Fabian Aguirre Austin a Psychology Therapist. Fabian Aguirre counselor of students.Fabian Aguirre recently received his PhD in the field of psychology. Fabian has received training from some of the top researchers affiliated with the University of California, Los Angeles and the University of Texas at Austin. He has a range of experiences in a number of areas, including (1) program development and coordination in academic and research settings; 2) independently teaching at a University level; and 3) working with students of various cultural and ethnic backgrounds. Fabian has been actively involved in multiple programs geared toward facilitating the education process among underrepresented students, such as 1) Cal-SOAP, a program designed to provide students with resources to assist in post secondary education, 2) Latino Leadership Council, an organization designed to unite and empower Latino students and student organization, and 3) Summer Undergraduate Research Program, a program aimed at providing hands-on training that will give underrepresented students a competitive edge when applying to top doctoral training programs. Fabian is a strong advocate of higher education. He grew up in a small, Mexican, migrant community in central California where education was not highly valued and access to quality education was nonexistent. Fabian, like many first-generation college students, could not consult with family member about higher education. In turn, he had to overcome many educational challenges and is willing to provide academic advice to students seeking higher education in Liberal Arts.

1. CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, NORTHRIDGE
COPING STRATEGIES IN PERSONS WITH SCHIZOTYPY
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements
For the Master of Arts degree in Psychology, Clinical Psychology
By
Fabian Aguirre
June 2006

2. The thesis of Fabian Aguirre is approved:
________________________________________ ____________________
Mr. Andrew Ainsworth Date
________________________________________ ____________________
Dr. Dee Shepherd-Look Date
________________________________________ ____________________
Dr. Mark Sergi, Chair Date
California State University, Northridge
ii

3. Acknowledgements
I would like to acknowledge all the faculty and staff in the psychology department
at California State University, Northridge. The faculty members have played an integral
role in my professional development. I acknowledge Dr. Mark Sergi for all his help and
support. As my thesis adviser, Dr. Sergi has guided my growth from a student writing a
report to a scholar writing an academic thesis. Not only is he a mentor, Dr. Sergi is truly
an aspiration in the research development of persons with schizotypy. His expertise in
this area led me to be more interested in psychosis prevention.
I would also like to acknowledge Dr. Dee Shepherd-Look. Her kindness and good
heartedness aided my development not only as a professional but also as a person.
Through her practicum, I received a genuine feel and understanding of the challenges
faced by parents with special need children. This experience also enabled me to see the
impact we, as professionals in psychology, have on people’s lives.
I would further like to acknowledge, Professor Andrew Ainsworth. He introduced
me to the world of statistics. His energy and enthusiasm for such a dry topic was so
infectious and enjoyable that I actually took an additional course that did not count
towards my course requirements. I admire Mr. Ainsworth as a professor and consider him
a friend.
Additionally, I would like to acknowledge all the other professors within their
specialties; Dr. Donald Butler, Dr. Ronald Doctor, Dr. Jean Elbert, and Dr. Luciana
Laganá. They have all been instrumental to my education. Lastly, but not least, I would
like to acknowledge all the research assistants in Dr. Sergi’s lab. It was through their hard
work and dedication that this thesis project was made possible.
iii

4. Table of Contents
Signature Page ii
Acknowledgements iii
Abstract vi
Chapter 1: Introduction 1
a. Schizotypy 1
b. Coping & Stress 2
c. Assessing Coping Strategies 4
d. Research in Coping on the Schizophrenia Spectrum 5
e. Neurocognition and the effects on coping 6
f. Hypotheses 8
Chapter 2: Methods 9
a. Participants 9
b. Design Procedures 9
c. Apparatus 9
d. Data Analysis 12
Chapter 3: Results 14
a. Demographics 14
b. Coping styles and schizotypy status 14
c. Cognitive appraisal and coping styles 16
d. Neurocognitive factors with schizotypy status and coping styles 16
Chapter 4: Discussion 18
iv

5. References 21
Appendix 26
A. Schizotypal Personality Questionnaire-Brief (SPQ-B) 26
B. Revised Social Anhedonia Scale (R-SAS) 28
C. Coping Response Inventory (CRI) 30
D. Cognitive Appraisal of Life Events Scale (CALES) 37
v

6. ABSTRACT
COPING STRAGIETS IN PERSONS WITH SCHIZOTYPY
By
Fabian Aguirre
Master of Arts degree in Psychology, Clinical Psychology
Ample studies have shown that persons with schizotypy are very similar to individuals
with schizophrenia. However, little is known about the way persons with schizotypy use
coping strategies. This study compares 71 college students, identified as either high or
low in schizotypy with the use of the Schizotypal Personality Questionnaire-Brief (SPQ-
B), on coping strategies while controlling for cognitive appraisal and neurocognition. We
found that, when controlling for cognitive appraisal, persons high in schizotypy were
significantly more likely to use avoidance coping than persons low in schizotypy.
However, persons high and low in schizotypy show little to no difference in approach
coping. We also found that neurocognition does not correlate with coping strategies.
Therefore, college students high in schizotypy may be using less effective coping, as
patients diagnosed with schizophrenia do.
vi

7. Chapter 1
Introduction
Schizotypy
What is Schizotypy? The personality organization schizotypy was originally
described by Meehl (1962) as a person who has pleasure deficits, cognitive slippage,
ambivalence, and interpersonal aversiveness. These individuals may experience ideas of
reference, magical thinking, unusual perceptual experiences, eccentric behavior or
appearance, suspiciousness/paranoia, disorganized/odd speech, constricted affect,
excessive social anxiety, and a dearth of social relationships (Meehl, 1990). This
schizotypic behavior may be observed within the normal population and, by itself, does not
necessarily cause dysfunction. Thus, schizotypy is a dimensional clinical construct, not a
categorical psychiatric diagnosis.
Schizotypy on the schizophrenia spectrum. In the field of research, schizotypy is
conceptualized as involving mild symptoms of Schizotypal Personality Disorder (SPD) and
schizophrenia. Hence, schizotypic behavior may represent the prodromal manifestations of
schizophrenia or the less impairing SPD (Claridge, 1994; Claridge & Beech, 1995).
Persons with schizotypy may be assigned the diagnosis of SPD if their schizotypic
behaviors cause sufficient social dysfunction. In order to be diagnosed with SPD, at least
five of the following criteria must be present: ideas of reference, odd beliefs of magical
thinking which influence behavior, unusual perceptual experiences, odd thinking and
speech, suspiciousness, inappropriate affect, odd behavior or appearance, lack of close
friends, and excessive social anxiety (American Psychiatric Association, 1994). While
1

8. SPD affects approximately three percent of the U.S. population, it is estimated that at least
five to ten percent of the population possess traits of schizotypy.
Furthermore, persons with schizotypy may reflect the initial stages of schizophrenia
(Horan et al., 2004; Meehl, 1990) and are considered to fall within the schizophrenia
spectrum. Research has shown that persons with schizotypy present the same positive
symptoms, negative symptoms, and cognitive deficits of patients with schizophrenia,
except, with a lesser severity (Matsui et. al., 2004). For instance, patients with
schizophrenia will experience positive symptoms, such as hallucinations and delusions,
and negative symptoms, such as flat affect, which disrupt their everyday living ability.
Schizotypy individuals, however, may believe that people can read his or her mind, but this
thought does not impede upon their daily functioning. These schizotypy individuals do not
become consumed by this belief to the point of wearing a hat made to foil to keep people
from reading his thoughts. For this reason, persons with schizotypy are considered to
belong within the schizophrenia spectrum. Thus, due to the dearth of research on
schizotypy subjects in respect to coping and stress, studies on patients with schizophrenia
will drive expected similar findings with schizotypy individuals.
Coping & Stress
The relationship between coping styles and mental/physical health has grown as
an area of investigation over the past 20 years (Somerfield & McCrae, 2000). It has been
accepted that coping and stress are strongly related. People become more stressed when
their efforts (cognitive and behavioral) are not able to manage the external or internal
demand (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). For example, John is uninsured and drives his car
into a rail. In this case, John needs money to repair the damage to his car (external
2

9. demand). If John has the necessary financial resources (efforts) to meet the external
demand, then this event will not be stressful. However, if John does not have the financial
resources, then John will experience a great deal of stress because his efforts did not meet
the external demand.
Aldwin (1994) stated two purposes of coping research: 1) to understand why
people differ so greatly in how they cope with stress and 2) to understand how different
responses relate to well-being. These two purposes have lead researchers to investigate
the importance of coping and the impact of stress on individuals with mental disorders.
Various studies have looked at particular mental illnesses to assess the role of coping and
stress.
Ventura & Liberman (2000) state that all biomedical disorders are stress-related
biological illnesses. They reason that stressors impinge on the individual, triggering
episodes of symptom exacerbation, dysfunction, and hospitalization. Take bacterial
infections for instance. Campisi et al. (2003) showed that stress-induced rats were more
susceptible and took longer to recover from the bacteria injected into their bodies.
Although this cannot be tested on humans, for ethical reasons, theories have also
supported the idea that stress can exacerbate symptoms. For example, it has been
accepted for many years that stress influences the onset and course of schizophrenia
(Ventura & Liberman, 2000). This vulnerability-stress model asserts that schizophrenia is
not purely genetic. Zubin and Spring (1977) theorized that some individuals have a
predisposition (genetic vulnerability) to schizophrenia that is triggered by an
environmental stressor.
3

10. To illustrate, suppose Matthew has a genetic vulnerability of schizophrenia since
his grandfather (who he never met) was diagnosed with this disorder. Matthew led a
normal life until the age of 18, when he started college. In college, Matthew became
overwhelmed and stressed with the adjustment to college life. These environmental
stressors triggered Matthew’s delusions of aliens stealing his ideas. This sparks two
important questions: (a) would Matthew have developed delusions if he knew how to
properly cope with his environmental stressors, and (b) how do we identify these
individual prior to the onset of psychotic symptoms?
Assessing Coping Strategies
Since stressful events can exacerbate symptoms, successful coping strategies
seem to be a protective factor (Ventura et al., 2002). Before any coping intervention can
be used on this population, we have to assess coping styles in this population. There are
various ways to assess coping. One theory distinguishes problem-focused coping from
emotion-based coping. Problem-focused coping focuses on the evaluation of the situation
and the creation of possible solutions that actively reduce the level of stress. In contrast,
emotion-based coping centers on how the individual changes his or her feelings about the
stressful situation (Carver et al., 1989).
Moos and Schaefer (1993) developed an alternative model that distinguishes
between approach-coping and avoidance-coping. In approach-coping, the individual uses
cognitive and/or behavioral attempts to resolve the conflict situation. In contrast,
avoidance coping involves minimizing the importance of the stressful event or distracting
oneself from the stressful event. Moos (2002) found that using approach-coping strategies
4

11. contributes to favorable outcomes and avoidance-coping strategies generally indicate
worse outcomes.
Research in Coping on the Schizophrenia Spectrum
Due to the scarce amount of research on schizotypy and coping strategies, a
review of studies of coping in schizophrenia may improve our ability to anticipate the
forms and effectiveness of coping in individuals with schizotypy. As mentioned earlier,
the vulnerability-stress model asserts that a predisposition to schizophrenia and
environmental stressors trigger the illness. Although one study found that the relationship
between the amount of stress and relapse to be relatively weak (Hirsch et. al, 1996),
recent studies have shown that stressful events indeed increase the risk of psychosis and
exacerbate psychotic symptoms (Ventura et al., 2002). Therefore, when assessing coping
styles in a sample, the experimenter must control for the amount of stress that is reported
by the experimental and comparison groups.
In addition, research has established that patients with schizophrenia fail to use
appropriate coping strategies in response to stressful events. For instance, Horan et al.
(2003) found that maladaptive coping approaches associated with emotional responses to
psychosocial stressors are one of the dividing factors among patients with schizophrenia
and the general population. Hence, patients with schizophrenia are less able to cope with
stressful situations. This lack in coping ability has been linked to an increase in their
psychotic symptoms. Because of these findings, researchers’ efforts have been spent on
reducing stressful events to decrease psychotic symptoms. However, most of their efforts
are geared toward establishing effective coping mechanisms in response to stressful
situations, since such situations are unavoidable. Various studies indicate that coping
5

12. interventions reduce stress (Ponizovsky et al., 2004), as well as symptoms and the
likelihood of rehospitalization (Norman et al., 2002). In the Norman et al. (2002) study,
they found that training in stress management provided the patient with additional
strategies for coping, which in turn reduced the possibility of subsequent symptom
exacerbations and reduced the risk of rehospitalization. The limited studies of coping in
schizophrenia have examined approach- and avoidance-coping. These studies have found
that patients with schizophrenia frequently utilize more avoidance-coping and less
approach-coping (Hultman et al., 1997; Jansen et al., 1999; van den Bosch et al., 1992;
Ventura et al., 2004). Furthermore, Ventura et al. (2004) revealed that normal controls
used significantly more approach coping strategies than patients with schizophrenia.
These findings suggest that approach-coping is successful coping, while
avoidance-coping may increase psychotic symptoms and rehospitalization. However,
there is a scarcity of research on the evaluation of coping skills among the less
symptomatic and more functional schizotypy population. One study found that patients
diagnosed with Paranoid Personality Disorder (PD), Schizoid PD, or Schizotypal PD,
seek less social support and utilize more avoidance coping strategies (Bijttebier et al.,
1999). This intriguing finding points to the need for further study of coping in schizotypy.
By examining the coping of persons with schizotypy we will determine whether they
“overuse” avoidance-coping strategies and “under use” approach-coping strategies as
persons with schizophrenia reportedly do.
Neurocognition and the effects on coping
Coping may be influenced by neurocognitive abilities. Many domains of
neurocognition are impaired in schizophrenia, and these deficits result in impaired social
6

13. functioning (Green, 1996; Green et al., 2000). For instance, Green (1996) concluded that
secondary verbal memory and sustained attention (vigilance) were significant predictors
of social problem solving. This leads us to expect that neurocognitive factors might
contribute to the use of distinctive coping strategies. Recent studies identify a strong
correlation between neurocognition and approach coping, but not for avoidance coping.
Ventura et al. (2004) found that low self-efficacy (low appraisal of ability to handle
adversity and low self-esteem) was associated with the lower frequency of approach
coping strategies. Furthermore, they found that greater cognitive capacity (e.g. executive
functioning assessed with the WCST, secondary verbal memory assessed with the CVLT)
was associated with higher rates of approach problem solving.
Schizotypy and Neurocognition. Research indicates that persons with schizotypy
experience cognitive deficits similar to those experienced by persons with schizophrenia.
Matsui et al. (2004) demonstrated that verbal memory and visual-motor abilities are
lacking in both groups. However, schizotypy individuals did not show executive
functioning difficulties, as did patients with schizophrenia. In fact, schizotypy individuals
perform as well as the “normal” controls in executive functioning. Therefore, “cognitive
deficits in patients with schizotypal features were qualitatively similar to, but
quantitatively milder than, patients with schizophrenia” (Matsui et. al., 2004). These
qualitative deficits have also been identified in neuro-imaging findings. One study found
that those with SPD are similar to “normal” controls in most lateral frontal regions.
However, they exhibited intermediate values, which fell between “normal” controls and
schizophrenic subjects in the lateral temporal regions (Buchsbaum et al., 2002). These
studies suggest that persons with schizotypy are in the schizophrenia-spectrum, which
7

14. encourages research of parallel dysfunctions, such as coping skills, within these
populations.
Hypotheses
The theoretical and observed links between schizophrenia and schizotypy allow
one to extrapolate schizophrenia findings into predictions for studies of persons with
schizotypy. In this case, coping has been more studied in schizophrenia; thus, the
hypotheses of the present study are guided by the coping literature in schizophrenia. The
aims of this study are to explore coping styles in persons high in schizotypy and compare
them to persons low in schizotypy, while controlling for appraisal and neurocognitive
ability. The primary hypothesis is that persons high in schizotypy will engage in more
avoidance coping and less approach coping than persons low in schizotypy (i.e., healthy
persons). A secondary hypothesis is that persons high in schizotypy will perceive more
stress than those low in schizotypy. It is also hypothesized that persons high in
schizotypy will be impaired in neurocognition (secondary verbal memory and executive
functioning) relative to persons low in schizotypy. However, neurocognitive functioning
is not expected to effect the type of coping behaviors used by persons high or low in
schizotypy. Thus, persons with better cognition will not necessarily use proportionally
more approach coping and persons with more impaired cognition will not necessarily use
proportionally more avoidance coping.
8

15. Chapter 2
Methods
Participants
Approximately 1000 undergraduate psychology students attending California
State University, Northridge received the 22-item Schizoptypal Personality
Questionnaire-Brief Version (SPQ-B) as part of the Department of Psychology’s pre-
testing. In this pre-screening, students were divided into two groups: persons high in
schizotypy were identified by total SPQ-B scores that fell between 15 and 22 and persons
low in schizotypy were identified by total SPQ-B scores that fell between 0 and 2. From
this pool, seventy-one undergraduate students (36 persons high in schizotypy and 35
persons low in schizotypy) participated in this study after providing their written
informed consent. All participants received credit in their lower division psychology
course for participating in this study.
Design Procedures
In this double-blind experiment, participants completed a two-hour battery
involving measures of coping, neurocognition, stress and appraisal, and functional status.
The battery was administrated individually in quiet cubicles by undergraduate research
assistants. The four research assistants were trained on the all measures by the thesis
advisor and required to demonstrate correct administration of the measures.
Apparatus
Schizotypy. Raine and Benishay (1995) created the Schizotypal Personality
Questionnaire-Brief (SPQ-B) as a short version of the Schizotypal Personality
Questionnaire (SPQ). The SPQ-B consists of 22 yes/no items, each valued with 1 or 0.
9

16. The SPQ-B contains three subscales: Cognitive-Perceptual, Interpersonal, and
Disorganized. In a sample of 220 undergraduate students, Raine and Benishay reported
internal reliabilities ranging from .72 to .80, mean of .76. The test-retest, two-month time
lapse, reliabilities range from .86 to .95, mean of .90. Inter-correlations between SPQ-B
factors and SPQ factors range from .89 to .94 (mean=.91). Criterion validity was
established through correlations between SPQ-B subscales and clinical interviews of
individuals with Schizotypal Personality Disorder. They reported high correlations for
the total scale (.66), as well as the cognitive-perceptual (.73) and interpersonal (.63)
subscales. However, correlations were lower for the disorganized subscale (.36). A
second psychometrics study of the SPQ-B yielded similar findings (Axelrod et al., 2001).
Negative schizotypy. The Revised Social Anhedonia Scale (R-SAS; Eckblad et al.,
1982), is a 40-item true or false test, which measures social withdrawal and a lack of
interest in pleasure from social relationships. This self-report test includes statements that
are characteristic of negative symptoms, such as “Having close friends is not as important
as many people say,” and “I prefer watching television to going out with other people.”
The R-SAS will be administered as part of the test battery. The purpose of this measure is
to identify the negative schizotypy among the persons high in schizotypy and compare
them to the reminding persons high in schizotypy on coping styles and neurocognition.
The negative schizotypy will be grouped by R-SAS scores 16 or greater for females and
20 or greater for males, due to cutoff scored based on standardization by Eckblad et al.
(1982). The estimated administration time of the R-SAS is ten minutes.
Secondary verbal memory. The California Verbal Learning Test (CVLT; Delis et
al., 1983) assesses secondary verbal memory by asking participants to recall 16 items
10

17. from four taxonomic categories presented over a series of five trials. Each word list is
read aloud by the administrator. Additional elements of the measure assess short delay
free recall, short delay cued recall (“Name as many items as you can that are Fruits?”),
long delay free recall, long delay cued recall, and recognition. The estimated
administration time of the CVLT is 15 minutes.
Executive functioning. The Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (WCST-64; Heaton et al.,
1993) is a measure of frontal executive functioning and problem-solving skills. The
subject is presented with four keycards. Each card has different shapes, numbers of
shapes, and colors. The subject is required to individually match the presented stimulus
cards to one of four keycards. Each card presented can be matched according to the shape,
number, or color of the symbols of the existing four cards. The computerized version of
the WCST will be administered. The WCST requires about 20 minutes to administer.
Coping. The Coping Responses Inventory (CRI; Moos & Schaefer, 1993)
involves 48 items, which are rated along a 4-point Likert-type scale: “0 = not at all” to “4
= yes, fairly often.” The interview is based on one open-ended question: In the past 12
months, have you had any situations that you thought were stressful or difficult? The
subject then narrows down the situations to deem one the most stressful, which is used in
answering the 48 items. The CRI is a revised version from the original 72-item version.
Moos and colleagues established strong reliability through Cronbach’s alpha and derived
eight dimensions of coping under two broad headings: Approach Coping Responses: (a)
Logical Analysis, (b) Positive Reappraisal, (c) Seeking Guidance and Support, and (d)
Problem Solving; Avoidance Coping Responses: (e) Cognitive Avoidance, (f)
Acceptance or Resignation, (g) Seeking Alternative Rewards, and (h) Emotional
11

18. Discharge. The Approach Coping Responses cluster consists of items such as, “Did you
try to step back from the situation and be more objective” and “Did you tell yourself
things to make yourself feel better?” The Avoidance Coping Responses cluster consists
of items such as “Did you try to help others deal with a similar problem?” and “Did you
take it out on other people when you felt angry or depressed?” For these dimensions,
Cronbach’s alpha ranged in a sample of males (n = 1194) from 0.61 to 0.74 and in
females (n = 722) from 0.58 to 0.71. The correlations among the four approach-coping
strategies are higher in men (r = 0.29) and women (r = 0.42) than the correlations among
the four avoidance strategies for men (r = 0.29) and for women (r = 0.24). The estimated
administration time of the CRI is 20 minutes.
Stress and appraisal. The Cognitive Appraisal of Life Events Scale (CALES;
Ventura & Nuechterlein, 1994) will be used to assess stress level and appraisal style. This
is a self-administered scale that is used to measures the subject’s perception of the
stressful event. The CALES investigates eight dimensions related to the stressful quality
of the event: desirability, familiarity, controllability, predictability, preoccupation,
required readjustment, coping effectiveness, and upset. The measure’s nine questions are
rated from 1 to 9, with the following anchors 1 = “not at all,” 3 = “somewhat,” 5 =
“moderately,” 7 = “highly,” and 9 = “extremely.” The estimated time to complete this
questionnaire is 5 minutes.
Data Analysis
In this cross-sectional study of pre-existing groups, a MANOVA was used to
compare the two levels of schizotypy status on the 12 dependent variables (Approach-
Coping, Avoidance Coping, CVLT total, WCST-64 total, and all eight domains of the
12

19. CALES) to control for an inflation of alpha. The analysis was followed up by ANOVAs
to compare each dependent variable between persons high and low in schizotypy.
Correlational analyses, Pearson product correlation coefficients were used to examine
whether neurocognitive ability was related to schizotypy status and coping. Last,
ANCOVAs were used to determine if schizotypy status affects coping response when
controlling for cognitive appraisal.
13

20. Chapter 3
Results
Demographics
Both groups shared relatively equal proportions in gender, ethnicity, age, and
education. (See Table 1).
Table 1. Sociodemographic and Clinical Characteristics of Subjects
Schizotypy Group
Low Schizotypy High Schizotypy
Characteristic (n=35) (n=36)
N % N %
Female 29 82.9 24 66.7
Ethnicity
African American 4 11.4 10 27.8
Armenian 1 2.9 2 5.6
Asian American 4 11.4 1 2.8
Hispanic 15 42.9 8 22.2
Caucasian 11 31.4 15 41.7
Mean SD Mean SD
Age (years) 20.3 4.1 19.8 4.2
Education (years) 13.0 1.0 12.5 0.9
SPQ-B1 1.3 0.9 16.9 1.7
R-SAS2 3.9 3.2 12.0 7.5
1
Schizotypal Personality Questionnaire-Brief total to 22. “0-2” (symptoms are not observed) and “15-22”
(symptoms are observed).
2
Revised Social Anhedonia Scale items total of “0-15 for females” and “0-19 for males” (symptoms are not
observed) and scores “ 16-40 for females” and “20-40 for males” (symptoms are observed).
In Table 1 females are largely represented in both groups. This was anticipated
since females represent the majority of students in the CSUN psychology department.
Although there were no correlations between the sociodemographic factors, there were
expected correlations among the demographic factors, such as age and education.
Coping styles and schizotypy status
The coping usage of persons high and low in schizotypy is displayed in Table 2.
With the use of Wilks’ criterion, the combined 12 dependent variables were
14

21. Table 2. Statistics of High vs. Low Schizotypy on Coping Measures, Cognitive
Appraisal, and Neurocognitive Measure
Low High Schizotypy Group
Schizotypy Schizotypy Main Effects
n =35 n = 36
Mean (SD) Mean (SD) F df p
Coping Measures
Approach Response Coping 66.3 (11.8) 66.2 (12.7) 0.00 1,69 NS
--Logical analysis 16.4 (3.1) 17.4 (3.5) 1.56 1,69 NS
--Positive reappraisal 17.2 (3.9) 16.9 (4.8) 0.11 1,69 NS
--Seeking guidance/support 15.4 (3.7) 14.5 (4.5) 0.80 1,69 NS
--Problem solving 17.3 (4.0) 17.4 (3.5) 0.02 1,69 NS
Avoidance Response Coping1 51.1 (12.3) 60.2 (11.7) 10.20 1,69 .002
--Cognitive avoidance 14.2 (4.7) 17.1 (4.6) 6.96 1,69 .01
--Acceptance or resignation 13.1 (4.0) 15.0 (4.3) 3.88 1,69 NS
--Seeking Alternative Rewards 13.1 (3.7) 14.4 (4.2) 1.78 1,69 NS
--Emotional Discharge 10.7 (2.8) 13.7 (3.9) 13.88 1,69 .000
Cognitive Appraisal
Desirability -1.9 (2.8) -2.3 (2.6) 0.32 1,69 NS
Frequency of Event2 3.5 (2.8) 5.5 (3.3) 7.14 1,69 .009
Controllability 4.0 (2.5) 4.0 (2.5) 0.01 1,69 NS
Predictability 4.1 (2.5) 3.7 (2.7) 0.40 1,69 NS
Preoccupation 5.9 (2.1) 6.5 (2.5) 0.92 1,69 NS
Required Readjustment 4.8 (2.6) 5.8 (2.6) 2.40 1,69 NS
Coping Effectiveness 0.9 (2.1) 0.5 (2.3) 0.40 1,69 NS
Upsetting or Uplifting3 -1.5 (2.5) -2.7 (2.1) 4.71 1,69 .034
Neurocognitive Measures
WCST
--Total Correct 49.1 (5.0) 48.0 (8.6) 0.44 1,68 NS
-- Perseverative Errors 7.3 (3.4) 7.4 (4.0) 0.04 1,68 NS
--Categories Completed 3.5 (1.2) 3.5 (1.4) 0.00 1,68 NS
CVLT
--Total Correct (Trials 1 – 5) 57.3 (8.1) 54.7 (9.4) 1.60 1,69 NS
1
Partial Eta Squared = .129.
2
Partial Eta Squared = .094.
3
Partial Eta Squared = .064.
15

22. significantly related to schizotypy status, F(12, 57) = 1.93, p = .049, There was a modest
association between the dependent variables and schizotypy status, with partial η2 = .29.
This was followed up by individual ANOVAs. Persons high in schizotypy reported using
more avoidance coping than persons low in schizotypy, F(1,69) = 10.20, p = .002.
However, persons high and low in schizotypy did not differ in their use of approach
coping.
To further investigate this significant difference between schizotypy status and
avoidance coping response, we divided this general category to four specific components:
cognitive avoidance, acceptance or resignation, seeking alternative rewards, and
emotional discharge. Persons high in schizotypy were more likely to use Cognitive
Avoidance F(1,69) = 6.96, p = .01, and Emotional Discharge F(1,69) = 13.88, p < .001
then persons low in schizotypy, when faced with a stressful situation.
Cognitive appraisal and coping styles
Persons high in schizotypy perceived that their stressful life events occurred more
frequently F(1,69) = 7.14, p = .009 and causes them greater emotional upset F(1,69) =
4.70, p = .034 (See Table 2). Through an ANCOVA, holding the two CALES factors as
covariates, we found that the persons high in schizotypy remained significantly more
likely to use avoidance coping responses than persons low in schizotypy F(1,69) = 6.04,
p = .017. Hence, even with frequency and emotional upset of the stressful event held
constant, persons high in schizotypy still reported more avoidance coping.
Neurocognitive factors with schizotypy status and coping styles
Persons high and low in schizotypy did not differ in executive functioning or
secondary verbal memory (See Table 2). As predicted, executive functioning and
16

23. secondary verbal memory were not associated with avoidance or approach coping in
either the persons high in schizotypy or the persons low in schizotypy (See Table 3).
Table 3. Pearson Correlations between Coping Response and Neurocognitive
Measures
Neurocognitive Coping Response Styles
Measures
Approach Coping Avoidance Coping
CVLT
Total Correct r = .04, p = .78 r = -.09, p = .46
WCST
Total Correct r = -.16, p = .18 r = -.05, p = .66
Perseverative Errors r = .22, p = .07 r = -.01, p = .96
Categories Completed r = -.18, p = .13 r = .06, p = .62
17

24. Chapter 4
Discussion
Undergraduates identified as high in schizotypy used more avoidance coping than
those identified as low in schizotypy, even when appraisals of stressor frequency and
upset were statistically controlled. In contrast, persons high and low in schizotypy did not
differ in approach coping. The cognitive appraisals of persons high in schizotypy differed
from those low in schizotypy in that persons high in schizotypy perceived that stressful
events occurred with greater frequency and reported more upset about stressful events.
The finding that persons high in schizotypy use more avoidance coping is
consistent with earlier studies. Bijttebier et al. (1999) found that individuals with
personality disorders (i.e., Paranoid Personality Disorder (PD), Schizoid PD, and
Schizotypal PD) utilized more avoidance coping strategies than persons without
personality disorders. Research on patients with schizophrenia, on the other hand,
suggests that these persons use more avoidance coping and less approach coping than
unaffected persons (Hultman et al., 1997; Jansen et al., 1999; van den Bosch et al., 1992;
Ventura et. al, 2004).
We also found that neurocognitive factors (executive functioning and secondary
verbal memory) did not correlate with coping styles, and that there was no significant
difference on neurocognitive factors between persons high and low in schizotypy. The
latter finding is inconsistent with earlier research. Some studies have found a significant
difference in both executive functioning and secondary verbal memory when comparing
persons high in schizotypy to “normals.” In executive functioning, studies have reported
an increase in perseverative errors in the high schizotypy group (Gooding et al., 1999,
18

25. 2001; Lenzenweger & Korfine, 1994). In secondary verbal memory, Voglmaier et al.
(1993) found significant decrements in the CVLT in subjects with nonfamilial
schizotypal personality disorder. We reasoned that since both our samples were
composed of college students, both groups have average cognitive ability. In addition, the
importance of neurocognitive measures for the purpose of this study was to assure that
neurocognition did not correlate with coping styles.
The current study’s limitations must be mentioned. First, the sample was
composed of only CSUN college students. This limits our ability to generalize beyond
college students. The high educational attainment of the sample likely affected the null
findings regarding approach coping, executive functioning, and secondary verbal
memory. Future studies should examine coping and neurocognition in community
samples of schizotypes. A second limitation is that subjects were only tested at one time
point. Although, the research indicates that coping styles are stable over time, this is not
necessarily true in persons with schizotypy. Therefore, longitudinal studies of coping in
schizotypy are needed.
Despite these limitations, this study provides useful information about persons
high in schizotypy and has implications for treatment and future research. In recent years,
researchers have attempted to identify prodromal symptoms of psychosis and, using
various types of interventions, decrease symptoms and/or the rate of persons who will
convert to schizophrenia. For instance, Liberman and Robertson (2005) used the full
version of the SPQ to identify high school students that are high in schizotypy as “high-
risk” individuals for schizophrenia-spectrum disorders. They used an eight-week social
skills training program on these students high in schizotypy and found a significant
19

26. reduction (at post-test) in schizotypal traits, as well as an improvement in social skills and
self- esteem. O’Brien et al. (2006) recently found that an early intervention with youths at
risk for schizophrenia reduced psychotic features.
Training in effective coping strategies has not been studied in persons at risk for
schizophrenia. Evidence shows that the positive symptoms in schizophrenia are
exacerbated by stressful situations. It follows that teaching coping techniques may help
persons with schizophrenia prevent or lessen the effects of future psychotic episodes.
Future research should implement a coping strategies intervention with persons high in
schizotypy to determine whether earlier detection of schizotypy features will reduce
frequency in stressful events and pathogenic impact of those events.
20

27. Reference
American Psychiatric Association (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental
disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
Aldwin, C.M. (1994). Stress, development and coping: an integrative perspective. New
York: The Guilford Press.
Axelrod, S.R., Grilo, C.M., Sanislow, C., & McGlashan, T.H. (2001). Schizotypal
Personality Questionnaire-Brief: Factor structure and convergent validity in inpatient
adolescents. Journal of Personality Disorders, 15(2), 168-179.
Bijttebier, P., & Vertommen, H. (1999). Coping strategies in relation to personality
disorders. Personality and Individual Differences, 26(5), 847-856.
Buchsbaum, M.S., Nenadic, I., Hazlett, E.A., Spiegal-Cohen, J., Fleischman, M.D.,
Akhavan, A., Silverman, J.M., & Siever, L.J. (2002). Differential metabolic rates in
prefrontal and temporal Brodmann areas in schizophrenia and schizotypal personality
disorder. Schizophrenia Research, 54, 141-150.
Campisi, J., Leem, T.H., & Fleshner, M. (2003). Stress-induced extracellular Hsp72 is a
functionally significant danger signal to the immune system. Cell Stress &
Chaperones, 8(3), 272-286.
Carver, C.S., Scheier, M.F., & Weintraub, J.L. (1989). Assessing coping strategies: a
theoretically based approach. Journal of Personality Social Psychology, 56(2), 267-
283.
Claridge, G. (1994). Single indicator of risk for schizophrenia: probable fact or likely
myth? Schizophrenia Bulletin, 20, 151-168.
21

28. Claridge, G., & Beech, T. (1995). Fully and quasi-dimensional constructions of
schizotypy. In A. Raine, T. Lenex, & S.A. Mednick (Eds.), Schizotypal Personality
(pp. 192-216). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Cohen, A.S., Docherty, N.M., Nienow, T., & Dinzeo, T. (2003). Self-reported stress and
the deficit syndrome of schizophrenia. Psychiatry: Interpersonal & Biological
Processes, 66(4), 308-316.
Delis, D.C., Kramer, J.H., Kaplan, E., & Ober, B.A. (1983). California Verbal Learning
Test (CVLT) manual. New York, NT: Psychological Corporation.
Eckblad, M.L., Chapman, L.J., Chapman, J.P., & Mishlove, M. (1982). The Revised
Social Anhedonia Scale. Unpublished test.
Gooding, D.C., Kwapil, T.R., & Tallent, K.A. (1999). Wisconsin Card Sorting Test
deficits in schizotypic individuals. Schizophrenia Research, 40, 201-209.
Gooding, D.C., Tallent, K.A., & Hegyi, J.V. (2001). Cognitive slippage in schizotypic
individuals. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 189, 750-756.
Green, M.F. (1996). What are the functional consequences of neruocognitive deficits in
schizophrenia? American Journal of Psychiatry, 153, 321-333.
Green, M.F., Kern, R.S., Braff, D.L., Mintz, J. (2000). Neurocognitive deficits and
functional outcome in schizophrenia: are we measuring the “right stuff.”
Schizophrenia Bulletin, 26(1), 119-136.
Heaton, R.K., Chelune, G.J., Talley, J.L., Key, G.G., & Curtiss, G. (1993). Wisconsin
Card Sorting Test (WCST) manual – Revised and expanded. Odessa, FL:PAR.
22

29. Hirsch, S., Bowen, J., Emami, J., & Cramer, P. (1996). A one-year prospective study of
the effect of life events and medication in the aetiology of schizophrenic relapse.
British Journal of Psychiatry, 168, 49-56.
Horan, W.P., & Blanchard, J.J. (2003). Emotional responses to psychosocial stress in
schizophrenia: the role of individual differences in affective traits and coping.
Schizophrenia Research, 60(2-3), 271-283.
Horan, W.P., Blanchard, J.J., Gangestad, S.W., & Kwapil, T.R. (2004). The psychometric
detection of schizotypy: do putative schizotypy indicators identify the same latent
class? Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 113, 339-357.
Hultman, C.M., Wieselgren, I.M., & Ohman, A. (1997). Relationships between social
support, social coping, and life events in the relapse of schizophrenia patients.
Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 38, 3-13.
Jansen, L.M.C., Gispen-de-Wied, C.C., & Kahn, R.S. (1999). Coping with stress in
schizophrenia. Schizophrenia Research, 33(special issue), 186.
Lazarus, R.S. & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer.
Liberman, R.P. & Robertson, M.J. (2005). A pilot, controlled skills training study of
schizotypal high school students. Verhaltenstherapie, 15(3), 176-180.
Lenzenweger, M.F. & Korfine, L. (1994). Perceptual aberrations, schizotypy and the
Wisconsin Card Sorting Test. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 20, 345-357.
Matsui, M., Sumiyoshi, T., Kato, K., Yoneyama, E., & Kurachi, M. (2004).
Neuropsychological profile in patients with schizotypal personality disorder or
schizophrenia. Psychological Reports, 94, 387-397.
23

30. Meehl, P.E (1962). Schizotaxia, schizotypy, schizophrenia. American Psychologist, 17,
827-838.
Meehl, P.E. (1990). Toward an integrated theory of schizotaxia, schizotypy, and
schizophrenia. Journal of Personality, 60, 117-174.
Moos, R.H. (2002). The mystery of human context and coping: an unraveling of clues.
American Journal of Community Psychology, 30, 67-88.
Moos, PH., & Schaefer, J., (1993). Coping resources and processes: current concepts and
measures. In L. Goldberger & S. Breznitz (Eds.), Handbook of Stress: Theoretical
and Clinical Aspects (2nd ed.) (pp. 234-257). New York: Macmillan.
Norman, R. M.G., Malla, A.K., McLean, T.S., McIntosh, E.M., Neufeld, R.W.J.,
Voruganti, L.P., & Cortese, L. (2002). An evaluation of a stress management program
for individuals with schizophrenia. Schizophrenia Research, 58(2-3), 293-303.
Ponizovsky, A., Grinshpoon, A., Sasson, R., & Levav, I. (2004). Stress in adult students
with schizophrenia in a supported education program. Comprehensive Psychiatry,
45(5), 401-407.
Raine, A., & Benishay, D. (1995). The SPQ-B: A Brief Screening Instrument for
Schizotypal Personality Disorder. Journal of Personality Disorders, 9(4), 346-355.
Somerfield, M.R., & McCrae, R.R. (2000). Stress and coping research: Methodological
challenges, theoretical advances, and clinical application. American Psychologist, 55,
620-625.
van den Bosch, R.J., van Asma, M.J., Rombouts, R., & Louwerens, J.W. (1992). Coping
style and cognitive dysfunction in schizophrenic patients. British Journal of
Psychiatry, 18(supplement), 12-38.
24

31. Ventura, J. & Liberman, R.P. (2000). Psychotic Disorders. In G. Fink (Ed.),
Encyclopedia of Stress, 3, (pp. 316-325). San Diego: Academic Press.
Ventura, J., & Nuechterlein, K.H. (1994, May). Stressful life events and the early course
of schizophrenia. Paper presented at the 147th annual meeting of the American
Psychiatric Association, Philadelphia.
Ventura, J., Nuechterlein, K.H., & Subotnik, K.L. (2002). Coping with interpersonal
stressors in schizophrenia. In H. Kashima, I.R.H. Faloon, M. Mizuno, & M. Asai
(Eds.), Schizophrenia: Keio University Symposia for Life Science and Medicine, 8,
(pp. 28-37). Tokyo-Berlin-New York: Springer-Verlag.
Ventura, J., Nuechterlein, K.H., Subotnik, K.L., Green, M.F., & Gitlin, M.J. (2004). Self-
efficacy and neurocognition may be related to coping responses in recent-onset
schizophrenia. Schizophrenia Research, 69, 343-352.
Voglmaier, M.M., Seidman, L.J., Salisbury, D., & McCarley, R.W. (1993). Selective
deficit in verbal learning in schizotypal personality disorder: A neuropsychological
profile analysis. Presented at the Society for Research in Psychopathology.
Zubin, J. & Spring, B. (1977). Vulnerability-a new view of schizophrenia. Journal of
Abnormal Psychology, 86, 103-126.
25

32. Appendix A
Schizotypal Personality Questionnaire-Brief (SPQ-B)
Please answer each item by circling Y (Yes) or N (No). Answer all items even if unsure
of your answer. When you have finished, check over each one to make sure you have
answered them all.
Y N 1. People sometimes find me aloof and distant.
Y N 2. Have you ever had the sense that some person or force is around you,
even though you cannot see anyone?
Y N 3. People sometimes comment on my unusual mannerisms and habits.
Y N 4. Are you sometimes sure that other people can tell what you are
thinking?
Y N 5. Have you ever noticed a common event or object that seemed to be a
special sign for you?
Y N 6. Some people think that I am a very bizarre person.
Y N 7. I feel I have to be on my guard even with friends.
Y N 8. Some people find me a bit vague and elusive during a conversation.
Y N 9. Do you often pick up hidden threats or put-downs from what people
say or do?
Y N 10. When shopping do you get the feeling that other people are taking
notice of you?
Y N 11. I feel very uncomfortable in social situations involving unfamiliar
people.
Y N 12. Have you had experiences with astrology, seeing the future, UFOs,
ESP or a sixth sense?
Y N 13. I sometimes use words in unusual ways.
Y N 14. Have you found that it is best not to let other people know too much
about you?
Y N 15. I tend to keep in the background on social occasions.
Y N 16. Do you ever suddenly feel distracted by distant sounds that you are not
normally aware of?
26

33. Y N 17. Do you often have to keep an eye out to stop people from taking
advantage of you?
Y N 18. Do you feel that you are unable to get “close” to people?
Y N 19. I am an odd, unusual person.
Y N 20. I find it hard to communicate clearly what I want to say to people.
Y N 21. I feel very uneasy talking to people I do not know well.
Y N 22. I tend to keep my feelings to myself.
27

34. Appendix B
Revised Social Anhedonia Scale (R-SAS)
Please read each of the statements below and circle True (T) or False (F)
T F 1. Having close friend is not as important as many people say.
T F 2. I attach very little importance to having close friends.
T F 3. I prefer watching television to going out with other people.
T F 4. A car ride is much more enjoyable if someone is with me.
T F 5. I like to make long distance phone calls to friends and relatives.
T F 6. Playing with children is a real chore.
T F 7. I have always enjoyed looking at photographs of friends.
T F 8. Although there are things that I enjoy doing by myself, I usually seem
to have more fun when I do things with other people.
T F 9. I sometimes become deeply attached to people I spend a lot of time
with.
T F 10. People sometimes think that I am shy when I really just want to be
left alone.
T F 11. When things are going really good for my close friends, it makes me
fell good too.
T F 12. When someone close to me is depressed, it brings me down also.
T F 13. My emotional responses seem very different from those of other
people.
T F 14. When I am alone, I often resent people telephoning me or knocking on
my door.
T F 15. Just being with friends can make me feel really good.
T F 16. When things are bothering me, I like to talk to other people about it.
T F 17. I prefer hobbies and leisure activities that do not involve other people.
T F 18. It’s fun to sing with other people.
T F 19. Knowing that I have friends who care about me gives me a sense of
security.
T F 20. When I move to a new city, I feel a strong need to make new friends.
28

35. T F 21. People are usually better off if they stay aloof from emotional
involvements with most others.
T F 22. Although I know I should have affection for certain people, I don’t
really feel it.
T F 23. People often expect me to spend more time talking with them than I
would like.
T F 24. I feel pleased and gratified as I learn more and more about the
emotional life of my friends.
T F 25. When others try to tell me about their problems and hang-ups, I
usually listen with interest and attention.
T F 26. I never had really close friend in high school.
T F 27. I am usually content to just sit alone, thinking and daydreaming.
T F 28. I’m much too independent to really get involved with other people.
T F 29. There are few things more tiring than to have a long, personal
discussion with someone.
T F 30. It made me sad to see all my high school friends go their separate ways
when high school was over.
T F 31. I have often found it hard to resist talking to a good friend, even when
I have other things to do.
T F 32. Making new friends isn’t worth the energy it takes.
T F 33. There are things that are more important to me than privacy.
T F 34. People who try to get to know me better usually give up after awhile.
T F 35. I could be happy living all alone in a cabin in the woods or mountains.
T F 36. If given the choice, I would much rather be with others than be alone.
T F 37. I find that people too often assume that their daily activities and
opinions will be interesting to me.
T F 38. I don’t really feel very close to my friends.
T F 39. My relationships with other people never get very intense.
T F 40. In many ways, I prefer the company of pets to the company of people.
29

36. Appendix C
Coping Response Inventory (CRI)
Subject ID: ____________________
Date: _________________________
Interviewer: ____________________
Date of Life Event: ______________
Part I:
Please think about the most important problem or stressful situations you have
experienced DURING THE LAST 12 MONTHS (for example, having troubles with
friends or significant others, having academic problems, having financial or work
problems). Describe the problems. If you have not experienced a major problem, then list
a minor problem that you have had to deal with.
DESCRIBE THE PROBLEM OR SITUATION:
1) _____________________________________________________________________
2) _____________________________________________________________________
3) _____________________________________________________________________
4) _____________________________________________________________________
5) _____________________________________________________________________
WHICH OF THESE CAUSED THE MOST STRESS: _______
CONTENT: _____
(1 = School, 2 = Work, 3 = Relationship, 4 = Transportation, 5 = Family, 6 = Residence,
7 = Crime and legal matters, 8 = Finance, 9 = Social Activities, 10 = Health,
11 = Earthquake, 12 = Middle East War, 13 = Misc. Crisis or Traumatic event,
16 = Malibu fires, 17 = Training Program, 18 = September 11th, 19 = Iraq War,
20 = Other)
INDEPENDENCE: _____
(1 = Independent, 2 = Possible independent, 3 = Dependent, subject could influence it,
4 = Dependent, due to current symptomatology, 5 = Dependent, possibly due to current
symptomatology, 6 = Dependent, due to past symptomatology)
INTERPERSONAL: _____
(0 = No, 1 = Yes)
30

37. DEALING WITH A PROBLEM OR SITUATION
PART II:
Please answer the following questions about the problem you have listed. Place an “X” in
the appropriate box:
Definitely Mainly Mainly Definitely
No No _ Yes Yes__
1. Have you ever faced a problem
like this before?..……………………
2. Did you know this problem was
going to occur?...................................
3. Did you have enough time to get
ready to handle this problem?............
4. When this problem occurred, did
you think of it as a threat?..................
5. When this problem occurred, did
you think of it as a challenge?...........
6. Was this problem caused by
something you did?...........................
7. Was this problem cause by
something someone else did?.............
8. Did anything good come out of
dealing with this problem?.................
9. Has this problem or situation
been resolved?....................................
10. If the problem has been worked out,
did it turn out all right for you?..........
31

38. PART III:
Please think again about the problem you described on PART I; indicate which of the
following you did in connection with that situation.
YES, YES, YES,
once or some- fairly
No twice _times_ often__
DID YOU:
1. Think of different ways to deal
with the problem……………………
2. Tell yourself things to make
yourself feel better?............................
3. Talk with your spouse or other
relative about the problem?...............
4. Make a plan of action and follow it?.
5. Try to forget the whole thing?..........
6. Feel that time would make a differance
--the only thing to do was wait? ..............
7. Try to help others deal with a
similar problem?.................................
8. Take it out on other people when
you felt angry or depressed?...............
9. Try to step back from the situation
and be more objective?......................
10. Remind yourself how much worse
things could be?.................................
11. Talk with a friend about the
problem?............................................
12. Know what had to be done and try
hard to make things work?..................
13. Try not to think about the problem?..
14. Realize that you had no control
over the problem?..............................
32

39. Questions about how you handled the problem you listed on PART I (continued)
YES, YES, YES,
once or some- fairly
No twice _times_ often__
DID YOU:
15. Get involved in new activites?...........
16. Take a chance and do something
risky?..................................................
17. Go over in your mind what you
would say or do?................................
18. Try to see the good side of the
situation?............................................
19. Talk with a professional person
(e.g., doctor, lawyer, clergy)?.............
20. Decide what you wanted and try
hard to get it?.....................................
21. Daydream or imagine a better time
or place than the one you were in?......
22. Think that the outcome would be
decided by fate?.................................
23. Try to make new friends?..................
24. Keep away from people in general? ..
25. Try to anticipate how things
would turn out?..................................
26. Think about how you were much
better off than other people with
similar problems?...............................
27. Seek help from persons or groups
with the same type of problems?........
28. Try at least two different ways to
solve the problem?.............................
33

40. Questions about how you handled the problem you listed on PART I (continued)
YES, YES, YES,
once or some- fairly
No twice _times_ often__
DID YOU:
29. Try to put off thinking about the
situation, even though you knew
you would have to at some point?......
30. Accept it; nothing could be done?........
31. Read more often as a source of
enjoyment?.........................................
32. Yell or shout to let off steam?............
33. Try to find some personal
meaning in the situation?...................
34. Try to tell yourself that things would
get better?..........................................
35. Try to find out more about the
situation?.............................................
36. Try to learn to do more things on
your own?...........................................
37. Wish the problem would go away
or somehow be over with?.................
38. Expect the worst possible outcome?..
39. Spend more time in recreational
activities?...........................................
40. Cry to let your feelings out?...............
41. Try to anticipate the new demands
that would be placed on you?............
42. Think about how this event could
change your life in a positive way ?....
34

41. Questions about how you handled the problem you listed on PART I (continued)
YES, YES, YES,
once or some- fairly
No twice _times_ often__
DID YOU:
43. Pray for guidance and/or strength?....
44. Take things a day at a time, one step
at a time?............................................
45. Try to deny how serious the problem
really was?.........................................
46. Lose hope that things would ever be
the same?...........................................
47. Turn to work or other activities to
help you manage things?....................
48. Do something that you didn’t think
would work, but at least you were
doing something?...............................
49. Turn to drugs, alcohol, or food to
help you deal with the problem?........
50. Not know what to do, so you did
nothing?..............................................
51. Try the same solution over and over
even though it didn’t work the first
time?...................................................
52. Not even know there was a problem
until it was too late?...........................
53. Hope that someone else would fix
the problem for you?..........................
54. Sleep more than usual after
encountering the problem?.................
55. Use any form of humor (e.g. make
joke) to deal with the problem?..........
35

42. Questions about how you handled the problem you listed on PART I (continued)
DID YOU:
56. Did you use any coping methods that were not listed? Yes______ No______
If yes, please list them.
57. __________________________________________________________________
58. __________________________________________________________________
59. __________________________________________________________________
60. __________________________________________________________________
61. Were your coping efforts successful? Yes______ No______
If yes, please list which coping methods were most helpful for you?
62. __________________________________________________________________
63. __________________________________________________________________
64. __________________________________________________________________
36

43. Appendix D
Cognitive Appraisal of Life Events Scale (CALES)
Subject ID: ____________________
Date: _________________________
Interviewer: ____________________
Date of Life Event: ______________
Instructions: Please answer each question by circling the point on the scale which most
closely describes the way you felt about the event.
1. Has this event ever happened to you before?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Not at all Somewhat Moderately Highly Extremely
familiar familiar familiar familiar familiar
2. How much control did you have over whether this event happened?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
No control Some degree Moderate High degree Extreme
at all of control degree of of control degree of
control control
3. Did you have any advance notice about the event?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
No advance Some degree Moderate High degree Extreme
notice at all of advance degree of of advance degree of
notice advance notice advance
notice notice
4. How much of the time has the event been on your mind?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Not at all On my mind On my mind On my mind On my mind
on my mind some of the much of the most of the all of the
time time time time
5. How much of a change in your daily routine has the event caused?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
No change Some degree Moderate High degree Extreme
at all of change degree of of change degree of
change change
37

44. 6. How desirable was this event?
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
Extremely Highly Moderately Somewhat Neither Somewhat Moderately Highly Extremely
undesirable undesirable undesirable undesirable desirable desirable desirable desirable desirable
nor
undesirable
7. Were you successful at handling the event?
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
Extremely Highly Moderately Somewhat Neither Somewhat Moderately Highly Extremely
unsuccessful unsuccessful unsuccessful unsuccessful successful successful successful successful successful
nor
unsuccessful
8. How upsetting or uplifting was this event for you?
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
Extremely Highly Moderately Somewhat Neither Somewhat Moderately Highly Extremely
upsetting upsetting upsetting upsetting upsetting uplifting uplifting uplifting uplifting
nor
uplifting
9. How upsetting or uplifting has this past month been for you?
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
Extremely Highly Moderately Somewhat Neither Somewhat Moderately Highly Extremely
upsetting upsetting upsetting upsetting upsetting uplifting uplifting uplifting uplifting
nor
uplifting
38