Coping and suicide behaviour

Another objective of the current study was to examine the relationship between coping and suicide behaviour. Based on the findings (Kirchner et al., 2011; Morris et al., 2014; Sadaghiani & Sorkhab; 2013; Pienaar, Rothmann, & Van De Vijver., 2007; Tang & Qin, 2015), the current study predicted that the use of emotion-focused and avoidant-focused coping are associated with higher levels of suicidality, whereas the use of problem- focused coping would be associated with lower suicidality. However, some results contradicted the main stream of findings regarding the adaptive use of coping strategies.

One important finding was that the use of emotion-focused coping strategies in the form of positive reinterpretation and growth, religious coping, and acceptance were associated with lower levels of suicidality. Stanton et al. (2000) argued that emotion- focused coping could be an effective coping strategy that allows more emotional

expression, thus promoting a positive social response. They further posited that the use of emotional coping is more effective for dealing with uncontrollable stressors versus controllable ones. This assumption was supported by their findings that female patients undergoing breast cancer treatment reported significantly lower levels of distress when they frequently used emotional coping compared to problem-focused coping. Similarly, the multiple major life challenges students go through during their academic life may be perceived as uncontrollable, and the use of emotion-focused coping strategies may be adaptive for them to cope with the stressors. This is because dealing with the problem directly through the use of problem-focused coping may not always be effective in resolving the problem and the emotions elicited by the stressor. Examples include difficulties meeting new friends, dealing with homesickness and managing workload associated with meeting multiple assignment deadlines.

Similar to emotion-focused coping, there was also an unexpected relationship between problem-focused coping and suicidality. Contrary to expectations, increased use of problem-focused coping was not associated with reduced suicidality. This supports prior literature which have found that there are circumstances whereby active coping strategies may be less effective (Compas, 2009; Compas et al., 2001). For example, in dealing with stressors that are uncontrollable such as parental divorce and poverty-related stress (D'Imperio, Dubow & Ippolito, 2000). Compas (2009) argued that active coping

that directly deals with the stressor may not help to change an uncontrollable stressful event, therefore, other forms of coping such as reinterpreting the situation and learning to positively accept a situation may be a better way out. In the current sample, students may think in a similar way, that is, they may accept that having no friends rather than actively seeking to change the situation (e.g. trying to go out and join clubs to make friends) would be a more feasible coping strategy in their current academic lives. It is also an easier coping strategy to just accept rather than thriving to change the situation which may be seen as uncontrollable. Consequently, the coping strategies considered by undergraduates as effective may be different to those sample populations in previous studies.

The current findings may also be interpreted from a cognitive perspective due to the distinctive characteristics of university students sampled in this study. Firstly, the majority of the participants were young adults (the UK participants mean age of 23.14 years and HK participants mean age of 21.06 years), and as executive functions continue to develop beyond young adulthood (Goldstein & Naglieri, 2013), it may be the case that because this population is yet to fully develop their executive functions, they have not mastered their problem-focused coping strategies in order to tackle challenging stressors. Therefore, it is possible that increased problem-focused coping did not correlate with reduced suicidality because participants may not be able to use this strategy of coping effectively and therefore disregard it as an option. This assumption is supported by the finding that the only coping style that was significantly associated with lower levels of suicidality was religious coping which is an emotion-focused coping strategy that does not directly address a problem (Carver, 1989).

Consistent with past literature (Blankstein et al., 2007; Uğurlu and Ona, 2009, Zhang et al., 2012), increased use of avoidance-focused coping strategies was associated with increased risk of suicide in this study. This confirms the proposal that coping that avoids rather than directly addresses a stressor is regarded as maladaptive and harmful to one’s psychological health. Therefore, avoidance-focused coping is mainly maladaptive and utilizing it to a large extent could increase suicide behaviour. Moreover, apart from suicide behaviour, past research suggests that whilst individuals may avoid confrontation of intense emotions during periods of increased stress or pain, excessive use of avoidance can ultimately lead to poor psychological health (Amstadter, 2008).

Lambert et al. (2004) explained that avoidance coping is maladaptive as it only temporarily reduces the experience of stress and physiological arousal and it has minimal value as a stress management technique for physical or mental health. In comparison, coping in the form of seeking social support involves elements of problem solving and encourages emotional expression to others. The experience of seeking advice from others for further information, emotional support, disclosure, rationalization, or justification for one’s perceptions and actions, may help individuals to find ways to express and

ameliorate their negative emotions rather than to deal with the stressors alone.

Due to the heterogeneity in the existing coping research which undermines the disparity of participants’ age groups, backgrounds, and the different types of stressors and coping measures used across different studies, there are unanswered questions as to which type of coping is most effective (Aldwin, Sutton, Chiara & Spiro, 1996; Stanton et al., 2000). The current study raises the argument that the terminology “maladaptive” implies negative connotations when, in practical terms, it is possible that some coping

styles that may often be considered as “maladaptive” may be beneficial in dealing with some situations (Zuckerman & Gagne, 2003).