Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Individual and parental influences on children's coping responses
(USC Thesis Other)
Individual and parental influences on children's coping responses
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
INDIVIDUAL AND PARENTAL INFLUENCES ON CHILDREN’S COPNG
RESPONSES
by
Sarah Elizabeth Duman
A Thesis Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
MASTER OF SCIENCE
(PSYCHOLOGY)
December 2004
Copyright 2004 Sarah Elizabeth Duman
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
UMI Number: 1424218
INFORMATION TO USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy
submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and
photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
UMI
UMI Microform 1424218
Copyright 2005 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest Information and Learning Company
300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Dedication
To my family, current and future.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Acknowledgements
My sincerest thanks to Gayla Margolin, all of the members of my lab, the coding
team, and all of the families in our project.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table of Contents
Dedication...............................................................................................................ii
Acknowledgements............................................................................................... iii
List of Tables.........................................................................................................v
List of Figures........................................................................................................vi
Abstract.................................................................................................................vii
Introduction..............................................................................................................1
Method.................................................................................................................. 13
Results...................................................................................................................22
Discussion............................................................................................................. 36
References.............................................................................................................46
Appendices............................................................................................................ 53
iv
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
List of Tables
Table Page
1 Aggressive Codes............................................................................ 17
2 Means, Standard Deviations of Aggressive Strategies, Number
of Participants Using Aggressive Strategies.................................... 22
3 Correlations Between a History of Recent Exposure to
Interparental Violence, Parental Aggressive Coping, and Child
Aggressive Coping........................................................................... 24
4 Intercorrelations Between Parents’ Aggressive Coping, History
of Interparental Violence, and Child Resources............................. 25
5 Hierarchical Regression: Girls’ and Boys’ Aggressive Coping as
Related to Interactions Between History of Exposure to Interparental
Violence, Child Resources, and Father’s Aggressive Coping 26
6 Hierarchical Regression: Girls’ and Boys’ Aggressive Coping as
Related to Interactions Between History of Exposure to Interparental
Violence, Child Resources, and Father’s Aggressive Coping........... 27
v
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
List of Figures
Figure Page
1 Three-Way Interaction with Fathers’ Aggressive Coping
Explaining Boys’ Aggressive Coping Toward Family......................... 29
2 Three-Way Interaction with Mothers’ Aggressive Coping
Explaining Boys’ Aggressive Coping Toward Family........................ 30
3 Three-Way Interaction with Mothers’ Aggressive Coping
Explaining Girls’ Aggressive Coping Toward Family......................... 31
4 Three-Way Interaction with Mothers’ Aggressive Coping
Explaining Girls’ Aggressive Coping Toward Peers............................ 32
5 Two-Way Interaction with Fathers’ Aggressive Coping
Explaining Girls’ Aggressive Coping Toward Family......................... 34
6 Two-Way Interaction with Mothers’ Aggressive Coping
Explaining Boys’ Aggressive Coping Toward Peers............................ 35
vi
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ABSTRACT
This study examines parent’s coping, children’s interparental violence exposure,
and child resources (IQ, emotional regulation) to elucidate the determinants of
children’s aggressive coping. In an ethnically diverse sample of 118 families,
mothers, fathers and their 9-11 year old child responded to hypothetical social
stressors. Trained coders categorized coping responses. Interparental violence
exposure correlates positively with boys’ aggressive coping at home and with
peers. Mothers’ aggressive coping correlates positively with boys’ aggressive
coping with peers; fathers’ aggressive coping correlates with girls’ aggressive
coping at home. For girls, the interaction between fathers’ aggressive coping and
child resources explained the most variance in aggressive coping toward family.
For boys, the interaction between mothers’ aggressive coping and interparental
violence exposure explained the most variance in aggressive coping toward peers.
Interactions between high levels of a) child resources b) interparental violence
exposure and c) parental aggressive coping relate to low levels of children’s
aggressive coping.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
INTRODUCTION
Coping in response to social stressors is related to individual psychopathology in
both children (Compas, 1998, Compas, Worsham, & Ey, 1992; Margolin, Oliver, &
Medina, 2001) and adults (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984) Aggressive coping is one type
of coping shown to be particularly significant for negative outcomes. Because
coping has implications for outcomes, it would be important to understand the
development of coping itself. Parental coping models, exposure to interparental
violence, and children’s own resources potentially influence the development of
children’s coping processes. Social situations are some of the stressors for which an
aggressive response would be most harmful. Therefore, this project examines the
influences upon children’s aggressive coping in social situations with family and
peers.
Coping, in its most general sense, is understood as conscious efforts to reduce
the distress caused by a stressor. Early research conceptualized coping styles as
traits that remained stable across situations, but the majority of recent work has been
rooted in Lazarus and Folkman’s (1984) definition of coping as “constantly changing
cognitive and behavioral efforts to manage specific external and/or internal demands
that are appraised as taxing or exceeding the resources of the person.” (p. 141). To
date, research has identified dimensions that describe coping, including the
orientation (approach vs. avoidance), the method (cognitive vs. behavioral), and the
focus (the problem vs. the emotions related to it), as well as descriptive categories
that are characterized by combinations of dimensions (Compas, 1998; Tobin,
1
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Holroyd, Reynolds, and Wigal, 1989). The coping literature examines a variety of
strategies such as cognitive reappraisal, problem solving, seeking social support,
expressing emotion, and avoidance (Curry and Russ, 1985; Goodman et al, 1999;
Elwood, 1987; O’Brien, Margolin, and John, 1995; Spirito, Stark, & Williams, 1988;
Tobin, Holroyd, Reynolds, & Wigal, 1989). Despite the clear implications of
aggressive coping for outcomes, aggressive coping has received less attention than
other more general coping strategies.
Aggressive Coping
Aggression is one of the many possible coping responses that children use
when facing interparental conflict situations or stressful interpersonal exchanges with
peers. “Aggressive coping” is slightly different from the general term “aggression”
in that aggressive coping is an aggressive response to a stressful situation. This
response is meant to either solve the problem or to help the child to feel better.
Because aggression is generally considered an ineffective solution to stressful social
interactions (Goodman et al, 1999; Laconte, 1999), children’s aggressive coping
responses are noteworthy. Children who report using aggressive coping are likely to
encounter additional difficulties as a result of this coping style (Dempsey, 2002;
Rosenberg, 1987; Sandstrom, 2004). This study examines the influences on
aggressive coping in response to the divergent situations of interparental conflict and
peer conflict. In prior research, aggressive coping has included “physical or verbal
aggression or passive aggression (e.g., trickery or tattling)” in response to social
2
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
stressors, (Goodman, Barfoot, Frye, & Belli, 1999); “negative actions (...act
aggressively)" (Kliewer et al, 1996); and “spreading rumors, direct retaliation”
(Sandstrom, 2004). In the present study, aggressive coping included verbal
aggression (“I’d yell”), demands (“tell her to back off’), spiteful behavior (passive
aggression or relational aggression such as “get him expelled”), and physical
aggression (“start throwing punches”).
Aggressive coping, even when defined differently by different investigators,
leads to wide-ranging negative outcomes for children. Many studies rely on
children’s coping suggestions in to hypothetical situations. Children who generate
aggressive coping strategies in such situations tend to behave more aggressively in
real life situations (Dodge, Price, Bachorowski, & Newman, 1990). Children who
use aggressive coping strategies in their natural environment show more behavioral
problems and fewer social competencies (Rosenberg, 1987). Sandstrom (2004)
found that aggressive strategies in response to peer provocation and rejection were
associated with internalizing problems in children. Children who are aggressive in
peer situations are also more socially rejected (Monks, Ruiz, Ortega, & Torrado,
2002). Dempsey (2002) found that when children are exposed to community
violence, aggressive coping strategies mediated the relation between violence and
posttraumatic stress symptoms, depression, and anxiety. Children who respond to
actual interparental conflict with aggressive coping are likely to exhibit higher levels
of general aggression one year later (Hops, Alper, & Sheeber, 1998).
3
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Measurement of Coping
As noted above, much of the coping literature is based on responses to
hypothetical stressor situations. Ethical concerns about exposing children to
stressors make it difficult to collect behavioral observations of coping outside of the
medical realm, where stressors are already occurring out of necessity. Observations
and self-reports of parents’ and children’s coping with standard medical procedures
have provided valuable insight into coping(Gil, Williams, Thompson, and Kinney,
1991; Salmon and Pereira, 2002; Weisz, McCabe, and Dennig, 1994), and it is
crucial that research is done with more normative, social situations. To achieve this
in an ethical manner, the Alternative Solutions Test (Caplan, Weissberg, Bersoff,
Ezekowitz, & Wells, 1986) and similar strategies (Goodman, Barfoot, Frye, & Belli,
1999) present participants with hypothetical scenarios and allow open-ended
responses to the scenarios. This approach should elicit more valid indications of
what a participant would actually do, compared to a forced-choice situation when
participants indicate responses from this list of suggestions. Therefore, the
techniques used in this study are modeled after these open-ended instruments. The
study is further strengthened by a focus on specific, normative social and
interparental situations and by allowing the participants to provide open-ended
responses to prompts.
4
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Factors that May Influence Coping Processes
Researchers agree that coping is related to outcomes, but there is a lack of
knowledge regarding which factors influence the development of coping. As with
most other psychological phenomena, it is likely that aggressive coping is the
product of environmental influences interacting with a child’s characteristics. Social
learning theory indicates that parents are powerful behavioral models, so aggressive
parental coping behaviors are likely influences of child coping. Parental models that
include interparental physical aggression are likely to be particularly salient.
Children’s own emotional and cognitive resources are another set of likely
influences. Each of these potential influences will be discussed in more detail below.
Parents ’ Coping
It is widely accepted that the family environment is a strong influence on
children. Numerous researchers speculate that parents influence coping behavior by
serving as models for such behavior (Compas, Worsham, & Ey, 1992; Noojin,
Causey, Gros, Bertolone, & Carter, 1999). In Compas’ recent agenda for coping
research, he stresses the importance of determining how much influence parents have
in the development of coping skills through observational learning (Compas, 1998).
Margolin et al (2001) describe social learning processes in the transmission of
aggressive responses to conflict.
Social learning theory (Bandura, 1977) suggests that children learn by
observing their parents’ behaviors and modeling their own behavior after what they
5
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
see. According to this theory, social behavior is influenced from even the earliest
interactions with models. Gelfand notes that “observational learning may lead
children to share their parent’s values, attitudes, and characteristic response styles”
(p. 182). It is logical that coping responses are among the behaviors that children
learn through this process, and parent’s aggressive coping would be an especially
salient model.
Studies on children coping with medical stressors find considerable support for
the importance of parental modeling of coping behavior (Gil et al, 1991; Melamed,
1992; Van Slyke, 2001). It is likely that parental modeling of coping behaviors
extends beyond medical situations to other realms of stressors, but empirical work
examining parental modeling of coping strategies in response to other life stressors
has produced mixed results. Evidence exists of a relationship between parents’ and
children’s general coping dispositions, such as avoidant or aggressive (Matthews,
1986; Weidner, Sexton, Matarazzo, Pereira, & Friend, 1988). Parents communicate
their approval for certain coping strategies both by coaching and by modeling
specific strategies. When mothers use and encourage self assertive, avoidant, and
support seeking coping, their children are likely to use the same coping strategies
(Miller, Kliewer, Hepworth, & Sandler, 1994). In addition, one type of parental
coping relates to another type of child coping. Kliewer’s work revealed a positive
association between maternal cognitive reframing and their son’s use of self assertive
coping. Fathers’ active coping was positively related to their sons’ use of self
assertive coping.
6
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The subset of studies that address aggressive coping offer mixed results in
regards whether parents’ aggressive coping leads to more or less aggressive coping
in children. Goodman and colleagues (1999) collected questionnaire data on
parents’ interparental conflict tactics and performed a coping interview with 10- to
13-year-old children. They found that mother’s aggressive conflict tactics and
conflict escalation were related to children’s use of less effective social coping
strategies in peer conflict, which consisted mainly of aggressive strategies. Child
gender contributed accounted for some of the variance in children’s social coping
effectiveness, but the contribution of child gender was not clarified in Goodman’s
study. Father’s aggressive behavior did not account for significant variance in
children’s social coping effectiveness. Kliewer et al (Kliewer, Feamow, & Miller,
1996) assessed parents’ and 9- to 12-year-old children’s general coping strategies via
questionnaires. They also assessed the coping strategies that parents suggested that
their children use. As in the Goodman study, mothers’ coping was more strongly
associated with children’s coping than was fathers’ coping. Parents’ actual use of
aggressive strategies was not significantly related to any of the children’s strategies
(aggressive or otherwise), nor was children’s use of aggression related to any of the
strategies that parents reported. Flowever, mothers’ suggestions of negative coping
responses, including aggression, are positively correlated with their daughters’, but
not their sons’, avoidance coping. The current study proposes a more detailed
examination of the relation between parents’ aggressive coping and children’s
aggressive coping than the currently available literature. While these studies offer
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
information on the relation between children’s aggressive coping responses and
either parents’ questionnaire-based reports of conflict tactics (Goodman et al, 1998)
or general coping strategies/ suggestions to children (Kliewer et al, 1996), this
relation has not been examined via the more sophisticated methodology of social
coping interviews with parents. The current study will use social coping interviews
to examine a wider range of situations with both children and parents. The results
will be explored separately for boys and girls.
Interparental Violence
Interparental violence has implications for children’s aggressive behavior in
general, for children’s aggressive coping in response to parent conflict, and for
children’s aggressive coping in response to peer conflict. Children’s exposure to
marital violence frequently has been linked with general patterns of children’s
undercontrolled, aggressive behavior and to a range of negative outcomes in
children. (Margolin & Gordis, 2000; Kitzmann et al, 2003) Clearly, interparental
violence is a significant stressor, and the severe stress reaction it triggers changes
children in wide-ranging ways. Children’s imitation of physically aggressive models
may be one of these changes.
A few studies suggest a link between interparental violence exposure and
aggressive coping. When children are presented with adults in conflict, the children
are more likely to experience negative emotions in response to physically aggressive
conflict, as opposed to non-aggressive conflict (Cummings, Vogel, Cummings, & El-
8
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Sheikh, 1989; Garcia-O’Heam, Margolin, & John, 1997; Laumakis, Margolin, &
John, 1998). The effects of marital violence on children’s coping extend to new
conflict situations, even when the situations do not involve physical aggression.
Children who have been exposed to previous violent incidents between their own
parents are more likely than children not exposed to violence to become involved in
conflict, leave the room, misbehave, be distressed, and use distraction and support
seeking behaviors in response to presentations of adults in conflict (Cummings,
Zahn-Waxier, & Radke-Yarrow, 1981; Cummings, Pellegrini, Notarius, &
Cummings, 1989; Garcia-O’Heam et al.,1997; Gordis, Margolin, & John, 1997;
O’Brien, Margolin, John, & Krueger, 1991). The current study examines how
exposure to interparental violence influences children’s report of aggressive coping
when faced with physically aggressive and non-physically aggressive marital
conflict.
Children’s exposure to violence at home even generalizes to their coping
strategies in situations outside of the family context, involving peers. Children from
violent homes used more passive or aggressive strategies, and fewer assertive
strategies in response to interpersonal conflict than did children from non-violent
homes, and were less skillful at solving interpersonal problems when their initial
attempt was unsuccessful (Rosenberg, 1987). Children from violent homes gave
fewer constructive and more non-constructive solutions for peer conflict, which
included aggressive solutions (Grossier, 1986). The current study examines the
previously neglected question of whether growing up with exposure to interparental
9
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
violence interacts with parents’ coping and child characteristics to influence
children’s coping in both interparental conflict and peer conflict situations.
Child Characteristics
Intelligence potentially influences children’s decision to use aggressive
coping. Children with high levels of cognitive resources would theoretically exhibit
superior problem solving skills than children with lower levels of cognitive
resources. They would be better able to generate a variety of possible coping
responses and choose the response that is most appropriate for the situation.
Conversely, children with fewer cognitive resources may be more likely to choose
maladaptive coping strategies such as aggression. Although many studies link both
IQ and coping to positive outcomes and/or resilience, the potential relation between
IQ and aggressive coping has not been examined. Boys who have high levels of
aggression in general, including unprovoked aggression, had lower IQ scores than
non-aggressive boys (Huesmann, Rowell, Leonard, & Dubow, 2002). Gender may
play a role in the relationships between IQ and general aggression, such that
aggressive boys had lower verbal IQ scores than non-aggressive boys, whereas
aggressive girls had higher verbal IQs and better school performance than non-
aggressive girls and aggressive boys (Koda, 1999).
A child’s ability to regulate emotions is another resource that may be related to
aggressive coping. Emotional regulation is the process of modulating internal
emotional states and related physiological characteristics. This ability allows
individuals to carry out effective coping strategies. (Cicchetti, Ackerman, & Izard,
10
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1995; Eisenberg, Fabes, Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Murphy, Maszk, Smith, &
Karbon, 1995) Impaired ability to regulate emotions is linked to negative outcomes
and membership in problem-plagued groups (Mahady Wilton, Craig, & Pepler, 2000;
Eisenberg, Shepard, Fabes, Murphy, & Guthrie, 1998). Elements of emotional
regulation have direct effects on children’s coping processes (Lengua, Sandler, West,
Wolchik, & Curran 1999). Aggressive coping is likely to be an outcome of a lack of
emotion regulation, but as with IQ, no research exists on the relation of emotion
regulation and aggressive coping. Aggressive behavior in general is mediated by
emotion regulation (Walden, 1997). A variety of indicators of emotion regulation
individually predicted aggression, and emotionality in combination with emotion-
focused coping accounted for variance in aggressive behavior (Elliot, 2001).
It is possible that children who have more cognitive and emotion regulation
resources will not be as influenced by parental models of aggression and violence.
These resources may moderate the effects of parental aggressive coping and
exposure to interparental violence such that when children have high levels of
resources the resources act as a buffer against an increase in aggressive coping.
Present Study
The present study is designed to examine three potential contributors to
children’s aggression coping: parents’ aggressive coping, exposure to interparental
violence, and children’s resources (IQ and emotion regulation). One set of analyses
looks at correlational associations between these three contributors and the children’s
11
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
aggressive coping. It was hypothesized that parents’ reports of their own aggressive
coping strategies, and children’s exposure to interparental violence will have positive
association with children’s use of aggressive coping strategies, whereas child
resources (IQ score and emotion regulation abilities) will have a negative association
with children’s use of aggressive coping strategies. The second set of analyses,
regression equations, examines the unique effects as well as the combined effects of
these contributors. The possible interactive effects of parents’ reports of their own
aggressive coping and exposure to interparental violence will be explored through
two competing hypotheses. It is possible that these variables will have an additive
effect leading to an increase in children’s use of aggressive coping strategies.
Alternatively, it is possible that for children who are exposed to higher levels of
interparental physical aggression, the aggression takes on a different meaning that
results in a decrease in children’s use of aggressive strategies.
Children’s aggressive coping is examined through responses to social coping
interviews. Parents’ aggressive coping will be assessed by having them respond to
the same social situations as their children. The situations that are presented to the
family members are intended to be realistic examples of common situations. These
situations provide a less-commonly used approach to situation-specific coping, as the
family members are asked how they would respond rather than instructed to choose
from a list of suggested coping strategies. This approach allows for the discovery of
whether children take in observed coping styles and consider them in novel
situations when their parents’ influence is not immediately present.
12
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
METHOD
The current study was conducted within the context of a larger 3-Wave
longitudinal investigation of the effects of family and community violence on family
processes and children’s adjustment. The data presented here were collected at the
Wave 1 assessment.
Participants
The participants are 118 two-parent families with children between the ages of
9 and 10. They were recruited through newspaper advertisements and/or fliers at
local schools and community organizations. The criteria for participation are; (a)
participating members of each family are the two parents and one target child; (b) the
child is aged 9 or 10 (c) the two parents are residing in the same home with the child,
(d) the child is either their biological child or has lived with them for three or more
years, and (e) all members of the family are able to complete the data collection
procedures in English. These families participated in 3-4 hour meeting.
Of the 118 participating children, 51 (43%) are female and 67 (57%) are
male. The average age at Wave 1 assessment was 10 years, with a range of 9-10
years. The ethnic breakdown of the children in the group, is 23% Hispanic/Latino (n
= 16 females, 9 male), 8% Asian (n = 3 female, 6 male), 21 % African American, (n
— 12 female, 13 male), 25% Caucasian (n = 12 female, 17 male), and 26% mixed
ethnicity (n = 8 female, 20 male). The average age of the participating mothers was
38.5 years at Wave One, with a range of 25.6 to 53.5 years. The modal level of
mothers’ education is a high school degree (34%), ranging from 7 to 20 years.
13
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Mothers’ report of their own ethnic identification reveals a breakdown of 30%
Hispanic/Latina, 10% Asian, 24% African American, 31% Caucasian, and 6% mixed
ethnicity. Seventy-seven percent of the mothers report having been bom in the
United States. The average age of participating fathers was 40.91 at Wave One, with
a range of 24.3 to 55.5 years. The modal level of fathers’ education is also a high
school degree (28.6%), ranging from 8 to 20 years. Fathers’ report of their own
ethnic identification reveals a breakdown of 27% Hispanic/Latino, 17%
Asian/Pacific Islander, 24% African American, 32% Caucasian, 3% Other, and 6%
mixed ethnicity. Seventy percent of the fathers report being bom in the United
States. The average combined family income is $67,810, with a range of $8,700 to
$165,000. Thirteen percent of families report incomes less than $25,000, 24% report
incomes between $25,000 and $50,000,42.9% of families report incomes between
$50,000 and $100,000, and 21% of families report incomes $100,000 and above.
Procedures
At Wave one assessment, the two parents and the target child participated in
a 3-4 hour laboratory session administered by two graduate students, for which they
were compensated $100. Each family member completed an individual battery of
computerized and paper and pencil measures. Children were assisted by a graduate
research assistant, who read aloud all questions and answer choices. In addition, the
parents and child participated in audio-taped social coping interviews with a graduate
research assistant.
14
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Aggressive Coping
Social Coping Interview. Parents’ and children’s coping was assessed
through the Social Coping Interview (SCI; Margolin, 2000). The SCI presents the
participant with a series of hypothetical situations (7 situations for children, 9
situations for parents) involving social conflict and inter-parental conflict. Parallel
adult and child interviews of social problem solving skills were administered to all
three family members in the Wave 1 assessments (see Appendix A for items). The
format of the Social Coping Interview used here was modeled after the Alternative
Solutions Test (AST; Caplan, Weissberg, Bersoff, Ezekowitz, & Wells, 1986). The
first half of the AST presents hypothetical social scenarios and elicits children’s
solutions to these problems. Scenario A of the SCI (someone has taken your
magazine) is also used in the AST, and Scenario B of the SCI (someone is teasing
you) is an elaboration of a scenario in the AST. The scenarios are presented in
Appendix A.
Although two versions were developed, one for adults and one for children,
many of the scenarios presented parallel adult and child situations in age appropriate
language so that coping responses can be compared in similar situations. This study
will be restricted to an examination of parental responses to situations involving only
interparental conflict. Children’s responses to situations involving interparental and
peer conflict will be analyzed. Children respond to 4 social coping scenarios with
peers and 2 social coping scenarios with their parents’ conflict. The peer situations
are scenario A (Someone has taken your magazine), scenario B (You are being
15
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
teased), scenario C (Your friend doesn’t invite you to a party), and scenario D (A
student is bumping into you). The parent situations are scenario F (Parents are
having an angry argument) and scenario G (Parents are physically fighting). The
parent scenarios to be used are F (Spouse comes home and starts criticizing you), G
(Spouse breaks plans with you and is annoyed at being reminded of them), and H
(Spouse yells and insults you while in the car). These scenarios are meant to capture
normative conflict between couples.
The parent or child was presented with a brief scenario, and then asked to
describe up to three things that she or he would “do, say, or think in this situation”.
For each of the three responses, the participant was asked to rate the effectiveness of
the response on a five-point Likert-type scale, where a 0 represents not at all and a 4
represents very effective. The participant also indicated the likelihood that she or he
would actually perform each strategy, on a four-point Likert-type scale where 0
represents extremely unlikely and 4 represents extremely likely. Finally, participants
indicated how often they had been in each situation or one like it, using a five-point
Likert-type scale where 0 represents never and 4 represents all the time.
Measures
Aggressive Coping
Social Coping Interview. Each open-ended response was divided into thought
units so that each phrase would represent only one discrete coping strategy. For
example, the response “I would yell at them to stop and push them” would be
16
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
divided so that the first part of the phrase would be coded as verbal aggression and
the second part of the phrase would be coded as physical aggression.
The codes were determined after extensive reviews of previous literature. The
categorization of coping strategies that have been repeatedly supported through
empirical research were included in the coding system (Caplan, Weissberg, Bersoff,
Ezekowitz and Wells, 1986; Curry and Russ, 1985; Ebata and Moos, 1991; Elwood,
1987; Lazarus and Folkman, 1984; O’Brien, Margolin, and John, 1995; Stark,
Spirito, Williams and Guevremont, 1989; Stone and Neale, 1984; Tobin, Holroyd,
Reynolds, and Wigal, 1989; Weisz, McCabe, and Dennig, 1994). The codes
represented a range of strategies, including seeking social support, self-assertion,
non-aggressive intervention in parental conflict, nonintervention, and cognitive
coping. Only the 4 aggressive codes will be analyzed here. Table 1 contains the
definitions and examples of each aggressive code. These codes were collapsed to
form one general aggressive code.
Table 1. Aggressive Codes
Code Definition Example
Demanding
Self-Assertion
asserting oneself by making
demands or asking strongly for
something (not neutral statements)
“tell her to back off’
Spiteful
Behavior
acting out of spite, being passive-
aggressive, making passive-
aggressive or sarcastic comments
“get him expelled”
Verbal
Aggression
yelling, calling names, verbal
threats, revenge/retaliation, etc
“I’d yell at them to stop” “I’d
get a baseball bat and warn
them that I’ll hit them if they
don’t break it up”
Physical
Aggression
physically hostile infringements on
the party’s person or possessions;
hitting, grabbing, pushing, etc
“Start pushing them or
hitting them as well”
17
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Two undergraduate research assistants coded each participant’s data. The
raters listened to the tapes of the interview while they read the interviewer’s notes, to
maximize available information. Coders were required to demonstrate reliability by
achieving Cohen’s kappas of .6 before they could begin coding. Reliability analyses
were conducted weekly throughout the coding process. Cohen’s kappas were
calculated by scenario. Situations that had low kappas were addressed at weekly
meetings with all of the coders to provide feedback on reliability and fine-tune
codes. Reliability for the aggressive coping code, calculated through intra class
correlation coefficients (ICC) was .66 for girls in family situations, .92 for girls in
peer situations, .79 for boys in family situations, .96 for boys in peer situations, .90
for mothers in family situations, and .87 for fathers in family situations. As the
intraclass correlation coefficients were sufficiently high, the mean frequency of use
between the two coders was used.
Recent History o f Exposure to Interparental Violence
Domestic Conflict Index. The Domestic Conflict Index (DCI; Margolin,
1995) is a 51-item questionnaire that assesses which conflict tactics parents are
using. This study only uses the physical abuse items (14 items; alphas = .76 for
males and .78 for females; Margolin et al, 1998), many of which are items from
Straus et al’s (1996) Revised Conflict Tactics Scale. The physical aggression items
include physically twisted your spouse’ s arm; pushed, grabbed, or shoved your
spouse; slapped your spouse; burned your spouse; shaken your spouse; thrown or
tried to throw your spouse bodily; thrown an object at your spouse; choked or
18
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
strangled your spouse; kicked, bit or hit your spouse with a fist; hit your spouse, or
tried to hit your spouse, with something; beat up your spouse (multiple blows); used
a knife or a gun on your spouse; slammed your spouse against the wall.
Margolin et al. (1998) report on the internal consistency and test-retest
reliability. For each item the respondent indicates: (a) whether it has ever occurred;
(b) whether it has ever been witnessed by the child; and (c) how many times it
occurred in the last 12 months. Each spouse completes the DCI twice; once for his
or her own behavior and once for the partner’s behavior. For each individual item,
the respondent reports whether the spouse or self has ever engaged in the behavior.
If the answer is yes, he or she goes on to report how many times the behavior
occurred during the past year, using the following six frequency ranges: none, 1 per
year, 2 to 5 per year, 6 to 12 per year, 2 to 4 per month, more than once per week.
Each frequency range is assigned a rating between 1 and 6.
To arrive at one score that represents interparental violence, I took a
maximum score between the two reporters was taken for each item that indicated
husband-to-wife violence and for each item for wife-to-husband aggression. These
maximum scores were summed to create a frequency score that represented
interparental violence in the past year. Fifty-two couples reported at least one
instance of violence in the past year, with a range between 1 and 13. Of those
families, the mean of the wives’ violence toward husbands is 2.94 (SD = 2.55), and
the mean of the husbands’ violence toward wives is 3.9 (SD = 3.09). This score was
standardized as a Z-score for analyses.
19
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Child Resources
Weschler Intelligence Scale For Children. Children were administered the
block design and vocabulary subtests of the Weschler Intelligence Scale for
Children, Third Edition (WISC-III; Wechsler, 1991) during Wave 1 assessment. The
subtests are the most highly correlated with the Performance and Verbal Full Scales,
respectively (Wechsler, 1991). Results indicate that the children in this study
generally had average intelligence. Their mean score on the vocabulary subtest is
11.08 ( SD = 3.4), and their mean score on the block design subtest is 10.61 (SD =
3.73). The scores on these two subtests were averaged and then standardized as Z-
scores to create a variable representing children’s cognitive resources.
Emotion Regulation Checklist. In Wave 1, each parent completed the
Emotional Regulation Checklist (Shields & Cicchetti, 1995) regarding their child’s
emotional regulation abilities. Shields and Cicchetti (1997) report that the items on
the checklist reflect the construct of emotional regulation as agreed upon by experts
in the field. Sample items include “Is warm and responsive”, “Is inappropriate in
emotive behavior”, and “Tends to go to pieces under stress” (see Appendix B for
items). Items are either positively or negatively weighted, and each is scored on a 4-
point Likert scale {Never True to Almost Always True), which represents the degree
to which each statement is true of the child. A principal-components factor analysis
revealed two factors, Lability/Negativity and Emotion Regulation. The two factors
are negatively correlated (r = -.5, p < .001). The ERC has demonstrated convergent
validity with the Emotion Regulation Q-Scale (Shields & Cicchetti, 1997).
20
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
In this study, the ten most representative items on the Emotion Regulation
Checklist were used, as recommended by the creators of the instrument (Cicchetti,
personal communication to Margolin, 2000). Internal consistency on this shortened
scale, assessed on this sample through Cronbach’s alpha, is .73 for mothers, .72 for
fathers, and .73 when both parents were included. The mothers’ and fathers’
minimum ratings were positively correlated, (r = .44, p<.01). A composite emotion
regulation score was computed by reverse scoring all negatively weighted items and
summing. Because of the correlation between parents’ ratings, mothers’ and fathers’
data were summarized by one score, using the minimum score between parents on
each item to control for positive response bias. The emotion regulation scores
indicated that children were usually able to regulate their emotions, with a mean
score of 31 out of 40 possible points, and a standard deviation of 4.0. These scores
were standardized as a Z-score.
One score representing child resources was constructed by summing the Z-
score from the average of the WISC subtests and the Z-score of the minimum
Emotion Regulation Checklist were summed.
21
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
RESULTS
Descriptive Statistics
Because participants provided different total numbers of coping responses, the
frequency of use for a given coping strategy was represented by a percentage of the
total number of coping strategies given by each individual. The mean percentage of
aggressive strategies, standard deviation, and the number of participants who
reported use of each strategy is reported in Table 2. The vast majority of aggressive
responses for parents consisted of verbal aggression. Children’s aggressive coping
responses represented both physical and verbal aggression. Review of the children’s
responses in the family situations revealed that all of the aggression was directed at
intervening in the parents’ argument. As shown in Table 1, children are using
aggressive coping strategies with their peers more than they are using aggressive
intervention in their parents’ arguments. In addition, there are many more children
who use aggressive coping strategies with their peers then children who use
aggressive coping with their parents
Table 2. Means. Standard Deviations of Aggressive Strategies. Number of
Participants Using Aggressive Strategies
Family Member Mean SD Number Using Strategy
Aggression in Peer Situations
Boys .16 .19 47
Girls .14 .14 36
Aggression in Family Situations
Boys .02 .08 9
Girls .01 .05 3
Mothers .17 .18 84
Fathers .11 .14 60
22
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Correlations Between a History of Recent Exposure to Interparental Violence,
Parental Aggressive Coping, Child Resources, and Child Aggressive Coping
Table 3 presents Pearson’s correlations performed between each of the possible
influences on coping and boys’ and girls’ aggression at home and with peers. The
first hypothesis was partially supported. Mothers’ reports of aggressive coping
strategies were significantly positively related to boys’ reports of aggressive
intervention coping toward family members and fathers’ reports of aggressive coping
were significantly positively related to girls’ reports of aggressive coping with peers.
A history of recent marital violence was significantly positively correlated with
boys’ aggressive intervention toward family members and with boys’ aggressive
coping toward peers. There was also a nearly significant positive correlation
between history of recent marital violence and girls’ aggressive coping toward peers.
Contrary to the first hypothesis, children’s aggressive coping was not significantly
related to the index of cognitive and emotional regulation resources. As opposed to
the hypothesized negative association between these variables, there are
nonsignificant positive trends in the correlations between child resources and
aggression in interparental conflict situations.
Table 4 indicates that there are no significant intercorrelations between child
resources, history of exposure to interparental violence, and parents’ aggressive
coping.
23
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 3. Correlations Between Parental Aggressive Coping. History of Recent
Exposure to Interparental Violence. Children’s Resources, and Children’s
Aggressive Coping
Peer Conflict Interparental Conflict
Measure Boys Girls Boys Girls
Mothers’ Aggressive Coping .25* .05 .16 .02
Fathers’ Aggressive Coping -.06 .00 -.15 .29*
History of Exposure to
Interparental Violence
.28* I T
22**
-.03
Children’s Resources -.04 -.14 .26 .20
n = 51 girls, 67 boys.
a 2 < -06 *j) < .05 ** e < .01.
Girls ’ and Boys ’ Aggressive Coping as Related to Interactions Between a History o f
Interparental Violence Exposure, Parental Aggressive Coping and Child Resources
Eight hierarchical regression analyses were performed, with each independent
variable (history of exposure to interparental violence, child resources, and either
mothers’ or fathers’ aggressive coping) entered in the first step, with two-way
interactions between each of the variables entered in the second step, and with a
three-way interaction between all three variables entered in the third step. Four
separate regression equations were run with mothers’ aggressive coping as an
independent variable and girls’ aggressive coping in and out of the home, and boys’
aggressive coping in and out of the home as dependent variables. This process was
repeated with fathers’ aggressive coping as an independent variable. All variables
were standardized and the interaction term was created by multiplying these
24
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 4. Intercorrelations Between Parents’ Aggressive Coping. History of
Exposure to Interparental Violence, and Children’s Resources
Measure
Mothers’
Aggressive
Coping
Fathers’
Aggressive
Coping
History of
Exposure to
Interparental
Violence
Children’s
Resources
Mothers’Aggressive
Coping '
Father’s Aggressive
Coping
.05 -
History of
Interparental
Violence
.14 .12 -
Children’s
Resources
-.03 -.08 -.23 -
n = 118 mothers, 118 fathers.
standardized variables to avoid multicollinearity (Aiken & West, 1991). Table 5
presents regression results for equations involving fathers’ aggressive coping
strategies, and Table 6 presents regression results for equations involving mothers’
aggressive coping strategies. For boys, a significant 3-way interaction including
fathers’ aggressive coping accounted for variance in aggressive coping with
interparental conflict. A significant 3-way interaction including mothers’ aggressive
coping accounted for variance in boys’ aggressive coping with interparental conflict.
A significant 2-way interaction between mothers’ aggressive coping and
interparental violence accounted for variance in boys’ aggressive coping with peer
conflict. For girls, a significant 3-way interaction including fathers’ aggression
accounted for variance in aggressive coping with interparental conflict. 3-way
25
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 5. Hierarchical Regression: Children’s Aggressive Coping as Related to Interactions Between
History of Exposure to Interparental Violence. Child Resources and Father’s Aggressive Coping
Measure
P
t AR2
A F df
Boys’ Aggressive Coping, Peer
Step 1: Main Effects .08 2.03 3,63
Child Resources -.04 -.35
Fathers’ Aggressive Coping -.09 -.76
Exposure to Marital Violence .29 2.38*
Step 2: Two-Way Interactions .03 .78 6, 60
Fathers’ Agg. X Marital Violence .14 1.05
Fathers’ Agg X Child Resources -.13 -.99
Marital Violence X Child Resources .19 1.23
Step 3: Three-Way Interactions .02 1.14 7, 59
Dads’ Agg X Marital Viol. X Resources -.22 -1.07
Boys’ Aggressive Coping, Family
Step 1: Main Effects .19 5.06** 3,63
Child Resources .25 2.15*
Fathers’ Aggressive Coping -.12 -1.07
Exposure to Marital Violence .35 3.06**
Step 2: Two-Way Interactions .20 6.45** 6, 60
Fathers’ Agg. X Marital Violence -.09 -.78
Fathers’ Agg X Child Resources -.13 -1.22
Marital Violence X Child Resources .46 3.59**
Step 3: Three-Way Interactions .10 12.06** 7, 59
Dads’ Agg X Marital Viol X Resources -.55 -3.47**
Girls’ Aggressive Coping, Peer
Step 1: Main Effects .07 1.26 3,47
Child Resources -.01 -.07
Fathers’ Aggressive Coping -.04 -.30
Exposure to Marital Violence .27 1.67
Step 2: Two-Way Interactions .02 .28 6, 44
Fathers’ Agg. X Marital Violence .12 .55
Fathers’ Agg X Child Resources -.06 -.31
Marital Violence X Child Resources -.05 -.19
Step 3: Three-Way Interactions .02 .83 7,43
Dads’ Agg X Marital Viol. X Resources -.30 -.91
Girls’ Aggressive Coping, Family
Step 1: Main Effects .11 1.94 3,46
Child Resources .18 1.11
Fathers’ Aggressive Coping .27 1.87
Exposure to Marital Violence .03 .16
Step 2: Two-Way Interactions .25 5.68** 6,43
Fathers’ Agg. X Marital Violence .19 .85
Fathers’ Agg X Child Resources .60 4.04**
Marital Violence X Child Resources -.11 -.40
Step 3: Three-Way Interactions .01 .48 7,42
Dads’ Agg X Marital Viol. X Resources .19 .69
Marginally significant at p < .06.
*2 ^ 05; " p < .0 1
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 6. Hierarchical Regression: Children’s Aggressive Coping as Related to Interactions Between
Historv of Exposure to Interoarental Violence. Child Resources and Mother’s Aesressive CoDine
Measure
P
t AR2
A F
D f
Boys’ Aggressive Coping, Peer
Step 1: Main Effects .12 2.93* 3,63
Child Resources -.03 -.28
Mothers’ Aggressive Coping .21 1.75
Exposure to Marital Violence .24 2.03*
Step 2: Two-Way Interactions .10 2.59a 6, 60
Mothers’ Agg. X Marital Violence -.28 -2.15*
Mothers’ Agg X Child Resources -.17 -1.37
Marital Violence X Child Resources .10 .70
Step 3: Three-Way Interactions .02 1.46 7, 59
Moms’ Agg X Marital Viol XResources -.15 -1.20
Boys’ Aggressive Coping, Family
Step 1: Main Effects .24 6.45** 3,63
Child Resources .28 2.58**
Mothers’ Aggressive Coping -.24 -2.14*
Exposure to Marital Violence .38 3.40**
Step 2: Two-Way Interactions .25
g g**
6, 60
Mothers’ Agg. X Marital Violence -.29 -2.80**
Mothers’ Agg X Child Resources -.25 -2.45*
Marital Violence X Child Resources .39 3.18**
Step 3: Three-Way Interactions .10 15.07** 7,59
Moms’ Agg X Marital Viol XResources -.36 -3.88**
Girls’ Aggressive Coping, Peer
Step 1: Main Effects .07 1.24 3,47
Child Resources -.02 -.12
Mothers’ Aggressive Coping .03 .20
Exposure to Marital Violence .26 1.63
Step 2: Two-Way Interactions .08 1.37 6, 44
Mothers’ Agg. X Marital Violence -.38 -2.02*
Mothers’ Agg X Child Resources -.23 -1.16
Marital Violence X Child Resources .18 .80
Step 3: Three-Way Interactions .12 7.31** 7, 43
Moms’ Agg X Marital Viol XResources -.92 -2.71**
Girls’ Aggressive Coping, Family
Step 1: Main Effects .05 .75 3,46
Child Resources .24 1.47
Mothers’ Aggressive Coping .04 .27
Exposure to Marital Violence .07 .44
Step 2: Two-Way Interactions .01 .20 6,43
Mothers’ Agg. X Marital Violence -.15 -.73
Mothers’ Agg X Child Resources -.09 -.42
Marital Violence X Child Resources .12 .48
Step 3: Three-Way Interactions .10 5.03* 7,42
Moms’ Agg X Marital Viol XResources -.87 -2.24*
a Marginally significant at g < .06.
* g < .05; * * g < .01.
27
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
interactions including mothers’ aggressive coping accounted for variance in girls’
aggressive coping with peer and interparental conflict.
The variance in boys’ reported aggressive intervention coping toward family
was explained by three-way interactions between fathers’ aggressive coping, child
resources, and exposure to interparental violence and between mothers’ aggressive
coping, child resources, and exposure to interparental violence. Any significant 2-
way interactions in these equations will be considered in light of the 3-way
interactions. The interaction is represented with hypothetical values in Figure 1. In
this figure, the regression lines are estimated at one standard deviation above and
below the mean for each of the independent variables, as recommended by Aiken
and West (1991). An analysis of the simple slopes in these interactions, as outlined
in Aiken & West (1991) indicates that the slope of the line representing boys with
high levels of resources and high levels of exposure to recent interparental violence
is significantly different from zero, as is the line representing boys with low levels of
resources and low levels of exposure to interparental violence and the line
representing boys with low levels of child resources and high exposure to
interparental violence
As displayed in Figure 1, at values representing high levels of resources and
high levels of exposure to interparental violence, high levels of fathers’ aggressive
coping are related to less use of aggressive coping in boys. At values representing
low levels of resources and low levels of exposure to interparental violence, high
levels of fathers’ aggressive coping are also related to lower use of aggressive coping
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
in boys. Meanwhile, at values representing low levels of resources and high levels
of exposure to interparental violence, high levels of fathers’ aggressive coping are
related to higher use of aggressive coping in boys
Figure 1. 3-Wav Interaction with Fathers’ Aggressive Coping Explaining Bovs’
Aggressive Coning Toward Family.
^ 0.5 -
I
to
u.
c
o.
o
O
| - 0.5 -
0 5
O )
<
'( / )
S'
m
- 1.5
Fathers' Aggressive Coping in SD from mean
Hi Child Resources & Hi DCI “ ■ Lo Child R eso u rces & H I DCI
H I Child Resources & Lo DCI ■ “ Lo Child R e so u c e s & Lo DCI
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
A 3 way interaction between mothers’ use of aggressive coping, child
resources, and exposure to interparental violence accounted for variance in boys’
aggressive coping toward family. An analysis of the simple slopes in these
interactions, as outlined in Aiken & West (1991) indicates that the slope of the line
representing boys in with high levels of resources and high levels of exposure to
recent interparental violence is significantly different from zero. As displayed in
Figure 2, at values representing high levels of resources and high levels of exposure
to interparental violence, high levels of mothers’ aggressive coping are related to
lower use of aggressive coping in boys. The same interaction occurred with fathers’
coping.
Figure 2. 3-Wav Interaction with Mother’s Aggressive Coping Explaining Bovs’
Aggressive Coping Toward Family
E
A
U .
f 0.5 -
Q .
O
0
1 0 -
0)
(0
a >
L -
s -0-5 -
<
‘ in .
8 * -1 -
m
-1 0 1
Mothers' Aggressive Coping in SD from mean
i Child Resources & Hi DCI Lo Child Resources & H I DCI
I Child Resources & Lo DCI ■ ■ Lo Child R esouces & Lo DCI
30
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
For girls, the 3-way interaction between mothers’ use of aggressive coping,
child resources, and exposure to interparental violence accounted for 16% of the
variance in girls’ aggressive coping toward family. The interaction for girls’
aggressive intervention coping is represented with hypothetical values in Figure 3.
An analysis of the simple slopes in these interactions, as outlined in Aiken &
West (1991) indicates that the slope of the line that represents girls with high levels
of resources and high levels of exposure to recent interparental violence is
significantly different from zero. As displayed in Figure 3, at values that represent
high levels of resources and high levels of exposure to recent interparental violence,
an increase in mothers’ reports of aggressive coping is related to lower reports of
girls’ aggressive intervention coping.
Figure 3. 3-Wav Interaction with Mothers’ Aggressive Coping Explaining Girls’
Aggressive Coping Toward Family.
5
C O
b -2
4 4
Mothers' Aggressive Coping in SD from mean
Hi Child Resources & Hi DCI Lo Child Resources & H I DCI
H I Child Resources & Lo DCI " “ Lo Child R esouces & Lo DCI
31
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The same three way interaction also explained 27% of the variance in girls’
aggressive coping toward peers. This interaction is represented with hypothetical
values in Figure 4. An analysis of the simple slopes in these interactions indicates
the slopes of all four lines are significantly different from zero. As displayed in
Figure 4, at values representing high levels of resources and high levels of exposure
to interparental violence, higher levels of mother’s aggressive coping are related to
lower reports of girls’ aggressive coping. At values representing low levels of
resources and high levels of exposure to interparental violence, higher levels of
mothers’ aggressive coping are also related to lower reports of girls’ aggressive
coping. At values representing low levels of exposure to interparental violence,
higher levels of mothers’ aggressive coping are related to higher levels of girls’
aggressive coping, regardless of the level of resources.
Figure 4. 3-Way Interaction with Mothers’ Aggressive Coping Explaining Girls
Aggressive Coping Toward Peers
5
5 ? 4
l T
Q > O
a, J
a 2
a
° A
0 1
< u
>
3 0
0) w
£
a > a
a , -1
1 -2
Mothers' Aggressive Coping in SD from mean
H i Child Resources & Hi DCI — - Lo Child Resources & H I DCI
H I Child Resources & Lo DCI - - " Lo Child Resouces & Lo D CI
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Girls’ aggressive coping toward family was partially explained by a two-way
interaction between fathers’ aggressive coping and child resources. Boys’ aggressive
coping toward peers was explained by a two-way interaction between mothers’
aggressive coping and exposure to interparental violence. The Beta weights of these
regression lines will be reported from step two of the equations, as the third step did
not add any additional explanation (Aiken & West, 1991).
When fathers’ aggressive coping was included in the interaction, the interaction
between fathers’ aggressive coping and child resources explained the most variance
in girls’ aggressive coping toward parental conflict. An analysis of simple slopes
according to procedures outlines in Aiken and West (1991) indicates that the line
representing girls’ aggressive coping under conditions of high resources is
significant. As displayed in Figure 5, at values representing high levels of resources,
high levels of fathers’ aggressive coping are related to more use of aggressive coping
in girls.
When mothers’ aggressive coping was included in the interactions, the
interaction between mothers’ aggressive coping and exposure to interparental
violence explained the most variance in boys’ aggressive coping toward peers. An
analysis of simple slopes according to procedures outlined in Aiken and West (1991)
indicates that the line representing boys aggressive coping under conditions of low
exposure to interparental violence is significant. As displayed in Figure 6, at values
representing low levels of exposure to interparental violence, high levels of mothers’
aggressive coping is related to more use of aggressive coping.
33
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
aggressive coping is related to more use of aggressive coping.
Figure 5. 2-Wav Interaction with Fathers’ Aggressive Coping Explaining Girls’
Aggression Toward Family
1
0.8
0.6
d > 0.4
110-2
S1 0
i l o .2
I Jo.4
(ft _
1 - 0.6
- 0.8
-1
When fathers’ aggressive coping was included in the interaction, there was no
significant explanation of children’s aggressive coping toward peers.
In summary, boys’ aggressive coping with interparental conflict was
significantly influenced by a 3-way interaction between fathers’ aggressive coping,
interparental violence, and child resources and by the same 3-way interaction
involving mother’s aggressive coping. Girls’ aggressive coping with interparental
conflict and peer conflict were both nfluenced by the same 3-way interaction
-1
Fathers' Aggressive Copingin SD from m ean
— H I Resources Lo R esources
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
including mother’s aggressive coping. In all of these interactions, at high levels of
interparental violence and child resources, increased parental aggressive coping was
Figure 6. 2-Wav Interaction with Mothers’ Aggressive Coping Explaining Bovs’
Aggressive Coning Toward Peers
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
«
c
o
z
at
c
'q.
o
o
®
>
t O
to
f l )
L .
at
at
<
to
o
GO
-1 0 1
Mor?)'Pb^?aressive doping 'n SD fr o ^ ji^an
associated with decreased child aggressive coping. However, a 2-way interaction
between mothers’ aggressive coping and interparental violence accounted for
variance in boys’ aggressive coping with peers. At low levels of interparental
violence, mothers’ increased aggressive coping was associated with boy’s increased
aggressive coping. A 2-way interaction between fathers aggressive coping and girls’
resources explained girls’ aggressive coping with interparental conflict. At high
35
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
DISCUSSION
This study offers insight into children’s use of aggressive coping in the
context of parents’ aggressive coping, exposure to interparental violence, and child
resources. Descriptive statistics reveal that both boys and girls report aggressive
coping in response to peer conflict more than they report aggressive coping in
response to interparental conflict. Eighty three children used aggressive strategies in
response to peer conflict whereas only 12 children used aggressive strategies in
response to interparental conflict. Furthermore, aggressive coping represents a larger
percentage of these children’s coping strategies in response to peer conflict (15%)
than in response to interparental conflict (1.5%). It is not surprising that children
use aggressive coping with peers who are not able to punish them the way that
parents are. In addition, social norms may dictate the use of aggressive coping as a
necessary way to jostle for social power. If children curtail their aggressive coping
in the home, parents may not be aware of the degree to which their children are using
aggressive coping strategies with their peers.
Two of the predictors, parents’ reported aggressive coping behavior and their
history of violence toward each other, were individually related to children’s use of
aggressive coping. Fathers’ reports of aggressive coping strategies were
significantly positively related to girls’ reports of aggressive intervention coping
toward family members whereas mothers’ reports of aggressive coping were
significantly positively related to boys’ reports of aggressive coping with peers. A
history of recent marital violence was significantly positively correlated with boys’
36
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
aggressive intervention toward family members and with boys’ aggressive coping
toward peers.
An examination of the correlations between children’s use of aggressive
coping and each of the possible influences sheds some light on which factors are
individually related to aggressive coping, while an examination of the interactions
between the predictor variables may provide a more complete story. Correlational
findings will be discussed first. The correlations partially support the first
hypothesis, that parental use of aggressive coping strategies and recent exposure to
interparental violence will have a positive association with children’s use of
aggressive coping strategies, whereas child resources will have a negative
association with children’s use of aggressive coping. Fathers’ reports of aggressive
coping were significantly positively related to girls’ reports of aggressive
intervention coping with interparental violence while mothers’ reports of aggressive
coping strategies were significantly positively related to boys’ reports of aggressive
coping toward peers. These finding are consistent with a study by Kliewer and
colleagues (1996) which found that mothers’ use of certain strategies was related to
their sons’ use of related strategies, whereas girls were more influenced by their
fathers. This finding also compliments Goodman and colleagues’ (1999) finding that
negative elements of mothers’ conflict, including verbal aggression, were associated
with children’s less effective and more aggressive coping solutions in social
situations. It is possible that at this age, children are increasingly influenced by their
37
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
opposite-sex parent, as they move away from early childhood identification with the
same sex parent.
A history of recent interparental violence was positively correlated with boys’
aggressive coping with peers and with family members, and with girls’ aggressive
coping with peers. This finding supports Rosenberg’s (1987) and Grossier’s (1986)
findings that children exposed to interparental violence used coping strategies with
peers that were more characterized by aggression than the strategies used by children
who were not exposed to interparental violence, as well as Schwartz and colleagues’
(1997) findings that exposure to domestic violence was related to peer reports of
general aggressive behavior. The absence of significant correlations for girls’
aggression in family situations is similar to previous findings (Doumas et al, 1994;
Laumakis et al, 1998). Although results concerning the differential effect of exposure
to interparental violence for outcomes in boys and girls are mixed, a growing number
of studies have found that boys’ coping is more affected than girls’ (Doumas,
Margolin, & John, 1994; Laumakis, Margolin, & John, 1998). This difference may
be because girls receive different social messages about the appropriateness of using
aggressive coping.
Although it was anticipated that children’s aggressive coping would not be
significantly related to the index of cognitive and emotional regulation resources,
there is no evidence that these resources buffer against aggression. To the contrary,
it seems that when children’s resources are considered independent of the other
predictors, children with higher levels of resources tend toward an increased
38
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
likelihood of aggressive intervention in parent conflict. This may be because
aggressive intervention in parental conflict is a different kind of aggression.
Aggression is usually conceptualized as being related to lack of emotional control.
Schwartz and colleagues (Schwartz et al, 1997) found that children who react
aggressively to provocation have fewer emotion regulation abilities. However,
aggressive intervention in parental arguments may require a certain level of
emotional control. The child is not directly provoked, as they are in peer situations.
Instead of acting out of under-controlled emotions, the child may be motivated by a
desire to stop an exchange that is unpleasant or “wrong”, or to protect one or both
parents.
Combinations of the predictor variables explained more of the variance in
children’s aggressive coping. An interaction between mothers’ aggressive coping
and exposure to interparental violence accounted for variance in boys’ aggressive
coping toward peers. When exposure to interparental violence was low, high levels
of mothers’ aggressive coping is related to more use of aggressive coping in boys.
An interaction between fathers’ aggressive coping and child resources accounted for
variance in girls’ aggressive intervention in parental conflict. When girls have more
resources, they are more likely to imitate their fathers’ aggressive coping.
Interactions between parents’ aggressive coping, child resources, and
exposure to interparental violence accounted for variance in boys’ aggressive
intervention in parental conflict. When mothers’ aggressive coping is entered into
the equation, the two way interaction between mothers’ aggressive coping and
39
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
exposure to interparental violence explained the most variance in boys’ aggressive
coping toward peers. At values representing low levels of exposure to interparental
violence, high levels of mothers’ aggressive coping is related to more use of
aggressive coping. This result does not support the theory that recent exposure to
interparental violence and parental aggressive coping will have a positive, additive
effect on children’s aggressive coping. It also fails to support Goodman and
colleagues’ (1999) finding that children’s social coping is characterized by increased
aggression as their mothers’ use more aggressive coping in interparental conflict. It
is similar to Kliewer and colleagues’ (1996) findings that girls use more avoidance
coping when their mothers suggest more aggressive coping. This interaction could
be occurring because boys who were not exposed to physical aggression have seen
their mothers using verbal aggression, and they perceive it to be something worth
imitating. These boys have not been exposed to high levels of physical aggression.
Boys who have seen high levels of physical aggression may have a different
perception of what aggression is, and are not choosing to use it with their peers.
The three-way interaction between fathers’ aggressive coping, recent
exposure to interparental violence, and child resources was significant in explaining
boys’ use of aggressive intervention in parental conflict. When children’s resources
and exposure to interparental violence are high, boys do less aggressive coping as
their fathers do more aggressive coping. Meanwhile, boys with lower levels of
resources show increased aggressive coping with interparental conflict when their
fathers reported increased aggressive coping, regardless of the level of exposure to
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
interparental violence. The same interaction accounts for a significant amount of
variance when boys’ and girls’ aggressive intervention is explained by mothers’
aggressive coping.
These significant slopes support the idea that child resources will buffer the
effects of exposure to aggressive parental coping strategies and interparental
violence. It appears that these children may be wisely recognizing that interparental
disputes are not problems that children can solve, and that they could be injured if
they attempt to solve it. They appear to be choosing not to use the same maladaptive
strategies that their parents are using. This finding is contrary to previous findings
that boys from high-conflict families were more likely to think of intervening in
subsequent interparental conflict (Laumakis, 1998). In light of other trends in this
study, this result may reflect the negative evaluation of aggression that children who
are exposed to interparental violence may have. Whereas boys who are not exposed
to physical aggression may use more aggression with peers because they consider
aggression to be instrumental, children who have experienced frightening
interparental physical aggression are likely to consider aggression to be more
threatening than instrumental. Children who have the combination of exposure to
interparental aggression and high child resources are especially likely to refrain from
mimicking their parents’ violent behavior. They are less likely to report aggressive
intervention in parents’ physical conflict, presumably because they recognize that
this is a threatening situation for them.
41
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
For girls, the two way interaction between fathers’ aggressive coping and
child resources explained the most variance in the girls’ aggressive coping toward
peers. At values representing high levels of resources, high levels of fathers’
aggressive coping is related to girls’ increased use of aggressive coping with their
peers. This finding fails to support the hypothesis that higher levels of resources
buffer against the tendency for children to imitate the maladaptive aggressive coping
strategies that are being modeled. However, this finding is similar to Koda’s (1999)
findings that aggressive girls have high IQ scores and high levels of emotional
control.
Strengths
Several strengths of this study allow for a novel exploration of the social
coping strategies that family members use. The use of open-ended interviews to
assess coping responses is a strength of this study. This format allowed participants
to generate their own strategies, rather than responding to a standard list of a few
common strategies. The situations used in the social coping interview are another
strength of the study. They facilitated an examination of normative social stressors
with both family members and peers. The combination of methodologies used in
this study has not yet been used to investigate whether parents’ coping in
interparental conflict situations influences children’s coping with peers. It is also
unusual for such studies to have the benefit of each family member reporting on their
own coping. Finally, the high levels of reliability on the coded data add to the
validity of the findings.
42
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Limitations
Despite the strengths of the open-ended reporting of coping strategies, the
results of the study may be limited due to the possibility that the Social Coping
Interview was susceptible to response bias. Participants may have been hesitant to
voice some of the less socially appropriate coping strategies that they would use. It
is also possible that in responding to a hypothetical situation, the participants did not
report coping strategies that they would use if the situation was actually occurring,
coping strategies that are less behavioral, or coping strategies that are fairly
automatic. It is also possible that participants who are have more verbal or
visualization skills had an advantage due to the format of the social coping interview.
There was limited variability in parent reports of children’s emotion
regulation. It is possible that the items indicating the ability to regulate emotions
were easier to observe than the items indicating an inability to regulate. In the
future, physiological methods would provide a more valid indication of children’s
emotion regulation skills.
The lack of correlation between parent’s reports of hypothetical aggression
and their reports of actual instances of aggression could be cause for concern.
Because the aggression that parents reported on the social coping interview was
purely verbal, it may also be possible that parents who have actually been physically
aggressive in the past are more reluctant to say that they would be verbally
aggressive whereas those who have not been in physically aggressive relationships
are more comfortable saying they would use verbal aggression, because they know
43
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
that the verbal aggression is not likely to escalate. Parental ratings of the
effectiveness and likelihood of each of their responses were high, providing some
evidence of the validity of their answers.
Finally, only a small number of children reported aggressive coping strategies
in response to interparental conflict. The total sample size was barely large enough to
accommodate the number of terms that were included in the regression equations.
Under these circumstances, the significance of the findings is interesting, but
replication is necessary to confirm these results. The small sample size also
prevented the inclusion of other important variables such as child sex and ethnicity.
There is reason to believe that attitudes about aggression vary according to ethnic
affiliation (Kagan & Madsen, 1972; Levesque, 2001), and an important next step
would be to investigate this variable.
Conclusions
The results of this study indicate a complex picture influencing children’s
aggressive coping. Parents’ aggressive coping interacts with interparental violence
exposure and child resources in unexpected ways. It appears that these interactions
differ according to whether the situation involved peer provocation or interparental
conflict. These interactions are also different for boys and girls. In general, children
with more cognitive and emotional resources are less likely to intervene aggressively
in interparental conflict when their parents report their own use of aggressive coping
strategies. It appears that resources do provide a buffer for children. Aggressive
44
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
coping is linked to negative outcomes for children, such that it may a point of
intervention. This study indicates that children are learning from aggressive models,
so it would be beneficial for interventions to include discussion and modeling of
other more adaptive coping strategies.
45
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
References
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting
interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory, Oxford: Prentice Hill.
Caplan, Weissberg, Bersoff, Ezekowitz, & Wells. (1986). The Middle School
Alternative Solutions Test (AST) Scoring Manual. New Haven: Yale University.
Cicchetti, D., Ackerman, B. P., & Izard, C. E. (1995). Emotions and emotion
regulation in developmental psychopathology, Development and Psychopathology.
Special Edition: Emotions in Developmental Psychopathology, 7(1), 1-10.
Compas, B. E. (1998). An agenda for coping research and theory: Basic and applied
developmental issues. International Journal o f Behavioral Development, 22(2), 231-
237.
Compas, B. E., Langrock, A. M., Keller, G., Merchant, M. J., & Copeland, M. E.
(2002). Children coping with parental depression: Processes of adaptation to family
stress. In I. H Gotlib (Ed.) Children o f Depressed Parents: Mechanisms o f Risk and
Implications for Treatment (pp. 227-252). Burlington: Otter Creek/Matric Assoc.
Compas, B.E., Worsham, N. L., & Ey, S. (1992). Conceptual and Developmental
Issues in Children’s Coping with Stress In A. M. La Greca, L. J. Siegel, J. L.
Wallander, & C. E. Walker, (Eds.) Stress and Coping in Child Health. New York:
The Guilford Press.
Cummings, E. M, Iannotti, R. J., & Zahn-Waxler, C. (1985). Influence of conflict
between adults on the emotions and aggression of young children. Developmental
Psychology, 21(3), 495-507.
Cummings, E. M., Pellegrini, D., Notarius, C., & Cummings, E. M. (1989).
Children’s responses to angry adult behavior as a function of marital distress and
history of interparent hostility. Child Development, 60,1035-1043.
Cummings, E. M., Vogel, D., Cummings, J. S., & El-Sheikh, M. (1989). Children’s
responses to different forms of expression of anger between adults. Child
Development, 60(6), 1392-1404.
Cummings, E.M., Zahn-Waxler, C., & Radke-Yarrow, M. (1981). Young children’s
responses to expressions of anger and affection by others in the family. Child
Development, 52, 1274-1282.
Davis, B. T., Hops, H., Alpert, A., & Sheeber, L. (1998). Child responses to parental
conflict and their effect on adjustment: A study of triadic relations. Journal o f
Family Psychology, 12, 163-177. a*
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Dempsey, M. (2002). Negative coping as mediator in the relation between violence
and outcomes: Inner-city African American youth. American Journal of
Orthopsychiatry, 72(1), 102-109.
Dodge, K. A., Price, J. M., Bachorowski, J., Newman, J. P. (1990). Hostile
attributional biases in severely aggressive adolescents. Journal o f Abnormal
Psychology, 99, 385-392.
Doumas, D., Margolin, G., & John, R. S. (1994). The intergenerational transmis sion
of aggression across three generations. Journal o f Family Violence, 9 ,157-175.
Ebata, A. T. & Moos, R. H. (1991). Coping and adjustment in distressed and healthy
adolescents. Journal o f Applied Developmental Psychology, 12, 33-54.
Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Murphy, B., Maszk, P., Smith, M., & Karbon, M.
(1995). The role of emotionality and regulation in children’s social functioning: A
longitudinal study. Child Development, 66, 1360-1384.
Eisenberg, N., Shepard, S. A., Fabes, R. A., Murphy, B. C., & Guthrie, I. K. (1998).
Shyness and children’s emotionality, regulation, and coping: Contemporaneous,
longitudinal, and across-context relations. Child Development, 69(3), 767-790.
Elliott, M.J. (2001). Emotionality, emotion regulation, problem-solving, and
aggression in elementary school boys. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section
B: The Sciences and Engineering, Vol 61(11-B), 6120.
El-Sheikh, M., & Cheskes, J. (1995). School performance and disciplinary problems
among abused and neglected children. Child Development, 66,446-458.
Elwood, S. W. (1987). Stressor and coping response inventories for children.
Psychological Reports, 60, 931-947.
Escalona, S. (1953). Emotional development in the first year of life. In M.D. Senn
(Ed.), Problems o f Infancy and Childhood, New York: Foundation Press.
Garcia, H., O’Heam, H., Margolin, G., & John, R. S. (1997). Mothers’ and fathers’
reports of children’s reactions to naturalistic marital conflict. Journal o f the
American Academy o f Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 36, 1366-1373.
Gelfand, D. M. (1975). Social Learning in Childhood: Readings in Theory and
Application. Monterey: Brooks/Cole Publishing.
Gil, K. M., Williams, D. A., Thompson, R.J., & Kinney, T.R. (1991). Sickle cell
disease in children and adolescents: The relation of child and parent pain coping
strategies to adjustment.
47
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Goodman, S. H., Barfoot, B., Frye, A. A., & Belli, A. M.(1999). Dimensions of
martial conflict and children’s social problem-solving skills, Journal o f Family
Psychology, 13(1), 33-45.
Gordis, E. B., Margolin, G., & John, R. S. (1997). Marital aggression, observed
parental hostility, and child behavior during triadic family interaction. Journal of
Family Psychology, 11(1), 76-89.
Herman, M. A., & McHale, S. M. (1993). Coping with parental negativity: Links
with parental warmth and child adjustment. Journal o f Applied Developmental
Psychology, 14, 121-136.
Hoyt-Meyers, L., Cowen, E. L., Work, W. C., Wyman, A., Magnus, K., Fagen, D.
B., & Lotyczewski, B. S. (1995). Test correlates of resilient outcomes among highly
stressed second- and third- grade urban children. Journal o f Community Psychology,
23, 2-36.
Huesmann, L.R., Eron, L. D., Dubow, E. F. (2002). Childhood predictors of adult
criminality: Are all risk factors reflected in childhood aggressiveness? Criminal
Behaviour and Mental Health, 12(3), 185-208.
Jaffe, P. G., Wolfe, D. A, Wilson, S. K., & Zak, L. (1986). Family violence and
child adjustment: A comparative analysis of girls’ and boys’ behavioral symptoms.
American Journal o f Psychiatry, 143, 74-76.
Jouriles, E. N., & LeCompte, S. H. (1991). Husbands’ aggression toward wives and
mothers’ and fatehrs’ aggression toward children: Moderating effects of child
gender. Journal o f Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59, 190-192.
Jouriles, E. N., Murphy, C. M., & O’Leary, K. D. (1989). Interspousal aggression,
marital discord, and child problems. Journal o f consulting and Clinical Psychology,
57, 453-455.
Kagan, S., & Madsen., W.C. (1972) Experimental analysis of cooperation and
competition of Anglo-American and Mexican children. Developmental Psychology,
6, 49-50.
Kaplan, D. M., Smith, A., Grobstein, R. & Fischman, S. E. (1973). Family
mediation of stress. Social Work, 18, 60-69.
Kerig, P.K. (1998). Moderators and mediators of the effects of interparental conflict
on children’s adjustment. Journal o f Abnormal Child Psychology, 26, 3, 199-212.
Kitzmann, K. M., Gaylord, N. K., Holt, A. R., & Kenny, E. D. (2003). Child
witnesses to domestic violence: A meta-analytic review. Journal o f Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 71, 339-352.
48
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Kliewer, W., Feamow, M. D., & Miller, P. A. (1996). Coping socialization in middle
childhood: Tests of maternal and paternal influences. Child Development, 67, 2339-
2357.
Kliewer, W. K., Feamow, M. D., & Walton, M. N. (1998). Dispositional,
environmental, and context-specific predictor’s of children’s threat perceptions in
everyday stressful situations. Journal o f Youth and Adolescence, 27(1), 83-99.
Kliewer, W. & Lewis, H. (1995). Family influences on coping processes in children
and adolescents with sickle cell disease. Journal o f Pediatric Psychology, 20(4),
511-525.
Koda, V. H. (1999). Gender differences in the neuropsychology of childhood
aggression, Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and
Engineering Vol 60(1-B), 1999, 0388.
Laconte, M. A. (199). Study of self-report of stress and coping in children: A
phenomenological approach. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The
Sciences & Engineering. 60{4-B), 1887.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984) Stress, Appraisal, and Coping. New York:
Springer Publishing Company.
Laumakis, M. A., Margolin, G., & John, R. S. (1998). The emotional, cognitive, and
coping responses of preadolescent children to different dimensions of marital
conflict. In G. W. Holden, R. Gefiher, & E. N. Jouriles (Eds.), Children exposed to
marital violence: Theory, research, and applied issues (pp. 257-288). Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association.
Lengua, L. J., Sandler, I. N., West, S. G., Wolchik, S. A., & Curran, P. J. (1999).
Emotionality and self-regulation, threat appraisal, and coping in children of divorce.
Development and Psychopathology, 11, 15-37.
Levesque, R. J. R. (2001). Culture and family violence: Fostering change through
human rights law. Law and Public Policy. Washington, DC, US: American
Psychological Association.
Livingston, K. (2000). Intelligence (IQ) as a major protective factor in resiliency in
children. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and
Engineering, 62(2-A), 496.
Mahady Wilton, M. M., Craig, W. M., & Pepler, D. J. (2000). Emotional regulation
and display in classroom victims of bullying: Characteristic expressions of affect,
coping styles, and relevant contextual factors. Social Development, 9(2), 226-244.
49
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Margolin, G. (1995). Domestic Conflict Inventory. Los Angeles: University of
Southern California.
Margolin, G. (2000). Daily Hassles Interview. Los Angeles: University of Southern
California.
Margolin, G. (2000). Social Coping Interview. Los Angeles: University of Southern
California.
Margolin, G., & Gordis, E. B. (2000). The effects of family and community violence
on children. Annual Review o f Psychology, 51, 445-479.
Margolin, G., John, R., & Foo, L. (1998). Domestic Conflict Inventory. Los
Angeles: University of Southern California.
Margolin, G., Oliver, P. H., & Medina, A. M. (2001) Conceptual issues in
understanding the relation between interparental conflict and child adjustment. In J.
H. Grych, & F. D. Fincham, (Eds.) Interparental Conflict and Child Development:
Theory, Research, and Applications (pp. 9-38) New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Matthews, K., Stoney, C. M, Rakaczky, C.J, & Jamison, W. (1986). Family
characteristics and school achievements of Type A children. Health Psychology, 5,
453-467.
Melamed, B. G. (1992) Family Factors predicting children’s reaction to anesthesia
induction. In A. M. La Greca, L. J. Siegel, J. L. Wallander, & C. E. Walker, (Eds.)
Stress and Coping in Child Health, New York: The Guilford Press.
Melamed, B. G. & Bush, J. (1986). Maternal-child influences during medical
procedures. In S. Auerbach & S. Stolberg (Eds.), Crisis intervention with children
and families Washington, DC: Hemisphere.
Miller, P. A., Kliewer, W., Hepworth, J. T., & Sandler, I. N. (1994). Maternal
socialization of children’s postdivorce coping: Development of a measurement
model. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 15, 457-487.
Monks, C., Ruiz, R. Ortega, V., Torrado, E. (2002). Unjustified aggression in
preschool. Aggressive Behavior, 28(6), 458-476.
Noojin, A. B., Causey, D. L, Gros, B. J., Bertolone, S., & Carter, B. D. (1999). The
influence of maternal stress resistance and family relationships on depression in
children w/ cancer. Journal o f Psychosocial Oncology, 17(2), 79-97.
O’Brien, M., Margolin, G., & John, R. S. (1995). Relation among marital conflict,
50
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
child coping, and child adjustment. Journal o f Clinical Child Psychology, 24(3),
346-361.
O’Brien, M., Margolin, G., John, R. S., & Krueger, L. (1991). Mothers’ and sons’
cognitive and emotional reactions ot simulated marital and family conflict. Journal
o f Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59, 692-703.
O’Keefe, M. (1994). Linking marital violence, mother-child/father-child aggression,
and child behavior problems. Jouranl o f Family Violence, 9, 63-78.
Olweus, D. (1978). Aggression in the schools: Bullies and their whipping boys.
Washington, DC: Hemisphere.
Patterson, J. M., McCubbin, H. I. (1987). Adolescent coping style and behaviors:
Conceptuatlization and measurement. Journal o f Adolescence, 10(2), 159-186.
Rosenberg, M. (1987). Children of battered women: The effects of witnessing
violence on their social problem-solving abilities. The Behavior Therapist, 4, 85-89.
Salmon, K., & Pereira, J. K. (2002). Predicting children’s responses to an invasive
medical investigation: The influence of effortful control and parent behavior. Journal
of Pediatric Psychology, 27(3), 227-233.
Sandstrom, M. J. (2004). Pitfalls of the peer world: How children cope with
common rejection experiences. Journal o f Abnormal Child Psychology, 32(1), 67-
81.
Schwartz, D., Dodge, K. A., Pettit, G. S., & Bates, J. E. (1997). The early
socialization of aggressive victims of bullying. Child Development, 68(4), 665-675.
Shields, A. M., & Cicchetti, D. (1995). The development o f an emotion regulation
assessment battery: Reliability and validity among at-risk grade-school children.
Poster session presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child
Development, Indianapolis, IN.
Shields, A. M., & Cicchetti, D. (1997). Emotion regulation among school-age
children: The development and validation of a new criterion Q-Sort Scale.
Developmental Psychology, 33(6), 906-916.
Spirito, A., Stark, L. J., & Williams, C. (1988). Development of a brief checklist to
assess coping in pediatric populations. Journal o f Pediatric Psychology, 13, 555-
574.
Stark, L. J., Spirito, A., Williams, C. A., & Guevremont, D. C. (1989). Common
problems and coping strategies I: Findings with normal adolescents. Journal o f
Abnormal Child Psychology, 17(2), 203-212.
51
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Stone, A. A. & Neale, J. M. (1984). New measure of daily coping: Development and
preliminary results. Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 892-906.
Straus, M. A., Hamby, S. L., Boney-McCoy, S., Sugarman, D. B. (1996). The
revised conflict tactics scale (CTS2): Development and preliminary psychometric
data. Journal o f Family Issues, 17(3), 283-316.
Tobin, D.L., Holroyd, K.A., Reynolds, R.V., & Wigal, J.K. (1989). The hierarchical
factors structure of the coping strategies inventory, Cognitive Therapy and Research,
13(4), 343-361.
Van Slyke, D. A. (2001). Maternal influences on children’s pain behavior.
Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering,
62(2-B), 1103.
Walden, T.A. & Smith, M. C. (1997). Emotion Regulation. Motivation and
Emotion, 21, 7-25.
Wechsler, D. (1991). WISC-III Manual, San Antonio: The Psychological
Corporation.
Weidner, G., Sexton, G., Matarazzo, J.D., Pereira, C., & Friend, R. (1988). Type A
behavior in children, adolescents, and their parents. Developmental Psychology,
24(1), 118-121.
Wertlieb, D., Weigel, C., & Feldstein, M. (1987). Measuring children’s coping.
American Journal o f Orthopsychiatry, 57(4), 548-560.
Weisz, J. R., McCabe, M. A., & Dennig, M. D. (1994). Primary and secondary
control among children undergoing medical procedures: Adjustment as a function of
coping style. Journal o f Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62(2), 324-332.
52
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Appendix A: Social Coping Interview
Social Coping Interview - Child
“Now, for this part I’ll be asking things about you, and about things that have h appened to you. I w ant you to tell
m e things that are really true about you, not about so m eo n e else. S om e things might be e asy and fun for you to tell
me. O ther things might seem a little hard or em barrassing to tell me, but it’s really OK to tell m e th o se things.
This isn’ t like school. T here are no right or wrong answ ers. I just w ant to learn m ore about you and other kids
your age, and you can help m e a lot with this. O ther kids have given m e all kinds of answ ers to th e se questions.
After each question I ask you, I will w ant you to do so m e brainstorm ing. Do you know w hat brainstorming
m ean s? Brainstorming m ean s coming up with a s m any exam ples, or ideas, a s you can think of. So if I ask ed you to
brainstorm about different kinds of anim als, w hat would you say ? (Have the child list several kinds anim als.) Yes,
th at’s brainstorm ing. I’ll be asking you to com e up with a s m any different exam ples, or ideas, a s you can think of,
about dealing with certain situations. I’ll tell you w hen it’s time to brainstorm . Are you ready to begin?”
TURN ON TAPE RECORDER
oi
co
Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Situation A (1 of 6)
“I want you to imagine yourself in the following situation:
You’re in your school library reading a magazine. You leave your seat to get a drink of water, and while you’re away, another student
comes by and takes your magazine. You return and see the student sitting down, with your magazine in his/her hands.”___________
1. “ What would you do. say, or think to deal with the situation?”
(READ PROMPT UP TO 2 TIMES FOR 3 RESPONSES: “Anything else you would do, say, or think to deal with the situation?”)
*A) How effective would (READ RESPONSE) be, or in other words, how well do you think this would work out?
0 = Not at all 2 = Somewhat 4 = Very
**B) If this really happened, would you (READ RESPONSE)?
0 = No 1 = Probably Not 2 = Probably Yes 3 = Yes
Responses
* Effectiveness ** Likelihood
A)
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3
B)
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3
C)
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3
2. “ How often have you been in this situation, or one like this?” (Circle response)
0 = Never 1 = Almost never 2 = Sometimes 3 = A lot of times 4 = All the time
O i
4 *
Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Situation B (2 of 6)
“Now I’m going to give you another situation to imagine:
You’re outside your classroom, waiting for school to begin, and another student starts teasing you and calling you names."
1. "What would you do. say, or think to deal with the situation?"
(READ PROMPT UP TO 2 TIMES FOR 3 RESPONSES: “Anything else you would do, say, or think to deal with the situation?”)
*A) How effective would (READ RESPONSE) be?
0 = Not at all 2 = Somewhat 4 = Very
**B) If this really happened, would you (READ RESPONSE)?
0 = No 1 = Probably Not 2 = Probably Yes 3 = Yes
Responses * Effectiveness ** Likelihood
A ) 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3
B )
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3
C) 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3
C j, 2. “How often have you been in this situation, or one like this?” (Circle response)
01 0 = Never 1 = Almost never 2 = Sometimes 3 = A lot of times
Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Situation C (3 of 6)
“Now I’m going to give you another situation to imagine:
You hear about a birthday party that your friend is having this weekend, but you haven’ t been invited. Later, when you
see your friend, he/she says nothing about the party. It is clear that you are not invited.” _____________________________
1. “ What would you do. sav. or think to deal with the situation?"
(READ PROMPT UP TO 2 TIMES FOR 3 RESPONSES: “Anything else you would do, say, or think to deal with the situation?”)
*A) How effective would (READ RESPONSE) be?
0 = Not at all 2 = Somewhat 4 = Very
**B) If this really happened, would you (READ RESPONSE)?
0 = No 1 = Probably Not 2 = Probably Yes 3 = Yes
Responses * Effectiveness ** Likelihood
A) 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3
B )
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3
C) 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3
2. “How often have you been in this situation, or one like this?” (Circle response)
o v 0 = Never 1 = Almost never 2 = Sometimes 3 = A lot of times 4 = All the time
C 5
Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Situation D (4 of 6)
“Now I’m going to give you another situation to imagine:
You’re at school having lunch. Another student walks by and bumps into you. Two minutes later, the sam e student walks
by and bumps into you again. This time you’re sure that it w asn’ t an accident."_______________________________________
1. “ What would you do. sav. or think to deal with the situation?”
(READ PROMPT UP TO 2 TIMES FOR 3 RESPONSES: “Anything else you would do, say, or think to deal with the situation?”)
*A) How effective would (READ RESPONSE) be?
0 = Not at all 2 = Somewhat 4 = Very
**B) If this really happened, would you (READ RESPONSE)?
0 = No 1 = Probably Not 2 = Probably Yes 3 = Yes
Responses * Effectiveness ** Likelihood
A)
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3
B)
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3
C) 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3
2. “How often have you been in this situation, or one like this?” (Circle response)
0 = Never 1 = Almost never 2 = Sometimes 3 = A lot of times 4 = All the time
Ul
■ o
Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Situation F (5 of 6)
“Now I’m going to give you another situation to imagine:
You’re at home watching TV. Your parents are having a loud discussion that turns into an angry argument.“ _____
1. “What would you do. say, or think to deal with the situation?”
(READ PROMPT UP TO 2 TIMES FOR 3 RESPONSES: “Anything else you would do, say, or think to deal with the situation?”)
*A) How effective would (READ RESPONSE) be?
0 = Not at all 2 = Somewhat 4 = Very
**B) If this really happened, would you (READ RESPONSE)?
0 = No 1 = Probably Not 2 = Probably Yes 3 = Yes
Responses * Effectiveness ** Likelihood
A )
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3
B)
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3
C)
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3
2. “How often have you been in this situation, or one like this?” (Circle re sp o n se )
0 = Never 1 = Almost never 2 = Sometimes 3 = A lot of times
00
Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Social Coping Interview - Parent
“I’m going to be asking you so m e questions about how you respond to certain situations. I w ant you to im agine that
you are faced with the situation that I describe. T h ese m ay be situations that you have actually encountered, m ay be
similar to w hat you have encountered, or m ay be unfamiliar to you.
I will be asking you how you would respond to or deal with th e se situations.
T here are no right or wrong an sw ers to the situations that I give you. I’d just like you to think outloud and give m e as
com plete an answ er a s you can. R eady to start?”
TURN ON TAPE RECORDER
or
CD
Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Situation A
(1 of 8)
“I want you to imagine yourself in the following situation:
You stop at a restaurant for something to eat, you order your food, and start to read a newspaper that you brought. Before your food
arrives, you leave the table to go to the restroom, and when you return, you find that someone has taken your newspaper and is reading it
at another table."_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
1. “What would you do. say, or think to deal with the situation?”
(PROMPT ONCE: “Anything else you would do, say, or think to deal with the situation?”)
*A) How effective would (READ RESPONSE) be, or in other words, how well do you think this would work out?
0 = Not at all effective 2 = Somewhat effective 4 = Very effective
**B) How likely are you to (READ RESPONSE)?
0 = Extremely unlikely 1 = Somewhat unlikely 2 = Somewhat likely 3 = Extremely likely
Responses * Effectiveness ** Likelihood
A)
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3
B)
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3
C)
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3
2. “How often have you been in this situation, or one like this?”
0 = Never 1 = Almost never 2 = Sometimes 3 = A lot of times 4 = All the time
05
O
Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Situation B
_____________________________________________________ (2 of 8)____________________________________________________
“Now I’m going to give you another situation to imagine:
You’re driving around in the parking lot of a crowded mall. After looking for quite awhile, you see someone leaving. You wait for
the person to leave, and you park your car. As you begin to get out of your car, you see someone approaching, yelling at you about
how you took the spot he/she was waiting for. This person looks as though he/she is about to start a fight with you.“_____________
1. “What would you do. sav. or think to deal with the situation?”
(PROMPT ONCE: “Anything else you would do, say, or think to deal with the situation?”)
*A) How effective would (READ RESPONSE) be?
0 = Not at all effective 2 = Somewhat effective 4 = Very effective
**B) How likely are you to (READ RESPONSE)?
0 = Extremely unlikely 1 = Somewhat unlikely 2 = Somewhat likely 3 = Extremely likely
Responses * Effectiveness ** Likelihood
A)
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3
B)
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3
C) 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3
“How often have you been in this situation, or one like this?”
0 = Never 1 = Almost never 2 = Sometimes 3 = A lot of times 4 = All the time
05
Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Situation C
(3 of 8)
“Now I’m going to give you another situation to imagine:
You hear about a party that your friend is having this weekend, but you haven’t been invited. Later, when you see this friend, he/she
says nothing about the party. It is clear that you are not invited."____________________________________________________________
1. “What would you do. sav. or think to deal with the situation?”
(PROMPT ONCE: “Anything else you would do, say, or think to deal with the situation?”)
*A) How effective would (READ RESPONSE) be?
0 = Not at all effective 2 = Somewhat effective 4 = Very effective
**B) How likely are you to (READ RESPONSE)?
0 = Extremely unlikely 1 = Somewhat unlikely 2 = Somewhat likely 3 = Extremely likely
Responses * Effectiveness ** Likelihood
A)
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3
B)
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3
C)
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3
“How often have you been in this situation, or one like this?”
0 = Never 1 = Almost never 2 = Sometimes 3 = A lot of times 4 = All the time
Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Situation D
(4 of 8)
“Now I’m going to give you another situation to imagine:
You go to a school function and take a seat in the school auditorium. You start to overhear a conversation between the two people
sitting in front of you, and you realize that they are gossiping and saying mean things about you."_______________________________
1. “What would you do. sav. or think to deal with the situation?”
(PROMPT ONCE: “Anything else you would do, say, or think to deal with the situation?”)
*A) How effective would (READ RESPONSE) be?
0 = Not at all effective 2 = Somewhat effective 4 = Very effective
**B) How likely are you to (READ RESPONSE)?
0 = Extremely unlikely 1 = Somewhat unlikely 2 = Somewhat likely 3 = Extremely likely
Responses * Effectiveness ** Likelihood
A)
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3
B)
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3
C)
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3
2. “How often have you been in this situation, or one like this?”
0 = Never 1 = Almost never 2 = Sometimes 3 = A lot of times 4 = All the time
03
C O
Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Situation E
__________________________________________ (5 of 8)________________________________________________________
“Now I’m going to give you another situation to imagine:
Your spouse has been out of the house all day. When he/she returns, you casually say ‘Hi’ and ask ‘How’re you doing?’ and your
spouse starts criticizing you for a mess in the house. Without waiting to hear what you might say, he/she goes on to criticize you for
something that happened several days ago."______________________________________________________________________________
1. “What would you do. say, or think to deal with the situation?”
(PROMPT ONCE: “Anything else you would do, say, or think to deal with the situation?”)
*A) How effective would (READ RESPONSE) be?
0 = Not at all effective 2 = Somewhat effective 4 = Very effective
**B) How likely are you to (READ RESPONSE)?
0 = Extremely unlikely 1 = Somewhat unlikely 2 = Somewhat likely 3 = Extremely likely
Responses * Effectiveness ** Likelihood
A)
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3
B)
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3
C)
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3
2. “How often have you been in this situation, or one like this?”
0 = Never 1 = Almost never 2 = Sometimes 3 = A lot of times 4 = All the time
Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Situation F
________________________________________________ (6 of 8)_______________________________________________________
“Now I’m going to give you another situation to imagine:
You and your spouse had made plans to watch something together on TV, and you were looking forward to this. You go to find your
spouse to tell him/her about something that happened during the day, and to remind him/her that the show is about to start. Your
spouse seems totally annoyed to be interrupted, seems uninterested in talking with you, and says that he/she is too busy to watch TV
with y o u ." _____________________________________________________________________________________________
1. “What would you do. say, or think to deal with the situation?”
(PROMPT ONCE: “Anything else you would do, say, or think to deal with the situation?”)
*A) How effective would (READ RESPONSE) be?
0 = Not at all effective 2 = Somewhat effective 4 = Very effective
**B) How likely are you to (READ RESPONSE)?
0 = Extremely unlikely 1 = Somewhat unlikely 2 = Somewhat likely 3 = Extremely likely
Responses * Effectiveness ** Likelihood
A)
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3
B)
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3
C)
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3
2. “How often have you been in this situation, or one like this?”
0 = Never 1 = Almost never 2 = Sometimes 3 = A lot of times 4 = All the time
05
U 1
Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Situation G
___________________________________________________ (7 of 8)_____________________________________________________
“Now I’m going to give you another situation to imagine:
You, your spouse, and your child are driving together in the car. You and your spouse are having a heated discussion that turns into
an argument. Your spouse raises his/her voice and starts to say some things that are insulting to you."_________________________
1. “What would you do. sav. or think to deal with the situation?”
(PROMPT ONCE: “Anything else you would do, say, or think to deal with the situation?”)
*A) How effective would (READ RESPONSE) be?
0 = Not at all effective 2 = Somewhat effective 4 = Very effective
**B) How likely are you to (READ RESPONSE)?
0 = Extremely unlikely 1 = Somewhat unlikely 2 = Somewhat likely 3 = Extremely likely
Responses * Effectiveness ** Likelihood
A)
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3
B)
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3
C)
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3
2. “How often have you been in this situation, or one like this?”
0 = Never 1 = Almost never 2 = Sometimes 3 = A lot of times 4 = All the time
03
0 3
Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Situation H
____________________________________________________ (8 of 8)_________________________________________________
“Your child asks your spouse for help with homework. Your spouse tries to explain the homework
but your child doesn’t understand it and starts to get frustrated and irritated. Your spouse then also gets irritated and yells at
your child for not paying attention and not trying. Your child is clearly upset and looks like he/she is going to cry.”____________
1. “What would you do. say, or think to deal with the situation?”
(PROMPT ONCE: “Anything else you would do, say, or think to deal with the situation?”)
*A) How effective would (READ RESPONSE) be, or in other words, how well do you think this would work out?
0 = Not at all effective 2 = Somewhat effective 4 = Very effective
**B) How likely are you to (READ RESPONSE)?
0 = Extremely unlikely 1 = Somewhat unlikely 2 = Somewhat likely 3 = Extremely likely
Responses * Effectiveness ** Likelihood
A)
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3
B )
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3
C )
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3
2. “How often have you been in this situation, or one like this?”
0 = Never 1 = Almost never 2 = Sometimes 3 = A lot o f times 4 = All the time
05
<1
Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Appendix B: Emotion Regulation Checklist
E m o t io n s C h e c k lis t - C h il d
DIRECTIONS: Please tell us how often each description is true for your child.
Never true Sometimes true Often true Almost always
true
1. Can recover after stressful experiences □ □ □ □
2. Has rapid shifts in mood □ □ □ □
3. Can acknowledge unpleasant experiences □ □ □ □
4. Overreacts to minor frustrations □ □ □ □
5. I warm and responsive
□ □ □ □
6. Shows recognition of others’ feelings □ □ □ □
7. Develops genuine and close relationships
□ □ □ □
8. Tends to be rigidly repetitive in stress
□ □ □ □
9. Is inappropriate in emotive behavior
□ □ □ □
10. Tends to go to pieces under stress
□ □ □ □
6 .6.00
05
00
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Affection and conflict in family relationships
PDF
A typology of maritally violent men and correlates of violence
PDF
Insights into the nature of phonological and surface dyslexia: Evidence from a novel word learning task
PDF
Childhood videotaped neuromotor and social precursors of schizophrenia: A prospective investigation
PDF
Adolescents' social attitudes: Genes and culture?
PDF
Hostile family environments and children's perceptions of social support
PDF
Depression in offspring following severe prenatal stress
PDF
History of depression, antidepressant treatment, and other psychiatric illness as risk factors for Alzheimer's disease in a twin sample
PDF
Ethnic identity, acculturation, self-esteem and perceived discrimination: A comparison study of Asian American adolescents
PDF
Violent environments and their effects on children
PDF
Dyslexic's development of word recognition and phonological skill over time
PDF
Determinants of life satisfaction among the high-functioning elderly: Implications of effects of psychological factors and activity participation
PDF
Identifying aggressive victims in Chinese children's peer groups
PDF
Hispanic culture, acculturation, and distress among caregivers of dementia patients
PDF
Effects of threat and self-focus on consensual bias in majorities
PDF
Depressed children and the social and behavioral attributes of their best friend
PDF
Effects of personal resource sufficiency on perceived difficulty and desirability of earthquake preparedness
PDF
High-dose chemotherapy followed by autologous hematiopoietic progenitor cell transplantation for relapsed or refractory Hodgkin's disease
PDF
Emotion regulation as a mediator between family-of-origin aggression and marital aggression
PDF
Calcium release induction in living cells by nanosecond electric pulses
Asset Metadata
Creator
Duman, Sarah Elizabeth
(author)
Core Title
Individual and parental influences on children's coping responses
School
Graduate School
Degree
Master of Science
Degree Program
Psychology
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
OAI-PMH Harvest,Psychology, clinical,psychology, developmental
Language
English
Contributor
Digitized by ProQuest
(provenance)
Advisor
Margolin, Gayla (
committee chair
)
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c16-319801
Unique identifier
UC11328966
Identifier
1424218.pdf (filename),usctheses-c16-319801 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
1424218.pdf
Dmrecord
319801
Document Type
Thesis
Rights
Duman, Sarah Elizabeth
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA
Tags
psychology, developmental