Soc. Sci. Med. Vol. 43, No. 10, pp.

1453-1460, 1996
Pergamon Copyright © 1996ElsevierScienceLtd
Printed in Great Britain.All rights reserved
S0277-9536(96)00045-7 0277-9536/96 $15.00 + 0.00

SEX DIFFERENCES IN COPING AND DEPRESSION

AMONG YOUNG ADULTS
VILMA H,~NNINEN ~ and HILLEVI ARO 2
~University of Tampere, Department of Sociology and Social Psychology, PO Box 607, 33101 Tampere,
Finland and 2National Public Health Institute, Helsinki and Tampere School of Public Health, Tampere,
Finland

Abstract--The main purpose of the study was to evaluate the notion that the association between sex and
depression is partly mediated by differences in coping styles. The study is based on questionnaire data
from 890 female and 766 male Finnish 22-year-old young adults. Of the 12 ways of coping presented,
self-blame, venting anger on others, seeking comfort in sweets and drinking beer were positively, and the
others negatively, associated with depression; these were called dysfunctional and functional ways of
coping, respectively. Women resorted much more often than men to dysfunctional ways of coping, except
drinking. They also scored lower on personal resilience and showed more depressive symptoms. The sex
difference in depressiveness was eliminated when dysfunctional coping was taken into account. Copyright
© 1996 Elsevier Science Ltd

Key words---depression, coping, sex differences

INTRODUCTION more often to maladaptive ways of coping than

There is abundant research evidence (see e.g. [1, 2])
that women suffer from both depressive affect
and clinical depression more often than men. This
sex difference emerges during adolescence [3-5].
Several explanations have been offered, mainly
focusing on either characteristics of women them-
selves (biological or psychological factors) or
the social situation of women (social roles, amount
of life stress) (see [1]). A theory that now enjoys
increasing popularity says that women on average
cope less effectively with adversities than men,
and therefore are more likely to be depressed [1, 6].
For example, Petersen et al. [4] suggest on the
basis of their results that negative life events induce
boys, but not girls, to develop effective coping
strategies which protect them from depression later in
life.
It is generally held that coping has a moderating
effect on the outcome of stressful situations. Studies
dealing with coping in specific situations have shown
that the way of coping adopted affects both the
situation itself and its emotional consequences [7-9].
Coping style as a personal disposition has also been
found to be associated with levels of emotional
well-being (e.g. [10]).
The question as to whether women are more
susceptible to depression than men because of
their different coping style entails two subquestions:
which kinds of way of coping are functional
and which are dysfunctional as regards depression;
and do women resort less often to adaptive or
men?
Studies on the effectiveness of different types of
coping have found that, on average, those
ways of coping which aim at problem-solving
are more effective than those which focus on
emotions [8, 9]. This does not, however, mean that
all emotion-focused ways of coping are ineffective
or dysfunctional; rather, the category of emotion-
focused coping seems to be heterogeneous
with respect to functionality. It has been noted
that some emotion-focused ways of coping (e.g.
positive reappraisal) pave the way to problem-
solving, while others (e.g. disengagement) exclude
problem-solving efforts [11]. A distinction has
been made between "salutary effort", which is a
mature coping strategy including both problem-
focused and certain emotion-focused ways of
coping, and "stress palliation", which is a less
mature coping strategy involving such emotion-
focused ways of coping as blaming oneself, letting
bad feelings out, smoking, drinking or eating [12].
A similar category of dysfunctional coping has
been termed by Billings and Moos [10] as "emotional
discharge".
There is accumulating support for the hypothesis
that the greater depressiveness of women might be
due partly to their less effective coping. In general,
women seem to be more inclined to resort to
emotion-focused ways of coping and/or less to
problem-focused ways of coping than men. In the
studies of Folkman and Lazarus [13], Vingerhoets
and van Heck [6] and Stone and Neale [14], women

1453
1454 Vilma H~inninen and Hillevi Aro
appeared as less inclined than men to use problem-
focused ways of coping. On the other hand, in some
studies women have been found to be more inclined
to use emotion-focused ways of coping, including
dysfunctional ones [6, 8, 9, 14]. For example, Pearlin
and Schooler [8] and Menaghan [9] found that
women more often than men used "selective ignor-
ing", which was considered dysfunctional. In their
study of depressed patients, Billings and Moos [10]
found that women made more frequent use of
emotional discharge, which was associated with more
severe impairment. Nolen-Hoeksema [1, 15] argues
that women's greater risk of depression stems from
their greater tendency to ruminate on their depressive
symptoms, which exacerbates and prolongs their
depressive episodes.
Discussions on the reasons underlying sex differ-
ences in coping have provided three main lines of
explanation, The first of these refers to personal
differences; women are thought to cope less success-
fully because, as persons, they are less active, less
self-confident and less internal in their control
expectations than men. This is supported by the
research evidence which suggests that women, on
average, have lower self-esteem than men [5, 16],
which might contribute to their less effective coping.
Several studies indicate that a person's coping
dispositions are indeed associated with such personal
characteristics as self-esteem, locus of control, hard-
iness, etc. [12, 17-19]. Unfortunately, sex differences
have received little attention in these studies. The
second type of explanation refers to the fact that the
choice of coping strategy depends to a great extent
on situational factors [20]. In this vein it can be
hypothesized that the life situation of women allows
for less active coping strategies than that of men (e.g.
[8]). A third line of explanation refers to the cultural
norms, expectations and habits that encourage men
to adopt active or distracting coping strategies and
women to express and ruminate on their emotions
[15] (pp. 171-2).
The main purpose of the study is to evaluate
the notion that the association between sex and
depression is mediated by differences in coping
styles.
(1) Can ways of coping be divided into functional
and dysfunctional ones as regards depression?
Are the associations between coping and
depression different among women and
men?
(2) Do women and men differ in their use of
functional or dysfunctional ways of coping?
(3) Can differences in coping be explained on the
grounds of women's lower resilience, higher
amount of life stress, or by differences in life
situation?
(4) Does the difference in functional or dysfunc-
tional coping contribute to the sex difference in
depression?
METHOD
The data came from the second stage of a
prospective study concerning stress, development and
psychological well-being in adolescents [21-24]. The
first stage of the study was carried out in 1983 and
the second stage in 1989. Since the questionnaire of
the first stage did not include scales of depression and
coping, this study is based on the second stage only.
Sample
The original sample included all the ninth-grade
pupils from all secondary schools in one of the
biggest towns in Finland. The sample included 1071
girls and 1123 boys aged about 16 years. Since the
questionnaires were filled in during school hours, the
original response rate was as high as 97%.
At the second stage of the study, on which this
study is based, the data were gathered by postal
questionnaires which were sent to all participants of
the first stage. The response rate was 83% (n = 890)
for women and 68% (n = 766) for men. The differ-
ence between men's and women's response rate was
significant (X2(1) = 65.8, P < 0.001). Participants and
non-participants of the later study had not been
different in the earlier stage of the study as regards
their amount of psychosomatic symptoms or level
of self-esteem. Among men, however, the non-
participants had reported having been heavily drunk
by alcohol in the preceding year somewhat more
often than the participants (t = 2.94, P < 0.01). It is
possible, then, that heavily drinking men are slightly
underrepresented in the sample.
The mean age of the respondents was 21.9
(SD = 0.3) years. Thirty-five per cent of women and
19% of men were married or cohabiting (X2(1)=
52.4, P < 0.001); 9% of women and 4% of men
had children (;(2(1)= 16.6, P < 0.001). Twenty-one
per cent of women and 7% of men had at least
a secondary vocational degree (X2(1)= 63.0,
P < 0.001). Forty per cent of women and 33% of
men were full-time students (~2(1) = 10.56, P < 0.05);
and 48% of women and 58% of men held a full-time
job (X2(1) = 14.0, P < 0.001).
Variables
Depression. The number of depressive symptoms
was measured by a Finnish modification (RS-BDI)
for population studies of the 13-item version of
Beck's Depression Inventory (BDI). BDI [25] is a
widely used self-rating scale with good reliability and
validity [26]. The shortened BDI has been found to
have a high correlation (r = 0.96) with the original
version and has been recommended for research use
by Beck and his colleagues [27, 28]. The suggested
cutoff point for mild depression for the shortened
scale is 5 [27]. The modified scale was otherwise
identical with Beck's original 13-item inventory
except that it also included introductory questions
and an additional positive choice of answer for each
 Sex differences in coping and depression among young adults
item [29]. The additional positive choices did not
affect the scoring of depressive symptoms. In the
sample, 56% scored 0, 33% scored 1-4 and 11%
scored 5 or more. For the logistic regression analyses,
the scale was dichotomized ( 0 - 4 = 0 , 5 or m o r e = l).
Coping. Ways of coping were determined by a
checklist (12 items) resembling the "Ways of coping
checklist" developed by Folkman and Lazarus [13].
The respondents were asked to think about recent
adversities (not specified) they had encountered and
to say how often (five-point scale: "never" to "very
often") they used to act or think in certain ways
in those situations. The list was designed to fit the
life of young Finnish adults and to cover certain
theoretically relevant dimensions (active problem-
solving, distancing, positive reappraisal, seeking
social support, inward and outward aggression and
palliation).
The means and standard deviations of the coping
items are presented in Table 1.
Life stress. Life stress was assessed by two
measures. First, the number of life events was
investigated by a 32-item life-events checklist
designed to cover the changes that are common and
relevant in adolescence and young adulthood. The
time period concerned was 12 months. As depression
has been found to be associated mainly with negative
life events (e.g. [30] (pp. 100-106)), an index was
constructed for the purposes of this study, taking into
account only those events that are objectively
definable and that are generally held to be negative
(e.g. death of a family member, loss of job, divorce)
0 5 items).
In addition, a subjective measure of life stress was
obtained by asking the subjects to rate whether
different spheres of life (e.g. work, financial situation,
relations with parents, sex life) induced in them "joy
and satisfaction" or rather "worry and resentment"
(five-point scale; 10 items). The measure of subjective
life stress was only used to assess whether there are
such subtle differences between women and men in
the stressfulness of life which would not be detected
by the life-events checklist. A sum index of subjective
life stress was computed by counting the number of
spheres that were evaluated negatively (values 4 or 5)
(M = 1.2, SD = 1.3).
Resilience. The concept of personal resilience refers
to the individual's personal style that is supposed
to encourage effective coping with difficulties. This
variable overlaps theoretically with the dimension
that Kobasa [31] has termed "hardiness" (which
includes commitment, challenge and control). The
resilience scale is the mean of items of three inter-
correlated scales: beliefs of control (5 items), self-
esteem (7 items) and experiencing life as meaningful
(5 items). These were all measured by a five-point
scale, indicating agreement with statements such as
"How my life turns out depends on no one else but
me" (control), "I think I have many good properties"
(self-esteem) and "I feel my life is lacking meaning"
1455
(meaningfulness). The items reflecting low resilience
were reversed, so that a high score represents high
resilience. Cronbach's ~ for the whole scale was 0.89
(M = 3.8, SD = 0.59).
FINDINGS
Basic sex differences
The mean score of depressive symptoms was higher
among women than among men (t = 3.52,
P < 0.001). (Table 1). The percentage of depressives
(i.e. those scoring 5 or more on the RS-BDI) was 13.1
among women and 9.1 among men (X'(1)= 6.67,
P < 0.01).
Women scored significantly lower than men on the
resilience score (t = - 7,96, P < 0.001). On the other
hand, comparison of the life stress measures of
women and men showed that there was no difference
in the number of negative life events (t = 0.84, ns) or
in subjective life stress (t = 1.18, ns) (Table 1).
The associations of coping items with depressiveness
In order to be able to compare the effectiveness
of women's and men's ways of coping, the ways
of coping were first evaluated in terms of their
effectiveness as regards depression (Table 1).
All the coping items correlated significantly with
depressive symptoms. As regards the direction of the
correlation, the ways of coping fell into two opposite
clusters.
Eight coping items correlated negatively with
depressive symptoms, i.e. the more one used these
ways of coping, the less often he or she reported
depressive symptoms. The strongest negative corre-
lations were found in "tackling the problem more
persistently" (r = - 0.24, P < 0.001), "thinking
that there is no reason to get upset" (r = - 0 . 2 1 ,
P < 0.001), "reassuring oneself that everything will
be alright" (r = - 0 . 1 6 , P < 0.001), "thinking the
problem over with a friend" (r = - 0.16, P < 0.001),
"trying to resolve the situation" ( r = - 0 . 1 5 ,
P < 0.001) and "trying to find something relaxing to
do" (r = - 0.14, P < 0.001).
Four of the coping items, on the other hand, were
positively associated with high scores of depressive
symptoms, namely "blaming oneself for what has
happened" (r = 0.26, P < 0.001), "seeking comfort in
sweets" (r = 0.18, P < 0.001), "venting anger on
others" (r = 0.14, P < 0.001) and "going out for a
few beers" (r = 0.14, P < 0.001).
The coping items correlated with depressive
symptoms in much the same way among women and
men.
In general, functional ways of coping were more
commonly used than dysfunctional ones (Table 1).
Indices of functional and dysfunctional coping
Since the ways of coping clearly fell into two
clusters as regards their relation to depressive symp-
toms (and also as regards their intercorrelations),
1456 Vilma Hiinninen and Hillevi Aro

Table 1. Correlations with depressive symptoms, means and standard deviations of the main
variables in the total sample and among women and men
Total Women Men
fN = 1656) (n = 890) fn = 766)
Depressive symptoms M 1.63 1.88 1.35”’
SD 3.05 3.21 2.82
Resilience rL - 3.85
0.56*** - 0.57*** - 0.55’”
3.69 3.92***
SD 0.59 0.57 0.58
Negative life events 0.27**’ 0.25”’ 0.31***
L 1.12 1.14 1.09
SD I .27 1.33 1.19
Subjective life stress 0.46’** 0.45”’ 0.48”’
Ll 1.21 1.24 1.16
SD 1.34 I .32 1.34
Coping items
I tackle the problem more
persistently than before A - 3.36
0.24*** - 0.17*** - 0.32”’
3.28 3.479**
SD 1.oo 1.01 1.oo
I tell myself that there
is no reason to get upset LI - 3.27
0.21*** - 0.21*** - 0.20’”
3.21 3.34’
SD 1.12 1.12 1.11
I think the problem over
with a friend L - 3.60
0.16’” - 0.21*** - 0.19”’
3.92 3.22***
SD 1.20 1.06 1.24
1 do everything 1 can to
resolve the situation or
to prevent it from recurring IG - 3.96
0.16**’ - 0.13’” - 0.18***
3.92 4.00’
SD 0.84 0.82 0.86
I reassure myself that
everything will be ahight rli - 3.71
0.15*** - 0.21”. - 0.09*
3.79 3.75
SD 0.92 0.92 0.93
I try to find something
relaxing to do Ll - 3.55
0.14*** - 0.17*** - 0.09*
3.45 3.67’”
SD 1.08 1.11 1.04
I tell myself that I will
just have to adjust to the
situation IL - 3.63
0.10*** - 0.10** - 0.09’
3.58 3.69*
SD 1.03 I .05 1.00
1 ask for outside help rli - 2.40
0.06* - 0.05 - 0.09’
2.44 2.35
SD 1.12 1.16 1.07
I go out for a few beers 0.14** 0.16*** 0.14.”
IL 2.15 I .99 2.33*‘*
SD 1.28 1.24 1.30
I vent my anger
on other people 0.14*** 0.15*** 0.07
L 2.83 3.23 2.37”’
SD 1.25 1.19 1.16
I seek comfort in sweets 0.18*** 0.20’99 0.09*
Ll 2.49 2.91 2.01***
SD I .34 I .37 1.13
I blame myself for what
has happened r 0.27”’ 0.25*** 0.27”*
3.13 2.71***
S”D 2.93
1.14 1.10 1.14
Coping indices
Functional coping r - 0.30*** - 0.30*** - 0.30***
SE 0.53
3.44 3.45 3.44
0.54 0.53
Dysfunctional coping 0.29*** 0.31*** 0.24***
FCI 2.60 2.82 2.36***
SD 0.77 0.75 0.72
Nom: The coping items are ordered according to the direction and strength of their association
with depression.
Sex differences of the means are tested by two-tailed r-test.
*P < .05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.
 Sex differences in coping and depression among young adults 1457

two indices of coping were computed. The index
of functional coping was the mean of all the coping
items that were negatively associated with depressive
symptoms (M = 3.4, SD = 0.53), and the index of
dysfunctional coping was the mean of the coping
items that were positively associated with depressive-
ness (M = 2.6, SD = 0.77). The ct coefficient was 0.52
for functional coping and 0.45 for dysfunctional
coping.
The indices of functional and dysfunctional coping
were uncorrelated (r = 0.01, ns). Functional coping
correlated positively (r = 0.33, P < 0.001) and dys-
functional coping negatively (r = - 0.40, P < 0.001)
with resilience. Negative life events correlated posi-
tively with dysfunctional coping (r = 0.13, P < 0.001),
but not with functional coping (r = 0.01, ns).
Sex and coping
The sex differences in coping are presented in
Table 1.
O f the eight functional coping items (i.e. those that
were negatively correlated with depressive symp-
toms), one was more c o m m o n among women,
namely "thinking the problem over with a friend"
(t = 12.13, P < 0.001). On the other hand, men more
often than women used such functional ways of
coping as "trying to find something relaxing to d o "
(t = - 4 . 1 5 , P < 0.001) and "tackling the problem
more persistently than before" (t = - 3 . 8 2 ,
P < 0.001).
O f the four dysfunctional ways of coping (those
which correlated positively with depressive symp-
toms), three were more c o m m o n among women:
"venting anger on other people" (t = 14.8,
P < 0.001), "blaming oneself for what happened"
( t = 7 . 6 3 , P < 0 . 0 0 1 ) and "seeking comfort in
sweets" (t = 14.69, P < 0.001). Men, on the other
hand, more often than women resorted to "going
out for a few beers" (t = - 5.39, P < 0.001).
Comparison of the means of the sum indices of
coping shows that there was no difference between
women and men as regards functional coping, but
women used altogether more dysfunctional ways o f
coping than men (Table I).
The sex difference o f dysfunctional coping was
similar among depressives and non-depressives,
among those scoring below and those scoring above
the median of the resilience scale, among single and
married, and among those having at least secondary
vocational degree and among the less educated. In
these subgroups, the size of the sex difference of the
mean of dysfunctional coping varied from 0.4 to 0.6
points.
Sex, coping and depression
As the last step in the analyses, a series of logistic
regression equations were computed (by SPSS) with
depression as the dependent variable.
In the first model (Model 1 in Table 2), sex and
the coping variables were entered as independent
variables. Functional and dysfunctional coping had
opposite but equally strong associations with
depression (Wald = 72.6, P < 0.001 and 71.2,
P < 0 . 0 0 1 , respectively). Sex had no effect on
depression when the coping variables were taken into
account.
In the second model (Model 2 in Table 2), the
negative life-events variable was added. It had a
significant positive effect on the probability of
depression (Wald = 39.7, P < 0.001). The co-
efficients of the other variables remained almost
unchanged.

Table 2. Logistic regression with depression"as the dependent variable and sexb, coping
variables, negative life events and resilienceas independent variables
Wald
(df= I) R exp(B) Model X2
Model 1
Sex 0.00 0.00 0.99
Functional coping 72.56*** - 0.25 0.27
Dyfunctional coping 71.23"** 0.25 2.77
161.0"**
(dr= 3)
Model 2
Sex 0.03 0.00 1.03
Functional coping 75.27*** - 0.26 0.25
Dysfunctional coping 56.19*** 0.22 2.49
Negative life events 39.66*** 0.18 1.44
200.25***
(df = 4)
Model 3
Sex 0.01 0.00 0.98
Functional coping 8.03** - 0.08 0.58
Dyfunctional coping 5.90* 0.06 1.43
Negative life events 29.17"** 0.16 1.44
Resilience 128.43"** - 0.34 0.08
363.7***
(df= 5~
,0 = RS-BDI < 5, I = RS-BDI > = 5.
t'0 = male, 1 = female.
*P < 0.05; **P < 0.01; ***P < 0.001.
1458 Vilma H/inninen and Hillevi Aro
Inclusion of resilience (Model 3 in Table 2), on the
other hand, brought about changes in the model. The
effect of resilience on the probability of depression
was negative and very strong ( W a l d = 128.4,
P < 0.001). The size of the coefficients of the coping
variables and life events in the model dropped, but
remained statistically significant. It seems, then, that
resilience partly mediates the association between
coping (and life events) and depression (or vice versa).
DISCUSSION
The observed associations between the variables
under study are presented in Fig. 1.
In the following, the results are summarized and
commented upon in the order of the research
questions presented in the Introduction.
1. Ways of coping fell into two independent, and,
as to their effect, opposite, clusters: functional and
dysfunctional ways of coping. Dysfunctional ways of
coping included such items as self-blame, venting
anger on other people, seeking comfort in sweets and
drinking. Functional ways of coping included both
problem-focused and emotion-focused ones, such as
reassuring oneself that there is no reason to get upset
or tackling the problem more persistently than
before.
The correlations between coping items and
depressive symptoms were highly similar among
women and men. Thus no qualitative differences were
found between the sexes in the functionality or
dysfunctionality of different ways of coping. This
finding differs from that of the study of Stanton et al.
[32], in which certain emotion-focused ways of coping
were found to be more beneficial for women than for
men.
2. Women resorted clearly more often than men
to such dysfunctional ways of coping as blaming
themselves, venting anger on others and seeking
comfort in sweets. The difference was partly balanced
by men's stronger tendency to cope by drinking beer,
• DYS~IC'I~NALCOI~IG ¢r
a 0-male 1 = f:nm~l~
Fig. 1. Observed associations between sex, coping variables, life events, resilience and depression.
which also seemed to be a dysfunctional coping
tactic.
In functional coping, on the other hand, no sex
difference was found, since the men's stronger
tendency to use ways of coping aimed at problem-
solving or distancing was compensated by the
women's stronger resort to seeking social support.
The sex differences in coping found in this study
are partly similar to those found in earlier studies.
The finding that women more often than men seek
social support in stressful situations is consistent with
earlier findings (e.g. [33]). Similarly, there is some
evidence that women are more inclined to reduce
distress by eating [34]. Also, the finding that women
more readily than men blame themselves for their
problems could be expected on the basis of earlier
studies [35, 36]. On the other hand, the observation of
women's greater inclination to vent their feelings on
other people was somewhat surprising, because men
are usually thought to be more outwardly aggressive
than women. In fact, however, there is no consistent
empirical support to the notion of men's generally
higher outward aggressiveness; in some other studies
too, women are found to be more prone to express
their anger than men (see [15] (p. 136)).
A problem that warrants notice is that the
participation rate was significantly different for
women and men. Those men who did not participate
at this stage had, at the previous stage, reported being
heavier drinkers than those who participated in the
follow-up. It is probable, then, that the most
dysfunctionally coping men have dropped out from
the later stage of the study, which leads to
overestimation of the sex difference in dysfunctional
coping. However, if all the men who did not respond
(360) had participated and if all of them fell above
the mean of the "dysfunctional coping" variable, the
proportion of dysfunctional copers among men
would be 51%, which still does not quite reach the
proportion of dysfunctional copers among the female
participants (53%). Since it is not plausible that all
- I
DI~I~ ISlON
lmll~m~ticm
- - - mlpnivem~iEiou
--
 Sex differences in coping and depression among young adults
the non-participating men were dysfunctional copers,
and since it is probable that also among female
non-participants the proportion of dysfunctional
copers is higher than among participants, we believe
that the difference in the response rate does not alone
explain the observed sex difference in dysfunctional
coping.
3. Women scored lower than men on the resilience
scale, and low resilience was associated with dys-
functional coping. However, the sex difference in
dysfunctional coping was not eliminated when
resilience was controlled for. Neither was the sex
difference in coping attributable to situational
factors, such as negative life events, subjective life
stress, or familial or employment status. We find it
probable, therefore, that the sex difference in coping
at least partly stems from cultural factors, i.e.
different social habits, expectations and norms
regarding men's and women's coping.
4. The sex difference in depression was eliminated
when (dysfunctional) coping was controlled for.
Besides coping indices, depression was associated
with low resilience and negative life events.
No differences in life stress were found between
women and men by our methods and in our
sample. It is not, however, warranted to generalize
this finding. The sample might well be exceptional in
this respect, since it consists of young adults only.
Compared to studies using full adult samples (see [1]),
the sex difference in depression observed in our study
was relatively small. It is reasonable to assume that
sex differences in life stress may increase later in life,
adding to the sex difference in depression.
Discussion on the relations between the variables
Since this study was cross-sectional in nature, no
definitive statements about the causal paths between
the factors under study can be made--and, indeed,
we believe that there are no mechanical unidirectional
causal relations in matters like this. It is, however,
possible to defend the idea that dysfunctional coping
increases the risk of depression (and not solely vice
versa).
As regards the path between sex, dysfunctional
coping and depression, sex is of course the starting
point. The relation between coping and depression is,
however, less clear. Could the causal chain run from
sex to depression to poor coping? The notion that
coping is causally prior to depression can, however,
be defended by referring to the finding that also
non-depressed women used more dysfunctional ways
of coping than men.
Second, could dysfunctional coping be just part of
the depressive syndrome itself?. It has been noted [37]
that many items used to measure emotion-focused
coping actually measure psychological impairment. If
dysfunctional coping were just a part of depression,
however, it would be associated with the same
explanatory factors as depression itself. This was not
the case in our study: both dysfunctional and func-
SSM 43/10~-B
1459
tional coping correlated with depression, but they did
not correlate with each other.
Low resilience was strongly associated with
depression, so strongly that it seems to be something
like a precursor of depression. It was also associated
with the same variables as depression--sex, coping
variables and life events. Judging on the basis of the
strength of the associations, the path from sex to
depression would look like this: sex-dysfunctional
coping-low resilience-depression. This interpretation
of the nature of resilience as a close relative of
depression suggests that it is an altering state, subject
to many influences, rather than an enduring
personality trait. Saying that women, on average,
show lower resilience than men would thus amount
to saying that they are, on average, closer to a
depressive mood state.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
Coping research has traditionally started with the
assumption that coping is an adaptive process which
buffers the effects of life stress. However, several
studies, including this one, have revealed ways of
coping that not only fail to buffer but in fact tend to
exacerbate stress (e.g. 9, 10, 18, 37]). Moreover, these
dysfunctional ways of coping seem to hang together.
The combination of seemingly different items of
dysfunctional coping in our study resembles the
factors found in factor-analytical studies of coping,
where it has been referred to as "emotional
discharge" [10], "stress palliation" [12] and "focusing
on and venting of emotions" [17]. Both theoretical
and empirical work is needed to gain more
understanding of the nature and background of such
dysfunctional coping style.
Why are some ways of coping functional and
others dysfunctional? A simple characterization
could be that coping is functional when it helps to
transcend the problem either practically or mentally,
whereas dysfunctional coping "glues" the person
to the situation by focusing his/her attention to its
negative aspects. In their study of concrete stressful
encounters, Folkman et al. [7] found that planned
problem-solving and positive reappraisal led to
positive outcomes, while confrontive coping (which
overlaps with our concept of dysfunctional coping)
and distancing led to negative outcomes regarding
the stressful situation. In addition to failing to solve
the problem, dysfunctional ways of coping may lead
to adverse side-effects (obesity, alcohol problems,
problems in social relations, etc.) which have a
negative impact on well-being.
The coping style indices used in our study mainly
measure variation in habitual responses to relatively
everyday adversities. It might be that in connection
with more severe crises different ways of coping
would appear as functional or dysfunctional--what is
functional coping as regards a minor quarrel with the
spouse, for instance, might well be dysfunctional
1460 Vilma H~inninen and Hillevi Aro
as regards divorce. Moreover, the functionality or
dysfunctionality of a coping style is defined in
relation to depression only in this study. Further
research is warranted as regards the functionality/
dysfunctionality of coping strategies in different
contexts.
The question as to why women, more often than
men, cope in a dysfunctional way remains open.
Understanding of the processes leading to differences
in coping would, however, be very important. It
could be sought by conducting research on the
development of coping styles in relation to life
experiences in adulthood, on differences in child-
rearing practices as regards coping, as well as on the
cultural models, norms and habits which may induce
women to adopt dysfunctional coping strategies.
REFERENCES
1. Nolen-Hoeksema S. Sex differences in unipolar
depression: evidence and theory. Psychol. Bull. 101,259,
1987.
2. Weissman M. M. and Klerman G. L. Sex differences in
the epidemiology of depression. Arch. Gen. Psychol. 34,
98, 1977.
3. Graham P. and Rutter M. Adolescent disorders. In
ChiM and Adolescent Psychiatry: Modern Approaches
(Edited by Rutter M. and Hersov L.), pp. 351-367.
Blackwell Scientific, Oxford, 1985.
4. Petersen A. C., Sarigiani P. A. and Kennedy R. E.
Adolescent depression: why more girls? J. Youth
Adolesc. 20, 247, 1991,
5. Avison W. R. and McAlpine D. D. Gender differences
in symptoms of depression among adolescents. J. Hlth
Soc. Behav. 33, 77, 1992.
6. Vingerhoets A. J. J. M. and van Heck G. Gender,
coping and psychosomatic symptoms. Psychol. Med.
20, 125, 1990.
7. Folkman S., Lazarus R. S., Dunkel-Schetter C.,
DeLongis A. and Gruen R. J. Dynamics of a stressful
encounter: cognitive appraisal, coping, and encounter
outcomes. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 50, 992, 1986.
8. Pearlin L. J. and Schooler C. The structure of coping.
J. Hlth Soc. Behav. 19, 2, 1978.
9. Menaghan E. Measuring coping effectiveness: a panel
analysis of marital problems and coping efforts. J. Hlth
Soc. Behav. 23, 220, 1982.
10. Billings A. G. and Moos R. H. Coping, stress, and
social resources among adults with unipolar depression.
J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 46, 877, 1984.
11. Scheirer M. F., Weintraub J. K. and Carver C. S.
Coping with stress: divergent strategies of optimists and
pessimists. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 51, 1257, 1986.
12. Jorgensen R. S. and Dusek J. B. Adolescent adjustment
and coping strategies. J. Pers. 58, 503, 1990.
13. Folkman S. and Lazarus R. An analysis of coping in a
middle-aged community sample. J. Hlth Soc. Behav. 21,
219, 1980.
14. Stone A. A. and Neale J. M. New measure of daily
coping: development and preliminary results. J. Pers.
Soc. Psychol. 46, 892, 1984.
15. Nolen-Hoeksema S. Sex Differences in Depression.
Stanford University Press, Stanford, 1990.
16. D'Arcy C. and Siddique C. M. Psychological distress
among Canadian adolescents. Psychol. Med. 14, 615,
1984.
17. Carver C. F., Scheier M. F. and Weintraub J. K.
Assessing coping strategies: a theoretically based
approach. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 56, 267, 1989.
18. Bolger N. Coping as a personality process: a prospective
study. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 59, 525, 1990.
19. Holahan C. H. and Moos R. H. Personal and
contextual determinants of coping strategies. J. Pets.
Soc. Psychol. 52, 946, 1987.
20. Mattlin J. A., Wethington E. and Kessler R. C.
Situational determinants of coping and coping effective-
ness. J. Hlth Soc. Behav. 31, 103, 1990.
21. Aro H. Life stress and psychosomatic symptoms among
14 to 16-year-old Finnish adolescents. Psychol. Med.
17, 191, 1987.
22. Aro H., H~inninen V. and Paronen O. Social support,
life events and psychosomatic symptoms among
14-16-year-old adolescents. Soc. Sci. Med, 29, 1051,
1989.
23. Aro H. and Taipale V. The impact of timing of puberty
on psycosomatic symptoms among fourteen- to
sixteen-year-old Finnish girls. Child Develop. 58, 261,
1987.
24. Aro H. and Palosaari U. Parental divorce, adolescence,
and transition to young adulthood: a follow-up study.
Am. J. Orthopsychiat. 62, 421, 1992.
25. Beck A. T., Ward C. H., Mendelson M., Mock J. E. and
Erlbaugh J. K. An inventory for measuring depression.
Arch. Gen. Psychiat. 4, 561, 1961.
26. Rabkin J. G. and Klein D. F. The clinical measurement
of depressive disorders. In The Measurement of
Depression (Edited by Marsella A. J., Hirschfield R. M.
and Katz M. M.), pp. 30-83. John Wiley, Chichester,
1987.
27. Beck A. T. and Beck R. W. Screening depressed patients
in family practice. Postgrad. Med. 81, December 1972.
28. Beck A. T., Rial W. Y. and Rickels K. Short form
of depression inventory: cross-validation. Psychol. Rep.
34, 1184, 1974.
29. Mattlar C-E., Raitasalo R., Putkonen A-R., Hyypp~i
M. T., Englund Ch., Helenius H. and Knuts L-R. The
prevalence of depression in a random sample of Finns,
and the association of depression with various cognitive
functions. Abstracts of the International Epidemiological
Association 3/1 Scientific Meeting, Helsinki, Finland,
8-13 August 1987. International Epidemiological
Association, Helsinki, 1987.
30. Brown G. and Harris T. Social Origins of Depression.
Tavistock Publications, Cambridge, 1984.
31. Kobasa, S. Stressful life events, personality, and health:
an inquiry into hardiness. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 37, 1,
1979.
32. Stanton A. L., Danoff-Burg S., Cameron C. L. and Ellis
A. P. Coping through emotional approach: problems
of conceptualization and confounding. J. Pets. Soc.
Psychol. 66, 350, 1994.
33. Ross C. E. and Mirowsky J. Explaining the social
patterns of depression: control and problem-solving--
or support and talking? J. Hlth Soc. Behav. 30, 206,
1990.
34. Greeno C. G. and Wing R. R. Stress-induced eating.
Psychol. Bull, 115, 444, 1994.
35. Cramer P. Children's use of defence mechanisms in
reaction to displeasure caused by others. J. Pers. 51, 78,
1983.
36. Levit D. Gender differences in ego defenses in
adolescence: sex roles as one way to understand the
differences. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 61,992, 1991.
37. Rohde P., Lewinsohn P. M., Tilson M. and Seeley J. R.
Dimensionality of coping and its relation to depression.
J, Pers. Soc. Psychol. 58, 449, 1990.