Yaroub Ali: Historia de un intérprete refugiado

In the coping literature, coping dispositions and personality traits are sometimes confounded. An overview of personality characteristics is provided here to outline the positioning of this construct with regard to coping dispositions for the present study.

processes by which they affect the individual’s psychological functioning” (Costa et al., 1996, p. 48). McCrae (1992) has argued that preferred ways of coping have their basis in personality traits with certain traits predisposing individuals to cope with stress in certain ways. The five factor model of personality includes the following broad categories: Neuroticism (negative affectivity vs. emotional stability); Extraversion (dominance vs. introversion); Openness to Experience (intellect, culture vs. conventionality); Agreeableness (friendly compliance vs. antagonism); and, Conscientiousness (will to achieve vs. indirectness) (McCrae & John, 1992). These broad constructs can be viewed as a higher abstract ordering of the person characteristics that interact in the stress-coping process. Other personality and trait constructs that have been related to coping have included optimism (Scheier et al., 1986) and locus of control (Roberto, 1992). Subsumed within these higher-level constructs (or traits) is the mid-level of dispositions (or coping styles) which are at a higher abstract level respectively than the coping behaviours that are used in actual situations (Amirkhan, Risinger, & Swickert, 1995).

Costa et al. (1996) state that small correlations should be seen between broad personality factors and specific coping strategies, while coping styles and personality traits should show larger associations. However, a recent meta-analysis of the relation between personality and coping found that of 2,653 effect sizes, 165 samples, and 33,094 participants, personality was weakly related to broad coping styles, but each of the Big Five traits were able to predict specific coping strategies (Connor-Smith & Flachsbart, 2007). Scheier et al. (1986) showed, for example, that optimism was positively associated with planning and suppression of competing activities (both problem-focused strategies), while pessimists tended to use emotion-focused strategies such as focus on and venting of emotions and disengagement. In parallel results, Fleishman (1984) argues for a specificity of influence when discussing the effects of personality on coping behaviours. Fleishman showed that personality traits such as self-denial were associated with the coping behaviours of passive acceptance and reinterpretation; nondisclosure was related to seeking advice; mastery was associated with problem-focused coping functions

but only in the areas of work and finance with its impact on marriage and parenthood weak. Fleishman argues that this latter finding may be due to the perceptions of individuals as to the ability to control non-social versus social environments. Wearing and Hart (1996) found Neuroticism was significantly correlated with the emotion-focused coping style in both work and non-work domains, but not problem-focused coping. Extraversion was also found to be significantly correlated with problem-focused coping in both domains (but not emotion-focused coping) (Wearing & Hart, 1996). It is argued that the connection of personality dispositions and coping styles suggests a stable disposition for coping approach over time, however, Wearing and Hart acknowledge this predisposition is influenced by several factors including observational learning, development of cognitive processes, and the person-environment interaction.

In contrast, however, personality traits were found to more strongly predict coping in samples where dispositional coping styles were reported than situation-specific coping reports (Connor-Smith & Flachsbart, 2007). These seemingly conflicting results may reflect the differences in analysis technique used rather than a difference of association.

The traditional approach of investigating the association between personality constructs and dispositional coping styles and strategies was based on the assumption that certain coping strategies were stable phenomena that derived from personality (Schwarzer & Schwarzer, 1996). While a number of studies have sought to associate personality attributes with coping styles and strategies (or the mediating effect of personality constructs on the relationship of coping style/strategy and outcome), direct correlations reported have been modest, although coping styles have shown some moderate to strong relationships with personality traits (see Amirkhan et al., 1995; Carver et al., 1993; Endler & Parker, 1990; Gallagher, 1990; McCrae & Costa, 1986; Parkes, 1984, 1986; Scheier et al., 1986). Because the majority of studies do not show more than a moderate correlation between coping styles and personality traits in general

(although specificity of personality trait impact on coping strategies show more promising results), Schwarzer and Schwarzer (1996) and Carver et al. (1989) suggest that stable coping dispositions or preferences may develop from sources other than personality. It is possible that personality is only a partial source of the development of coping styles, just as dispositional coping styles based on person factors are only a partial influencing source on coping strategy (Carver et al., 1989).

Caprara (1987) argues that instead of using the term ‘consistency’ when discussing dispositional and situational aspects and all that that implies, ‘coherence’ at this inferential level should be used instead. Caprara notes that construct validity refers to the coherence of the conceptual framework, content validity to the specificity of the visible situations and behaviours, and internal validity to the congruity of the connections between these hypothetical constructs and the perceived behaviours and situations. This brings to mind an understanding that while not ‘consistent’, dispositions and situations can be understood to show similarities (even if not highly correlated) at this higher general level. At the observational level for behaviours and situations, Caprara suggests the notions of specificity and stability should be used allowing therefore an understanding of how the behaviours and situations interact in practice in stable and situationally-specific ways. Finally, Caprara suggests the concepts of contingency as well as congruity for discussing the connections between behaviours and dispositions, and contingent situations and classes of situations, that is, dispositional means of coping with classes of situations can be contingent on means of coping with specific situations but are not necessarily consistent. Caprara does still seem to be looking for some stability amongst constructs; however, it is the author’s opinion that this stability will never be found except at the broad level of analysis which will never strongly correlate to the specific level. Caprara argues that different levels of analysis, while they focus on different aspects of the same phenomena, are not reducible one to the other. While he is referring to the phenomenological and aetiological levels of analysis, it is the author’s opinion that this argument could also be

applied to the dispositional and situational levels of analysis.

Caprara (1987) argues that dispositions (in this sense, he refers to personality dimensions) do involve reference to the environment and imply “not only a range of responses but also a range of situations” (p. 5). Dispositions should allow us to look at how the person-situation interaction develops in terms of perception, emotional response and action, stability over time and situation, and change over time and situation (Caprara, 1987). Caprara argues that: “A correspondence is likely between responses and situations on the basis of a predisposition of the individual organism to meet with a certain environment and to conform to it in accordance with certain patterns of behaviour. A correspondence is also likely between responses and situations on the basis of the selective demands of the former on the latter” (p. 5). Caprara argues for “extreme flexibility” in the amount of variance that can be determined to come from either dispositional or situational factors in any one incident, and laments the lack of awareness of the need for such flexibility in studies that discuss dispositions and situations as polar opposites.