Portland State University

PDXScholar

University Honors Theses University Honors College

6-16-2021

Relationships Between Coping Mechanisms and

Perceived Stress of Portland State University
Community Members Amidst COVID-19
Julie Goldman
Portland State University

Follow this and additional works at: https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/honorstheses

Part of the Mental and Social Health Commons, and the Public Health Commons
Let us know how access to this document benefits you.

Recommended Citation
Goldman, Julie, "Relationships Between Coping Mechanisms and Perceived Stress of Portland State
University Community Members Amidst COVID-19" (2021). University Honors Theses. Paper 1100.
https://doi.org/10.15760/honors.1127

This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access. It has been accepted for inclusion in University Honors
Theses by an authorized administrator of PDXScholar. Please contact us if we can make this document more
accessible: pdxscholar@pdx.edu.
 1

Relationships Between Coping Mechanisms and Perceived Stress of Portland State

University Community Members Amidst COVID-19

by

Julie Goldman

An undergraduate honors thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the degree of

Bachelor of Science

in

University Honors

and

Public Health Studies: Pre-Clinical Health Science

Thesis Adviser

Claire Wheeler MD, Ph.D

Portland State University

2021
 2

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to assess the coping mechanisms used by the Portland

State University (PSU) community and their relationships to perceived stress.

Methods: A virtual survey composed of demographic questions, the Perceived Stress Scale

(PSS10), the Brief COPE, and two open-ended questions was distributed to the community. Data

were collected from 231 respondents, mostly PSU students. Statistical Package for the Social

Sciences (SPSS) was used to compute mean PSS score, adaptive coping score, and avoidant

coping score. Pearson correlations and t-tests were run to explore the relationship between

perceived stress and coping data.

Results: Perceived stress of the study population was higher than normative college student

values. Greater use of adaptive coping mechanisms than avoidant coping mechanisms were

reported by participants. A positive correlation between the use of avoidant coping and perceived

stress was found, while adaptive coping and perceived stress were found to have a negative

correlation. While female respondents were found to have higher perceived stress levels than

males, gender was not found to be a moderator in the relationship between stress and coping.

Specific coping mechanisms were reported by participants to be effective for them including

physical activity and social support. The COVID-19 pandemic increased the stress of many of

the respondents.

Conclusions: Mind-body practices and physical activity may act as adaptive coping mechanisms

that can aid in decreasing perceived stress. These strategies should be encouraged on college

campuses especially considering the detrimental effects the pandemic has had on mental health

and wellbeing.

Keywords: perceived stress, coping, student, PSS10, Brief COPE, COVID-19

 3

Relationships Between Coping Mechanisms and Perceived Stress of Portland State

University Community Members Amidst COVID-19

Background

The adverse effects of stress on health are well documented, as are multiple ways of

coping that can reduce or worsen the impact of stress on a person’s life. Stress is a physiological

state that arises as a result of a person’s cognitive response to a stressor (Sapolsky, 1994). When

the stressor is perceived to be threatening to one’s wellbeing, the individual then needs to

evaluate whether they are able to cope with said stressor. Based on that evaluation, a coping

behavior is selected. While some may think of coping as adaptive behaviors only, by definition,

coping is any behavior a person engages in as a response to a stressful situation (APA, 2020).

Over time the effect of coping behaviors has an impact on one’s overall wellbeing, a

multifactorial state that allows an individual to fully engage in and find satisfaction in life, in

many dimensions including physical, emotional, spiritual, intellectual, social, occupational,

financial, and environmental (CDC, 2018).

The physical body reacts to stress by activating the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis

(HPA axis) and the sympathetic-adrenal-medullary axis (SAM axis) which produce

neuroendocrine hormones such as cortisol and catecholamines (Padgett & Glaser, 2003). When

these pathways are activated as a result of acute stress, the secretion of stress hormones is a

healthy response that allows the immediate threat to be addressed. Chronic activation of these

pathways as a result of chronic stress leads to increased secretion of stress hormones. This

increase results in suppression of the adaptive immune system response, with a corresponding

enhancement of innate immunity and inflammation. As such, chronic activation of the

physiological stress response may lead to increased vulnerability to infectious disease and

inflammation-driven chronic disease.

 4

Sheldon Cohen began exploring the concept of “perceived stress” almost 40 years ago

and became a pioneer of this growing field (Cohen et al., 1983). Perceived stress arises in

response to the objective challenge of life events and the individual’s perception of those events.

In 1983, Cohen et al. created the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS), a series of questions designed to

measure the feelings and thoughts one has around stressful situations in their life over the past

month. The PSS is still the most extensively used psychological measurement of perceived stress

(Cohen, 1994).

People may respond differently to stress and therefore have varied ranges of coping

abilities. “Coping strategies protect both mental and physical health from the negative effects of

stress” (Furman et al., 2018, 61). The Brief COPE questionnaire is a survey instrument that

assesses a variety of coping strategies that individuals may use in an attempt to deal with stress

(Carver, 1997). Avoidant coping and adaptive coping are the two main coping styles that are

evaluated by this survey. In the literature, avoidant coping may also be referred to as maladaptive

coping, and adaptive coping may be referred to as approach coping. Two general coping styles

that are also often discussed in the literature are problem-focused and emotion-focused coping.

Problem-focused coping focuses on resolving a stressful situation and has been shown to be the

most adaptive. Emotion-focused coping involves regulating emotional reactions to stress and

may be either adaptive or avoidant depending on the specific actions taken by the individual in

order to cope (Madhyastha et al., 2014). Greater use of avoidant coping has been shown to result

in less favorable outcomes (Jalbrzikowski et al., 2012), while adaptive coping may lead to

positive results such as more college retention (Madhyastha et al., 2014).

The PSS and Brief COPE instruments are often used in conjunction within research in

order to link stress and coping mechanisms. Garber (2017) collected data from pharmacy
 5

students using the PSS-10, Brief COPE, and an open-ended question asking students about what

coping methods they have discovered to be effective as a response to stress. Garber reports that

this group of pharmacy students’ perceived stress levels were found to be higher than average.

The study notes that higher perceived stress levels are typically found in pharmacy students and

in students generally. The pharmacy students in this study were found to use higher rates of

adaptive coping mechanisms than avoidant coping mechanisms. One such example was the use

of exercise, which was correlated with a lower PSS score. Another study at Pepperdine

University explored connections between perceived stress, coping strategies, and health

indicators (Furman et al., 2018). The PSS, Brief COPE, and the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index

(PSQI) were administered to college students. This research confirmed the established trend of

high perceived stress rates among students. Further, they found that avoidant coping strategies

are correlated with higher perceived stress and lower sleep quality. There are many more

examples of research that links perceived stress and coping strategies, especially among students

who are shown to have higher rates of perceived stress (Brougham et al., 2009; Furman et al.,

2018; Madhyastha et al., 2014; Pierceall & Keim, 2007).

The stress that individuals experience and the coping mechanisms they practice are

interrelated with many characteristics of that individual. Identifying factors such as gender

impact how people see themselves and how they are seen by others. Gender has been shown to

have a moderating effect on the relationship between stress and coping mechanisms in academic

environments (Freire et al., 2018; Madhyastha et al., 2014). It has been shown that females often

have significantly higher perceived stress levels than men. A study of US college students during

the COVID-19 pandemic found higher PSS scores in women as well as trans and gender diverse

students (p < 0.001) (Hoyt et al., 2021). The research on gender differences in utilization of
 6

coping mechanisms is mixed. Some studies have shown little to no gender differences in coping

styles, such as was shown by Hamilton and Fagot in their study of undergraduate students

(1988). The majority of evidence suggests greater use of adaptive and emotion-focused coping

amongst women versus more frequent employment of avoidant and problem-focused coping in

men (Brougham et al., 2009). Alternatively, a study by Matud (2004) found that women use

more avoidant coping while men use more active coping styles. These differences may be

explained by the varying types of stressful experiences encountered by women and men (Matud,

2004). Others have suggested there may be biological sex-based differences between male and

female responses to stress. For example, women often utilize more social responses to stress,

such as the “tend and befriend” approach. This has been suggested to be due to the more

impactful effects of oxytocin on social behavior in females than in males (Taylor, 2006). The

differences in coping mechanisms utilized by gender and sex need to be further studied with the

recognition that the social aspects of gender and sex from a biological standpoint may have

varying effects on coping differences.

In the discussion of perceived stress in 2020, it is critical to include the COVID-19

pandemic, an unprecedented stressor of global significance. This pandemic has been a major

cause of stress, even for households or individuals without exposure to the virus, as a result of

anxiety around the infectious disease, economic hardship, social isolation, and forced proximity

to those in the same household (Bavel et al., 2020). According to a preliminary paper that looked

at perceived stress in the world as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, rates of anxiety and stress

have increased due to the pandemic (Limcaoco et al., 2020). In addition to other relevant

questions, this study used the PSS-10 to measure the perceived stress of participants from 41

different countries. Studies have also shown high perceived stress levels of students specifically
 7

throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. A study by AlAteeq et al. (2020) gathered demographic

data, PSS-10 responses, and the emotions and concerns about the outbreak from students in the

Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The results showed that the students had moderate (55% of students)

to high (30.2% of students) stress levels during the COVID-19 outbreak. The PSS-10 was also

used by Son et al. (2020) in an interview survey study on the effect of COVID-19 on college

student mental health in the United States. The results showed that 71% of student respondents

reported increased stress and anxiety as a result of the COVID-19 outbreak. As this pandemic

begins to wane, there is a looming increase in the world’s already prevalent mental health crisis.

Coping mechanisms have been shown to be closely associated with perceived stress

levels as explored above and throughout this paper. Like many previous studies, the current

study is an evaluation of correlation rather than causation since either variable may be affecting

the other. It has been established that college students have especially high rates of stress

compared to the average population as measured by the PSS (Furman et al., 2018). Due to the

increased stress caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, further inquiry regarding the relationship

between perceived stress and coping mechanisms of a college community may result in new

knowledge in this field. This study examines the impact of the additional stressor of the COVID-

19 pandemic on top of preexisting academic stress.

This thesis specifically explores the relationship between coping mechanisms utilized by

Portland State University (PSU) community members and the perceived stress levels of the

community amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. It also investigates whether gender has a

moderating effect on this association. Finally, it assesses differences in perceived stress levels

and coping mechanisms utilized between genders.

 8

Methods

A survey was distributed virtually to members of the PSU community in order to collect

anonymous data on stress and coping mechanisms. Data were collected from 231 community

members from October 2020 to December 2020. Participants consisted of PSU students,

faculty/staff, and alumni. Due to COVID-19, most classes at the university were being conducted

online. The survey was created using Google Forms and the link was sent to various PSU groups

and classes. Informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to their completion of the

survey.

Due to the presence of human research subjects in this research, the PSU Institutional

Review Board (IRB) was consulted. The PSU IRB approved the use of all recruitment materials,

consent procedures, survey instruments, and identifiable data collected from research

participants.

The survey consisted of four distinct parts (see Appendix A). The first portion consisted

of demographic questions that included relationship to the PSU community, age, gender,

ethnicity, marital status, level of education, employment status, and household income.

The next 10 questions of the survey make up the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS-10)

instrument (Cohen, 1994). The purpose of this psychological instrument is to measure one’s

perception of stress by inquiring as to how unpredictable, uncontrollable, and overloaded the

participant finds their life to be (Cohen & Williamson, 1988). These questions are answered

using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (never) to 4 (very often) based on the respondent’s

feelings and emotions over the past month. For example, question six asks, “In the past month,

how often have you found that you could not cope with all the things that you had to do?” The

answers to the four positively worded questions were reversed for scoring. Resulting scores
 9

range from 0 to 40, with higher scores indicating higher perceived stress and vice versa. The

PSS-10 has been shown to have adequate internal reliability and validity (Cohen & Williamson,

1988). The PSS-10 has also more recently been shown to have reliability and validity in

measuring the perceived stress of college students specifically (Roberti et al., 2006).

The Brief COPE was the next instrument utilized in the survey. It consists of 28 questions

that assess the use of avoidant and adaptive coping mechanisms (Carver, 1997). Respondents

were given options ranging from 1 = I haven’t been doing this at all to 4 = I’ve been doing this a

lot as a response to stated coping habits. For example, one statement reads, “I’ve been

concentrating my efforts on doing something about the situation I’m in.” The avoidant and

adaptive coping mechanisms were added separately for scoring. Subtypes of the avoidant coping

style include self-distraction, denial, substance use, behavioral disengagement, venting, and self-

blame. Categories of adaptive coping assessed in the questionnaire include active coping,

seeking emotional support, use of informational support, positive reframing, planning, and

acceptance (see Appendix B). The division of this instrument into these two major factors and

the exclusion of religion and humor from the final scoring was based on the factor analysis done

by Eisenberg et al. (2012). The Brief COPE has been shown to have adequate internal reliability

(Carver, 1997).

The final two questions were open-ended and the first asks: “What strategies have you

used to cope with stress in the past 6 months that have felt effective?” To give the participants

context, coping strategies were defined as any behavioral or psychological methods that you

engage in to deal with stressful events and examples were given. The answers to this question

were hand-coded to determine the four most frequently reported strategy categories. The last

question asks: “Do you feel that COVID-19 has increased your stress level?” The answers to this
 10

question were analyzed by separately adding the number of participants that said yes, the number

of participants that said no, and the number of participants that said both yes and no.

The data collected from the survey were entered into the Statistical Package for the Social

Sciences (SPSS) software version 27.0 and statistical analyses were performed. Descriptive

statistics were run to determine the demographics of the study population as well as their average

PSS and Brief COPE responses. Factor analyses were done to measure the internal reliability of

the PSS-10 instrument, the set of Brief COPE questions regarding adaptive coping mechanisms,

and the set of Brief COPE questions regarding avoidant coping mechanisms. A Pearson

correlation was conducted to determine whether there was an association between PSS scores

and adaptive coping mechanisms as measured by the Brief COPE. This test was also run to

determine whether there was an association between PSS scores and avoidant coping

mechanisms as measured by the Brief COPE. Stratified Pearson correlations were also

performed by gender in order to explore whether gender had a moderating effect on the

association between PSS and Brief COPE scores. An independent t-test was done to see if there

was a difference in PSS score, Brief COPE adaptive score, or Brief COPE avoidant score means

between genders. Although non-binary and transgender were given as options when participants

were asked their gender, these participant responses were not included in the gendered analyses

due to the limited amount of responses from this population. The differences were considered

statistically significant when p-values were less than 0.05. The open-ended questions were

analyzed as described above. Finally, another independent t-test was run between the PSS scores

of those that reported some form of exercise and those that did not in response to the open-ended

question asking what strategies the participant has used to cope with stress in the past 6 months

that have felt effective.

 11

Results

The demographic information collected from participants includes their relation to PSU,

age, gender, ethnicity, marital status, highest degree or level of school completed, employment

status, and household income. Table 1 describes the study sample. A total of 231 participants

consented to and completed the survey online. Among the 231 PSU community members that

completed the survey, 210 (90.9%) were students and 17 (7.4%) were faculty or staff. Of the

respondents, 172 (74.5%) were female and 59 (21.2%) were male. Participants were asked their

gender in order to be inclusive to all individuals who identify socially as a certain gender

regardless of whether it matches their biological sex at birth. The convention of using female or

male to describe gender was chosen for the purposes of this study, although we recognize the

complexities of these labels (Pryzgoda, 2000). The majority of study participants identified as

PSU students, age 18-24, female, white, single, having obtained a high school degree, employed,

and having a household income of $10k - $50k. The perceived stress of the participants was

measured using the PSS instrument which resulted in one score for every individual. The mean

(SD) PSS of the sample was 21.77 (6.06). The median (Min, Max) PSS of the sample was 22.00

(7, 36). The types of coping mechanisms utilized by the participants were measured using the

Brief COPE instrument which resulted in two scores for every individual, one which measures

the use of adaptive coping mechanisms and the other which measures the use of avoidant coping

mechanisms. The mean (SD) Brief COPE adaptive score of the sample was 34.07 (6.41). The

median (Min, Max) Brief COPE adaptive score of the sample was 34.00 (20, 48). The mean (SD)

Brief COPE avoidant score of the sample was 25.36 (5.28). The median (Min, Max) Brief COPE

avoidant score of the sample was 25.00 (15, 41) (Table 1).
 12

Table 1

Study Participant Characteristics (N=231)

Variable n (%)
Relation to PSU Marital Status
Student 210 (90.9) Single (never married) 170 (73.6)
Faculty or staff 17 (7.4) Married 35 (15.2)
Alumni 4 (1.7) In a domestic partnership 18 (7.8)
Age Divorced 8 (3.5)
18-24 123 (53.2) Education Level
24-34 77 (33.3) High school degree or equivalent 102 (44.2)
35-44 19 (8.2) Associate’s degree 25 (10.8)
45 or older 12 (5.2) Bachelor’s degree 78 (33.8)
Gender Master’s degree or doctorate 26 (11.3)
Female 172 (74.5) Employment Status
Male 49 (21.2) Employed 104 (45.0)
Non-binary 9 (3.9) Employed student 46 (19.9)
Transgender 1 (0.4) Unemployed 23 (10.0)
Ethnicity Unemployed student 24 (10.4)
White 154 (66.7) Student 34 (14.7)
Asian / Pacific Islander 28 (12.1) Household Income
Hispanic or Latinx 27 (11.7) $10k - $50k 81 (35.1)
Financially dependent on parents or
Black or African American 5 (2.2) significant other 57 (24.7)
Middle Eastern 4 (1.7) Below $10k 39 (16.9)
Native American or American
Indian 3 (1.3) $50k - $100k 32 (13.9)
Other 10 (4.3) Over $100k 22 (9.5)
Survey Scores Mean (SD) Median (Min, Max) Missing
PSS 21.77 (6.06) 22.00 (7, 36) 0
Brief COPE: Adaptive 34.07 (6.41) 34.00 (20, 48) 0
Brief COPE: Avoidant 25.36 (5.28) 25.00 (15, 41) 0
Note. PSS = Perceived Stress Scale. COPE = Coping Orientation to Problems Experienced. “Other” race category
combines multiracial, North African, and Slavic.
 13

The PSS-10 instrument was shown to have adequate internal reliability with a Cronbach’s

alpha of 0.867 (𝛼 = 0.867). The set of Brief COPE questions regarding adaptive coping

mechanisms were shown to have adequate internal reliability with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.838

(𝛼 = 0.838). The set of Brief COPE questions regarding avoidant coping mechanisms were

shown to have adequate internal reliability with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.720 (𝛼 = 0.720).

As displayed in Table 2, the PSS and adaptive Brief COPE scores of the full study

sample were negatively correlated (r = -0.149; p = 0.023). The PSS and avoidant Brief COPE

scores of the full study sample were shown to have a statistically significant positive correlation

of 0.682 (p < 0.001). A significant correlation was not found between the adaptive and avoidant

Brief COPE scores (Table 2).

Table 2

Pearson Correlation Coefficient Matrix of PSS With Brief COPE Scores Among the PSU
Community (N=231)

PSS Total Brief COPE: Adaptive Brief COPE: Avoidant

PSS Total 1
Brief COPE: Adaptive -0.149* 1
Brief COPE: Avoidant 0.682*** 0.017 1
*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001
Note. PSS = Perceived Stress Scale. COPE = Coping Orientation to Problems Experienced.

Table 3 shows the Pearson correlations stratified by gender. For both females and males,

a positive correlation was found between PSS and avoidant Brief COPE scores (r = 0.657, r =

0.669; p < 0.001). No statistically significant correlations were found between PSS and adaptive

coping or between the two coping styles for either gender.

 14

Table 3

Stratified Pearson Correlation Coefficient Matrix of PSS With Brief COPE Scores Among the
PSU Community by Gender (N=221)

Females (N=172) PSS Total Brief COPE: Adaptive Brief COPE: Avoidant
PSS Total 1
Brief COPE: Adaptive -0.13 1
Brief COPE: Avoidant 0.657*** 0.042 1
Males (N=49)
PSS Total 1
Brief COPE: Adaptive -0.123 1
Brief COPE: Avoidant 0.669*** 0.087 1
Note. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001
Note. PSS = Perceived Stress Scale. COPE = Coping Orientation to Problems Experienced. The 10 non-
binary/transgender respondents were not included in this analysis.

PSS and Brief COPE score means were compared by gender as shown in Table 4. The

mean (SD) PSS score for females was 22.34 (5.68). The mean (SD) PSS score for males was

18.57 (6.01). The difference in means between the two genders was 3.77, which was

statistically significant (t = 4.05, p < 0.001). Mean scores on the Brief COPE were not shown to

be significantly different between genders (Table 4).

Table 4

Independent T-Tests Comparing Female and Male PSS and Brief COPE Scores (N=221)

Gender Comparison Females (N=172) Mean (SD) Males (N=49) Mean (SD) t-statistic (df)
PSS Total 22.34 (5.68) 18.57 (6.01) 4.05*** (219)
Brief COPE: Adaptive 34.01 (6.51) 34.55 (6.32) -0.52 (219)
Brief COPE: Avoidant 25.39 (4.98) 24.29 (5.50) 1.34 (219)
*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001
Note. PSS = Perceived Stress Scale. COPE = Coping Orientation to Problems Experienced. SD = standard deviation.
df = degrees of freedom. Equal variances assumed. The 10 non-binary/transgender respondents were not included in
this analysis.
 15

The first open-ended question asks: “What strategies have you used to cope with stress in

the past 6 months that have felt effective?” The answers to this question were hand-coded to find

the four most common response categories. Starting from most common these were found to be:

various forms of physical activity which was often combined with being outside, seeking

social support or connection, mindfulness practices (including breathing exercises, yoga,

and meditation), and disclosure in the form of journaling or seeing a therapist. The second open-

ended question asks: “Do you feel that COVID-19 has increased your stress level?” In response,

205 (88.7%) participants indicated yes, 10 (4.3%) participants indicated no, and 10 (4.3%)

participants reported a combination of yes and no. There were 6 (2.6%) responses that were

unclear and therefore, not grouped into one of these three categories.

In response to the first open-ended question, 142 (61.5%) respondents reported exercise

as part of their response. An independent t-test was used to compare the PSS score of those who

included exercise in their answer to this question versus those who did not. The mean (SD) PSS

score for those who reported exercise as effective in coping with stress was 21.17 (5.88), while

the mean (SD) PSS score for those who did not report exercise was 22.74 (6.25). The difference

in means between these two groups was 1.57, which approached statistical significance (p =

0.055).

Discussion

The primary purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between perceived

stress and coping mechanisms of the PSU community amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. In

addition, this research assessed whether there was a moderating effect of gender on the

relationship between perceived stress and coping mechanisms in this population. Differences in

perceived stress levels and coping mechanisms utilized between genders were also evaluated.
 16

Higher perceived stress levels were reported by participants of this study (M = 21.77, SD

= 6.06) as compared to normative values for undergraduate college students (M = 18.15, SD =

6.92) (Roberti et al., 2006). This was not unexpected due to the rising stress of college

students (Roberti et al., 2006) and the increased global stress levels as a result of the pandemic

(Limcaoco et al., 2020). This finding is in agreement with previous literature and expands on the

more current findings on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on student wellbeing.

Greater use of adaptive coping mechanisms compared to avoidant coping mechanisms

were reported by the study participants. This finding is in agreement with prior research

conducted by Garber which showed utilization of more adaptive coping than avoidant coping in

pharmacy students. The Brief COPE mean scores calculated in this study were found to be

similar to that of research collected from 140 US undergraduate students by Furman et al.

(2018). This previous study reported an adaptive coping mean (SD) score of 39.6 (6.9) and a

maladaptive (avoidant) coping mean (SD) score of 27.9 (5.5) as compared to the current study

finding of 34.07 (6.51) and 25.36 (5.28) respectively. It is of note that Furman et al. included

religion in their adaptive coping total score and humor in their maladaptive (avoidant) coping

total score. Research on whether to classify humor and religion as adaptive or avoidant has been

varied. It has been shown that humor may be categorized as either adaptive or avoidant (Furman

et al., 2018). Eisenberg et al. (2012) determined that humor and religion were ambiguous as they

were able to fit into either the adaptive or avoidant coping category when a factor analysis was

conducted. Therefore, neither religion nor humor were included in either coping score in the

current study. The findings of the current study further support the established pattern of greater

student use of adaptive compared to avoidant coping mechanisms. This pattern may be beneficial

to students as adaptive coping mechanisms have shown more positive outcomes (Jalbrzikowski
 17

et al., 2012).

The results of this study indicated a positive association between the use of avoidant

coping mechanisms and perceived stress levels. This finding is supported by previous research

done using a sample of college students (Furman et al., 2018). The use of adaptive coping

mechanisms and perceived stress levels were found to be negatively correlated. This is contrary

to Furman et al. (2018) who did not find a significant correlation between adaptive coping and

perceived stress. These findings indicate a positive correlation between the avoidant coping and

perceived stress variables as well as a negative correlation between the adaptive coping and

perceived stress variables. Although these relationships do not imply causality, they indicate

potential points of intervention that may impact the established system. This potential is explored

in the paragraphs to follow.

There are two avenues to be explored in analyzing the positive relationship between

utilization of avoidant coping mechanisms and perceived stress levels. It may be that higher

levels of perceived stress of the participants leads them to use more avoidant coping. For

example, self-distraction by watching television may be used often by students who are more

stressed as a result of their schooling and wanting to forget about all of the school work they

have to do. Another possibility is that the study participants’ use of avoidant coping mechanisms

is leading to their greater feelings of stress. If the students use of self-distraction by watching

television is leading to procrastination of assignments and subsequent worry about missing

deadlines and getting behind in class, this may increase their stress levels.

Similarly, a couple viewpoints may be used to look at the negative association between

adaptive coping utilization and perceived stress levels. It is possible that lower perceived levels

of stress steers the use of adaptive coping amongst the participants. For instance, if an individual
 18

is less stressed, they may feel that they have more time and mental capacity to seek out

emotional support. Alternatively, it could be that higher use of adaptive coping is influencing the

participants to have lower stress levels. This can be exemplified by students that use a calendar

or task list to plan out their days and assignments. These students might have lower stress levels

due to their organizational skills.

Regardless of the directionality of these two relationships, the findings of this study show

that the two variables of stress and coping change together. Because management of stress and

new strategies of coping can be learned, this provides an opportunity to intervene in order to

increase quality of life and wellbeing. Below we explore intervention strategies that are

supported by the literature.

Stress management interventions such as mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR)

and mind-body skills groups (MBSG) are commonly implemented to aide people in lowering

stress and improving coping skills. The goal of such programs is to decrease stress by teaching

participants to use adaptive coping mechanisms, such as meditation and breath work, and

modifying their perceptions around stress by increasing awareness of thoughts and feelings in the

present moment. MBSR has been shown to significantly reduce stress as measured by the PSS

pre- and post-intervention (Holzel et al., 2010). Holzel et al. also found that this decrease in

stress correlated with decreased gray matter density in the amygdala, a crucial part of the brain

that modulates the stress response by recognizing stressful stimuli and instigating adaptive

coping as a result. Similarly, decreased stress levels and increased resilience and optimism are a

couple of the positive results shown amongst medical students, a high stress population, that

participate in MBSG (Gordon, 2014).

Mindfulness-based movement (MBM) is a program similar to MBSR, though it focuses

 19

more closely on movement as the modality to cultivate awareness. MBM primarily uses yoga to

prepare the mind and body for other mindfulness practices such as seated meditation, body

scanning, and breathing exercises (Robert-McComb et al., 2015). In a study by Robert-McComb

et al., MBM was shown to decrease anxiety, lower perceived stress, increase an adaptive coping

technique called reflective coping, and increase wellbeing in a sample of female college students.

Yoga alone has also been shown to have a positive impact on stress. Though more research is

needed, a review of yoga programs by Yang (2007) proposed that yoga practice may be effective

in reducing risk factors for chronic disease. This may be a result of yoga inducing psychological

changes such as lowering stress levels and improving mood. A theory proposed by Streeter et al.

(2012) suggests that yoga helps to reduce stress and its related disorders by increasing

parasympathetic nervous system (PNS) and gamma amino-butyric acid (GABA) activity.

Physical activity is another strategy that has shown to be effective in reducing stress. A

systematic review by Chan et al. (2019) assessed the benefits of physical activity on mood. The

paper suggests that 10 to 30 minutes of anaerobic exercise can decrease stress and enhance

mood. Chen et al. (2017) proposed that the mechanism for this may involve the elevation of

glucocorticoid cortisol which increases dopamine in the medial prefrontal cortex. This activation

is crucial in the initiation of active coping.

As documented in these studies and others, the aforementioned interventions may act as

adaptive mechanisms that aid in decreasing stress. Therefore, we suggest mind-body and

physical activity practices as a possible avenue to lowering stress levels. Though they generally

have positive results, it is important to recognize that any of these strategies may be used in an

avoidant manner by individuals.

The gender stratified correlation results show a positive relationship between the
 20

utilization of avoidant coping mechanisms and perceived stress levels for members of both male

and female genders. This finding is similar to that of the full sample correlation, indicating little

to no difference in this correlation between genders. A significant correlation between adaptive

coping and perceived stress was not found for either gender. Though the negative relationship

between adaptive coping and stress was found to by significant amongst the full study sample (p

< 0.05), this relationship was not found to be significant in the female or male respondents. This

is likely due to the smaller sample size of both genders compared to the combined study

population. These findings suggest that, in this study population, gender was not a moderator in

the relationship between perceived stress and coping. This is contradictory to the findings in the

literature that show gender to have a moderating effect on this relationship. Studies by Freire et

al. (2018) and Madhyastha et al. (2014) both indicate that gender plays a large moderating role

between the stress and coping association. Freire et al. suggested that at lower perceived levels of

stress, both males and females use more adaptive coping. With increased perception of stress

though, males tend to use more adaptive coping mechanisms than females. This relationship

needs to be further studied in order to better understand how gender affects the association

between stress and coping. It will also be necessary to understand this association in people who

are non-binary or non-gendered.

Female study participants reported higher perceived stress levels than their male

counterparts as shown by our analysis of reported PSS responses. This agrees with the general

consensus in the literature that females experience more stress than males (Hoyt et al., 2021;

Matud, 2004; Pierceall & Keim, 2007). Hoyt et al. found significantly higher levels of perceived

stress and anxiety among women and trans and gender diverse students than men during the

COVID-19 pandemic. The current study did not observe a significant difference between
 21

genders in adaptive or avoidant coping styles as measured by the Brief COPE. This opposes the

abundance of research that shows women use more adaptive and emotion-focused coping than

men (Brougham et al., 2009; Madhyastha et al., 2014). However, it has been suggested that

differences in coping styles between genders have been decreasing recently as social gender

constraints have been shifting (Matud, 2004). Further research is needed to delineate the

differences in coping between genders. Separating the social and biological effects of gender and

sex, respectively, on coping may help researchers to understand the seemingly convoluted

relationship.

While female participants were found to have higher perceived stress, they did not report

using more avoidant coping mechanisms. This is contrary to what may have been expected

considering the strong positive correlation observed between stress and avoidant coping. It is

beyond the scope of the data collected in this study to explain why females reported experiencing

higher stress. Undoubtedly, there are other variables affecting perceived stress besides the style

of coping used by the individual, such as trauma, discrimination, financial difficulties, and

chronic illness. Further investigation regarding these other variables should be done within this

population in order to better understand why females are experiencing higher stress levels than

males but are not reporting greater use of avoidant coping.

The current study found that physical activity (particularly outside), social support or

connection, mindfulness practices, and disclosure were coping mechanisms that participants

perceived to be effective for them in the past six months. These coping mechanisms are generally

seen as adaptive. That said, it is also possible for these strategies to be used in an avoidant

manner. Garber asked the pharmacy students in his study a similar open-ended question that

reads, “What have you found to be an effective way to cope with stress?” (p. 3). Similar to our
 22

study’s findings, the two most common themes reported in response were physical exercise and

socializing/talking to others. Garber added exercise as a coping mechanism to the Brief COPE

instrument for his study. In his analysis, he found a statistically significant correlation between

lower perceived stress and respondents that noted using exercise as a coping mechanism. This is

analogous to the finding in the current study that found a difference of 1.57 between the PSS

score means of participants that reported exercise as an effective coping mechanism compared to

those that did not, which approached statistical significance (p = 0.055). The lower PSS score

mean was found among the group that reported using exercise as a coping mechanism,

suggesting that exercise may actually correlate with reduced perceived stress in the study

population. This analysis was peripheral to the study’s research question and exercise was

not specifically asked about in this open-ended question, so this relationship cannot be explained

further here. In asking community college students how they cope with stress, Pierceall and

Keim (2007) found talking to family and friends, leisure activities, and exercise to be the top

three most reported responses. The authors did not conduct any statistical analyses to compare

these responses to stress levels, but they concluded that these coping mechanisms are healthy and

that therefore, most of the students that participated in their study used healthy coping

mechanisms.

Our study also found that 88.7% of participants suggested that their stress level had

increased as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. A study of medical students in Saudi Arabia

towards the beginning of the pandemic found a moderate to high level of stress amongst their

participants (AlAteeq et al., 2020). Answers to a qualitative question regarding emotions and

concerns surrounding the outbreak revealed participant feelings of depression, stress, anxiety,

fear, anger, and being unmotivated. AlAteeq et al. suggested that these responses may be due in
 23

part to the challenges of social distancing and distance learning. Although the reasons for the

increased stress reported by the participants in our study were not further explored, it is clear that

they viewed the pandemic as a contributor to their stress level, as did participants in other studies

conducted during the COVID-19 outbreak.

While this study contributes knowledge regarding the perceived stress and coping

mechanisms utilized by members of the PSU community during the pandemic, it does have

limitations. One important limitation is its lack of generalizability. The findings cannot speak for

the entire PSU community because the majority of respondents were white, younger, female,

employed students with a household income of $10k - $50k. PSU is a highly diverse campus and

represents much more than this specific demographic. Another limitation is that many of the

studies cited in this paper were conducted solely with student participants. Though the majority

of participants were students, the current study also included faculty, staff, and alumni. These

participants may have generally differing perceived stress levels and use of coping mechanisms

and therefore, the findings may be less cohesive. The use of subjective self-report questionnaires

may also be a limitation of this study. It is possible that participants did not answer the questions

with complete accuracy due to social desirability bias or a lack of introspective ability.

Further areas of study were uncovered as a result of this research. A closer look into the

coping mechanisms endorsed by the study population could allow for more specific

recommendations that may help individuals within the community decrease their stress level.

This could be done using statistical analysis to determine whether participants that reported using

certain adaptive coping mechanisms actually had lower perceived stress, as was done with

physical activity in this study. This could also be explored by incorporating questions regarding

specific coping mechanisms into the Brief COPE instrument as was done by Garber (2017).
 24

Future research should also explore the differences in perceived stress and coping mechanisms

utilized by ethnicity and socioeconomic class of this community. Data from a broader diversity

of study participants needs to be collected in order to do so. Finally, the impact of gender on

perceived stress and coping should be further explored using a larger sample size. This may help

to clarify the confusion around what effect gender has on these variables.

Conclusion

This study provides new knowledge regarding perceived stress and coping mechanisms

utilized by the PSU community during the COVID-19 pandemic. The effect of gender on the

relationship between stress and coping was explored along with any differences within these

variables based on gender. The study population had high perceived stress levels and used more

adaptive than avoidant coping mechanisms. A significant positive correlation was found between

the use of avoidant coping and perceived stress level, while adaptive coping and perceived stress

correlated negatively. Gender did not have a moderating effect on the relationship between stress

and coping, though female participants reported higher levels of perceived stress than males.

Physical activity, often outdoors, was the most commonly reported coping mechanism that was

perceived as effective by the study respondents. The majority of respondents indicated they were

more stressed due to the pandemic. We explored and suggested mind-body and physical activity

practices as adaptive coping strategies to help with lowering stress levels. Especially considering

the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on our society’s mental health, these practices should be

implemented and encouraged on college campuses.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to gratefully acknowledge Eli Michaels MPH, Ph.D candidate for

her assistance in data analysis.

 25

References

AlAteeq, D. A., Aljhani, S., & AlEesa, D. (2020). Perceived stress among students in virtual
classrooms during the COVID-19 outbreak in KSA. Journal of Taibah University Medical
Sciences, 15(5), 398-403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtumed.2020.07.004

American Psychological Association (2020). APA Dictionary of Psychology. Dictionary APA.

https://dictionary.apa.org/coping-behavior

Bavel, J. J. V., Baicker K., Boggio P. S., Capraro V., Cichocka, A., Cikara M., Crokett M. J.,
Crum, A. J., Douglas, K. M., Druckman, J. N., Drury, J., Dube, O., Ellemers, N., Finkel,
E. J., Fowler, J. H., Gelfand, M., Han, S., Haslam, S. A., Jetten, J., Kitayama, S, et al.
(2020). Using social and behavioural science to support COVID-19 pandemic response.
Nature Human Behaviour, 4, 460-471. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-0884-z

Brougham, R. R., Zail, C. M., Mendoza, C. M., & Miller, J. R. (2009). Stress, sex differences,
and coping strategies among college students. Current Psychology, 28, 85-97.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-009-9047-0

Carver, C. S. (1997). You want to measure coping but your protocol’s too long: Consider the
Brief COPE. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 4(1), 92-100.
10.1207/s15327558ijbm0401_6

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2018, October 31). Well-Being Concepts. CDC.
https://www.cdc.gov/hrqol/wellbeing.htm

Chan, J. S. Y., Liu, G., Liang, D., Deng, K., Wu, J., & Yan, J. H. (2019). Special issue —
Therapeutic benefits of physical activity for mood: A systematic review on the effects of
exercise intensity, duration, and mobility. The Journal of Psychology, 153(1), 102-125.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2018.1470487

Chen, C., Nakagawa, S., An, Y., Ito, K., Kitaichi, Y., & Kusumi, I. (2017). The exercise-
glucocorticoid paradox: How exercise is beneficial to cognition, mood, and the brain
while increasing glucocorticoid levels. Frontiers in Neuroendocrinology, 44, 83-102.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yfrne.2016.12.001

Cohen, S. (1994). Perceived Stress Scale. Mind Garden.

http://www.mindgarden.com/documents/PerceivedStressScale.pdf

Cohen, S., Kamarck, T., & Mermelstein, R. (1983). A global measure of perceived stress.
Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 24(4), 385-396.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2136404

Cohen, S., & Williamson, G. (1988). Perceived stress in a probability sample of the United
States. In S. Spacapan & S. Oskamp (Eds.), The Claremont Symposium on applied social
psychology: The social psychology of health (pp. 31-67). Sage Publications, Inc.
 26

Eisenberg, S. A., Shen, B., Schwarz E. R., & Mallon, S. (2012). Avoidant coping moderates the
association between anxiety and patient-related physical functioning in heart failure
patients. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 35(3), 253-261. 10.1007/s10865-011-9358-0

Farrell, A. K. & Simpson J. A. (2017). Effects of relationship functioning on the biological

experience of stress and physical health. Elsevier, 13, 49-53.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.04.014

Freire, C., Ferradas, M., Nunez, J. S., Valle, A., & Vallejo, G. (2018). Eudaimonic well-being
and coping with stress in university students: The mediating/moderating role of self-
efficacy. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(1), 48.
10.3390/ijerph16010048

Furman, M., Joseph, N., & Miller-Perrin, C. (2018). Associations between coping strategies,
perceived stress, and health indicators. Psi Chi Journal of Psychological Research, 23(1),
61–72. https://doi.org/10.24839/2325-7342.JN23.1.61

Garber, M. C. (2017). Exercise as a stress coping mechanism in a pharmacy student

population. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 81(3), article 50.
10.5688/ajpe81350

Gordon, J. S. (2014). Mind-body skills groups for medical students: Reducing stress, enhancing
commitment, and promoting patient-centered care. BMC Medical Education, 14, article
198. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-14-198

Gustems-Carnicer, J., Calderon, C., Batalla-Flores, A., & Esteban-Bara, F. (2018). Role of
coping responses in the relationship between perceived stress and psychological well-
being in a sample of Spanish educational teacher students. Psychological Reports, 122(2),
380–397. 10.1177/0033294118758904

Hamaideh, S. H., Al-Omari, H., & Al-Modallal, H. (2016). Nursing students’ perceived stress
and coping behaviors in clinical training in Saudi Arabia. Journal of Mental Health,
26(3), 197–203. https://doi.org/10.3109/09638237.2016.1139067

Hamilton, S., & Fagot, B.I. (1988). Chronic stress and coping styles: A comparison of male and
female undergraduates. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55(5), 819-23.
https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.55.5.819

Holzel, B. K., Carmody, J., Evans, K. C., Hoge, E. A., Dusek, J. A., Morgan, L., Pitman, R. K.,
& Lazar, S. W. (2010). Stress reduction correlates with structural changes in the
amygdala. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 5(1), 11-17.
https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsp034
 27

Hoyt, L. T., Cohen, A. K., Dull, B., Castro, E. M., & Yazdani, N. (2021). “Constant stress has
become the new normal”: Stress and anxiety inequalities among U.S. college students in
the time of COVID-19. Journal of Adolescent Health, 68(2), 270-276.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2020.10.030

Jalbrzikowski, M., Sugar, C. A., Zinberg, J., Bachman, P., Cannon, T. D., & Bearden, C. E.
(2012). Coping styles of individuals at clinical high risk for developing psychosis. Early
Intervention in Psychiatry, 8(1), 68-76. https://doi.org/10.1111/eip.12005

Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, Appraisal, and Coping. Spring Publishing
Company, Inc.

Limcaoco, R. S. G., Mateos, E. M., Fernandez, J. M., & Roncero, C. (2020). Anxiety, worry and
perceived stress in the world due to the COVID-19 pandemic, March 2020. Preliminary
results. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.03.20043992

Madhyastha, S., Latha, K. S., & Kamath, A. (2014). Stress, coping and gender differences in
third year medical students. Journal of Health Management, 16(2), 315-326.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0972063414526124

Matud, M. P. (2004). Gender differences in stress and coping styles. Personality and Individual
Differences, 37(7), 1401-1415. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2004.01.010

Padgett, D. A., & Glaser R. (2003). How stress influences the immune response. Trends in
Immunology, 24(8), 444-448. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1471-4906(03)00173-X

Pierceall, E. A., & Keim, M. C. (2007). Stress and coping strategies among community college
students. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 31(9), 703-712.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10668920600866579

Pryzgoda, J., & Chrisler, J. C. (2000). Definitions of gender and sex: The subtleties of meaning.
Sex Roles, 43(7/8), 553-569. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007123617636

Roberti, J. W., Harrington, L. N., Storch, E. A. (2006). Further psychometric support for the 10-
item version of the perceived stress scale. Journal of College Counseling, 9(2), 135-147.
https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-1882.2006.tb00100.x

Robert-McComb, J. J., Cisneros, A., Tacon, A., Panike, R., Norman, R., Qian, X, & McGlone, J.
(2015). The effects of Mindfulness-Based Movement on parameters of stress.
International Journal of Yoga Therapy, 25(1), 79-88.
https://doi.org/10.17761/1531-2054-25.1.79

Sapolsky, R. M. (1994). Why zebras don’t get ulcers: A guide to stress, stress related diseases,
and coping. W.H. Freeman.
 28

Son, C., Hedge, S., Smith, A., Wang, X., & Sasangohar, F. (2020). Effects of COVID-19 on
college students’ mental health in the United States: Interview survey study. Journal of
Medical Internet Research, 22(9), e21279. 10.2196/21279

Streeter, C. C., Gerbarg, P. L., Saper, R. B., Ciraulo, D. A., & Brown, R. P. (2012). Effects of
yoga on the autonomic nervous system, gamma-aminobutyric-acid, and allostasis in
epilepsy, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder. Medical Hypotheses, 78(5), 571-
579. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mehy.2012.01.021

Taylor, S. E. (2006). Tend and befriend: Biobehavioral bases of affiliation under stress. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 15(6), 273-277.
https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1467-8721.2006.00451.x

Yang, K. (2007). A review of yoga programs for four leading risk factors of chronic diseases.
Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine, 4(4), 487-491.
https://dx.doi.org/10.1093%2Fecam%2Fnem154
 29

Appendix A

The following survey was presented to the study participants:

Consent and demographic questions

1. I have had the chance to read and think about the information in this form. I have asked
any questions I have, and I can make a decision about my participation. I understand
that I can ask additional questions anytime while I take part in the research. LINK TO
CONSENT FORM: https://1drv.ms/w/s!Aq7-jDlUvRn-gUb2hpOjHKNK-
L_Y?e=rTnmRz
- I agree to take part in this study
- I do not agree to take part in this study (please do not continue the survey in this
case)
2. What is your relation to the Portland State University community?
- Student
- Faculty or staff
- Alumni
- Other:
3. What is your age?
- Under 18
- 18-24 years old
- 25-34 years old
- 35-44 years old
- 45-54 years old
- Over 55
4. What is your gender?
- Male
- Female
- Non-binary
- Prefer not to say
- Other:
5. What is your ethnicity?
- White
- Hispanic or Latinx
- Black or African American
- Native American or American Indian
- Asian / Pacific Islander
- Other:
6. What is your marital status?
- Single (never married)
- Married
- In a domestic partnership
- Divorced
- Widowed
 30

7. What is the highest degree or level of school that you have completed?
- Less than a high school diploma
- High school degree or equivalent
- Bachelor's degree
- Master's degree
- Doctorate
- Other:
8. What is your current employment status?
- Employed full-time (40+ hours a week)
- Employed part-time (less than 40 hours a week)
- Unemployed (currently looking for work)
- Unemployed (not currently looking for work)
- Student
- Other:
9. What is your household income?
- Below $10k
- $10k - $50k
- $50 - $100k
- Over $100k
- Financially dependent on parents or significant other

Perceived Stress Scale

0 – Never
1 – Almost never
2 – Sometimes
3 – Fairly often
4 – Very often

1. In the last month, how often have you been upset because of something that happened
unexpectedly?
2. In the last month, how often have you felt that you were unable to control the important
things in your life?
3. In the last month, how often have you felt nervous and "stressed"?
4. In the last month, how often have you felt confident about your ability to handle your
personal problems?
5. In the last month, how often have you felt that things are going your way?
6. In the last month, how often have you found that you could not cope with all the things
that you had to do?
7. In the last month, how often have you been able to control irritations in your life?
8. In the last month, how often have you felt that you were on top of things?
9. In the last month, how often have you been angered because of things that were outside
of your control?
10. In the last month, how often have you felt difficulties were piling up so high that you
could not overcome them?
 31

Brief COPE

1 – I haven't been doing this at all

2 – I've been doing this a little bit
3 – I've been doing a medium amount
4 – I've been doing this a lot

1. I've been turning to work or other activities to take my mind off things.
2. I've been concentrating my efforts on doing something about the situation I'm in.
3. I've been saying to myself "this isn't real.".
4. I've been using alcohol or other drugs to make myself feel better.
5. I've been getting emotional support from others.
6. I've been giving up trying to deal with it.
7. I've been taking action to try to make the situation better.
8. I've been refusing to believe that it has happened.
9. I've been saying things to let my unpleasant feelings escape.
10. I’ve been getting help and advice from other people.
11. I've been using alcohol or other drugs to help me get through it.
12. I've been trying to see it in a different light, to make it seem more positive.
13. I’ve been criticizing myself.
14. I've been trying to come up with a strategy about what to do.
15. I've been getting comfort and understanding from someone.
16. I've been giving up the attempt to cope.
17. I've been looking for something good in what is happening.
18. I've been making jokes about it.
19. I've been doing something to think about it less, such as going to movies,
watching TV, reading, daydreaming, sleeping, or shopping.
20. I've been accepting the reality of the fact that it has happened.
21. I've been expressing my negative feelings.
22. I've been trying to find comfort in my religion or spiritual beliefs.
23. I’ve been trying to get advice or help from other people about what to do.
24. I've been learning to live with it.
25. I've been thinking hard about what steps to take.
26. I’ve been blaming myself for things that happened.
27. I've been praying or meditating.
28. I've been making fun of the situation.

Open-ended questions

1. What strategies have you used to cope with stress in the past 6 months that have felt
effective? NOTE: Coping strategies are defined as any behavioral or psychological
methods that you engage in to deal with stressful events. Examples include but are not
limited to meditation, breathing techniques, journaling, time-management, seeking
support from others, self-care, physical activity (specify what type).
2. Do you feel that COVID-19 has increased your stress level?
 32

Resources

Due to the mental or emotional discomfort that these questions may bring up, please
reference the resources listed below if needed.
- Multnomah County Mental Health Call Center (24/7 crisis counseling by phone,
with interpretation services for non-English speakers): 503-988-4888 or 800-716-
9769 (toll-free) or 711 (hearing-impaired)
- Portland State University Student Health and Counseling (SHAC) counseling
services: 503-725-2800
- Headspace offers free online meditations
- BetterHelp Online Counseling: betterhelp.com
- neolth offers personalized stress management: neolth.com
 33

Appendix B

Table B1

Coping mechanisms assessed by the Brief COPE

Coping Style Category Specific Coping Mechanism

Adaptive Active Coping
Seeking Emotional Support
Use of Informational Support
Positive Reframing
Planning
Acceptance
Avoidant Self-Distraction
Denial
Substance Use
Behavioral Disengagement
Venting
Self-Blame
Uncategorized Religion
Humor
Note. COPE = Coping Orientation to Problems Experienced.