This investigation reports the development of a multidimensional instrument of stable coping styles that focused on whether one's problem-focused coping efforts were facilitating or inhibiting progress toward resolution of a problem. Study 1 describes the steps in scale construction, including the factor analyses, normative information, and reliability estimates. Study 2 provides initial estimates of the stability of the factor structure and construct, concurrent, and discriminant validity. Study 3 provides evidence for the test-retest stability of the Problem-Focused Style of Coping (PF-SOC) factors, an examination of the relations between the PF-SOC factors and neuroticism as another estimate of discriminant validity, and additional concurrent validity by comparisons with a well-developed coping styles inventory.How people struggle and cope with real-life, stressful personal difficulties has received considerable attention ever since Dewey's (1933) influential book on applied problem solving, How We Think. A wide variety of research suggests that coping and problem-solving activities play a role in physical and psychological well-being when people are confronted with negative or stressful events (see D 'Zurilla & Nezu, 1982;Friedman, 1991;Snyder & Ford, 1987). Despite the progress in understanding the coping process and the role of coping in mediating both physical and psychological health, many questions remain either unanswered or unexamined.Little agreement exists regarding the optimal conceptualization of coping (Rohde, Lewinsohn, Tilson, & Seeley, 1990), and a proliferation of constructs have been introduced such as problem-and emotion-focused coping (Folkman & Lazarus, 1980), primary and secondary appraisal (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984), hardiness (Kobasa, 1982), problem-solving appraisal (Heppner, 1988), problem-solving ability (D'Zurilla & Nezu, 1982), antidepressive behaviors (Rippere, 1976), learned resourcefulness (Meichenbaum, 1977), and coherence (Antonovsky, 1979). In many instances, similar constructs and relationships among vari-

We investigated men's experience with unwanted sexual activity-including unwanted kissing, petting, or intercourse-engaged in because of physical or psychological pressure or from societal expectations about male sexuality. We developed a questionnaire asking if respondents had ever engaged in unwanted sexual activity for any of 51 reasons. This questionnaire was administered to 507 men and 486 women. More women (97.5%) than men (93.5%) had experienced unwanted sexual activity; more men (62.7%) than women (46.3%) had experienced unwanted intercourse. Using factor analysis, we grouped the 51 questionnaire items into 13 general reasons; we then compared percentages of men and women who had engaged in unwanted sexual activity for these 13 reasons. There were seven sex differences in reasons for unwanted sexual activity: Five were more frequent for women than men; two reasons were more frequent for men than women-peer pressure and desire for popularity. There were eight sex differences in reasons for unwanted intercourse; more men than women had engaged in unwanted intercourse for all eight. The double standard for male and female sexuality and implications for therapy are discussed.

No abstract

This series of studies assessed the psychometric properties of the Normative Male Alexithymia Scale (NMAS), a brief scale designed to assess normative male alexithymia. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses using separate samples (n ϭ 248 and 467, respectively) indicated that the NMAS consisted of a single 20-item factor. Scores on the NMAS displayed very good internal consistency (␣ ϭ .92-.93), and test-retest reliability (r ϭ .86 -.91) over a 1-2 month period. Results of analyses of gender differences, relations of the NMAS with other instruments, and its incremental validity in predicting masculinity ideology, provide evidence supporting the validity of the scale. Implications and suggestions for future research are discussed.

The purpose of this study was to examine correlates of initial distress and current recovery among individuals who have experienced the breakup of a dating relationship, including factors associated with commitment to the relationship (i.e. satisfaction, duration, closeness, perceived alternatives) and factors associated with coping with life stressors (i.e. perceptions of the controllability of the breakup, social support and self-esteem). Participants were 34 males and 51 females who had experienced the breakup of a dating relationship within the past 6 months. Hierarchical regression analyses indicated that these variables accounted for between 21 and 47 percent of the variance in the measures of initial distress and current recovery. The coping-related variables added significantly to the prediction of initial distress and current recovery once the commitment-related variables were taken into account, but were more strongly related to recovery than to initial distress. Implications for research and practice are discussed.