COPE Inventory

1. Abstract

The COPE Inventory (Carver, Scheier, & Weintraub, 1989) is an influential, multidimensional psychometric instrument developed to systematically evaluate the repertoire of cognitive, behavioral, and emotional strategies individuals employ in response to psychological stress. Grounded in both the transactional model of stress (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984) and the cybernetic control-theory framework of behavioral self-regulation (Carver & Scheier, 1981), the inventory addresses long-standing conceptual and measurement limitations of earlier unidimensional or binary coping instruments. The complete tool comprises 60 self-report items organized into 15 conceptually distinct scales of four items each: Active Coping, Planning, Suppression of Competing Activities, Restraint Coping, Seeking Instrumental Social Support, Seeking Emotional Social Support, Positive Reinterpretation and Growth, Acceptance, Denial, Religious Coping, Focus on and Venting of Emotions, Behavioral Disengagement, Mental Disengagement, Substance Use, and Humor.

Respondents rate each item on a 4-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (“I usually don’t do this at all”) to 4 (“I usually do this a lot”), configurable to assess either dispositional coping tendencies or situation-specific coping responses. Psychometrically, the instrument exhibits robust internal consistency, with initial validation studies reporting Cronbach’s alpha coefficients ranging from .37 to .93 across scales (mean α = .79), with 14 of the 15 scales demonstrating acceptable to high reliability. Test-retest reliability evaluations demonstrate temporal stability for the dispositional format across intervals of six to eight weeks. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses confirm the distinctiveness of the 15 first-order dimensions while supporting flexible second-order groupings depending on sample characteristics and contextual demands. The COPE Inventory remains a foundational paradigm across behavioral medicine, clinical psychology, health psychology, and organizational behavior.

2. Keywords

COPE Inventory, coping strategies, stress measurement, psychological assessment, behavioral self-regulation, problem-focused coping, emotion-focused coping, dispositional coping, psychometrics, Charles S. Carver

3. Authors

The COPE Inventory was formulated and validated through collaborative empirical research led by:

• Charles S. Carver, Ph.D. (1947–2019): Distinguished Professor of Psychology at the University of Miami, Coral Gables, Florida. Dr. Carver was an eminent personality, social, and health psychologist renowned for his pioneering work on behavioral self-regulation, dispositional optimism, feedback control processes, and psycho-oncology.
• Michael F. Scheier, Ph.D.: Professor Emeritus of Psychology at Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Dr. Scheier is a seminal investigator in the study of dispositional optimism, physical health outcomes, and the structural dynamics of human self-regulation.
• Jagdish Kumari Weintraub, Ph.D.: Department of Psychology, University of Miami, Coral Gables, Florida. Dr. Weintraub collaborated with Carver and Scheier on the original structural conceptualization and psychometric validation of the inventory.

4. Purpose

The primary purpose of the COPE Inventory is to provide a granular, multidimensional assessment of how individuals cope when encountering stressful life events. In the late 1970s and 1980s, psychological research into coping was largely driven by broad categorizations, most notably the dichotomy between problem-focused coping (efforts directed at altering the source of stress) and emotion-focused coping (efforts directed at regulating the emotional distress associated with the stressor). Although this distinction offered initial conceptual clarity, empirical instruments such as the original Ways of Coping Checklist (Folkman & Lazarus, 1980) suffered from psychometric instability, inconsistent factor structures across studies, and an oversimplification of complex coping responses.

Carver, Scheier, and Weintraub (1989) posited that broad categories obfuscate vital functional differences among individual strategies. For example, emotion-focused coping had historically included modalities as diverse as positive reframing, emotional denial, seeking emotional warmth, turning to religion, and substance-induced distraction. Certain emotion-focused strategies actively facilitate long-term adaptation, whereas others foster avoidance and distress escalation. Similarly, problem-focused coping had failed to distinguish between premature execution of an action and carefully timed restraint. Consequently, the COPE Inventory was constructed to measure 15 discrete coping strategies independently, enabling researchers and clinicians to examine each mechanism’s unique predictive utility without premature theoretical aggregation.

Clinically, the COPE Inventory is utilized to evaluate maladaptive defense patterns, monitor intervention effects during cognitive behavioral therapy, and identify psychological vulnerabilities in patients managing chronic illnesses such as cancer, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), and cardiovascular disease. In research, the instrument supports investigations into health disparities, occupational burnout, academic resilience, traumatic stress adaptation, and the mediating roles coping styles play between dispositional traits (such as optimism, neuroticism, or locus of control) and physiological and psychological health outcomes.

5. Psychological Construct

The psychological construct measured by the COPE Inventory is coping: the constantly shifting cognitive and behavioral efforts employed by individuals to manage specific external or internal demands that are appraised as taxing or exceeding personal resources. Rather than treating coping as a monolithic trait, the COPE framework delineates 15 discrete dimensions:

• Active Coping: The process of taking active steps to remove or circumvent the stressor, or to ameliorate its effects. It involves initiating direct, problem-directed actions and concentrating efforts toward resolving the situation (e.g., “I concentrate my efforts on doing something about it”).
• Planning: Cognitive self-regulation that involves deliberating about how to manage a stressor. It encompasses formulating action strategies, identifying steps to take, and considering optimal approaches to problem resolution (e.g., “I make a plan of action”).
• Suppression of Competing Activities: Deliberately putting aside other projects, tasks, or distractions in order to focus attention, cognitive resources, and energy exclusively on dealing with the focal stressor (e.g., “I put aside other activities in order to concentrate on this”).
• Restraint Coping: Deliberate, controlled pacing where an individual holds off on executing actions until an opportune moment arises, preventing premature interventions that might exacerbate the crisis (e.g., “I force myself to wait for the right time to do something”).
• Seeking Instrumental Social Support: The solicitation of concrete advice, actionable assistance, information, and guidance from other people regarding how to resolve the objective problem (e.g., “I try to get advice from someone about what to do”).
• Seeking Emotional Social Support: The search for moral support, empathy, sympathy, interpersonal validation, and emotional understanding from friends, relatives, or peers (e.g., “I discuss my feelings with someone”).
• Positive Reinterpretation and Growth: The cognitive reframing of a stressful encounter in a constructive, positive light, viewing the adversity as a vehicle for personal maturation and psychological development (e.g., “I try to see it in a different light, to make it seem more positive”).
• Acceptance: Acknowledging the objective reality of the stressful situation, recognizing that it has occurred and cannot be altered, thereby facilitating realistic forward adjustment (e.g., “I accept the reality of the fact that it happened”).
• Denial: The refusal to acknowledge the reality, gravity, or existence of the stressor, manifesting in psychological attempts to act as if the event never took place (e.g., “I pretend that it hasn’t really happened”).
• Religious Coping (Turning to Religion): Seeking emotional solace, moral fortitude, or guidance through spiritual beliefs, prayer, and trust in a higher power (e.g., “I seek God’s help”).
• Focus on and Venting of Emotions: The tendency to dwell on emotional distress, amplify internal turmoil, and discharge negative feelings outwardly, often without advancing effective resolution (e.g., “I get upset and let my emotions out”).
• Behavioral Disengagement: The cessation of effort toward attaining goals with which the stressor interferes, characterized by giving up, psychological surrender, and withdrawal from active pursuit (e.g., “I admit to myself that I can’t deal with it, and quit trying”).
• Mental Disengagement: Engaging in alternative cognitive activities, daydreaming, sleeping, or passive entertainment (such as television or movies) to distract oneself from confronting the distressing situation (e.g., “I daydream about things other than this”).
• Substance Use (Alcohol-Drug Disengagement): Turning to alcohol or pharmacological agents to self-medicate, numb unpleasant affect, or cognitively escape the distress (e.g., “I drink alcohol or take drugs, in order to think about it less”).
• Humor: Making jokes, laughing about the adversity, or adopting a lighthearted perspective to reduce the perceived threat of the stressor (e.g., “I laugh about the situation”).

6. Theoretical Framework

The COPE Inventory synthesizes two prominent psychological frameworks: the Transactional Model of Stress and Coping developed by Richard Lazarus and Susan Folkman (1984) and the Cybernetic Model of Behavioral Self-Regulation developed by Charles Carver and Michael Scheier (1981, 1998).

Lazarus and Folkman’s transactional model conceptualizes stress not as an environmental stimulus or a physiological response per se, but as a dynamic transaction between the individual and their environment. The appraisal process unfolds in two primary phases: primary appraisal, wherein the person assesses the stakes (e.g., whether the event constitutes a threat, harm/loss, or challenge), and secondary appraisal, wherein the individual evaluates available coping options, personal control, and resources. Coping efforts follow these appraisals, dynamically evolving as situational circumstances alter. The COPE Inventory operationalizes this transactional process by providing structural metrics for both cognitive appraisals (e.g., Acceptance, Denial, Positive Reinterpretation) and secondary coping implementations.

Carver and Scheier’s model of behavioral self-regulation contributes the cybernetic control perspective. Within this architecture, human behavior is directed by negative feedback loops aimed at reducing discrepancies between one’s current state and desired reference values (goals). When individuals encounter impediments, they experience negative affect and engage in a subjective outcome expectancy assessment. If expectancies of overcoming the obstacle are positive, individuals sustain goal-directed effort, manifesting in Active Coping, Planning, and Suppression of Competing Activities. If necessary, they employ Restraint Coping to coordinate efforts effectively.

Conversely, when outcome expectancies are severely negative and individuals perceive the discrepancy as insurmountable, the cybernetic impulse is toward goal abandonment. This disengagement occurs hierarchically: individuals may first execute Mental Disengagement (temporarily distracting attention away from the goal-stressor conflict), advance to Behavioral Disengagement (giving up behavioral attempts to attain the goal), or resort to Substance Use to dampen the emotional distress generated by unresolvable discrepancy. Thus, the COPE Inventory directly reflects the behavioral bifurcation between continued engagement versus disengagement dictated by self-regulatory feedback loops.

7. Validity

Extensive psychometric investigations have established strong evidence for the construct, convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity of the COPE Inventory across clinical and non-clinical populations.

Construct and Convergent Validity

During the initial validation across multiple undergraduate cohorts (Carver et al., 1989), scales correlated in theoretically predictable patterns with validated personality and dispositional instruments:

• Dispositional Optimism (assessed via the Life Orientation Test; Scheier & Carver, 1985): Optimism correlated positively with Active Coping (r = .24), Planning (r = .29), and Positive Reinterpretation and Growth (r = .38), while correlating inversely with Denial (r = -.37) and Behavioral Disengagement (r = -.42).
• Self-Esteem (Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale): Correlated positively with adaptive active strategies and negatively with Behavioral Disengagement (r = -.33) and Denial (r = -.24).
• Locus of Control (Rotter’s I-E Scale): Internal locus of control was consistently associated with active problem-focused coping mechanisms, whereas external locus of control correlated with avoidance, denial, and fatalistic disengagement.
• Hardiness and Trait Anxiety: Trait anxiety (STAI) displayed substantial positive correlations with Focus on and Venting of Emotions (r = .30 to .38) and Behavioral Disengagement, alongside strong negative correlations with active planning.

Discriminant Validity

Correlations among the 15 COPE scales are generally low to moderate, confirming that the subscales capture distinct facets of coping rather than redundant variations of a singular trait. For instance, Active Coping and Planning, while sharing conceptual commonalities, correlate at approximately r = .50 to .65 across studies, demonstrating that planning strategies often precede or run parallel to active behavioral execution without empirical redundancy. Furthermore, Social Support seeking for instrumental reasons correlates only moderately with Social Support seeking for emotional reasons (r ≈ .45 to .55), supporting their functional independence.

Predictive and Criterion Validity

Predictive validity has been repeatedly documented across medical and psychological studies. In longitudinal psycho-oncology studies (e.g., Carver et al., 1993), women undergoing treatment for early-stage breast cancer who reported higher baseline levels of Acceptance and Positive Reinterpretation showed significantly lower distress and depression at 3-, 6-, and 12-month follow-ups. In contrast, baseline Denial and Behavioral Disengagement consistently predicted sustained elevated psychological distress, compromised immune markers, and lower quality of life.

8. Reliability

The COPE Inventory demonstrates sound reliability across both internal consistency and temporal stability metrics:

Internal Consistency

In the landmark validation study by Carver, Scheier, and Weintraub (1989; N = 1,030), Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the 15 scales were reported as follows:

• Active Coping: α = .62
• Planning: α = .80
• Suppression of Competing Activities: α = .68
• Restraint Coping: α = .72
• Seeking Instrumental Social Support: α = .75
• Seeking Emotional Social Support: α = .85
• Positive Reinterpretation and Growth: α = .68
• Acceptance: α = .65
• Denial: α = .71
• Religious Coping: α = .92
• Focus on and Venting of Emotions: α = .77
• Behavioral Disengagement: α = .63
• Mental Disengagement: α = .45
• Substance Use: α = .93
• Humor: α = .72

The mean internal consistency across all 15 scales was .79. Only Mental Disengagement demonstrated weak internal consistency (α = .45), a characteristic Carver and colleagues attributed to the diverse heterogeneity of disengagement tactics (e.g., daydreaming vs. sleeping vs. watching television) that may not necessarily covary within the same individual.

Test-Retest Reliability

To assess temporal stability of the dispositional format, Carver et al. (1989) administered the inventory across two sessions separated by an 8-week interval (n = 89) and a 6-week interval (n = 116). Test-retest correlation coefficients ranged from .42 to .89 across subscales, with the highest temporal stability observed for Religious Coping (r = .86 to .89), Substance Use (r = .76 to .82), and Active Coping (r = .56 to .69). These coefficients reflect substantial rank-order stability, confirming that the dispositional administration captures enduring behavioral tendencies while retaining sensitivity to contextual shifts.

9. Factor Analysis

The structural composition of the COPE Inventory was initially determined through exploratory factor analysis (EFA) employing unweighted least squares and principal axis factoring with oblique rotations (oblimin and promax) on an initial pool of items (Carver et al., 1989).

Exploratory Factor Analysis Findings

The initial EFA conducted on the 60 items yielded a clear 15-factor solution corresponding to the a priori theoretical dimensions. Items loaded strongly on their targeted primary factors (typically λ > .50) with low cross-loadings (rarely exceeding λ = .25). The analysis demonstrated that items designed to measure Seeking Instrumental Social Support loaded on a factor distinct from Seeking Emotional Social Support, empirically confirming the divergence between task-oriented information seeking and affective solace.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and Higher-Order Structures

Subsequent confirmatory factor analyses in diverse international, clinical, and community cohorts have substantiated the first-order 15-factor model, exhibiting acceptable model fit indices (e.g., Root Mean Square Error of Approximation [RMSEA] ≤ .055; Comparative Fit Index [CFI] ≥ .90; Standardized Root Mean Square Residual [SRMR] ≤ .060). However, substantial discussion surrounds second-order (higher-order) factor configurations.

Carver et al. (1989) explored higher-order factor solutions, typically discovering four overarching clusters:

1. Active/Problem-Focused Coping: Active Coping, Planning, and Suppression of Competing Activities.
2. Social/Emotion-Focused Coping: Seeking Emotional Social Support, Seeking Instrumental Social Support, and Focus on and Venting of Emotions.
3. Cognitive Adaptation/Acceptance: Positive Reinterpretation and Growth, Acceptance, and Restraint.
4. Avoidant/Disengagement Coping: Denial, Behavioral Disengagement, Mental Disengagement, and Substance Use.

Crucially, Charles Carver explicitly cautioned against computing an overall or “global” coping score, or rigidly forcing scales into generic “adaptive vs. maladaptive” or “problem vs. emotion” composites without empirical verification. Factor structures frequently fluctuate depending on whether the inventory is administered dispositionally (trait) or situationally (state), as well as across differing cultural and socio-economic demographics. Researchers are strongly advised to examine the 15 scales independently or empirically model higher-order latent structures based on their specific sample data.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Instrument Name: COPE Inventory (often referred to as the 60-item Full COPE).
• Format: Self-administered paper-and-pencil or computerized questionnaire.
• Item Count: 60 items.
• Number of Scales: 15 scales with exactly 4 items per scale.
• Response Anchors: 4-point Likert scale:
  • 1 = I usually don’t do this at all
  • 2 = I usually do this a little bit
  • 3 = I usually do this a medium amount
  • 4 = I usually do this a lot
• Subscale Item Assignment:
  • Positive reinterpretation and growth: Items 1, 29, 38, 59
  • Mental disengagement: Items 2, 16, 31, 43
  • Focus on and venting of emotions: Items 3, 17, 28, 46
  • Use of instrumental social support: Items 4, 14, 30, 45
  • Active coping: Items 5, 25, 47, 58
  • Denial: Items 6, 27, 40, 57
  • Religious coping: Items 7, 18, 48, 60
  • Humor: Items 8, 20, 36, 50
  • Behavioral disengagement: Items 9, 24, 37, 51
  • Restraint: Items 10, 22, 41, 49
  • Use of emotional social support: Items 11, 23, 34, 52
  • Substance use: Items 12, 26, 35, 53
  • Acceptance: Items 13, 21, 44, 54
  • Suppression of competing activities: Items 15, 33, 42, 55
  • Planning: Items 19, 32, 39, 56
• Scoring Procedures:
  • All items are positively scored; there are no reverse-coded items.
  • Scale scores are obtained by calculating the sum of the four constituent items for each subscale.
  • Scores on each scale range from a minimum of 4 to a maximum of 16.
  • There is no total composite or global coping score; each subscale is analyzed independently.
• Administration Variants: Can be framed for dispositional coping (“what you usually do when you are under a lot of stress”) or situational coping (“what you did when you experienced this specific stressful event”).

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

• Publication Year: 1989.
• Copyright & Permissions: The COPE Inventory is an open-access scientific instrument placed into the academic domain by its primary author, Dr. Charles S. Carver.
• Fee: Free for clinical, non-profit, educational, and empirical scientific research purposes. No licensing fees or royalty payments are required.
• Conditions of Use: Researchers may administer the questionnaire without seeking formal individual written permission from the copyright holders, provided that the original publication (Carver, Scheier, & Weintraub, 1989) is formally cited and the structural integrity of the subscales is preserved.

12. References

• 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. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327558ijbm0401_6
• Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1981). Attention and self-regulation: A control-theory approach to human behavior. Springer-Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-5887-2
• Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1998). On the self-regulation of behavior. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139174794
• Carver, C. S., Pozo, C., Harris, S. D., Noriega, V., Scheier, M. F., Robinson, D. S., Ketcham, A. S., Moffat, F. L., & Clark, K. C. (1993). How coping mediates the effect of optimism on anxiety and depression among women with early stage breast cancer. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(2), 375–390. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.65.2.375
• Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. F., & Weintraub, J. K. (1989). Assessing coping strategies: A theoretically based approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(2), 267–283. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.56.2.267
• Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1980). An analysis of coping in a middle-aged community sample. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 21(3), 219–239. https://doi.org/10.2307/2136617
• Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. Springer Publishing Company.
• Scheier, M. F., & Carver, C. S. (1985). Optimism, coping, and health: Assessment and implications of generalized outcome expectancies. Health Psychology, 4(3), 219–247. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.4.3.219

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)