This article focuses on the problems of the coping repertoire of the individual. It presents a comparative analysis of psychological classifications of coping strategies identified in international research. It is noted that in terms of the direction of human actions, strategies focus either on the situation, on oneself or something else. Such classifications are offered by R. Lazarus, S. Folkman, D. Amirkhan, R. Moos and D. Shafer and others. A number of scholars, such as S. Maddi, focus not only on the direction of coping actions, but also on the degree of their intensity – active or passive – highlighting resilience and passive coping. Close to that of S. Maddi is a classification of adaptive and maladaptive coping strategies by E. Frydenberg. E. Heim examines coping strategies in terms of their modality, i.e. cognitive, emotional, or behavioral. Particular attention is paid to the systematisation of coping strategies suggested by E. Skinner and called “coping family”. It consists of twelve sections, each of which has its own strategy, similar in orientation (e.g., problem solving, information search, avoidance, search of support, etc.). This article presents a theoretical background of debatable effectiveness of coping behavior. It is shown that, for example, the strategy of avoidance, traditionally regarded as ineffective, may be adaptive in a conflict situation. Thus, it is effective to use all strategies, depending on the situation. In addition, the article discusses the dispositional or situational nature of the selected strategies. The dispositional approach to understanding coping explains it in terms of personality traits. The situational approach to coping behavior considers overcoming in the context of a particularly difficult situation affecting the intentions and actions of a person. However, recent studies have used an integrative situational personality approach by R. Moos and D. Shafer. The article also provides an overview of the six most common coping behavior measures.