{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01972872996300863, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 6.12280701754386, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Alternative explanations of coping with stressful experiences associated with physical illness

This article contains a review of the components of four theories (emotional-drive, self-regulation, cognitive appraisal, and self-efficacy) relevant to explanations of the relationship between informational interventions and coping with stressful experiences associated with physical illness. Data from recent clinical studies are used to illustrate the process of evaluating alternative hypotheses about mediating processes from each of the theories. Hypotheses from emotional-drive theory are not supported. Hypotheses from self-regulation theory are supported when the outcome measure is returned to usual activities. Additional analyses reveal the limitations of cognitive appraisal and self-efficacy theories.