Coping Flexibility and Trauma: The Perceived Ability to Cope With Trauma (PACT) Scale George A. Bonanno Columbia University Ruth Pat-Horenczyk Hebrew University of Jerusalem Jennie Noll Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, University of Cincinnati Theories about coping with potential trauma have emphasized the importance of concerted focus on processing the traumatic event. However, empirical evidence also suggests that it may be salubrious to distract oneself, remain optimistic, and focus on moving past the event. These seemingly contradictory perspectives are integrated in the concept of coping flexibility. This investigation reports the development and validation of a brief questionnaire, the Perceived Ability to Cope With Trauma (PACT) scale, with 2 scales that measure the perceived ability to focus on processing the trauma (trauma focus) and to focus on moving beyond the trauma (forward focus). In addition, we created a single flexibility score that represented the ability to use both types of coping. Participants included an Israeli sample with potential high trauma exposure and a sample of American college students. The factor structure of the PACT was confirmed in both samples. Preliminary evidence was obtained for the PACT’s convergent, discriminant, and incremental validity. Both the Forward Focus and Trauma Focus scales were independently associated with better adjustment, and each scale independently moderated the impact of heightened trauma exposure. Similarly, the combination of these scales into a single parsimonious flexibility score also moderated trauma exposure. Limitations of and future research with the measure are considered. Keywords: flexibility, coping, trauma, grief, resilience During the normal course of their lives, most adults are con- fronted with at least one and sometimes several highly aversive or potentially traumatic events (PTEs; e.g., a violent or life- threatening accident, assault, or natural disaster; Kessler, Sonnega, Bromet, Hughes, & Nelson, 1995). The psychological reactions that often accompany such extreme events can present a formida- ble coping challenge. Historically, trauma theorists have empha- sized the importance of coping with PTEs by effortful trauma focus of the thoughts, images, and memories associated with the event (e.g., Horowitz, 1986). Yet, a growing body of research has also highlighted the salutary importance of behaviors that appear to minimize trauma focus, such as optimism (Scheier, Carver, & Bridges, 1994) or emotional avoidance (Bonanno, Keltner, Holen, & Horowitz, 1995). These seemingly disparate literatures are potentially integrated by a third perspective, adapted from the general stress and coping literature (e.g., Lazarus & Folkman, 1984), that takes into account the variability in coping and adjust- ment demands across different stressor events. According to this perspective, resilience to trauma is fostered not by one particular type of coping response but rather by the ability to flexibly engage in different types of coping responses as needed across different types of PTEs (Bonanno, 2004, 2005; Bonanno & Mancini, 2008). Despite its potentially integrative usefulness, however, there has been surprisingly little research on this broader conception of coping flexibility in the context of PTEs. In this article, we report on the development of a questionnaire measure designed to capture competing coping abilities in the specific context of potential trauma. Specifically, we report data from a sample of students from Hebrew University in Jerusalem that had been recruited for their likely high exposure to terrorist violence and a sample of American college students. In both samples, we tested the scale’s factor structure and its convergent and discriminant validity. In addition, we used the high-exposure Israeli sample to test the incremental validity of the individual scales and the single flexi- bility score, as well as their ability to moderate the corrosive effects of high trauma exposure. Coping With Potential Trauma One of the striking characteristics of PTEs is that they tend to defy meaning (McFarlane & De Girolamo, 1996) and, in extreme cases, can “shatter” normal assumptions about the self, the world, and other people (Janoff-Bulman, 1992). Such emotionally jarring events are not easily assimilated and integrated with other more normative experiences (Janet, 1889; van der Kolk, 1996). It is not surprising that a common thread running through theories of psychological trauma is that recovery of normal functioning after This article was published Online First February 14, 2011. George A. Bonanno, Department of Pediatrics, Columbia University; Ruth Pat-Horenczyk, Department of Pediatrics, Hebrew University of Jerusalem; Jennie Noll, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, University of Cincinnati. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to George A. Bonanno, Department of Counseling and Clinical Psychology, Teachers College, Columbia University, 525 West 120th Street, Box 218, New York, NY 10027. E-mail: gab38@columbia.edu Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy © 2011 American Psychological Association 2011, Vol. 3, No. 2, 117–129 1942-9681/11/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0020921 117