因應策略對壓力因應的影響：反思寫作與字詞分析研究

研究目的：以大學生為研究對象，檢驗因應策略對壓力因應的影響，以比較因應策略的效能，及因應策略間的影響。研究一：調查目前大學生壓力與其因應，以瞭解大學生於各生活領域的壓力程度，及日常慣用的因應策略（因應風格）與壓力因應的關聯性。參與者為101位大學生，採用量表調查，完成短版因應策略量表（Brief COPE）、壓力評估量表、正負向情緒量表（Positive and Negative Affect Schedule, PANAS）和生活滿意度量表（Satisfaction With Life Scale, SWLS）。結果發現：（1）大學生以學業壓力最高，其次為生涯發展壓力；（2）因應風格與壓力因應具有關聯性，問題聚焦因應和情緒聚焦因應，伴隨較高的正向情緒或生活滿意度，迴避性因應伴隨較高的整體壓力和負向情緒，且有較低的正向情緒和生活滿意度；（3）因應風格間具有顯著的相關性，情緒聚焦因應與問題聚焦因應、迴避性因應呈正相關，顯現量表對因應風格的評估具有概念重疊的問題。研究二：受限於現有量表取向仍具有概念重疊的疑慮，研究二以反思寫作來誘發因應策略，探討因應策略對壓力因應的影響。參與者為43位大學生，進行三階段的反思寫作。第一階段，回顧壓力經驗；第二、三階段，先後誘發兩種因應策略（問題聚焦因應或情緒聚焦因應），採受試者內設計、受試者間平衡。在每一階段反思寫作後，填寫壓力評估量表、PANAS、SWLS，以衡量其壓力與幸福感之變化。針對反思寫作文本以語意探索與字詞計算（Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count, LIWC）進行字詞分析。結果發現：（1）問題聚焦因應與情緒聚焦因應皆對壓力因應具有正向效果，兩者不分軒輊，但在字詞分析則發現在特定人稱代名詞、情緒歷程詞、生理詞的使用率具有差異，顯現大學生使用因應策略時的心理歷程不同；（2）無論問題聚焦因應或情緒聚焦因應孰前孰後，前項因應策略不影響後項的效能，但字詞使用的變化顯現心理歷程的不同。研究結論：透過量表及反思寫作誘發發現，問題聚焦與情緒聚焦都是有效的壓力因應策略。大學生並非死板地採用一種具體的應對策略，而是可以靈活運用兩種策略。

關鍵字

因應策略；問題聚焦因應；情緒聚焦因應；迴避性因應；反思寫作；字詞分析

並列摘要

Research Purpose: This study aims to examine the effects of strategies on stress-coping for college students. We investigated two goals: First, to compare the efficacy of problem-focused and emotion-focused coping. Second, to examine the influence when two strategies are successfully adopted. Research 1: We investigated types of stressors of college students and the relationship between coping style and stress-coping. Participants were 101 college students. They completed Brief COPE, the stress assessment scale, Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS), and Satisfaction With Life Scale (SWLS). Results: (1) Seven stressors were identified and academic stress was the major one among others. (2) Coping style and stress-coping had a significant relationship. Problem-focused and emotion-focused coping styles were positively correlated with positive emotions and life satisfaction. Avoidance coping was positively correlated with stress and negative emotions while negatively correlated with positive emotions and life satisfaction. (3) There was a significant positive correlation between coping styles, suggesting that coping styles in the Brief COPE were not be mutually independent constructs. Research 2: We adopted reflective writing to induce participants' stress experience and their coping strategies. Participants were 43 college students, who completed three-stage reflective writing. In the first stage, the participants were asked to briefly describe their stress experience. In the second and third stages, semi-structured questions were used to successfully induce either problem-focused or emotion-focused coping strategies. After each stage, the participants completed the stress assessment scale, PANAS, and SWLS. The narratives were analyzed using Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC). Results: (1) Both problem-focused and emotion-focused coping had similar positive effects on stress coping. However, the LIWC results revealed that the participants used words in different categories along with those two coping strategies. (2) Regardless of the previous strategy, there were no different efficacy of coping strategies remains. However, again, the LIWC results revealed that participants used words in different categories with or without previous coping strategies. Conclusion: Both problem-focused and emotion-focused coping were beneficial for college students to cope with stress. The college students did not rigidly adopt a specific coping strategy; rather, the two strategies were used flexibly.