Identifying Coping Profiles and Profile Differences in Role Engagement and Subjective Well-Being


 Coping profiles, coping strategies, latent profile analysis, person-oriented approach, role engagement, well-being.

How to Cite

Saija Mauno, Marika Rantanen, & Asko Tolvanen. (2014). Identifying Coping Profiles and Profile Differences in Role Engagement and Subjective Well-Being. Journal of Basic & Applied Sciences, 10, 189–204.


Coping strategies are not necessarily mutually exclusive and can be used simultaneously, a fact which has rarely been examined in coping research. We examined what kinds of coping profiles could be found in data concerning Finnish health care and service employees (n = 2756). We also studied whether role engagement (family-to-work-enrichment, work-to-family-enrichment, emotional energy at work, and work engagement) and subjective well-being (life, parental, and marital satisfaction, and psychological distress) differ between coping profiles. The data were analyzed through latent profile (LPA) and covariance analyses (Ancovas). LPA revealed seven distinct coping profiles: two active groups, one passive group, one low and two high copers’ groups and one moderate group. These results indicate that coping strategies are not mutually exclusive and that people might use different strategies simultaneously. The covariance analyses revealed that the most significant differences concerned role engagement: active copers showed higher role engagement (e.g. enrichment, work engagement) than moderate or low copers. The findings imply that the indicators of role engagement deserve more attention in coping research in healthy working adults.


Pearlin L and Schooler C. The structure of coping. J Health Soc Behav 1978; 19: 2-21.

Lazarus RS. Stress and emotion: A new synthesis. Springer; 2006.

Schwarzer R and Schwarzer C. A critical survey of coping instruments, in Handbook of coping. Theory, research and applications, Ed by Zeidner M and Endler NS Wiley-Blackwell 1996; pp. 107-132.

Lazarus RS and Folkman S. Stress, appraisal, and coping. Springer 1984.

Skinner EA, Edge K, Altman J and Sherwood H. Searching for the structure of coping: A review and critiques of category systems for classifying ways of coping. Psychol Bull 2003; 129: 216-269.

Carver CS, Scheier MF and Weintraub JK. Assessing coping strategies: A theoretically based approach. J Pers Soc Psychol 1989; 56: 267-283.

Compas BE, Connor-Smith JK, Saltzman H, Thomsen AH and Wadsworth ME. Coping with stress during childhood and adolescence: Problems, progress, and potential in theory and research. Psychol Bull 2001; 127: 87-127.

Dewe P. A closer examination of the patterns when coping with work-related stress: Implications for measurement. J Occup Organ Psych 2003; 76: 517-524.

Luyckx K, Vanhalst J, Seiffge-Krenke I and Weets I. A typology of coping with Type 1 diabetes in emerging adulthood: associations with demographic, psychological, and clinical parameters. J Behav Med 2010; 33: 228-238.

Aldridge AA and Roesch SC. Developing coping typologies of minority adolescents: A latent profile analysis. J Adolescence 2008; 31: 499-517.

Seiffge-Krenke I and Klessinger N. Long-term effects of avoidant coping on adolescents' depressive symptoms, J Youth Adolescence 2000; 29: 617-630.

Magnusson D. The logic and implications of a person-oriented approach, in Methods and models for studying the individual, Ed by Cairns RB, Bergman LR and Kagan J. Sage 1998; pp. 33-64.

Bartholomew DJ and Knott M. Latent variable models and factor analysis. Arnold 1999.

Walker LS, Baber KF, Garber J and Smith CA. A typology of pain coping strategies in pediatric patients with chronic abdominal pain. Pain 2008; 137: 266-275.

Folkman S and Moskowitz JT. Coping: pitfalls and promises. Annu Rev Psychol 2004; 55: 745-774.

Penley JA, Tomaka J and Wiebe JS. The association of coping to physical and psychological health outcomes: A meta-analytic review. J Behav Med 2002; 25: 551-603.

Edwards JR. A cybernetic theory of stress, coping, and well-being in organizations. Acad Manage Rev 1992; 17: 238-274.

Edwards JR. Cybernetic theory of stress, coping, and well-being, in Theories of organizational stress, Ed by Cooper CL. Oxford University Press 1998; pp. 122-152.

Edwards JR, Caplan RD and Harrison RV. Person-environment fit theory: Conceptual foundations, empirical evidence and directions for future research, In Theories of organizational stress, Ed by Cooper CL. Oxford University Press 1998; pp. 28-67.

Edwards JR and Baglioni, AJ Jr. The measurement of coping with stress: Construct validity of the ways of coping checklist & the cybernetic coping scale. Work Stress 1993; 7: 17-31.

Aldwin CM and Revenson TA. Does coping help? A re-examination of the relation between coping and mental health. J Pers Soc Psychol 1987; 53: 337-348.

Kahn WA. Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Acad Manage J 1990; 33: 692-724.

Rothbard NP. Enriching or Depleting? The dynamics of engagement in work and family roles. Admin Sci Quart 2001; 46: 655-684.

Baruch Y and Holtom BC. Survey response rate levels and trends in organizational research. Hum Relat 2008; 61: 1139-1160.

Brough P, O’Driscoll M and Kalliath, T. Evaluating the criterion validity of the Cybernetic Coping Scale: Cross-lagged predictions of psychological strain, job and family satisfaction. Work Stress 2005; 19: 276-292.

Guppy A, Edwards JA, Brough P, Sale C, Peters-Bean K and Short E. The Psychometric properties of the short version of the cybernetic coping scale. J Occup Organ Psych 2004; 77: 39-62.

Elo A-L, Leppänen A, Lindström K and Roponen T. The OSQ. How to use the Occupational. Stress Questionnaire. Helsinki: Finnish institute of occupational health 1990.

Schumm WR, Paff-Bergen LA, Hatch RC, Obiorah FC, Copeland JM, Meens LD, Bugaighis MA. Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale. J Marriage Fam 1986; 48: 381-387.

James D, Schumm W, Kennedy K, Grigsby C, Schectman K and Nichols C. Characteristics of the Kansas Parental Satisfaction Scale among two samples of married parents. Psychol Rep 1985; 57: 163-169.

Schaufeli WB, Salanova M, Gonzalez-Romá V and Bakker AB. The measurement of engagement and burnout: A confirmative analytic approach. J Happ Stud 2002; 3: 71-92.

Schaufeli WB, Bakker AB, and Salanova M. The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire. A cross-national study. Educ Psychol Meas 2006; 66: 706-716.

Greenhaus JH and Powell GN. When work and family are allies: A theory of work-family enrichment. Acad Manage Rev 2006; 31: 72-92.

Carlson DS, Kacmar KM, Wayne JH and Grzywascz JG. Measuring the positive side of the work-family interface. Developing and validation of a work-family enrichment scale. J Vocat Behav 2006; 68: 131-164.

Shirom A. Feeling vigorous at work? The construct of vigor and the study of positive affect in organizations, In Research in organizational stress and well-being, Ed by Ganster D and Perrewe PL. JAI Press 2003; pp. 135-165.

Boyar SL, Carr JC, Mosley DC and Carson CM. The development and validation of scores on perceived Work and Family Demand Scales. Educ Psychol Meas 2007; 67: 100-115.

Elo A-L, Dallner M and Gamberale F et al., QPSNordic Manual (in Finnish). Helsinki: Finnish Institute of Occupational Health 2006.

Muthén LK and Muthén BO (1998-2009). Mplus user’s guide (6th edition). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén 1998-2009.

Nagin DS. Group-based modelling of development. Harward University Press 2005.

Carver CS and Connor-Smith J. Personality and coping. Annu Rev Psychol 2010; 61: 679-704.

Ben-Zur H. Coping styles and affect. Int J Stress Manage 2009; 16: 87-101.

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Copyright (c) 2014 Saija Mauno, Marika Rantanen, Asko Tolvanen