Coping is a dynamic response to stressors that employees encounter in their work and nonwork roles. Scholars have argued that it is not just whether employees cope with work-nonwork stressors-but how they cope-that matters. Indeed, prior research assumes that adaptive coping strategies-planning, prioritizing, positive reframing, seeking emotional and instrumental support-are universally beneficial, suggesting that sustaining high levels of these strategies is ideal. By returning to the roots of coping theory, we adopt a person-centered, dynamic approach using latent profile analysis and latent transition analysis across three multiwave studies (N = 1,370) to consider whether employees combine coping strategies and how remaining in or shifting between such combinations also matters. In a pilot study (N = 361), we explored profiles and their transitions during a time frame punctuated with macrolevel transitions that amplified employees' work-nonwork stressors (i.e., COVID-19), which revealed three profiles at Time 1 (comprehensive copers, emotion-focused copers, and individualistic copers) and a fourth profile at Time 2 (surviving copers). In Study 1 (N = 648), across all three time points, we replicated three profiles and found evidence for constrained copers instead of emotion-focused copers. In Study 2 (N = 361), across both time points, we replicated all four profiles from Study 1 and tested hypotheses regarding the profiles, their transition patterns, and implications of such patterns for work, well-being, and social functioning outcomes. Altogether, our work suggests that maintaining high-coping depth or increasing depth is generally beneficial, whereas maintaining or increasing coping breadth is generally harmful. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

中文翻译：

---

随着时间的推移应对工作非工作压力源：以人为本的应对广度和深度的多研究整合。


应对是员工在工作和非工作角色中遇到的压力源的动态反应。学者们认为，重要的不仅仅是员工是否应对工作非工作压力源，而是他们如何应对。事实上，先前的研究假设适应性应对策略——规划、确定优先级、积极重构、寻求情感和工具支持——是普遍有益的，这表明维持高水平的这些策略是理想的。通过回归应对理论的根源，我们采用以人为本的动态方法，在三项多波研究 （N = 1,370） 中使用潜在概况分析和潜在过渡分析来考虑员工是否结合应对策略，以及保持应对策略或在此类组合之间转换有何重要性。在一项试点研究 （N = 361） 中，我们探讨了在放大员工工作非工作压力源（即 COVID-19）的宏观层面转变的时间范围内的概况及其转变，该研究揭示了时间 1 的三个概况（综合应对者、以情绪为中心的应对者和个人主义应对者）和时间 2 的第四个概况（幸存的应对者）。在研究 1 （N = 648） 中，在所有三个时间点中，我们复制了三个配置文件，并发现了约束性应对者而不是以情绪为中心的应对者的证据。在研究 2 （N = 361） 中，在两个时间点上，我们复制了研究 1 中的所有四个概况，并检验了关于概况、它们的转换模式以及这些模式对工作、幸福感和社会功能结果的影响的假设。总而言之，我们的研究表明，保持高应对深度或增加应对深度通常是有益的，而保持或增加应对广度通常是有害的。 （PsycInfo 数据库记录 （c） 2024 APA，保留所有权利）。