Coping with Stress, Executive Functions, and Depressive Symptoms: Focusing on Flexible Responses to Stress.

Tsukasa Kato
Author Information
  1. Tsukasa Kato: Department of Social Psychology, Toyo University, 5-28-20 Hakusan, Bunkyo-Ku, Tokyo 112-8606, Japan. ORCID

Abstract

Coping flexibility is conceptually similar to both inhibition and set-shifting. Though they serve different functions, all three are robustly associated with depression. Coping flexibility is the ability to relinquish a coping strategy regarded as ineffective and to devise and implement an alternative one; the concept is based on stress and coping theory. Inhibition is the ability to suppress responses selectively according to a change in the situation, while set-shifting is the process of switching flexibly between task sets, mental sets, or response rules. Inhibition and set-shifting are both executive functions in cognitive mechanisms. We hypothesized that coping flexibility was associated with a lower risk of depression, even when the effects of inhibition and set-shifting were controlled for. In total, 200 Japanese university students (100 women and 100 men) completed questionnaires that measured coping flexibility and depression and performed the Stroop Color and Word Test and the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test, which measured inhibition and set-shifting. We found that greater coping flexibility was associated with a lower risk of depression, even when the effects of inhibition and set-shifting were controlled for. Our findings suggest that, although coping flexibility is conceptually similar to inhibition and set-shifting, its association with depression differs from theirs.

Keywords

References

  1. Psychol Med. 2007 Sep;37(9):1249-59 [PMID: 17451630]
  2. Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2015;11:379-405 [PMID: 25581242]
  3. Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2014;10:393-423 [PMID: 24471371]
  4. Annu Rev Public Health. 2013;34:119-38 [PMID: 23514317]
  5. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2019 Apr;99:101-116 [PMID: 30529362]
  6. Anxiety Stress Coping. 2021 Jan;34(1):51-65 [PMID: 32672068]
  7. Psychol Bull. 2014 Nov;140(6):1582-607 [PMID: 25222637]
  8. Clin Psychol (New York). 2017 Sep;24(3):245-276 [PMID: 29038622]
  9. Asian J Psychiatr. 2016 Dec;24:130-134 [PMID: 27931896]
  10. Psychol Bull. 2013 Jan;139(1):81-132 [PMID: 22642228]
  11. J Affect Disord. 2018 Jun;233:45-67 [PMID: 29150144]
  12. JMIR Ment Health. 2019 Apr 26;6(4):e11401 [PMID: 31025943]
  13. J Couns Psychol. 2012 Apr;59(2):262-73 [PMID: 22506909]
  14. Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2018 May 7;14:1-28 [PMID: 29328780]
  15. Psychiatry Res. 2015 Dec 15;230(2):137-42 [PMID: 26342281]
  16. J Affect Disord. 2012 Oct;140(2):113-24 [PMID: 22088608]
  17. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2018 Jul;90:1-15 [PMID: 29524456]
  18. J Nerv Ment Dis. 2006 Apr;194(4):261-7 [PMID: 16614547]
  19. Front Psychol. 2020 Dec 11;11:561731 [PMID: 33362627]
  20. J Soc Clin Psychol. 2017 Feb;36(2):142-157 [PMID: 28490833]
  21. Crisis. 2021 Jun 15;:1-6 [PMID: 34128687]
  22. Psychol Rev. 2005 Apr;112(2):417-45 [PMID: 15783292]
  23. Eur Eat Disord Rev. 2021 Jun 12;: [PMID: 34118097]
  24. Lancet. 2003 Aug 23;362(9384):604-9 [PMID: 12944059]
  25. Front Psychol. 2017 Apr 19;8:593 [PMID: 28469590]
  26. Anxiety Stress Coping. 2019 Jul;32(4):347-361 [PMID: 30929458]
  27. Neural Plast. 2015;2015:581976 [PMID: 25878903]
  28. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019 Aug 02;16(15): [PMID: 31382434]
  29. Brain Cogn. 2009 Dec;71(3):437-51 [PMID: 19375839]
  30. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2017 Dec;83:496-507 [PMID: 28903059]
  31. Emotion. 2004 Jun;4(2):207-14 [PMID: 15222857]
  32. Emotion. 2006 Aug;6(3):429-437 [PMID: 16938084]
  33. Nat Neurosci. 2015 Oct;18(10):1353-63 [PMID: 26404710]
  34. Heliyon. 2019 Oct 07;5(10):e02558 [PMID: 31667400]
  35. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw. 2015 Sep;18(9):539-46 [PMID: 26348815]
  36. Int J Behav Med. 2015 Aug;22(4):506-11 [PMID: 25231548]
  37. Psychol Res Behav Manag. 2016 Apr 18;9:71-9 [PMID: 27186146]
  38. Pain Pract. 2017 Jan;17(1):70-77 [PMID: 26895743]
  39. PLoS One. 2015 May 26;10(5):e0128307 [PMID: 26011626]
  40. Front Hum Neurosci. 2013 Apr 05;7:123 [PMID: 23576971]
  41. Psychol Med. 2013 Oct;43(10):2017-26 [PMID: 23098294]
  42. J Psychosom Res. 2017 Apr;95:1-6 [PMID: 28314543]
  43. Behav Med. 2021 Jul-Sep;47(3):185-193 [PMID: 31886738]
  44. J Affect Disord. 2014 Jan;152-154:19-27 [PMID: 24215896]
  45. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2016 Sep;68:651-668 [PMID: 27371161]
  46. Am J Psychiatry. 2008 Aug;165(8):969-77 [PMID: 18628348]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0set-shiftingflexibilitycopinginhibitiondepressionCopingassociatedconceptuallysimilarfunctionsabilitytheoryInhibitionsetsexecutivelowerriskeveneffectscontrolled100measuredTestStressThoughservedifferentthreerobustlyrelinquishstrategyregardedineffectivedeviseimplementalternativeoneconceptbasedstresssuppressresponsesselectivelyaccordingchangesituationprocessswitchingflexiblytaskmentalresponserulescognitivemechanismshypothesizedtotal200JapaneseuniversitystudentswomenmencompletedquestionnairesperformedStroopColorWordWisconsinCardSortingfoundgreaterfindingssuggestalthoughassociationdifferstheirsExecutiveFunctionsDepressiveSymptoms:FocusingFlexibleResponsesdual-processfunction

Similar Articles

Cited By