Background: According to the strategy-situation fit hypothesis, it is adaptive to match coping strategies to the controllability of stressors. Although early research generally supported this hypothesis, recent findings have been inconsistent. The goals of this study were to test the strategy-situation fit hypothesis, addressing limitations of past research, and compare it to an alternative hypothesis from the temporal model of control (i.e., to focus on what one can control rather than matching coping strategies to control appraisals).
Design and methods: College students (n = 159) completed measures assessing their stressors, coping strategies, stressor controllability, perceived control over present aspects of stressors, and perceived stress. Data were collected via online surveys in Fall 2020.
Results: Consistent with the strategy-situation fit hypothesis, using a higher ratio of problem-solving coping for more controllable stressors was associated with less stress. However, using more emotion-focused coping for less controllable stressors was not associated with less stress. In addition, focusing on what one could control in the present was associated with less stress, above and beyond strategy-situation fit.
Conclusions: It may be more adaptive to focus on what one can control in the present than to match coping styles to stressor controllability.
Keywords: Stress; coping; goodness-of-fit; perceived control; strategy-situation fit.