Coping Action Patterns as Mechanisms of Change Across Psychotherapies: Three Case Examples of Personality Disorders With Recurrent Major Depression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Maladaptive coping has been shown to be related to increased symptoms of distress and lower levels of well-being, whereas the use of adaptive coping has been shown to diminish distress and improve functioning. This suggests that change in coping may constitute a significant mechanism of change in psychotherapy. Utilizing a novel observer-rating method for assessing coping, the current report examined changes in overall coping functioning (OCF) in three participants with diverse personality disorders who were undergoing two different types of psychotherapy (cognitive-behavioral therapy and dynamic therapy) for recurrent major depression. Results showed that overall coping functioning improved in two cases and remained stable in a third. Preliminary findings, based on a detailed examination of changes in specific coping patterns, suggest that improvement may differ according to severity of personality pathology. As hypothesized, coping improved in both types of psychotherapy. Thus, overall results suggest that coping may constitute an important general mechanism of change.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".