Effects of components of protection-motivation theory on adaptive and maladaptive coping with a health threat.

TLDR

People often face health threats without intending to adopt protective behaviors, raising questions about how they cope in such situations. The study sought to determine how threat information and coping abilities—self‑efficacy and response efficacy—affect the use of adaptive and maladaptive coping strategies. Researchers examined the impact of high‑threat versus low‑threat information and high versus low self‑efficacy and response efficacy on two adaptive and five maladaptive coping strategies. Results showed that a high‑threat context activated all coping strategies but did not favor specific ones; coping information guided strategy choice, with high self‑efficacy and response efficacy boosting adaptive coping without increasing maladaptive coping, and path analysis revealed that avoidant thinking was the most maladaptive strategy, simultaneously lowering fear and weakening intentions to adopt protective responses.

Abstract

How do people cope with a threat when they do not plan to adopt an adaptive, protective response? We explored this question by examining the effects of information about a health threat and two aspects of coping ability, self-efficacy and response efficacy, on two adaptive and five maladaptive coping strategies (e.g., avoidance, wishful thinking). The results disclosed that the high-threat condition energized all forms of coping; it did not differentially cue specific coping strategies. The critical factor in determining the specific strategies used was the coping information. The high-response-efficacy and high-self-efficacy conditions strengthened adaptive coping and did not foster any maladaptive coping. A supplementary path analysis revealed an intriguing pattern of relations, including the finding that the most maladaptive strategy was avoidant thinking, which simultaneously reduced fear of the threat and weakened intentions to adopt the adaptive response.