This is a quantitative study conducted in Sri Lanka using a sample size of 137 executives in the private sector. Findings can be useful when designing stress management interventions and recruitment and selection process.

1. Mediating Effect of
Coping Strategies
in the Relationship between
Big Five Factors and
Psychological Distress
A quantitative study on private sector executives in Sri Lanka
Presentation by
Jayamini Samarathunge
(MBA (HRM), MSc. Applied Psychology,
BSc. Accountancy (Special), MCIM, Certified Coach,
NLP Trainer & Hypnotherapist)

2. Introduction
 Mental health problems in the workplace have taken on a great deal of importance
in the research literature over the last years.
 This is due in part to effects on individual well-being and the massive costs to
organisations due to employee absenteeism, turnover and reduced performance
(Vearing and Mak 2007:1745), lost business productivity, income replacement
outlays and health service use (Marchand, Demers, and Durand 2005: 2).
 It is identified that the negative effect of PD not only affects the work performance
of employees but can also contribute to wider social problems.
 Mental and behavioural problems associated with PD are in the rise in Sri Lankan
business organisations. This trend can be observed across all industries and
business sectors with noticeable effect in the private sector.
 Researchers have come to the conclusion that mental distress experienced by
employees is not solely the direct consequence of a stressor-strain relationship.
 Marchand, Demers and Durand (2006) concluded that only 11% of the variation in
distress was associated with work factors alone, while 21% of the variation was
associated with personal factors, such as personality, family, and social network.

3. Introduction (contd.)
 Among the individual characteristics which have the potential of
moderating stressors-strain relationship, personality is more prevalent
as it can influence each stage of the stress process: exposure to stress,
appraisal of the event as stressful, coping, and response (Grant and
Langan-Fox 2006: 160).
 Although situational factors explain a significant change in coping
responses, personality is considered as an important influence almost
in every aspect of the stress coping process (Lee-Baggley, Preece, and
DeLongis 2005: 1142).
 Personality has been associated to the probability of the occurrence of
stressful events, the appraisal of an event as stressful, the possibility
of using certain coping strategies, and the effectiveness of those
coping strategies (DeLongis and Holtzman 2005:15).

4. Research Objective
To find out whether Primary Coping
Strategies (PCS) mediate the
relationship between Big Five Factors
(BFFs) and Psychological Distress (PD),
and if mediation exists to what extent it
mediates this relationship.

5. Conceptual Framework

6. Research Model
Dependent Variable
Independent
Variables
Mediating Variables
• Extraversion
• Neuroticism
• Agreeableness
• Openness to
Experience
• Conscientiousness
Psychological Distress
• Problem Solving
• Cognitive
Restructuring
• Express Emotions
• Social Support
• Problem Avoidance
• Wishful Thinking
• Self Criticism
• Social Withdrawal

7. Literature Review
 TRANSACTIONAL STRESS THEORY
By Lazarus and Folkman (1984) has been the principal model in psychological stress
research. It recognises the impact of an individual’s thoughts and behaviours on stress.
The fundamental proposition of this theory is that, stress does not result purely due to the
environmental factors or personal variables, but results from the ongoing relationship
between them, which is called the transaction.
 PERSONALITY AND STRESS
A study conducted in Malaysia taking 120 academic administrators of a university, revealed
that there was a significant relationship between personalities with work related stress
(Desa et al. 2014).
A recent Chinese study conducted by taking 1738 medical undergraduates, reported that
Agreeableness and Openness to Experience were negatively related to depressive
symptoms while Neuroticism was positively related to the same symptoms (Shia et al.
2015).
 PERSONALITY AND COPING
A research conducted in Iran by taking a sample of 4268 non-academic employees,
concluded that some personality traits are associated with passive copings and cause high
stress level, therefore it was suggested improving and strengthening effective coping
strategies in individuals with maladaptive traits as a crucial component of prevention and
control programs of stress (Afshar et al. 2015: 353).
A META analysis studying the associations between personality and coping confirmed the
relationship between the two variables (Connor-smith and Flachsbart 2007: 1080).

8. Literature Review (Contd.)
 BIG FIVE FACTORS AND STRESS COPING
The research to date indicates that the BFFs are important in every aspect of the
stress process (Vollrath 2001; 338).
Karimazde and Besharat (2011), in their study investigating the relationship
between personality dimensions and stress coping found that all Big Five
dimensions were associated with coping strategies.
Penly and Tomaka (2002) also confirmed that BFFs are associated with perceived
stress and coping strategies.
A META analysis testing moderators of relations between BFFs and coping
identified that personality was weakly related to broad coping strategies such as
‘Engagement’ or ‘Disengagement’, however, predicted specific coping strategies:
Extraversion and Conscientiousness predicted more problem-solving and cognitive
restructuring and Neuroticism less on those but more on disengagement
strategies like Wishful Thinking and Social Withdrawal (Connor-Smith and
Flachsbart 2007: 1080).

9.  STRESS AND COPING
Relationship between stress and coping is well established in research.
In a study conducted on mediating effects of coping strategies in the relationship between
automatic negative thoughts and depression, found that emotion-focused coping
functioned as a partial mediator between negative thoughts and depression (Clarke and
Goosen 2009: 460).
In a study held in Japan examining the relationship between depression and stress coping
strategy among the general population, it was found that depression was positively
associated with avoidant strategies but negatively with problem-solving strategies (Nagase
et al. 2009).
 MEDIATING EFFECT OF COPING
In a recent study conducted in Cyprus using a 489 community sample, in order to establish
the meditational relationship, Baron and Kenny (1986) approach was applied. This study
found out that there is a meditational effect of dispositional coping on the relationship
between personality and distress (Panayiotou, Kokkinos and Kapsou 2014).
A recent study conducted in Hungary taking 1140 adults, concluded that Extraversion and
Conscientiousness are mediated by the approach belief system which includes positive
thinking, sense of control, sense of coherence and sense of self-growth, and self-regulating
coping systems encompassing synchronicity, impulse control, emotion control and
irritability control (Mirnics et al. 2013).
Literature Review (Contd.)

10. Methodology – Sample
 Purposive Sample
 Sample size: 137 working executives (Job roles: : Executive, Senior Executive,
Head of Department, Assistant Manager, Manager and Director)
 Industries: IT, garment, banking, manufacturing, and hotel
 Response rate: 91%
 Education background
 27% of the participants had Bachelor’s degree
 21% had postgraduate qualifications
 52% had other professional qualifications, GCE O/L and A/L
 Gender
 68% of the participants – Males
 32% of the participants - Females
 Mean age: 34.1 years (SD=7.34)

11. Methodology - Measures
 The Big Five Inventory (BFI)
 A 44 item, 5-point Likert type scale
 Measuring the Five Dimensions of a Personality:
Extraversion, Neuroticism, Agreeableness, and Openness to experience and
Conscientiousness
 The Cronbach's alpha for the BFI ranges from 0.70 to 0.80
 Coping Strategy Inventory (CSI)
 A 72 item, 5-point Likert type scale
 Provided scores for primary, secondary and tertiary subscales of coping strategies
 The Cronbach's alpha for the CSI range from 0.71 to 0.94
 Kessler’s Psychological Distress Scale (K10)
 A 10 item, 5-point Likert type scale
 Measure the extent and the severity of generalised distress in the preceding month
 The Cronbach's alpha for the K10 is in the range of 0.90
 Previously validated in Sri Lanka

12. Methodology - Analysis
 The goal of mediation analysis is to establish the extent to
which some putative causal variable X influences some
outcome variable Y through one or more mediator variables.
 Four distinct steps of the the approach proposed by Baron
and Kenny (1986) for establishing the mediation:
 Step 1: Show that the independent variables are correlated with the
dependent variable
 Step 2: Show that the independent variable is correlated with the
mediator
 Step 3: Show that the mediator is significantly related to the
dependent variable
 Step 4: Establish mediation

13. Methodology – Analysis (contd.)
 The effects of the independent variables (BFFs) on the dependent variable (PD) were
measured while controlling for the mediator (PCS). (Regression Analysis and Pearson
Correlation)
 If the relationship is reduced to nonsignificant levels, a full mediation is demonstrated
while a partial mediation occurs when the correlation between BFFs and PD is
reduced but still significant.
Model 1: Variable X that is expected to
cause variable Y. The variable X is called
the causal variable and the variable that
it causes (Y) is called the outcome
variable. Path C indicates the Total
Effect.
Model 2: The effect of X on Y may be mediated
by a mediating variable M, and the variable X
may still affect Y. Path C’ in the mediated
model indicates the Direct Effect and path A –
B indicates the Indirect Effect.

14. Results - Correlations
Variable
PsychologicalDistress
(K10Score)
ProblemSolving
CognitiveRestructuring
ExpressEmotions
SocialSupport
ProblemAvoidance
WishfulThinking
Self-criticism
SocialWithdrawal
Extraversion .053 .148 .170* .126 .245** -.150 -.026 .076 -.220**
Agreeableness .409** .034 .123 -.127 .072 -.075 -.157 -.290** -.190*
Conscientiousness .231** .267** .247** -.137 .048 -.232** -.260** -.337** -.187*
Neuroticism -.488** -.118 -.176* .142 .059 .109 .321** .250** .181*
Openness to
experience
.184* .104 .193* .097 .037 .042 -.029 -.015 .095
Correlations of Dependent, Independent and Mediating Variables
Note *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Note **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Note. PD indicated by K10 was inversely scored.
• PD was correlated with all BFFs except Extraversion
• Several significant correlations between BFFs and
PCS were noticed:
- Extraversion was correlated with Cognitive Restructuring, Social Support
and Social Withdrawal
- Neuroticism was correlated with all PCS except Problem Solving, Problem
Avoidance, Express Emotions and Social Support
- Agreeableness was correlated with Self Criticism and Social Withdrawal
- Openness to Experience was correlated only with Cognitive Restructuring
- Conscientiousness was correlated with all PCS except Express Emotions
and Social Support

15. Results - Step 1 of the Mediation Model
Regression Coefficients to Predict Psychological Distress from Big Five Factors
Model B SE β t p
1 (Constant) 36.454 3.513 10.377 .000
Extraversion .077 .125 .053 .620 .536
(Constant) 17.889 4.009 4.462 .000
Agreeableness .584 .112 .409 5.206 .000
(Constant) 28.466 3.720 7.653 .000
Conscientiousness .284 .103 .231 2.753 .007
(Constant) 51.316 2.011 25.519 .000
Neuroticism -.584 .090 -.488 -6.501 .000
(Constant) 27.869 4.965 5.614 .000
Openness to experience .289 .133 .184 2.175 .031

16. Results - Step 2 of the Mediation Model
Regression Coefficients to Predict Psychological Distress from Primary Coping Strategies
Model B SE β t p
2 (Constant) 37.452 3.165 11.832 .000
Problem Solving .035 .095 .032 .370 .712
(Constant) 32.087 3.365 9.535 .000
Cognitive Restructuring .203 .103 .166 1.962 .052
(Constant) 40.403 2.723 14.839 .000
Express Emotions -.068 .100 -.058 -.673 .502
(Constant) 39.155 2.385 16.419 .000
Social Support -.019 .079 -.020 -.236 .814
(Constant) 38.457 2.438 15.776 .000
Problem Avoidance .006 .101 .005 .063 .950
(Constant) 46.461 1.945 23.890 .000
Wishful Thinking -.321 .077 -.339 -4.184 .000
(Constant) 42.839 1.601 26.762 .000
Self-criticism -.185 .066 -.234 -2.799 .006
(Constant) 42.742 1.834 23.302 .000
Social Withdrawal -.184 .078 -.199 -2.355 .020

17. Results - Step 3 of the Mediation Model
Regression Coefficients to Predict Wishful Thinking, Self-criticism
and Social Withdrawal from Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Neuroticism
Model B SE β t p
3 (Constant) 41.428 5.312 7.799 .000
Agreeableness Self-criticism -.524 .149 -.290 -3.526 .001
(Constant) 32.839 4.651 7.061 .000
Agreeableness Social Withdrawal -.293 .130 -.190 -2.250 .026
(Constant) 36.563 3.898 9.381 .000
Conscientiousness Wishful Thinking -.338 .108 -.260 -3.131 .002
(Constant) 41.428 4.547 9.145 .000
Conscientiousness Self-criticism -.524 .126 -.337 -4.163 .000
(Constant) 31.312 4.049 7.733 .000
Conscientiousness Social Withdrawal -.248 .112 -.187 -2.210 .029
(Constant) 15.666 2.305 6.789 .000
Neuroticism Wishful Thinking .405 .103 .321 3.934 .000
(Constant) 14.630 2.819 5.189 .000
Neuroticism Self-criticism .377 .126 .250 2.995 .003
(Constant) 17.380 2.444 7.112 .000
Neuroticism Social Withdrawal .233 .109 .181 2.135 .035

18. Results - Step 4 of the Mediation Model
Predict Psychological Distress from Big Five Factors Controlling for Primary Coping Strategies
Model B SE β t p
4 (Constant) 22.023 4.804 4.584 .000
Agreeableness .532 .117 .372 4.559 .000
Self-criticism -.100 .065 -.126 -1.544 .125
(Constant) 21.709 4.666 4.652 .000
Agreeableness .550 .114 .385 4.840 .000
Social Withdrawal -.116 .074 -.125 -1.576 .117
(Constant) 38.821 4.583 8.471 .000
Conscientiousness .188 .102 .153 1.838 .068
Wishful Thinking -.283 .079 -.299 -3.597 .000
(Constant) 34.274 4.682 7.321 .000
Conscientiousness .210 .108 .171 1.944 .054
Self-criticism -.140 .070 -.176 -2.006 .047
(Constant) 33.146 4.425 7.490 .000
Conscientiousness .247 .104 .200 2.374 .019
Social Withdrawal -.149 .078 -.161 -1.909 .058
(Constant) 54.329 2.281 23.818 .000
Neuroticism -.506 .093 -.423 -5.450 .000
Wishful Thinking -.192 .074 -.203 -2.616 .010
(Constant) 52.703 2.191 24.054 .000
Neuroticism -.548 .092 -.458 -5.941 .000
Self-criticism -.095 .061 -.120 -1.552 .123
(Constant) 53.155 2.347 22.649 .000
Neuroticism -.559 .091 -.468 -6.152 .000

19.  When controlling for the Wishful Thinking, Neuroticism
was still a significant predictor of PD indicating a partial
mediation. The Sobel test showed a mediation in the
model (z = -2.131, p = .033).
 When controlling for the Wishful Thinking,
Conscientiousness was not a significant predictor of PD,
indicating a full meditation. The Sobel test indicated a
mediation in the model (z = 2.311, p = .021).
 When controlling for the Self-criticism, Conscientiousness
was not a significant predictor of PD, indicating a full
meditation. However, the Sobel test did not indicate a
mediation in the model (z = 1.766, p = .077).
Results - Step 4 of the Mediation Model

20. Discussion
 It was found that PCS mediated the relationship between BFFs and PD.
 It was found that only two Big Five traits were identified to be mediated by PCS.
Neuroticism and Conscientiousness - both were mediated by Wishful Thinking.
Wishful Thinking fully mediated Conscientiousness and partially mediated
Neuroticism.
 Neuroticism is the personality trait which had the highest impact on PD.
 Wishful Thinking is considered as Problem Focused Disengaged methods of coping.
Therefore, it is not recommended for individuals with high Neuroticism.
 Wishful Thinking fully mediated Conscientiousness; individuals with high level of
Conscientiousness can also restrain from using it as a way of coping with stress.
 Findings of the present study are useful for organisation when designing stress
management programmes as well as during the recruitment and selection process.
 Limitations:
• The retrospective and self-selection bias that could have occurred in the process of selecting
stressful events and coping responses.
• The effect of personality on coping and stress outcomes vary by the situational context in
which stress occurs.
 Investigating the interactive effect of Big Five personality dimensions will need to be
considered for future research.

21. Q & A

22. Thank you!