Page 134 - PhD GT

their coding of coping responses, they used a four category classification in which the active (or approach) / avoidance categories were subdivided by the cognitive/behavioural categories. Active cognitive coping responses were those that consisted of looking at the problem directly and employing a problem solving approach, redefinition, thinking of the consequences, supportive thoughts and self-talk. Cognitive-avoidance strategies were those which attempted to avoid the problem by ignoring it or relying on will power or resolve. Active behavioural strategies were those which dealt directly with the problem by seeking help and support from others, practising refusal skills or alternative activities. Behavioural avoidance strategies involved escape and tension reduction by eating, smoking or taking an alcohol sensitising drug.
The authors found that the number of responses employed up to two was associated with a significant difference between drinking and abstinence in relapse crisis situations and that the number of responses used was also significantly related to the quantity of drinking where it did occur. Like the Shiffman study described above, this study found no difference in the relationship between outcome and the use of either cognitive or behavioural coping strategies, but where participants in the study used a combination of cognitive and behavioural coping responses they were more likely to remain abstinent. However, when this finding was re-examined to distinguish the combination of types with the fact that inevitably the combination would involve the use of two or more strategies then the combination itself lost its significance, while the overall number of strategies used remained significant. On the active / avoidance dichotomy however, a difference was found between those who used active coping only compared to those who used avoidance coping only; those who used active coping only were significantly more likely to remain abstinent than those who used avoidance coping only. Those who used a combination were more likely to remain abstinent than those who used one or the other but again this finding was confounded by the fact that those who used both were more likely to use more strategies numerically. With reference to the drinking outcomes where drinking did occur the only strategy that was more effective than none was behavioural avoidance and specifically it was more effective than active behavioural coping in resulting in a light drinking outcome. People who used a combination of behavioural and cognitive strategies were more likely to achieve a light drinking outcome than people who used one or the other and no difference was found in relation to this outcome between these two strategies used separately. In this study the authors were unable to establish whether it was the case that the inevitably larger numbers of strategies used when combining had a confounding effect, or whether the combination had greater influence of itself. On the question of avoidance versus active coping, a light drinking outcome was more likely for participants who used a combination of the two types of
128