Nursing,
27(4), 185–190.
Lazarus, R. S. (1966). Psychological stress and the coping process.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. Springer publishing
company.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1991). The concept of coping.
LeBlanc, V. R., Regehr, C., Birze, A., King, K., Scott, A. K., MacDonald, R., & Tavares, W.
(2011). The association between posttraumatic stress, coping, and acute stress responses
in paramedics. Traumatology, 17(4), 10–16.
Lehmann, R., Denissen, J. J., Allemand, M., & Penke, L. (2013). Age and gender differences
in motivational manifestations of the Big Five from age 16 to 60. Developmental
Psychology, 49(2), 365.
Levine, M., Prosser, A., Evans, D., & Reicher, S. (2005). Identity and emergency
intervention: How social group membership and inclusiveness of group boundaries
shape helping behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(4), 443–453.
Levine, R. M., & Reicher, S. D. (1996). Making sense of symptoms: Self-categorization and
the meaning of illness and injury. British Journal of Social Psychology, 35(2), 245-256.
Levine, M. (1999). Identity and illness: The effects of identity salience and frame of reference
on evaluation of illness and injury. British Journal of Health Psychology, 4, 63–80.
Lord, C., Andrews, J., & Fiocco, A. J. (2011). Chronic stress , cognitive functioning and
mental health, (November 2015).
Matud, M. P. (2004). Gender differences in stress and coping styles. Personality and
individual differences, 37(7), 1401-1415.
Mayor, E. (2015). Gender roles and traits in stress and health. Frontiers in Psychology, 6,
779.
McDonough, P., & Walters, V. (2001). Gender and health: Reassessing patterns and
explanations. Social Science and Medicine, 52(4), 547–559.

25. 25
McIntosh, R. C., & Rosselli, M. (2012). Stress and coping in women living with HIV: a meta-
analytic review. AIDS and Behavior, 16(8), 2144-2159.
Moos, R. H. (2002). 2001 INVITED ADDRESS: The Mystery of Human Context and
Coping: An Unraveling of Clues. American journal of community psychology, 30(1), 67-
88.
Penley, J. a., & Tomaka, J. (2002). Associations among the Big Five, emotional responses,
and coping with acute stress. Personality and Individual Differences, 32(7), 1215–1228.
Sarason, I. G., Levine, H. M., Basham, R. B., & Sarason, B. R. (1983). Assessing social
support: the social support questionnaire. Journal of personality and social psychology,
44(1), 127.
Sarason, I. G., Sarason, B. R., Shearin, E. N., & Pierce, G. R. (1987). A brief measure of
social support: Practical and theoretical implications. Journal of social and personal
relationships, 4(4), 497-510.
Sarrasin, O., Mayor, E., & Faniko, K. (2014). Gender Traits and Cognitive Appraisal in
Young Adults: The Mediating Role of Locus of Control. Sex Roles, 70(3-4), 122–133.
Schmitt, D. P., Realo, A., Voracek, M., & Allik, J. (2008). Why can't a man be more like a
woman? Sex differences in Big Five personality traits across 55 cultures. Journal of
personality and social psychology, 94(1), 168.
Schneider, T. R., Rench, T. a, Lyons, J. B., & Riffle, R. R. (2012). The influence of
neuroticism, extraversion and openness on stress responses. Stress and Health, 28(2),
102–110.
Schwarzer, R., & Schwarzer, C. (1996). A critical survey of coping instruments. Handbook of
coping: Theory, research, applications, 107-132.
Seiffge-Krenke, I., & Klessinger, N. (2000). Long-term effects of avoidant coping on
adolescents’ depressive symptoms. Journal of Youth and Adolesence, 29(6), 617–630.
Shan, Y., Lee, C., Suchday, S., & Wylie-rosett, J. (2012). Perceived Social Support , Coping
Styles , and Chinese Immigrants ’ Cardiovascular Responses to Stress, 174–185.
Simmons, A. (2010). Gender differences in the appraisal of violent crime experiences: A
qualitative study. Victims & Offenders, 5(4), 371.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. The social
psychology of intergroup relations, 33(47), 74.
Tajfel, H.,&Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In
S.Worchel,&W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup behavior (pp. 7–24).
Chicago: Nelson Hall.

26. 26
Tamres, L. K., Janicki, D., & Helgeson, V. S. (2002). Sex Differences in Coping Behavior: A
Meta-Analytic Review and an Examination of Relative Coping. Personality and Social
Psychology Review, 6(1), 2–30.
Tong, E. M. W., Bishop, G. D., Diong, S. M., Enkelmann, H. C., Why, Y. P., Ang, J., &
Khader, M. (2004). Social support and personality among male police officers in
Singapore. Personality and Individual Differences, 36(1), 109–123.
Turner, J. C. (1985). Social categorization and the self-concept: A social cognitive theory of
group behavior. Advances in group processes, 2, 77-122.
Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987).
Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Basil Blackwell.
Vianello, M., Schnabel, K., Sriram, N., & Nosek, B. (2013). Gender differences in implicit
and explicit personality traits. Personality and Individual Differences, 55(8), 994–999.
Vollrath, M. (2001). Personality and stress. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 42(4), 335-
347.
Weisberg, Y. J., DeYoung, C. G., & Hirsh, J. B. (2011). Gender differences in personality
across the ten aspects of the Big Five.
Yung, E., O'Loughlin, J., Dugas, E., O'Loughlin, E., Karp, I., & Low, N. C. (2013). Emotion
and task oriented coping styles modify the effect of stressful life events on depressive
symptoms in young adults. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 54(8), e39.
Zhang, L.-F. (2012). Personality traits and occupational stress among Chinese academics.
Educational Psychology, 32(7), 807–820.

27. 27
Appendix
Stressful Scenarios
“Please read the following scenarios and rate them on the level of stress you would
experience in each scenario on a scale from 1 (no stress at all) to 10 (overwhelming stress).”
Scenario 1:
“You have been working on an assignment for the past half an hour and you feel that you
have got a fair amount of work done, however your computer crashes and you forgot to save
what you had done.”
Scenario 2:
“Your lecturer tells you that you have to give a group presentation at the end of the year that
you will be graded on, however there are a few members of your group that you really do not
get along with.”
Scenario 3:
“You are having lunch on your own in a local café. You purchase your food and drink and sit
down at a table and you accidentally knock over and it spills all down your clothes.”
Scenario 4:
“It is late and you are in the middle of town but you’re not entirely sure how far you are from
home, you have no money on you and no way of contacting anybody.”