University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Interpersonal coping responses during adolescence: implications for adjustment

(USC Thesis Other)

Interpersonal coping responses during adolescence: implications for adjustment

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: INTERPERSONAL COPING RESPONSES i

Interpersonal coping responses during adolescence: Implications for adjustment
Tana Jin Luo
Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the USC Graduate School
Doctor of Philosophy (PSYCHOLOGY)
University of Southern California
December 2018

INTERPERSONAL COPING RESPONSES ii

Abstract
This study examines a series of interpersonal coping responses in cross-sectional and
longitudinal relations between developmentally salient social stressors and internalizing and
externalizing outcomes. We also considered the role of gender in our interactive models of peer
challenges and interpersonal coping. In the first year of this investigation, 379 ninth graders
completed a peer nomination inventory assessing various indices of social reputations (overt and
relational peer victimization, peer rejection, and unpopularity), as well as dyadic nominations of
friends. Participants also completed self-report measures of depressive symptoms and
engagement in different interpersonal coping responses (co-rumination, excessive reassurance-
seeking, and problem-solving). Externalizing was indexed via disciplinary referrals obtained
from school records. We followed these students over a one-year period and collected the same
measures at both waves of data collection. Results highlight a notable pattern of effects, whereby
lack of engagement in co-rumination and excessive reassurance-seeking appear to intensify
depressive outcomes and engagement in problematic school behaviors. Limitations and
implications are discussed.
Keywords: Peer relationships, adolescents, depression, externalizing, peer victimization,
rejection, unpopularity, interpersonal coping

INTERPERSONAL COPING RESPONSES iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page

INTRODUCTION………………………..................................................................................1
Interpersonal Theories of Depression.............................................................................2
Peer Group Challenges and Depressive Symptoms…....................................................3
Peer Group Challenges and Externalizing Problems......................................................7
Stress and Coping in Adolescence..................................................................................9
Interpersonal Coping Responses....................................................................................11
Gender Differences in Interpersonal Coping Behaviors................................................15
METHODS................................................................................................................................16
Participants ....................................................................................................................16
Procedure .......................................................................................................................17
Measures.........................................................................................................................17
RESULTS……………………...................................................................................................20
Descriptive Statistics ......................................................................................................20
Bivariate Correlations......................................................................................................21
Cross-sectional Analyses….............................................................................................21
Longitudinal Analyses.....................................................................................................24
DISCUSSION…………………………......................................................................................28
Co-rumination, Social Stress, and Depressive Symptoms...............................................29
Excessive Reassurance-seeking, Social Stress, and Depressive Symptoms ...................30
Longitudinal Relations between Social Stress and Depressive Symptoms......................31
Interpersonal Coping Responses, Social Stress, and Externalizing.................................32
Limitations and Directions for Future Research..............................................................35
Conclusions......................................................................................................................38
REFERENCES............................................................................................................................39
TABLES .....................................................................................................................................53
Table 1 ............................................................................................................................53
Table 2 ............................................................................................................................54
Table 3 ............................................................................................................................55
Table 4 ............................................................................................................................57
INTERPERSONAL COPING RESPONSES iv

Table 5 ............................................................................................................................59
Table 6 ............................................................................................................................60
Table 7 ............................................................................................................................62
Table 8 ............................................................................................................................63
Table 9 ............................................................................................................................64
Table 10 ..........................................................................................................................65
Table 11 ..........................................................................................................................66
Table 12 ..........................................................................................................................67
Table 13 ..........................................................................................................................70
Table 14 ..........................................................................................................................71
FIGURES……………................................................................................................................56
Figure 1 ..........................................................................................................................56
Figure 2 ..........................................................................................................................58
Figure 3 ...........................................................................................................................61
Figure 4 ...........................................................................................................................68
Figure 5 ...........................................................................................................................69
Figure 6 ...........................................................................................................................71
INTERPERSONAL COPING RESPONSES 1

Introduction
The present study examines how interpersonal coping responses impact adjustment
during adolescence. To this end, we investigated interactions between a series of
developmentally salient stressors and interpersonal coping responses in the prediction of
depressive symptoms and disciplinary incidents at school. Our assumption was that maladaptive
interpersonal coping strategies would intensify negative affective states, in turn exacerbating
both internalized distress and rule-breaking behaviors at school.
As youths enter adolescence, they are faced with a transitional period marked by stressors
in several domains. Research on developmentally salient stressors has consistently identified
problems getting along with peers (Cohen, Burt, & Bjork, 1987; La Greca, 2001) as a significant
source of stress during this period. Indeed, research indicates that interpersonal difficulties (e.g.,
rejection, peer victimization, and unpopularity; Hawker & Boulton, 2000; Nolan, Flynn, &
Garber, 2003; Teunissen et al., 2010) are concurrently and longitudinally associated with
depressive symptoms, as well as problem behaviors at school (Juvonen, Nishina, & Graham,
2000; Nakamoto & Schwartz, 2010).
Furthermore, the literature on stress and coping indicates that how adolescents cope with
stressors has significant implications for adjustment (Sawyer, Pfeiffer, & Spence, 2008; Spence,
Sheffield, & Donovan, 2002). Although the extant research on stress and coping examines
general social support-seeking behaviors (Wright et al., 2010), there is limited work on the
specific interactions that characterize interpersonal coping responses. These interactions,
however, likely play a critical role in psychosocial adjustment outcomes associated with stress.
Indeed, interpersonal theories of depression during adolescence suggest that how youths interact
with their social environments significantly contributes to the development and maintenance of
INTERPERSONAL COPING RESPONSES 2

negative affective states over time (Coyne, 1976). This negative affect may in turn contribute to
expressions of both internalized and externalized distress. Thus, the manner in which youths
cope with their peers may play an important role in the link between peer group challenges and
emotional and behavioral adjustment during adolescence. An understanding of specific
interpersonal coping responses may elucidate the vulnerabilities that predispose some
adolescents to poor outcomes in the face of stress, as well as inform research on the development
of interventions for teaching youths effective coping skills.
Interpersonal theories of depression
In the present study, we draw largely from interpersonal theories of depression to
understand the maintenance and intensification of internalized distress, as well as the extension
of generalized negative affective states to externalizing behaviors. According to interpersonal
theories of depression (Coyne, 1976), depressive symptoms are perpetuated as a result of
transactional influences between individuals and their social environments. That is, depressed
individuals engage in socially aversive behaviors that elicit negative responses from their social
environments. The negative affective states that result from ineffective social behaviors in turn
exacerbate both depressive symptoms and problematic behaviors over time. This escalating
pattern of maladaptive interpersonal behaviors, emotional maladjustment, and behavioral
difficulties has been studied within the context of social skills deficits (e.g., unassertiveness; for
a review, see Segrin, 2001), certain interpersonal styles, and specific interactional behaviors
(e.g., excessive reassurance-seeking; Joiner & Metalsky, 2001). Interpersonal approaches to the
conceptualization of psychosocial functioning are particularly relevant during adolescence,
which represents a period of transition across multiple salient domains. During adolescence,
youths begin to place greater value on their peer relationships and tend to seek peer support over
INTERPERSONAL COPING RESPONSES 3

parental support (Degirmencioglu et al., 1998, Slavin-Williams & Berndt, 1990). As such, the
manner in which adolescents interact with their peers may have meaningful implications for
adjustment.
Developmentally salient social stressors and depressive symptoms
Although there is substantial research on the maintenance of the cycle of interpersonal
behaviors and depressive symptoms during adolescence (Hames, Hagan, & Joiner, 2013), the
specific mechanisms which initiate this pattern remain unclear. Interpersonal approaches to the
conceptualization and treatment of depression in adolescence center on the notion that stressful
interpersonal events trigger the onset of depressive symptoms, which are then maintained and
exacerbated by maladaptive interpersonal behaviors (O’Shea, Spence, & Donovan, 2013). Thus,
certain interpersonal response styles are considered to be vulnerability factors which increase the
risk of negative emotional outcomes following the experience of stress. The current study builds
on and expands this model in two ways. We first examined specific types of interactions that
may intensify the link between salient stressors at school and depressive symptoms. We then
evaluated whether an interpersonal conceptualization of depressive symptoms generalizes to
externalizing, in the form of problematic behaviors at school.
During adolescence, peer relationships serve as salient social contexts, which impart
meaningful information about the self to adolescents. Difficulties with peers may contribute to
depressive symptoms in several ways. Negative peer experiences within one’s peer group may
engender feelings of loneliness and isolation (Parker & Asher, 1993; Parkhurst & Asher, 1992).
Indeed, low acceptance (Parker & Asher, 1993), rejection (Parkhurst & Asher, 1992),
victimization (Storch, Brassard, & Masia-Warner, 2003), and unpopularity have all been linked
with feelings of loneliness during adolescence. Some evidence suggests that loneliness may
INTERPERSONAL COPING RESPONSES 4

partially mediate the link between low social acceptance and internalizing symptoms (Fontaine et
al, 2009). Difficulties with the peer group may also negatively influence youths’ self-concepts
and perceptions of self-competence (Damon & Hart, 1982; O’Brien & Bierman, 1988). That is, a
lack of acceptance by peers and meaningful interpersonal relationships may provoke a sense of
low social competence (Harter et al., 1996; Cole, 1991). Finally, interpersonal difficulties may be
a marker of underlying vulnerabilities or deficits (Hamilton et al., 2013; Joiner et al., 2005b).
Stress generation theories of depression posit that individuals who exhibit negative cognitive
styles, for example, are at an elevated risk for both interpersonal difficulties and depressive
symptoms (Joiner et al., 2005b). In this study, we examined three types of interpersonal
difficulties within the school context that have important implications for adjustment: peer
rejection, peer victimization, and unpopularity.
Peer rejection. Research on rejection during childhood and adolescence consistently
indicates both contemporaneous, as well as longitudinal associations between rejection and
depressive symptoms (Boivin, Poulin, & Vitaro, 1994; Nolan, Flynn, & Garber, 2003). Nolan,
Flynn, and Garber (2003) utilized a multi-informant approach to delineate reciprocal relations
between rejection and depressive symptoms. Findings from this study indicate that rejection is
strongly associated with and predictive of depressive symptoms over time. Being disliked by
peers may contribute to the development and maintenance of depressive symptoms through
several interrelated mechanisms. Some studies suggest that being disliked by peers negatively
impacts youths’ perceptions of themselves. Hymel, Bowker, and Woody (1993) found that
rejected youths also characterized by socially withdrawn behaviors tended to view themselves as
less socially competent than youths of average social acceptance. Research also indicates that
depressive symptoms may precede rejection by peers (Connolly et al., 1992). Depressed
INTERPERSONAL COPING RESPONSES 5

adolescents may behave in ways that elicit rejection from their peers, which may intensify
depressive symptoms and escalate engagement in maladaptive interpersonal behaviors (Coyne,
1976). Thus, rejection and interpersonal behaviors may interact dynamically to intensify
depressive symptoms over the course of adolescence. One line of research evaluates potential
moderators and mediators of the link between experiences of rejection and depressive symptoms
(McDonald et al., 2010; Pedersen, Vitaro, Baker, & Borge, 2007). In a study by Pedersen,
Vitaro, Baker, and Borge (2007), findings provided support for a sequential mediation model,
indirectly linking peer rejection to depressive symptoms through friendedness. These types of
studies indicate that certain features of friendships play an important role in adjustment outcomes
following peer rejection. The current study seeks to elucidate this link by looking at specific
interpersonal behaviors that may occur between adolescents and impact depressive symptoms
both concurrently and longitudinally.
Peer victimization. Adolescents may experience both overt and relational forms of
victimization. Overt victimization refers to experiences including being punched, hit, or kicked,
while relational victimization refers to experiences, such as being the target of gossip or rumors
or being excluded from the peer group. Adolescents who are victimized by peers are at risk for
elevations in depressive symptoms (Sweeting, West, Young, & Der, 2006; Hawker & Boulton,
2000). Indeed, a large body of research indicates that peer victimization and depressive
symptoms are concurrently associated and reciprocally predictive of each other. Internalizing
difficulties, marked by submissive and withdrawn behaviors (Olweus, 1993), as well as
externalizing problems (Olweus, 1993), marked by aggressive and disruptive behaviors, may
increase the likelihood that youths are victimized by their peers. Peer victimization, in turn, is
also predictive of elevations in both internalizing and externalizing difficulties.
INTERPERSONAL COPING RESPONSES 6

Researchers on factors that may attenuate the link between peer victimization and
subsequent maladjustment have identified having friends and friendship quality as having
protective effects (Bollmer, Milich, Harris, & Maras, 2005; Hodges, Boivin, Vitaro, &
Bukowski, 1999; Woods, Done, & Kalsi, 2009). Friendship may influence relations between
victimization and adjustment via mitigation of feelings of loneliness, as well as the buffering of
self-worth and sense of competence. The current research seeks to investigate an additional
mechanism through which aspects of friendship may act as moderators. That is, adolescents who
are involved in high quality friendships may be engaging in effective coping responses with their
friends, which may impact subsequent adjustment outcomes. On the other hand, victimized
adolescents who engage in ineffective coping strategies with their peers may be at an elevated
risk for socioemotional maladjustment.
Unpopularity. There is some evidence to suggest links between perceived unpopularity
and depressive symptoms. Perceived unpopularity is a reputational social construct that reflects
low social standing and lack of social power within the peer group. Unpopularity is distinct from
other constructs, such as rejection, and poses unique risks to adolescents (Gorman, Schwartz,
Nakamoto, & Mayeux, 2011). While peer rejection represents a negative, affective reaction that
an adolescent’s peers have towards him/her, unpopularity is an indicator of low status and
visibility in the peer group. Adolescents who are unpopular may be withdrawn and submissive,
which makes them easy targets for peer victimization (Olweus, 1978; Xie et al., 2006) and
resulting internalizing distress. Furthermore, unpopular youths may lack the skills to achieve
status within the peer group, which may contribute to and intensify the experience of social and
emotional problems. Indeed, unpopularity has also been linked with feelings of rejection, low
self-competence, loneliness, and depressive symptoms (Closson, 2009; Reinherz et al., 1993;
INTERPERSONAL COPING RESPONSES 7

Rudolph & Clark, 2001). Given the critical role of social supports during adolescence, we
evaluated how interpersonal coping responses may exacerbate or attenuate the link between
perceived unpopularity and depressive symptoms.
Developmentally salient social stressors and externalizing problems at school
In addition to internalizing, peer relationship difficulties have been consistently found to
be associated with problem behaviors at school (Kupersmidt & Coie, 1990; Prinstein & La
Greca, 2004). Adolescents who experience challenges within the peer group are at a heightened
risk for low self-competence and self-worth (Hawker & Boulton, 2000), as well as a lack of
sense of school connectedness (O’Brennan & Furlong, 2010). These adolescents may
subsequently engage in rule-breaking behaviors at school. Some research indicates that certain
aspects of friendships, however, may moderate the link between social stress and externalizing
(Davidson & Demaray, 2007; Prinstein, Boergers, & Vernberg, 2001). In the present study, we
contend that the manner in which adolescents seek support from their peers may significantly
impact externalizing outcomes associated with peer group problems. Our assumption is that
certain types of interpersonal coping styles may intensify adolescents’ negative affect, which
may have broader implications for school adjustment.
Peer victimization. The extant research on peer victimization and problem behaviors
indicates both concurrent and longitudinal associations (Reijntjes et al., 2011). Adolescents who
are victimized within the peer group are more likely to engage in school avoidance, substance
use, aggression, and other delinquent or disruptive behaviors than their non-victimized peers
(Haynie et al., Hutzell & Payne, 2012; Juvonen, Nishina, & Graham, 2000; Storch et al., 2003;
Sullivan, Farrell, & Kliewer, 2006). Empirical efforts to understand links between peer
victimization and problematic school behaviors have pointed largely to psychological adjustment
INTERPERSONAL COPING RESPONSES 8

as a mediator (Graham et al., 2008; Hoglund, 2007). That is, being the target of aggression in the
peer group may have detrimental effects on adolescents’ emotional adjustment, self-esteem, and
sense of competence, which then negatively influence attitudes towards school and engagement
in adaptive school behaviors. In the present study, we focus on disciplinary incidents at school as
a marker of externalizing outcomes associated with peer victimization. Engaging in problematic
or rule-breaking behaviors that result in administrative intervention may be a precursor to more
serious behavioral concerns later in adolescence. Because peer victimization may impact
concurrent and later externalizing problems via injury to emotional adjustment, we were
interested in examining aspects of friendships which may intensify or attenuate these links. More
specifically, we sought to explore interpersonal coping responses as one possible moderator of
the association between peer victimization and disciplinary incidents.
Peer rejection. Peer rejection has also been consistently found to be associated with
problem behaviors at school (Prinstein & La Greca 2004; Véronneau & Dishion, 2010).
Mediating mechanisms identified in the extant literature include internalizing, decrements to
sense of school competence, decreases to perceived school belonging, and subsequent school
disengagement (Juvonen, Espinoza, & Knifsend, 2012; Wentzel, 1991). While rejection may
precede externalizing, there are also complex, reciprocal relations between the experience of peer
rejection and engagement in problematic behaviors. That is, children who engage in disruptive or
aggressive behaviors that may result in disciplinary actions at school are more likely to be
rejected by their peers (Dodge, Coie, & Brakke, 1982). This experience of peer rejection may
lead to low self-worth and subsequent escalation in problem behaviors at school. In the present
study, we were interested in examining the role of interpersonal coping in the relations between
peer rejection and incidents of disciplinary referrals one year later. The case may be that
INTERPERSONAL COPING RESPONSES 9

ineffective coping with peers intensifies both negative emotions and beliefs about the school
context, which then places some rejected youths at an elevated risk for externalizing behaviors.
Unpopularity. Finally, we also examine interactions between unpopularity and
interpersonal coping as predictors of disciplinary incidents. There is some evidence that
unpopularity may be negatively associated with engagement in externalizing behaviors (Cohen,
Reinherz, & Frost, 1994). We again take into consideration the social norms of school
environments as having a meaningful impact on associations between status and school
behaviors. That is, in contexts where the social norms devalue academic engagement,
adolescents who engage in academically oriented behaviors are likely to have low status in the
peer group. Related research on popularity and school engagement consistently indicates that
high status in adolescence increases the likelihood of involvement in risky behaviors, school
disengagement, and poor academic performance (Mayeux, Sandstrom, & Cillessen, 2008;
Schwartz, Gorman, Nakamoto, & McKay, 2006; Troop-Gordon et al., 2011).
With this being said, unpopularity may also contribute to problematic school behaviors,
via an increased risk of peer victimization. Indeed, adolescents who are at the bottom of the peer
hierarchy are prone to being targets of peer harassment. This victimization could subsequently
impact adolescents’ motivation to engage effectively with school. In the current study, we
carefully explore links between unpopularity and disciplinary referrals at school and examine
interpersonal coping as a possible moderator.
Stress and coping during adolescence
Research on stress and coping indicates that adolescents use a variety of coping skills in
response to difficulties in salient domains, including problem-solving, cognitive restructuring,
emotional expression, and social support-seeking (Compas et al., 2001). Furthermore, how
INTERPERSONAL COPING RESPONSES 10

adolescents cope with stressors has important implications for subsequent psychosocial
adjustment (for a review, see Compas, Orosan, & Grant, 1993).
Several models of stress and coping have been proposed, which aim to categorize
different types of coping responses and how they might be used differentially across various
stressors. Widely used dimensions of coping include problem-focused/emotion-focused coping
(Compas et al., 2001; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984), primary/secondary coping (Rudolph, Dennig,
& Weisz, 1995; Weisz, McCabe, & Dennig, 1994), and engagement/disengagement coping
(Connor-Smith et al., 2000). Broadly, these dimensions are typically oriented around the goal or
intent associated with a coping response. Dimensions tend to reflect whether individuals attempt
to actively engage with the stressor and resulting emotions or to avoid the stressor and emotional
response. Although these models provide broad frameworks for understanding the structure of
coping, they have also been criticized for not adequately capturing the complexity of coping
responses and their various functions.
Additionally, much of the extant research on stress and coping relies on self-report scales
that typically include one item assessing use of social resources (e.g., “seeking social support”)
in response to life stressors. Although these types of scales evaluate general responses related to
using social resources, they do not tap into the heterogeneity of interpersonal coping responses.
Given the rising importance of peer relationships during adolescence and the influence of
interpersonal functioning on the development of internalizing and externalizing problems, it is
important to understand not only if, but how adolescents utilize their social resources.
Indeed, research on coping suggests that certain types of coping may contribute to
depressive symptoms and other adjustment difficulties during adolescence. For example, cross-
sectional studies on outcomes associated with problem-focused versus emotion-focused coping
INTERPERSONAL COPING RESPONSES 11

typically indicate that problem-focused coping is negatively associated with depressive
symptoms, while emotion-focused coping is associated with higher levels of depressive
symptoms (Compas, Malcarne, & Fondacaro, 1988; Li, DiGiuseppe, & Froh, 2006).
Longitudinal studies on coping and depressive symptoms indicate that type of coping is both
predictive of and a consequence of depressive symptoms. In a short-term longitudinal study on
coping and depressive symptoms, Sawyer, Pfeiffer, and Spence (2009) found that young
adolescents who utilized more avoidant coping strategies (e.g., distancing) than effective coping
strategies (e.g., problem-solving) had higher levels of depressive symptoms one year later.
Wright et al. (2010), however, found evidence that while both social anxiety and depression were
predictive of coping strategies nine months later, coping strategies were not longitudinally
associated with changes in social anxiety or depression.
The current study integrates interpersonal perspectives of emotional maladjustment and
theories of stress and coping to delineate the role of interpersonal coping behaviors in the
relation between developmentally salient stressors, depressive symptoms, and disciplinary
referrals at school. Our guiding assumption is that ineffective coping with peers will increase risk
for emotional maladjustment, which impacts both internalizing and externalizing difficulties.
Interpersonal coping behaviors
This study focuses on three interpersonal coping responses: excessive reassurance-
seeking, co-rumination, and problem-solving with peers. We concurrently and longitudinally
investigate how each of these coping responses moderates relations between the experience of
social difficulties and emotional functioning and markers of problem behaviors at school.
Excessive reassurance-seeking (ERS). The transactional relationship between
maladaptive interpersonal behaviors and escalating emotional maladjustment has been widely
INTERPERSONAL COPING RESPONSES 12

studied within the context of excessive reassurance-seeking (Joiner, Katz, & Lew, 1999).
Excessive reassurance-seeking (ERS) is an interpersonal behavior characterized by excessive,
persistent, and repeated seeking of reassurance from others to substantiate sense of self-worth.
This behavior is viewed as aversive by others and has been found to elicit negative responses
from others (e.g., rejection, deterioration of relationship quality), which contributes to both the
intensification of depressive symptoms and an escalation in inappropriate reassurance-seeking
behaviors. Thus, excessive reassurance-seeking behaviors and depressive symptoms tend to
interact with each other in a way that perpetuates the maintenance and exacerbation of depressive
symptoms over time. Research suggests that the experience of minor stressors during
adolescence increases the likelihood that adolescents engage in excessive reassurance-seeking
(Joiner, Katz, & Lew, 1999; Prinstein et al., 2005). Furthermore, engagement in excessive
reassurance-seeking behaviors has been found to be associated with elevations in depressive
symptoms over time (Prinstein et al., 2005).
We hypothesized that excessive reassurance-seeking would exacerbate the link between
developmentally salient stressors and concurrent and subsequent depressive symptoms during
early adolescence. Given the impact of emotional adjustment on externalizing behaviors, we
additionally expected excessive reassurance-seeking to intensify links between peer group
challenges and subsequent externalizing in the form of disciplinary referrals.
Co-rumination. Co-rumination is an interactive process that is characterized by
excessive, negative self-disclosure, focus on negative affect, non-goal-directed discussion of
problems, and speculation about problems. Co-rumination has been found to be associated with
increased levels of perceived intimacy and closeness in adolescent friendships (Rose, 2002),
which renders the behavior naturally reinforcing. However, co-rumination has also been found to
INTERPERSONAL COPING RESPONSES 13

maintain and perpetuate depressive symptoms over time (Rose, 2002; Dam, Roelofs, & Muris,
2013). One line of research indicates that co-rumination predicts clinically diagnosed depressive
disorders in adolescents (Stone, Hankin, Gibb, & Abela, 2012).
There are several interrelated mechanisms that may account for how co-rumination
exacerbates depressive symptoms during adolescence. Co-rumination may positively reinforce
maladaptive cognitions and focus on negative affect (Rose, Carlson, & Waller, 2007). Indeed,
there is some evidence that intensity of emotional affect during self-disclosure may actually
enhance feelings of intimacy within friendships (Reis & Patrick, 1996). This enhanced feeling of
intimacy may reinforce adolescents’ focus on intense, negative affect. Youths who engage in
high levels of co-rumination may also experience “empathetic distress” (Smith & Rose, 2011),
which is the experience of strong negative affect as a result of discussing a friend’s problems and
distress. High levels of engagement in co-ruminating behaviors may also indicate a lack of
engagement in more positive, adaptive coping responses.
It is important to highlight the distinction between co-rumination and normative self-
disclosure, which has been found to be an adaptive interpersonal behavior. Normative self-
disclosure involves the sharing of personal information with others, but does not involve the
excessive focus on negative affect and non-goal-directed discussion of problems, which are
central to co-rumination (Rose, 2002). We hypothesized that co-rumination would exacerbate
negative affect and cognitions associated with social stressors, thus intensifying depressive
symptoms and engagement in problem behaviors in school.
Problem-solving with peers. In the present study, we conceptualize problem-solving
within the model of social problem solving by D’Zurilla and colleagues (D’Zurilla, 1986;
D’Zurilla & Nezu, 1990). In this model, problem-solving consists of several goal-directed tasks:
INTERPERSONAL COPING RESPONSES 14

a) problem definition and formulation; b) generation of alternative solutions; c) decision making;
and d) solution implementation and verification. Ability to engage in problem-solving skills has
been found to be associated with better emotional and behavioral outcomes (Compas, Malcarne,
& Fondacaro, 1988). Engagement in problem-solving with their peers may increase the
likelihood that adolescents generate an adaptive response to a stressful situation, either by
reducing distress related to the situation or improving the situation itself. Ability to engage in
problem-solving may also reflect underlying protective cognitive factors. Problem-solving
requires active attending to a situation, cognitive flexibility, and sense of agency, which may
protect against cognitive tendencies identified as risk factors for depressive symptoms (Hankin &
Abramson, 2001). We hypothesized that engaging in problem-solving with peers would weaken
the links between social difficulties and depressive symptoms, as well as the associations
between social difficulties and disciplinary incidents.
Friendedness as a moderator of developmentally salient social stress and internalizing and
externalizing outcomes
In addition to evaluating co-rumination, excessive reassurance-seeking, and problem-
solving as possible moderators of the link between peer group difficulties and both depressive
and disciplinary outcomes, we conducted supplementary analyses exploring the role of
friendedness. Engaging in an interpersonal coping response inherently signifies some type of
involvement in dyadic peer relationships. That is, adolescents who engage in co-rumination,
excessive reassurance-seeking, and/or problem-solving with peers may represent a specific
subset of adolescents who are oriented towards social affiliation and more generalized support-
seeking. Having friends in itself may impact associations between our social stressors and
adjustment outcomes of interest. Indeed, there is evidence to indicate that having friends may
INTERPERSONAL COPING RESPONSES 15

serve as both a protective factor (Prinstein, Boergers, & Vernberg, 2001) and as a risk factor
(Brendgen, Vitaro, & Bukowski, 2000) for concurrent and subsequent psychosocial outcomes.
As such, we included supplemental analyses that take reciprocated friendship into consideration.
Gender differences in interpersonal coping behaviors
Gender differences related to coping have been found in the types of stressors boys and
girls experience, emotional responses to stressors, and the types of coping strategies utilized. A
large body of literature suggests that adolescent girls experience more stress in interpersonal
relationships than do adolescent boys (Rudolph, 2002). This difference in the experience of
interpersonal stress may be attributed both to exposure and emotional responses to interpersonal
stress. Research indicates that adolescent girls tend to endorse the experience of more
interpersonal stressors, while boys tend to experience more achievement-related stress (Shih,
Eberhart, Hammen, & Brennan, 2006). Furthermore, adolescent girls tend to highly value
intimacy, emotional support, and loyalty in their peer relationships (Parker & Asher, 1993),
while adolescent boys tend to value relationships formed around shared activities and
companionship (Ladd, 1983). Gender differences in value placed on relationships may impact
how adolescent boys and girls respond to interpersonal issues. Indeed, adolescent girls have been
found to experience more emotional distress in response to negative interpersonal events than do
boys (Rudolph, 2002).
In addition to gender differences in perceived level of exposure to developmentally
salient stressors, research also indicates differences in how adolescent boys and girls utilize
interpersonal coping responses. Some literature on stress and coping indicates that adolescent
girls tend to seek social support more than boys do (Li, DiGiuseppe & Froh, 2006), although
findings seem to be mixed, with some studies reporting no significant gender differences
INTERPERSONAL COPING RESPONSES 16

(Williams & McGillicuddy-De Lisi, 1999). Specific to the interpersonal coping responses we
evaluated in this study, research suggests that adolescent girls tend to engage in both co-
rumination and excessive reassurance-seeking more than boys (Rose, 2002; Schwartz-Mette &
Rose, 2012; Weinstock & Whisman, 2006). Prinstein et al. (2005) found that for girls, high
levels of reassurance-seeking and low levels of friendship quality were predictive of depressive
symptoms. We hypothesized that the moderating effects of co-rumination and excessive
reassurance-seeking on the relations between stressors, depressive symptoms, and disciplinary
incidents would be pronounced for adolescent girls. The literature on gender differences in
problem-solving is more mixed. Some studies report that adolescent girls are also more likely to
use problem-solving than are boys (Li DiGiuseppe, & Froh, 2006), while other studies report the
opposite finding (Broderick, 1998). We conducted exploratory analyses on problem-solving to
determine how gender impacts the moderating role of this coping response in the link between
stressors and depressive symptoms, as well as markers of problem behaviors at school.
Methods
Participants
This study was conducted in collaboration with a high school located in a semi-urban
area of Southern California. Participants were recruited from ninth grade regular and honors
English classes. In order to ensure all participants had the English language skills to read,
comprehend, and respond to study items, students enrolled in special education classes and
limited English proficiency classes were excluded from recruitment.
In the spring of 2016 (T1), all 659 eligible ninth graders were invited to participate in the
study. Students were incentivized to return their parental consent forms with pizza parties for
those classes who had at least an 80% rate of returned consent forms, regardless of consent
INTERPERSONAL COPING RESPONSES 17

status. Of the invited students, 62.6% (N = 413) returned positive parental consent to participate
in both years of the study. These students were then given the opportunity to assent to
participation. Of the students with parental consent, 91.8% (N = 379) assented to participation
and attended school on the days of data collection.
In the spring of 2017 (T2), parents of the 413 students with parental consent from T1
were provided with the opportunity to withdraw their children from the study at T2. Of these 413
students, six were withdrawn from the study by their parents, and 33 left the school prior to data
collection. Of the remaining 374 students, 76.7% (N = 287, M age = 15.4) assented to
participation and were present on the days of data collection. The gender composition of the
participants was 44.8% male and 55.2% female. The self-reported ethnic/racial composition of
participants was 28.3% Latino, 30.0% Non-Hispanic White, 13.4% Asian/Pacific Islander, 1.4%
African American, 1.1% American Indian, 22.3% mixed, and 3.5% other. Retained students
engaged in significantly more problem-solving, had lower levels of depressive symptoms, and
had fewer disciplinary incidents at T1 than did attrited students.
Procedure
Data was collected towards the end of each academic year. During each wave of data
collection, participants completed self-report and peer nomination measures in 90-minute group-
administered sessions by trained graduate and undergraduate researchers. The researchers read
standardized instructions out loud to the participants and provided assistance, if needed, to the
participants throughout data collection.
Measures
Peer victimization. Each student was provided with an alphabetized roster of 50
randomly selected, participating students from their grade. Students were asked to nominate an
INTERPERSONAL COPING RESPONSES 18

unlimited number of peers from this roster for a series of social descriptors. Peer-nomination
approaches have been widely used and validated in the peer relations research. Four peer
nomination items assessed peer victimization. Items queried both overt victimization (“students
that get beat up by other students”; “students that get hit, pushed, or bullied by other students”)
and relational victimization (“students that get mean things said about them”; “students that get
left out of activities, excluded, or ignored when other students are trying to hurt their feelings”).
For each student, an overt victimization score was calculated based on the two overt
victimization items (at T1, α =.58; at T2, α =.38), and a relational victimization score was
calculated based on the two relational victimization items (at T1, α =.72; at T2, α =.68).
Peer rejection. Peer rejection was assessed using the same peer nomination procedures
described above (“students that you don’t like that much”). A peer rejection score was calculated
based on total number of nominations each student received for this item.
Unpopularity. Unpopularity was also assessed using the same peer nomination
procedures described above (“students that are unpopular”). An unpopularity score was
calculated based on total number of nominations each student received for this item.
Co-rumination. Co-rumination was assessed using the Co-rumination Questionnaire
(Rose, 2002), which is a self-report measure that evaluates the degree to which youths co-
ruminate with their peers. The measure includes 27-items (at T1, α =.96; at T2, α =.96) which
assess nine content areas of co-rumination: (a) frequently discussing problems, (b) discussing
problems instead of engaging in other activities, (c) encouragement by the focal child of the
friend discussing problems, (d) encouragement by the friend of the focal child discussing
problems, (e) discussing the same problem repeatedly, (f) speculation about problem causes, (g)
speculation about problem consequences, (h) speculation about parts of the problem that are not
INTERPERSONAL COPING RESPONSES 19

understood, and (i) focusing on negative feelings. Each item was rated on a 5-point Likert scale,
and a mean co-rumination score was calculated across all items.
Excessive reassurance-seeking. Excessive reassurance-seeking was assessed using the
Reassurance-Seeking Scale for Children (RSSC; Joiner, 1999). Participants were asked to rate
four statements (at T1, α =.73; at T2, α =.85) that evaluate both reassurance-seeking behaviors
(“I always need to ask my parents and friends if they like me”; “I always need to ask my parents
and friends if they care about me”) and perceived reactions from others (“Sometimes when I ask
people if they like me, they tell me to stop asking”; “Sometimes when I ask people if they like
me, they get mad”). Each statement was rated on a 3-point Likert scale indicating the extent to
which the statement describes participants’ behavior. This measure has good construct, criterion,
and discriminant validity (Joiner & Metalsky, 2001) and adequate internal consistency (Joiner,
1999).
Problem-solving with peers. Problem-solving with peers was assessed using five self-
report items developed for this research (at T1, α =.93; at T2, α =.94). Adolescents were asked to
think about when they have a problem and rate the extent to which they engage in different
problem-solving behaviors with their peers. Examples of items include, “When I have a problem
at school, I talk with a peer about different ways to change or fix the situation” and “When I have
a problem at school, I ask a peer for help coming up with a plan to make things better.”
Participants were asked to rate how much each statement describes them on a 5-point Likert
scale ranging from “Not at all true” (1) to “Really true” (5), and a mean score across items was
calculated.
Reciprocated friendship. Friendship was assessed using peer nomination procedures
(“students who you consider good friends”). For this item, participants were provided with a
INTERPERSONAL COPING RESPONSES 20

roster with the names of all peers in their grade with positive parental consent. Adolescents were
considered to be friends if they reciprocally nominated each other for the friendship item. A total
friendship variable was calculated by taking the sum of all reciprocated friendships.
Depressive symptoms. Depressive symptoms were assessed using the Children’s
Depression Inventory (CDI; Kovacs, 1985), which is a 27-item, self-report measure that assesses
the severity of depressive symptoms in children and adolescents. One item that asks about
suicidal ideation was omitted from the study. The final measure administered included 26 items
(at T1, α = .90; at T2, α =.90). Responses to items were scored 0, 1, or 2, with higher scores
indicating greater symptom severity. A mean CDI score was calculated across all items.
Disciplinary incidents. Disciplinary incidents were obtained from school records. A
disciplinary incidents score was calculated by taking the sum across disciplinary referrals related
to academic dishonesty and dress code violations, detentions, and lunch detentions.
Results
Descriptive Statistics
Prior to conducting descriptive and substantive analyses, all variables were examined
with univariate analyses. Distributions of scores tended to be moderately peaked and skewed. As
such, log transformations were applied to all peer nomination variables, self-reported co-
rumination, and self-reported excessive reassurance-seeking. Additionally, a negative inverse
transformation was applied to the disciplinary incidents variable.
Table 1 presents means and standard deviations for all study variables across the full
sample and within gender. For these analyses and all subsequent analyses, gender was treated as
a dichotomous variable (0 = Male, 1 = Female). A series of independent samples t-tests was
conducted to examine gender difference for all study variables. As indicated in Table 1, girls had
INTERPERSONAL COPING RESPONSES 21

higher depressive symptoms, more friends, and endorsed more co-rumination than boys in both
years of the study. Girls also had higher excessive reassurance-seeking scores at T1. Boys had
higher overt victimization scores than girls in both years of the project, as well as higher
unpopularity scores than girls at T1.
Bivariate associations
Bivariate correlations for all study variables are summarized by gender in Table 2.
Depressive symptoms were highly stable from T1 to T2 for both genders. For boys, there were
small to moderate main-effect associations between social difficulties (overt victimization,
relational victimization, unpopularity) and depressive symptoms in T1. There were no main-
effect associations between social difficulties and depressive symptoms at either time point for
girls. Excessive reassurance-seeking was significantly associated with depressive symptoms for
both genders at both time points, while co-rumination was not associated with depressive
symptoms for either gender at either time point. Finally, disciplinary incidents were significantly
associated with being disliked by peers and unpopularity at both time points and with relational
victimization at T1 for both boys and girls.
Cross-sectional analyses
Co-rumination and gender as moderators of social difficulties and depressive
symptoms. To examine the moderating roles of co-rumination and gender in the association
between social difficulties and depressive symptoms, a series of hierarchical regression analyses
was conducted with depressive symptoms as the outcome variable (Table 3). Separate models
were specified for each of the four social difficulties of interest (overt victimization, relational
victimization, disliking, and unpopularity). The first step of each model included the social
stressor, co-rumination, and gender. On the second step, the two-way interactions for social
INTERPERSONAL COPING RESPONSES 22

stressor by co-rumination, social stressor by gender, and co-rumination by gender were entered.
On the third and final step, the three-way social stressor by co-rumination by gender interaction
was entered into the model. All terms were entered simultaneously at each step, and steps were
entered sequentially. Interaction terms were calculated based on mean-centered scores, as per
Aiken & West (1991).
There was a significant overt victimization by co-rumination by gender interaction as
depicted in Table 3. To decompose this effect, a series of regression models was specified for
each gender separately. Following the recommendations of Aiken and West (1991), co-
rumination was algebraically fixed at high (1 SD above the mean), medium (mean), and low (1
SD below the mean) levels. For girls, overt victimization was predictive of depressive symptoms
at low (β = 0.34, p = 0.004) and mean (β = 0.17, p = 0.01) levels of co-rumination, but not at
high levels of co-rumination (β = 0.01, p = ns). For a graphical depiction of the interaction
between overt victimization and co-rumination, see Figure 1.
Excessive reassurance-seeking and gender as moderators of social difficulties and
depressive symptoms. The above hierarchical regression analyses were conducted with
excessive reassurance-seeking in lieu of co-rumination (Table 4). The first step of each model
included the social stressor, excessive reassurance-seeking, and gender. On the second step, the
two-way interactions for social stressor by excessive reassurance-seeking, social stressor by
gender, and excessive reassurance-seeking by gender were entered. On the third and final step,
the three-way social stressor by excessive reassurance-seeking by gender interaction was entered
into the model.
There was a significant disliking by excessive reassurance-seeking by gender interaction.
This effect was decomposed using the same procedures described above. Excessive reassurance-
INTERPERSONAL COPING RESPONSES 23

seeking was algebraically fixed at high (1 SD above the mean), medium (mean), and low (1 SD
below the mean) levels. The two-way excessive reassurance-seeking by disliking interaction
approached significance for girls (p = 0.08), but not for boys. For girls, disliking approached
significance in the prediction of depressive symptoms at low levels of excessive reassurance
seeking (β = 0.16, p = 0.08), but not at mean (β = 0.05, p = ns) or high (β = -0.07, p =ns) levels
(Figure 2).
Problem-solving and gender as moderators of social difficulties and depressive
symptoms. The hierarchical regression analyses described above were repeated with problem-
solving in the place of excessive reassurance-seeking in the association with depressive
symptoms (Table 5). A separate model was specified for each of the four social difficulties of
interest. Step 1 again included the main effects for the social stressor, problem-solving, and
gender. In Step 2, the two-way social stressor by problem-solving, social stressor by gender, and
problem-solving by gender interactions were entered. Step 3 included the three-way social
stressor by problem-solving by gender interaction. There was a significant social stressor by
gender interaction across overt and relational victimization, unpopularity, and disliking. There
were no other significant two- or three-way interactions.
Friendedness and gender as moderators of social difficulties and depressive
symptoms. Hierarchical regression analyses were also conducted with number of friends and
gender as moderators of the links between social difficulties and depressive symptoms (Table 6).
A separate model was specified for overt victimization, relational victimization, unpopularity,
and disliking, respectively. Step 1 included the main effects for the social stressor, number of
friends, and gender. In Step 2, we added the two-way interactions for social stressor by number
of friends, social stressor by gender, and number of friends by gender. In Step 3, we entered the
INTERPERSONAL COPING RESPONSES 24

three-way social stressor by number of friends by gender interaction. There was a significant
unpopularity by number of friends interaction. Decomposition of this effect indicated
unpopularity to be associated with depressive symptoms for adolescents with comparatively low
numbers of reciprocated friendships (β = 0.18, p = 0.01), but not at mean (β = 0.09, p = ns), or
high (β = 0.00, p = ns) numbers of friends (Figure 3).
Longitudinal analyses
Co-rumination and gender as moderators of social difficulties and depressive
symptoms. To examine the moderating roles of co-rumination and gender in the longitudinal
associations between social difficulties and depressive symptoms, a series of hierarchical
regression analyses were conducted with T2 depressive symptoms as the outcome (Table 7).
Separate models were specified for each of the four social difficulties of interest (overt
victimization, relational victimization, disliking, and unpopularity). Step 1 included T1 social
stressor, co-rumination, and gender. T1 depressive symptoms and T2 social stressor were also
entered as covariates. In step 2, the two-way T1 social stressor by gender, T1 social stressor by
co-rumination, and co-rumination by gender interactions were entered. In step 3, the three-way
T1 social stressor by co-rumination by gender interaction was entered into the model. A
significant co-rumination by gender interaction emerged across models. However, the three-way
T1 social stressor by co-rumination by gender interaction did not approach significance for any
of the social stressors.
Excessive reassurance-seeking and gender as moderators of social difficulties and
depressive symptoms. The above hierarchical regression analyses were conducted with
excessive reassurance-seeking in lieu of co-rumination (Table 8). The first step of each set of
analyses included T1 social stressor, excessive reassurance-seeking, and gender, with T1
INTERPERSONAL COPING RESPONSES 25

depressive symptoms and T2 social stressor as covariates. The second step included the two-way
interactions for T1 social stressor by gender, T1 social stressor by excessive reassurance-seeking,
and excessive reassurance-seeking by gender. On the third step, the three way interaction for T1
social stressor by excessive reassurance-seeking by gender was entered. A significant excessive
reassurance-seeking by gender interaction emerged across models. However, the three-way T1
social stressor by excessive reassurance-seeking by gender interaction did not approach
significance for any of the social stressors.
Problem-solving and gender as moderators of social difficulties and depressive
symptoms. The above hierarchical regression analyses were conducted with problem-solving as
the interpersonal coping response (Table 9). The first step of each set of analyses included T1
social stressor, problem-solving, and gender, with T1 depressive symptoms and T2 social
stressor as covariates. On the second step, we included the two-way interactions for T1 social
stressor by gender, T1 social stressor by problem-solving, and problem-solving by gender. On
the third step, we entered the three-way interaction for T1 social stressor by problem-solving by
gender. There was a significant main effect of T1 depressive symptoms with no other significant
main effects, two-, or three-way interactions.
Friendedness and gender as moderators of social difficulties and depressive
symptoms. Finally, we conducted the above hierarchical regression analyses with friendedness
in lieu of an interpersonal coping response (Table 10). Separate models were specified for each
of the four social stressors of interest. On the first step, we entered T1 social stressor, number of
friends, and gender, with T1 depressive symptoms and T2 social stressor as covariates. The
second step included the two-way interactions for T1 social stressor by gender, T1 social stressor
by number of friends, and number of friends by gender. On the third step, we entered the three-
INTERPERSONAL COPING RESPONSES 26

way interaction for T1 social stressor by number of friends by gender. There was a significant T1
relational victimization by number of friends interaction. However, decomposition of this
interaction did not yield interpretable effects at high (β = 0.08, p = ns), mean (β = -0.00, p = ns),
or low (β = -0.09, p = ns) numbers of reciprocated friends.
Co-rumination and gender as moderators of social difficulties and disciplinary
incidents. To examine the moderating roles of co-rumination and gender in the associations
between social difficulties and problems at school, a series of hierarchical regression analyses
was conducted with T2 disciplinary incidents as the outcome (Table 11). A separate set of
analyses was conducted for each of the four social difficulties of interest (overt victimization,
relational victimization, unpopularity, and disliking). The first step included T1 social stressor,
co-rumination, and gender. T1 disciplinary incidents and T2 social stressor were included as
covariates at each step of the model. In the second step, the two-way interactions for T1 social
stressor by gender, T1 social stressor by co-rumination, and co-rumination by gender were
entered into the model. The third and final step included the three-way T1 social stress by co-
rumination by gender interaction. No significant two- or three-way interactions emerged across
the social difficulties examined.
Excessive reassurance-seeking and gender as moderators of social difficulties and
disciplinary incidents. The above hierarchical regression analyses were repeated with excessive
reassurance-seeking in place of co-rumination (Table 12). The first step included T1 social
stressor, excessive reassurance-seeking, and gender main effects, as well as T1 disciplinary
incidents and T2 social stressor as covariates. The second step included the two-way T1 social
stressor by gender, T1 social stressor by excessive reassurance-seeking, and excessive
reassurance-seeking by gender interactions. The third step included the three-way interaction for
INTERPERSONAL COPING RESPONSES 27

T1 social stressor by excessive reassurance-seeking by gender. There was a significant three-way
overt victimization by excessive reassurance-seeking by gender interaction, as well as a
significant relational victimization by excessive reassurance-seeking by gender interaction.
To decompose the overt victimization by excessive reassurance-seeking by gender
interaction, separate regression analyses were conducted for boys and girls. Excessive
reassurance-seeking was algebraically fixed at high (1 SD above the mean), medium (mean), and
low (1 SD below the mean) levels. There was a significant overt victimization by excessive
reassurance-seeking effect for girls only. More specifically, the effect of overt victimization on
T2 disciplinary incidents approached significance (β = 0.22, p = 0.05) at low levels of excessive
reassurance-seeking, but not at mean (β = 0.08, p = ns) or high β = -0.06, p = ns) levels (Figure
4).
The three-way relational victimization by excessive reassurance-seeking by gender
interaction was also decomposed using the above method. There was a significant relational
victimization by excessive reassurance-seeking interaction for girls, but not boys. For girls,
relational victimization was predictive of disciplinary incidents at low (β = 0.32, p = 0.02) and
mean (β = 0.20, p = 0.03), but not high (β = 0.09, p = ns) levels of excessive reassurance seeking
(Figure 5).
Problem-solving and gender as moderators of social difficulties and disciplinary
incidents. The above hierarchical regression analyses were conducted with problem-solving as
the interpersonal coping response (Table 13). The first step included T1 social stressor, problem-
solving, and gender main effects, as well as T1 disciplinary incidents and T2 social stressor as
covariates. On the second, we entered the two-way T1 social stressor by gender, T1 social
stressor by problem-solving, and problem-solving by gender interactions. The third step included
INTERPERSONAL COPING RESPONSES 28

the three-way interaction for T1 social stressor by problem-solving by gender. There were no
significant two- or three-way interactions.
Friendedness and gender as moderators of social difficulties and depressive
symptoms. Finally, we conducted the above hierarchical regression analyses with friendedness
in lieu of an interpersonal coping response (Table 14). Separate models were specified for each
of the four social stressors of interest. On the first step, we entered T1 social stressor, number of
friends, and gender, with T1 depressive symptoms and T2 social stressor as covariates. The
second step included the two-way interactions for T1 social stressor by gender, T1 social stressor
by number of friends, and number of by gender. On the third step, we entered the three-way
interaction for T1 social stressor by number of friends by gender. There was a significant T1
relational victimization by number of friends interaction. Decomposition of this interaction
revealed relational victimization to be predictive of disciplinary incidents at high (β = 0.22, p =
0.01), but not mean (β = 0.04, p = ns) or low (β = -0.13, p = ns) numbers of friends (Figure 6).
Discussion
In the present study, three interpersonal coping responses were examined as factors that
may impact the relation between the experience of developmentally salient social stressors and
both emotional and behavioral adjustment difficulties during adolescence. The role of gender in
these effects was also carefully investigated. We examined these moderator effects with both
cross-sectional and longitudinal models. Our results presented a paradoxical pattern of effects,
which indicates that a lack of engagement co-rumination and excessive reassurance-seeking may
contribute to depressive symptoms and the occurrence of disciplinary incidents.
The role of co-rumination in links between social stress and depressive symptoms
INTERPERSONAL COPING RESPONSES 29

Co-rumination is a multifaceted construct that represents a conceptual overlap between
self-disclosure in an interpersonal context and a ruminative cognitive style. Indeed, the extant
literature on co-rumination during adolescence demonstrates the positive effects of this
interpersonal response style on relationship quality, despite its strong associations with
internalizing problems (Rose, 2002). In the present study, we expected co-rumination to
exacerbate the link between social stress and depressive symptoms. Our findings, however,
presented a contrast to the expected direction of effects, with overt victimization being
significantly associated with depressive symptoms only at low levels of co-rumination in girls.
This paradoxical pattern of effects warrants further consideration and exploration. For those
adolescents who experience overt victimization within the peer group, relatively low levels of
co-rumination may signal an overall lack of peer connectedness. Indeed, previous research has
indicated positive associations between co-rumination and friendship quality (Smith & Rose,
2011; Rose, Carlson, & Waller, 2007; Rose, 2002). The case may be that, for the specific
subgroup of adolescents who are overtly victimized by peers, lack of engagement in co-
rumination may signal a more generalized lack of peer connection. However, analyses exploring
friendedness as a moderator of victimization and depressive symptoms did not yield a significant
interaction.
As such, there may be unique aspects of co-rumination, beyond being an indicator of
involvement in friendship, that impact the emotional adjustment outcomes associated with peer
group challenges. One possibility is that lower levels of co-rumination, when compared with the
group mean, are indicative of a lack of normative, emotional self-disclosure with peers. Lack of
this type of disclosure may reflect broader emotion regulation difficulties, which may contribute
to depressive symptoms. Indeed, research indicates that adolescents who engage in rumination,
INTERPERSONAL COPING RESPONSES 30

as well as adolescents who disengage from or avoid negative affect are at an elevated risk for
depressive symptom (Silk, Steinberg, & Morris, 2003). Adolescents who co-ruminate markedly
less than their peers may have challenges with the effective identification, expression, and
regulation of negative emotions. Given the counter-intuitive findings regarding overt
victimization and co-rumination in this study, in conjunction with the complex psychosocial
correlates of co-ruminating, further research is needed to delineate effective and ineffective
social, cognitive, and behavioral components of this interpersonal coping response.
The role of excessive reassurance-seeking in the links between social stress and depressive
symptoms
Researchers on interpersonal behaviors in depressed individuals have consistently
highlighted excessive reassurance-seeking as an interpersonal behavior that maintains and
exacerbates social difficulties and depression over time (Joiner & Metalsky, 2001). As such, we
expected excessive reassurance-seeking to intensify the relations between peer group challenges
and depressive symptoms. We again detected a counter-intuitive pattern of findings, with
disliking approaching significance in its association with depressive symptoms at low levels of
reassurance-seeking in girls.
In order to understand this direction of effects, it may be prudent to re-consider Coyne’s
interpersonal theory of depression and the role that excessive reassurance-seeking plays in an
escalating cycle of maladaptive interpersonal coping and depressive symptoms. This theoretical
framework posits that individuals with mild depression may attempt to substantiate their self-
worth by seeking reassurance from others in their immediate social environments (Joiner &
Metalsky, 2001). Others may initially provide this reassurance for individuals, which reinforces
the behavior of seeking reassurance. Over time, however, with repeated and excessive
INTERPERSONAL COPING RESPONSES 31

reassurance-seeking, others become annoyed with this behavior and ultimately reject the
individual. It may be the case, then, that on a short-term basis, reassurance-seeking assuages
feelings of inadequacy, despite its more long-term intensification of interpersonal challenges and
depressive symptoms. Thus, disliked girls who engage in lower levels of reassurance-seeking
than their peers may be at an elevated risk for depressive symptoms, at least initially, given the
lack of reassurance and positive feedback from their peers.
This complex pattern of effects highlights the problematic nature of excessive
reassurance-seeking. Adolescents who engage in this behavior may actually receive some
positive feedback from their peers, which increases the likelihood that they will engage in the
behavior again. Future longitudinal research is warranted to disentangle the complexities of the
cycle of reassurance-seeking, social problems, and depressive symptoms.
Longitudinal relations between social stress and depressive symptoms
In addition to our examination of cross-sectional associations between peer group stress,
interpersonal coping, and depressive symptoms, we were also interested in examining these
effects longitudinally over the span of one year. In hindsight, our two-wave design may not have
been optimal for detecting change in depressive symptoms. In fact, stability of depressive
symptoms from Time 1 to Time 2 was notably high. Given the short-term nature of this study, it
is likely that these data are only capturing one small segment of how social, academic, and
emotional difficulties impact each other over time. Future research would benefit from more
long-term, longitudinal designs that may better capture meaningful changes in depressive
symptoms across adolescence.
Interpersonal coping responses, social stress, and externalizing at school
INTERPERSONAL COPING RESPONSES 32

A final study aim was to investigate the impact of interpersonal coping responses and
gender in links between social difficulties and externalizing problems at school. The association
between peer victimization and problem behaviors is complex, with much of the extant research
indicating both concurrent and longitudinal associations (Haynie et al., Hutzell & Payne, 2012;
Juvonen, Nishina, & Graham, 2000; Storch et al., 2003; Sullivan, Farrell, & Kliewer, 2006). In a
study of both perpetrating and being a victim of aggression and school adjustment outcomes,
however, results indicated no relation between peer victimization and later school adjustment
outcomes, including disciplinary incidents, after controlling for bullying (Feldman et al., 2014).
This type of research indicates that individual characteristics of victims may account for some of
the variability in later adjustment outcomes.
In this study, excessive reassurance-seeking was examined as a possible moderator of
social difficulties and disciplinary incidents one year later. Results from these analyses indicated
that, for girls only, relational victimization was predictive of subsequent disciplinary incidents at
low and mean, but not high, levels of excessive reassurance-seeking. A similar pattern of effects
emerged for overt victimization, with overt victimization approaching significance in the
prediction of disciplinary incidents at low, but not mean or high, levels of excessive reassurance-
seeking for girls.
Several interrelated mechanisms may be accounting for this moderator effect. Excessive
reassurance-seeking behaviors are characterized by repeated attempts to obtain validation of self-
worth from others. Individuals who engage in excessive reassurance-seeking are likely to be high
on trait sociotropy, which is a personality style marked by a heightened need for positive social
interactions and positive regard by others (Clark & Beck, 1991). Through this lens, excessive
reassurance-seeking may be conceptualized as an attempt to obtain these positive social
INTERPERSONAL COPING RESPONSES 33

interactions, albeit in an ineffective manner. Indeed, some research in undergraduate students
suggests that excessive reassurance-seeking mediates the relationship between trait sociotropy
and negative interpersonal interactions (Birgenheir & Pepper, 2010). That is, individuals who
have an underlying need to please others and are highly concerned with what others think of
them engage in excessive reassurance-seeking, which in turn, contributes to rejection from the
social environment.
This theoretical framework may be applied to understanding the findings of the current
study. Adolescents who experience overt and relational victimization at the hands of their peers
are essentially receiving concrete negative feedback from the peer group. Some evidence
suggests that these adolescents are at an elevated risk for engaging in problematic behaviors at
school and/or school refusal behaviors (Haynie et al., 2001). However, for those adolescents who
have a personality style that predisposes them to engage in excessive reassurance-seeking, there
may be a high underlying drive to please others and to be accepted in their social environments.
It is possible that this sociotropic interpersonal style protects adolescents from engaging in
behaviors that would result in disciplinary action from teachers and school administrators. On the
other hand, lower levels of engagement in excessive reassurance-seeking could be a marker of
low sociotropy, indicating relatively low regard for pleasing others and maintaining positive
relationships in social contexts. Adolescents who are victimized by their peers and exhibit a low
tendency for excessive reassurance-seeking are at a particular risk for engaging in problematic
behaviors at school. These adolescents may feel a lack of social connectedness at school due to
their experiences of victimization, which may diminish their motivation to engage effectively in
school. Coupled with a possible underlying personality style that may be low in sociotropy, these
INTERPERSONAL COPING RESPONSES 34

adolescents may be further compelled to behave in ways that would warrant disciplinary action
at school.
Finally, it is noteworthy that having a high number of friends intensified the link between
relational victimization and disciplinary incidents at school. Adolescents who are relationally
victimized and have many friends may represent a specific subset of youths at school. Indeed,
much of the extant research on peer victimization indicates that high status adolescents are often
the targets of relational victimization by other high status peers and even friends (Andrews,
Hanish, Updegraff, Martin, & Santos, 2016; Faris & Felmlee, 2014). Furthermore, adolescents
high in popularity are also at risk of engaging in risky, delinquent, and academically disengaged
behaviors both in and outside of school (Mayeux, Sandstrom, & Cillessen, 2008; Schwartz,
Gorman, Nakamoto, & McKay, 2006; Troop-Gordon et al., 2011). Future research would benefit
from a more nuanced consideration of individual differences, including status and specific
features of friends, in victimized adolescents and their effects on subsequent outcomes.
The role of gender in interactive models of interpersonal coping
A final consideration in this set of analyses is the role of gender in the moderating effect
of excessive reassurance-seeking. Research on peer victimization, interpersonal relationships
more generally, and academic functioning consistently indicates gender differences across these
domains, which may account for the impact of gender on the interactions between peer group
challenges and psychosocial outcomes. The literature on gender differences in peer victimization
suggests that although boys and girls may experience similar rates of relational victimization
(Paquette & Underwood, 1999), girls tend to be more negatively impacted by these experiences.
This is evidenced by girls reporting more negative thoughts and emotions, recalling more
specific incidents of victimization, and endorsing more decrements to sense of self-worth
INTERPERSONAL COPING RESPONSES 35

following the experience of peer victimization than boys (Grills & Ollendick, 2002; Paquette &
Underwood, 1999). Coupled with the research on peer victimization, specifically, is a large body
of work that indicates girls may be more concerned than boys with maintaining their
interpersonal relationships and may thus be more sensitive to perceived rejections in their peer
contexts (for a review, see Rose & Rudolph, 2006). As discussed above, girls who have a
propensity for excessive reassurance-seeking may have a heightened underlying need for social
acceptance and may be particularly sensitive to social sanctions. Although this subset of girls is
identified as having victim reputations in the peer group, their elevated need to be regarded
positively by their social environment may protect them from engagement in problematic
behaviors that would result in further disapproval by their teachers and other school authority
figures. We acknowledge that there may be other explanatory models not directly assessed in this
study. For example, excessive reassurance-seeking could also be conceptualized and evaluated as
a mediator of victimization and later disciplinary incidents. That is, girls may interpret the
experience of victimization as being indicative of disapproval from their peers. As such, they
may engage in excessive reassurance-seeking in order to alleviate distress associated with peer
disapproval. Excessive reassurance-seeking may, in the short-term, garner some reassurance and
validation from peers, which would then protect these girls from feeling a lack of school
connection and subsequently engaging in delinquent or rule-breaking behaviors.
Limitations and directions for future research
As youths enter adolescence and gain independence from their parents, they increasingly
turn to their peers as a primary source of social support. Given the dynamic transactions between
interpersonal relationships and adjustment, as well as elevated rates of depression during
adolescence, there is an overarching need for research on interactional patterns that may mitigate
INTERPERSONAL COPING RESPONSES 36

or exacerbate risk for depression and other problematic outcomes. Although research on stress
and coping typically taps general social support-seeking behaviors, there is limited research on
the specific behaviors that adolescents engage in with their peers. The current study is unique, in
that it examined the interaction between developmentally salient stressors and interpersonal
coping behaviors in the prediction of concurrent and longitudinal emotional and behavioral
adjustment outcomes.
Findings from this study were paradoxical, in that they consistently indicated possible
benefits of engaging in co-rumination and excessive reassurance-seeking, and relatedly,
consequences of lack of engagement in these behaviors. These results illustrate the complexities
inherent to these interpersonal coping responses and point to the challenges in developing
effective interventions for ineffective coping. That is, both co-rumination and excessive
reassurance-seeking are likely reinforced, to some degree, by adolescents’ interpersonal
interactions. While interpersonal benefits of engaging in co-rumination are well-documented
(Smith & Rose, 2011), there is little to no research on ways in which excessive reassurance-
seeking may be a reinforced behavior in the short-term. However, theories on excessive
reassurance-seeking consistently identify an initial stage in this interpersonal process in which
individuals are reassured by significant others in their lives, which increases the likelihood that
individuals will continue to engage in this behavior. Further research is warranted to more
directly explore the temporal relations between excessive reassurance-seeking, feedback from
the social context, and subsequent adjustment outcomes.
Prior to concluding remarks, we will address some limitations to the present study.
Although we were able to gauge broad associations between general engagement in certain
interpersonal coping responses and emotional and academic adjustment, we were not able to
INTERPERSONAL COPING RESPONSES 37

directly evaluate how adolescents cope with specific experiences of social stress and how these
targeted coping responses impact outcomes. Future research would benefit from incorporating
methodologies that would allow for an examination of specific interpersonal coping behaviors
used in response to specific instances of social stress.
There is some evidence to suggest that specific components of co-ruminative behaviors
may be particularly maladaptive (Rose et al., 2014). The measures utilized in this study allow for
a general assessment of engagement in co-rumination, but we cannot draw conclusions about
specific co-ruminative behaviors that impact specific domains of functioning. Future research
may benefit from incorporating more observational methods of assessment that allow for in-
depth examinations of dyadic interactions. Additionally, given findings from this study that
indicate possible protective effects of excessive reassurance-seeking via broader underlying
personality style, a more nuanced examination of excessive reassurance-seeking would be
beneficial.
Finally, direct comparisons of attrited versus retained students indicated several
meaningful differences in T1 study variables. Attrited students had significantly higher
depressive symptoms, more disciplinary incidents, and engaged in less problem-solving in T1
than did retained students. Although efforts were made to ensure maximum retention of
participants for the second wave of this study, we acknowledge that the level of attrition may
have impacted study findings.
In this study, we focused on middle adolescence, a critical developmental period, during
which youths’ interpersonal behaviors and priorities undergo significant shifts. The short-term
nature of this study allowed us to capture some changes within this window of transition.
However, our sample exhibited a high level of stability in depressive symptoms across time
INTERPERSONAL COPING RESPONSES 38

points, which reflects the stability of depression during this developmental period. Longer-term
approaches may allow for more effective detection of changes in our variables of interest.
Conclusions
In the present study, we evaluated interactions between social stressors and interpersonal
coping responses in the prediction of depressive symptoms, as well as disciplinary referrals at
school. Results yielded a counterintuitive pattern of effects that indicate possible positive, short-
term psychosocial outcomes associated with co-rumination and excessive reassurance-seeking.
These paradoxical findings highlight the complexities associated with these interpersonal coping
responses during adolescence and the need for nuanced examinations of how adolescents interact
with their peers and the implications for adjustment.

INTERPERSONAL COPING RESPONSES 39

References
Allen, N. B., Haslam, N., & Semedar, A. (2005). Relationship patterns associated with
dimensions of vulnerability to psychopathology. Cognitive therapy and research, 29,
733-746.
Andrews, N. C., Hanish, L. D., Updegraff, K. A., Martin, C. L., & Santos, C. E. (2016). Targeted
victimization: Exploring linear and curvilinear associations between social network
prestige and victimization. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 45, 1772-1785.
Bastin, M., Mezulis, A. H., Ahles, J., Raes, F., & Bijttebier, P. (2015). Moderating effects of
brooding and co-rumination on the relationship between stress and depressive symptoms
in early adolescence: A multi-wave study. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 43,
607-618.
Bellmore, A. (2011). Peer rejection and unpopularity: Association with GPAs across the
transition to middle school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103, 282-295.
Birgenheir, D. G., Pepper, C. M., & Johns, M. (2010). Excessive reassurance seeking as a
mediator of sociotropy and negative interpersonal life events. Cognitive Therapy and
Research, 34, 188-195.
Boivin, M., Poulin, F., & Vitaro, F. (1994). Depressed mood and peer rejection in childhood.
Development and Psychopathology, 6, 483-498.
Bollmer, J. M., Milich, R., Harris, M. J., & Maras, M. A. (2005). A friend in need: The role of
friendship quality as a protective factor in peer victimization and bullying. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 20, 701-712.
Brendgen, M., Vitaro, F., & M. Bukowski, W. (2000). Deviant friends and early adolescents'
emotional and behavioral adjustment. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 10, 173-189.
INTERPERSONAL COPING RESPONSES 40

Broderick, P. C. (1998). Early adolescent gender differences in the use of ruminative and
distracting coping strategies. Journal of Early Adolescence, 18, 173-191.
Clark, D. A., & Beck, A. T. (1991). Personality factors in dysphoria: A psychometric refinement
of Beck’s Sociotropy-Autonomy School. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral
Assessment, 13, 369-388.
Closson, L. M. (2009). Aggressive and prosocial behaviors within early adolescent friendship
cliques: What’s status got to do with it? Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 55, 406-435.
Cohen, L. H., Burt, C. E., & Bjork, J. P. (1987). Life stress and adjustment: Effects of life events
experienced by young adolescents and their parents. Developmental Psychology, 23,
583–592.
Cohen, E., Reinherz, H. Z., & Frost, A. K. (1994). Self-perceptions of unpopularity in
adolescence: Links to past and current adjustment. Child and Adolescent Social Work
Journal, 11, 37-52.
Cole, D. A. (1990). Relation of social and academic competence to depressive symptoms in
childhood. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 99, 422-429.
Cole, D. A. (1991). Preliminary support for a competency-based model of depression in children.
Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 100, 181-190.
Compas, B. E., Connor-Smith, J. K., Saltzman, H., Thomsen, A., & Wadsworth, M. E. (2001).
Coping with stress during child- hood and adolescence: Problems, progress, and potential
in theory and research. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 87–127.
Compas, B. E., Orosan, P. G., & Grant, K. E. (1993). Adolescent stress and coping: Implications
for psychopathology during adolescence. Journal of Adolescence, 16, 331-349.
INTERPERSONAL COPING RESPONSES 41

Connolly, J., Geller, S., Marton, P., & Kutcher, S. (1992). Peer responses to social interaction
with depressed adolescents. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 21, 365–370.
Connor-Smith, J. K., Compas, B. E., Wadsworth, M. E., Thomsen, A. H., & Saltzman, H.
(2000). Responses to stress in adolescence: Measurement of coping and involuntary
stress responses. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68, 976-992.
Coyne J.C. (1976). Toward an interactional description of depression. Psychiatry, 39, 28–40.
Dam, A., Roelofs, J., & Muris, P. (2013). Correlates of co-rumination in non-clinical
adolescents. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 22, 1-6.
Damon, W., & Hart, D. (1982). The development of self-understanding from infancy through
adolescence. Child Development, 53, 841- 864.
Davidson, C. L., Grant, D. M., Byrd-Craven, J., Mills, A. C. Judah, M. R., & Lechner, W. V.
(2014). Psychometric properties of the Co-Rumination Questionnaire. Personality and
Individual Differences, 70, 171-175.
Davidson, L. M., & Demaray, M. K. (2007). Social support as a moderator between
victimization and internalizing-externalizing distress from bullying. School Psychology
Review, 36, 383-405.
Değirmencioğlu, S. M., Urberg, K. A., Tolson, J. M., & Richard, P. (1998). Adolescent
friendship networks: Continuity and change over the school year. Merrill-Palmer
Quarterly, 313-337.
D'Zurilla, T. J. (1986). Problem-solving therapy: A social competence approach to clinical
intervention. New York: Springer Publishing
D’Zurilla, T. J., & Nezu, A. M. (1990). Development and preliminary evaluation of the social
INTERPERSONAL COPING RESPONSES 42

problem-solving inventory. Psychological Assessment: A Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 2, 156-163.
Erath, S. G., Flanagan, K. S., & Bierman, K. L. (2008). Early adolescent school adjustment:
Associations with friendship and peer victimization. Social Development, 17, 853-870.
doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9507.2008.00458.x
Faris, R., & Felmlee, D. (2014). Casualties of social combat: School networks of peer
victimization and their consequences. American Sociological Review, 79, 228-257.
Feldman, M. A., Ojanen, T., Gesten, E. L., Smith-Schrandt, H., Brannick, M. Totura, C. M.
W.,…, & Brown, K. (2014). The effects of middle school bullying and victimization on
adjustment through high school: Growth modeling of achievement, school attendance,
and disciplinary trajectories. Psychology in Schools, 51, 1046-1062. doi: 10.1002/pits
Fontaine, N., Carbonneau, R., Vitaro, F., Barker, E. D., & Tremblay, R. E. (2009). Research
review: A critical review of studies on the developmental trajectories of antisocial
behavior in females. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 50, 363–385.
Fröjd, S. A., Nissinen, E. S., Pelkonen, M. U. I., Marttunen, M. J., Koivisto, A., & Kaltiala-
Heino, R. (2008). Depression and school performance in middle adolescent boys and
girls. Journal of Adolescence, 31, 485-498.
Gorman, A. H., Schwartz, D., Nakamoto, J., & Mayeux, L. (2011). Unpopularity and disliking
among peers: Partially distinct dimensions of adolescents’ social experiences. Journal of
Applied Developmental Psychology, 32, 208-217.
Guarneri-White, M. E., Jensen-Campbell, L. A., & Knack, J. M. Is co-ruminating with friends
related to health problems in victimized adolescents? Journal of Adolescence, 39, 15-26.
INTERPERSONAL COPING RESPONSES 43

Haeffel, G. J., Voelz, Z. R., & Joiner, T. E., Jr. (2007). Vulnerability to depressive symptoms:
Clarifying the role of excessive reassurance seeking and perceived social support in an
interpersonal model of depression. Cognition and Emotion, 21, 681-688.
Hames, J. L., Hagan, C. R., & Joiner, T. E. (2013). Interpersonal processes in depression. Annual
Review of Clinical Psychology, 9, 355-377.
Hamilton, J. L., Stange, J. P., Shapero, B. G., Connolly, S. L., Abramson, L. Y., & Alloy, L. B.
(2013). Cognitive vulnerabilities as predictors of stress generation in early adolescence:
Pathway to depressive symptoms. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 41, 1027-
1039.
Hankin, B. L., & Abramson, L. Y. (2001). Development of gender differences in depression: An
elaborated cognitive vulnerability-transactional stress theory. Psychological Bulletin, 127,
773-96.
Harter, S., Stocker, C., & Robinson, N. S. (1996). The perceived directionality of the link
between approval and self-worth: The liabilities of a looking glass self-orientation among
young adolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 6, 285–308.
Hawker, D. S., & Boulton, M. J. (2000). Twenty years’ research on peer victimization and
psychosocial maladjustment: A meta-analytic review of cross-sectional studies. Journal
of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 41(4), 441-55.
Haynie, D. L., Nansel, T., Eitel, P., Crump, A. D., Saylor, K., Yu, K., & Simons-Morton, B.
(2001). Bullies, victims, and bully/victims: Distinct groups of at-risk youth. The Journal
of Early Adolescence, 21, 29-49.
Hodges, E. V. E., Boivin, M., Vitaro, F., & Bukowski, W. M. (1999). The power of friendship:
Protection against an escalating cycle of peer victimization. Developmental Psychology,
INTERPERSONAL COPING RESPONSES 44

35, 94-101.
Hoglund, W. L. G. (2007). School functioning in early adolescence: Gender-linked responses to
peer victimization. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 683-699.
Hutzell, K. L., & Payne, A. A. (20120). The impact of bullying victimization on school
avoidance. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 10, 370-385.
Hymel, S., Bowker, A., &Woody, E. (1993). Aggressive versus withdrawn unpopular children:
Variations in peer and self-perceptions in multiple domains. Child Development, 64,
879–896.
Joiner, T. E., Katz, J., & Lew, A. (1999). Harbingers of depressotypic reassurance seeking:
Negative life events, increase anxiety, and decreased self-esteem. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 25, 632-639.
Joiner, T. E., & Metalsky, G. I. (2001). Excessive reassurance seeking: Delineating a risk factor
involved in the development of depressive symptoms. Psychological Science, 12, 371-378.
Joiner, T. E., Jr., Wingate, L. R., & Otamendi, A. (2005). An interpersonal addendum to the
hopelessness theory of depression: Hopelessness as a stress and depression generator.
Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 24, 649–664.
Kearney, C. A., & Albano, A. M. (2004). The functional profiles of school refusal behavior:
Diagnostic aspects. Behavior Modification, 28, 147-161.
Kupersmidt, J. B., & Coie, J. D. (1990). Preadolescent peer status, aggression, and school
adjustment as predictors of externalizing problems in adolescence. Child Development,
61, 1350-1362.
Ladd, G. W. (1983). Social networks of popular, average, and rejected children in school
settings. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 29, 283–307.
INTERPERSONAL COPING RESPONSES 45

La Greca, A. M. (2001). Friends or foes? Peer influences on anxiety among children and
adolescents. Anxiety disorders in children and adolescents: Research, assessment and
intervention, 159-186.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. Springer: New York.
Li, C. E., DiGiuseppe, R., & Froh, J. (2006). The roles of sex, gender, and coping in adolescent
depression. Adolescence, 41, 409-415.
Ma, L. Phelps, E., Lerner, J., & Lerner, R. M. (2009). The development of academic competence
among adolescents who bully and who are bullied. Journal of Applied Developmental
Psychology, 30, 628-644.
McClure, E. B., Parrish, J. M., Nelson, E. E., Easter, J., Thorne, J. F., Rilling, J. K.,…& Pine,
D.S. (2007). Responses to conflict and cooperation in adolescents with anxiety and mood
disorders. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 35, 567-577.
Nakamoto, J., & Schwartz, D. (2010). Is peer victimization associated with academic
achievement? A meta-analytic review. Social Development, 19, 221-242.
Nolan, S. A., Flynn, C., & Garber, J. (2003). Prospective relations between rejection and
depression in adolescents. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 745–755.
Nolen-Hoeksema, S., & Girgus, J. S. (1994). The emergence of gender differences in depression
during adolescence. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 424–443.
O’Brennan, L. M., & Furlong, M. J. (2010). Relations between students’ perceptions of school
connectedness and peer victimization. Journal of School Violence, 9, 375-391.
O'Brien, S.F. & Bierman, K.L. (1987). Conceptions and perceived influence of peer groups:
Interviews with preadolescents and adolescents. Child Development, 59, 1360-1365.
INTERPERSONAL COPING RESPONSES 46

O’Shea, G., Spence, S. H., & Donovan, C. L. (2013). Interpersonal factors associated with
depression in adolescents: Are these consistent with theories underpinning interpersonal
psychotherapy? Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy.
Olweus, D. (1978). Aggression in the schools: Bullies and whipping boys. Hemisphere:
Washington, DC.
Olweus, D. (1993). Victimization of peers: Antecedents and long-term outcomes. In Rubin, K.
H., and Asendorpf, J. B. (eds.), SocialWith- drawal, Inhibition, and Shyness in
Childhood. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 315–341.
Paquette, J. A., & Underwood, M. K. (1999). Gender differences in young adolescents’
experiences of peer victimization: Social and physical aggression. Merrill-Palmer
Quarterly, 45, 242-266.
Parker, J. G. & Asher, S. R. (1993). Friendship and friendship quality in middle childhood: Links
with peer group acceptance and feelings of loneliness and social dissatisfaction.
Developmental Psychology, 29, 611–621.
Parkhurst, J. T.,&Asher, S. R. (1992). Peer rejection in middle school: Subgroup differences in
behavior, loneliness, and interpersonal concerns. Developmental Psychology, 28, 231–241.
Paul, J. J., & Cillessen, A. H. N. (2003). Dynamics of peer victimization in early adolescence.
Journal of Applied School Psychology, 19, 25-43. doi: 10.1300/J008v19n02_03
Pedersen, S., Vitaro, F., Barker, E. D., & Borge, A. I. H. (2007). The timing of middle-childhood
peer rejection and friendship: Linking early behavior to early-adolescent adjustment.
Child Development, 78, 1037-1051.
Prinstein, M. J., & Aikins, J. W. (2004). Cognitive moderators of the longitudinal association
INTERPERSONAL COPING RESPONSES 47

between peer rejection and adolescent depressive symptoms. Journal of Abnormal Child
Psychology, 32, 147-158.
Prinstein, M. J., & La Greca, A. M. (2004). Childhood peer rejection and aggression as
predictors of adolescent girls’ externalizing and health risk behaviors: A 6-year
longitudinal study. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72, 103-112.
Prinstein, M. J., Boergers, J., & Vernberg, E. M. (2001). Overt and relational aggression in
adolescents: Social-psychology adjustment of aggressors and victims. Journal of Clinical
Child Psychology, 30, 479-491.
Prinstein, M. J., Borelli, J. L., Cheah, C. S. L., & Simon, V. A. (2005). Adolescent girls’
interpersonal vulnerability to depressive symptoms: A longitudinal examination of
reassurance-seeking and peer relationships. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 114, 676-
688.
Reijntjes, A., Kamphuis, J. H., Prinzie, P., Boelen, P. A., Van der Schoot, M., & Telch, M. J.
(2011). Prospective linkages between peer victimization and externalizing problems in
children: A meta‐analysis. Aggressive behavior, 37(3), 215-222.
Reinherz, H. Z., Giaconia, R. M., Pakiz, B., Silverman, A. B., Frost, A. K., & Lefkowitz, E. S.
(1993). Psychosocial risks for major depression in late adolescence: A longitudinal
community study. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry,
32, 1155-1163.
Reis, H. T., & Patrick, B. C. (1996). Attachment and intimacy: Component processes. In E. T.
Higgins &A.W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social Psychology: Handbook of basic principles
(pp. 523–563). New York, NY: Guilford.
Rigby, K. (2000). Effects of peer victimization in schools and perceived social support on
INTERPERSONAL COPING RESPONSES 48

adolescent well-being. Journal of Adolescence, 23, 57-68. doi:10.1006/jado.1999.0289
Rose, A. (2002). Co-rumination in the friendships of girls and boys. Child Development, 73,
1830-1843.
Rose, A. J., Carlson, W., & Waller, E. M. (2007). Prospective associations of co-rumination with
friendship and emotional adjustment: considering the socioemotional trade-offs of co-
rumination. Developmental Psychology, 43, 1019-1031.
Rose, Schwartz-Mette, Glick, & Smith. (2014). An observational study of co-rumination in
adolescent friendships. Developmental Psychology, 50, 2199-2299.
Rothon, C., Head, J., Klineberg, E., & Stansfeld, S. (2011). Can social support protect bullied
adolescents from adverse outcomes? A prospective study on the effects of bullying on the
educational achievement and mental health of adolescents at secondary schools in East
London. Journal of Adolescence, 34, 579-588.
Rudolph, K. D. (2002). Gender differences in emotional responses to interpersonal stress during
adolescence. Journal of Adolescent Health, 30, 3–13.
Rudolph, K. D., & Clark, A. G. (2001). Conceptions of relationships in children with depressive
and aggressive symptoms: Social-cognitive distortion or reality? Journal of Abnormal
Child Psychology, 29, 41-56.
Rudolph, K. D., Dennig, M. D., & Weisz, J. R. (1995). Determinants and consequences of
children’s coping in the medical setting: Conceptualization, review, and critique.
Psychological Bulletin, 118, 328-357.
Rueger, S. Y. & Jenkins, L. N. (2014). Effects of peer victimization on psychological and
academic adjustment in early adolescence. School Psychology Quarterly, 29, 77-88.
doi: 10.1037/spq0000036
INTERPERSONAL COPING RESPONSES 49

Sawyer, M. G., Pfeiffer, S., & Spence, S. H. (2008). Life events, coping and depressive
symptoms among young adolescents: A one-year prospective study. Journal of Affective
Disorders, 117, 48-54.
Schwartz, D., Gorman, A. H., Dodge, K. A., Pettit, G. S., & Bates, J. E. (2008). Friendships with
peers who are low or high in aggression as moderators of the link between peer
victimization and declines in academic functioning. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology,
36, 719-730. doi:10.1007/s10802-007-9200-x.
Schwartz, D., Gorman, A. H., Duong, M. T., & Nakamoto, J. (2008). Peer relationships and
academic achievement as interacting predictors of depressive symptoms during middle
childhood. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 117, 289 -299.
Schwartz, D., Kelly, B. M., & Duong, M. T. (2013). Do academically-engaged adolescents
experience social sanctions from the peer group? Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42,
1319-1330. doi: 10.1007/s10964-012-9882-4
Segrin, C. (2001). Social skills and negative life events: Testing the deficit stress generation
hypothesis. Current Psychology, 20, 19-35.
Schafer, J. L. (1999). Multiple imputation: A primer. Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 8,
3-15.
Schafer, J. L., & Graham, J. W. (2002). Missing data: Our view of the state of the art.
Psychological Methods, 7, 147-177.
Schwartz-Mette, R. A., & Rose, A. J. (2012). Co-Rumination mediates contagion of internalizing
symptoms within youths’ friendships. Developmental Psychology, 48, 1355–1365.
Silk, J., Steinberg, L., & Morris, A. (2003). Adolescents' emotion regulation in daily life:
INTERPERSONAL COPING RESPONSES 50

Links to depressive symptoms and problem behavior. Child Development, 74, 1869-
1880.
Slavin-Williams, R.C. & Berndt, T.J. (1990). Friendship and peer relations. In Feldman, S.S. &
Elliott, G.R. (eds.), At the threshold: The developing adolescent. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, pp. 227-308.
Smith, R. L., & Rose, A. J. (2011). The “cost of caring” in youths’ friendships: Considering
associations among social perspective taking, co-rumination, and empathetic distress.
Developmental Psychology, 47, 1792–1803.
Spence, S.H., Sheffield, J., Donovan, C., 2002. Problem-solving orientation and attributional
style: moderators of the impact of negative life events on the development of depressive
symptoms in adolescence? Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 31, 219–229.
Spendelow, J. S., Simonds, L. M., & Avery, R. E. (2017). The relationship between co-
rumination and internalizing problems: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clinical
Psychology and Psychotherapy, 24, 512-527.
Starr, L. R., & Davila, J. (2008). Excessive reassurance seeking, depression, and interpersonal
rejection: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 117, 762-775.
Starr, L. R. (2015). When support seeking backfires: Co-rumination, excessive reassurance
seeking, and depressed mood in the daily lives of young adults. Journal of Social Clinical
Psychology, 34, 436-457.
Stone, L. B., Hankin, B. L., Gibb, B. E., & Abela, J. R. Z. (2011). Co-rumination predicts the
onset of depressive disorders during adolescence. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 120,
752–757.
INTERPERSONAL COPING RESPONSES 51

Storch E. A., Brassard M. R., & Masia-Warner C. L. (2003). The relationship of peer
victimization to social anxiety and loneliness in adolescence. Child Study Journal, 33, 1–18.
Sullivan, T. N., Farrell, A. D., & Kliewer, W. (2006). Peer victimization in early adolescence:
Association between physical and relational victimization and drug use, aggression, and
delinquent behaviors among urban middle school students. Development and
Psychopathology, 18, 119-137. doi: 10.10170S095457940606007X
Sweeting, H., Young, R., West, P., & Der, G. (2006). Peer victimization and depression in early-
mid adolescence: A longitudinal study. The British Journal of Educational Psychology,
76(3), 577-94.
Totura, C. M. W., Green, A. E., Karver, M. S., & Gesten, E. L. (2009) Multiple informants in the
assessment of psychological, behavioral, and academic correlates of bullying and
victimization in middle school. Journal of Adolescence, 32, 193-211.
Wang, J., Iannotti, R. J., & Luk, J. W. (2010). Peer victimization and academic adjustment
among early adolescents: Moderation by gender and mediation by perceived classmate
support. Journal of School Health, 81, 386-392.
Wang, M., & Eccles, J. S. (2013). School context, achievement motivation, and academic
engagement: A longitudinal study of school engagement using a multidimensional
perspective. Learning and Instruction, 28, 12-23.
Wang, W., Vaillancourt, T., Brittain, H. L., McDougall, P., Krygsman, A.Smith, D.,…, Hymel,
S. (2014). School climate, peer victimization, and academic achievement: Results from a
multi-informant study. School Psychology Quarterly, 29, 360-377.
Weinstock, L. M., & Whisman, M. A. (2007). Rumination and excessive reassurance-seeking in
INTERPERSONAL COPING RESPONSES 52

depression: A cognitive-interpersonal integration. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 30,
333-342.
Weisz, J. R., McCabe, M., & Dennig, M. D. (1994). Primary and secondary control among
children undergoing medical procedures: Adjustment as a function of coping style. Journal
of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62, 324-332.
Williams, K., & McGillicuddy-De Lisi, A. (1999). Coping strategies in adolescents. Journal of
Applied Developmental Psychology, 20, 537-549.
Woods, S., Done, J., & Kalsi, H. (2009). Peer victimisation and internalising difficulties: The
moderating role of friendship quality. Journal of Adolescence, 32, 293-308.
Wright, M., Banarjee, R., Hoek, W., Rieffe, C., & Novin, S. (2010). Depression and social
anxiety in children: Differential links with coping strategies. Journal of Abnormal Child
Psychology, 38, 405-419.
Xie, H., Li, Y., Boucher, S. M., Hutchins, B. C., & Cairns, B. D. (2006). What makes a girl (or a
boy) popular (or unpopular)? African American children's perceptions and developmental
differences. Developmental Psychology, 42, 599–612.

INTERPERSONAL COPING RESPONSES 53

TABLES
Table 1
Descriptive Statistics for All Study Variables
Gender
Full Sample
M (SD)
Boys
M (SD)
Girls
M (SD)
T1 Overt Victimization 0.00 (1.00) 0.13 (1.06)
*
-0.11 (0.92)
T1 Relational Victimization
0.00 (1.00) -0.04 (1.00) 0.02 (1.00)
T1 Disliking 0.00 (1.00) -0.00 (1.02) -0.00 (0.97)
T1 Unpopularity
0.00 (1.00) 0.11 (0.95)
*
-0.09 (1.02)
T1 Depressive Symptoms 0.40 (0.30) 0.32 (0.25)
***
0.46 (0.33)
T1 Co-rumination
2.67 (0.88) 2.44 (0.87)
***
2.86 (0.84)
T1 Excessive Reassurance-Seeking 0.09 (0.26) 0.08 (0.24) 0.11 (0.27)
T1 Problem-Solving
3.09 (1.14) 3.02 (1.19) 3.15 (1.10)
T1 Disciplinary Referrals
-0.78 (0.33) -0.76 (0.34) -0.80 (0.32)
T1 Number of Friends
6.82 (5.95) 6.09 (5.74)
*
7.43 (6.06)
T2 Overt Victimization 0.00 (1.00) 0.15 (1.04)
*
-0.12 (0.82)
T2 Relational Victimization
0.00 (1.00) 0.03 (1.02) -0.03 (0.96)
T2 Disliking 0.00 (1.00) -0.02 (-0.97) 0.01 (1.01)
T2 Unpopularity
0.00 (1.00) 0.01 (1.03) -0.01 (0.95)
T2 Depressive Symptoms 0.41 (0.30) 0.35 (0.24)
***
0.46 (0.33)
T2 Co-rumination
2.60 (0.83) 2.44 (0.84)
**
2.71 (0.80)
T2 Excessive Reassurance-Seeking 0.10 (0.30) 0.06 (0.21)
*
0.13 (0.35)
T2 Problem-Solving
2.87 (1.13) 2.67 (1.12)
*
3.02 (1.11)
T2 Disciplinary Referrals -0.81 (0.30) -0.78 (0.31) -0.83 (0.29)
T2 Number of Friends 3.76 (3.95) 3.29 (3.70)
*
4.15 (4.11)
Note. Gender comparisons were conducted with a series of independent samples t-tests.
*
p < .05,
**
p < .01,
***
p
<.001.

INTERPERSONAL COPING RESPONSES 54

Table 2
Bivariate Correlations for All Study Variables
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20.
1. T1 Overt Vic ----- 0.58
***
0.27
***
0.45
***
0.02 0.11 0.22
**
0.06 -0.04 0.08 0.41
***
0.45
***
0.29
***
0.22
**
0.22
*
-0.08 0.08 -0.09 0.05 -0.02
2. T1 Rel Vic 0.55
***
----- 0.53
***
0.34
***
0.06 0.14 0.09 0.07 0.15
*
0.09 0.31
***
0.57
***
0.39
***
0.13 0.14 -0.10 0.03 -0.06 0.09 -0.10
3. T1 Dislike 0.26
***
0.60
***
----- 0.02 0.12 0.11 0.13 -0.04 0.38
***
0.10 0.11 0.38
***
0.48
***
-0.10 -0.08 -0.12 -0.03 -0.21
*
0.25
**
-0.02
4. T1 Unpop 0.25
***
0.10 -0.14
*
----- 0.09 -0.15
*
0.03 -0.11 -0.15
*
-0.42
***
0.23
**
0.16 -0.07 0.65
***
0.14 -0.11 -0.01 -0.08 -0.16
*
-0.21
**
5. T1 CDI 0.14
*
0.15
*
0.08 0.09 ----- 0.05 0.22
**
0.00 0.20
**
-0.07 0.09 0.15 0.06 0.18 0.63
***
-0.04 0.26
**
-0.15 -0.00 -0.14
6. T1 CRQ -0.01 -0.01 -0.03 -0.09 0.05 ----- 0.15 0.68
***
0.05 0.24
***
0.01 0.07 0.10 -0.21
*
0.14 0.47
***
0.19
*
0.30
**
0.04 0.07
7. T1 ERS 0.24
***
0.15
*
0.09 0.08 0.41
***
-0.01 ----- 0.21
**
0.01 0.01 -0.12 -0.01 0.03 0.04 0.27
**
0.17 0.34
***
0.22
*
0.04 0.11
8. T1 PSQ -0.00 0.08 0.05 -0.15
*
-0.20
**
0.50
***
-0.10 ----- -0.09 0.21
**
-0.12 -0.08 -0.04 -0.18 0.01 0.37
***
0.13 0.47
***
-0.09 0.14
9. T1 Disc 0.11 0.14
*
0.25
***
-0.14
*
0.16
*
0.01 0.16
*
-0.03 ----- 0.01 -0.08 0.13 0.37
***
-0.20
*
-0.02 -0.01 0.02 -0.25
**
0.47
***
-0.15
10. T1 Friend -0.06 0.15
*
0.08 -0.27
***
-0.04 0.18
**
0.01 0.14
*
-0.14
*
----- -0.04 0.12 0.12 -0.45
***
0.08 0.13 0.07 0.09 0.03 0.48
***
11. T2 Overt Vic 0.40
***
0.29
***
0.04 0.25
**
0.04 0.02 -0.09 -0.04 -0.06 -0.01 ----- 0.51
***
0.24
**
0.27
**
0.18
*
-0.14 -0.05 -0.14 -0.04 -0.08
12. T2 Rel Vic 0.28
***
0.59
***
0.48
***
-0.03 0.04 0.03 0.01 0.13 0.08 0.13 0.46
***
----- 0.51
***
0.12 0.23
**
-0.12 0.05 -0.21
*
0.08 -0.01
13. T2 Dislike 0.16
*
0.61
***
0.64
***
-0.14 0.00 0.03 -0.01 0.12 0.14 0.12 0.15 0.66
***
----- -0.18
*
0.09 -0.22
*
0.04 -0.30
***
0.27
**
-0.08
14. T2 Unpop 0.16 -0.16
*
-0.32
***
0.63
***
0.04 -0.03 0.02 -0.15 -0.10 -0.39
***
0.24
**
-0.12 -0.35
***
----- 0.21
*
-0.19
*
-0.01 -0.08 -0.25
**
-0.39
***
15. T2 CDI 0.08 0.12 0.06 0.06 0.74
***
-0.11 0.54
***
-0.19
*
0.10 -0.16
*
-0.01 0.05 0.07 -0.01 ----- 0.02 0.32
***
-0.16 -0.28 0.00
16. T2 CRQ 0.15 0.04 -0.10 -0.03 0.16
*
0.63
***
0.10 0.44
***
0.15 0.13 0.16
*
0.07 0.02 -0.09 0.14 ----- 0.10 0.59
***
0.19
*
0.26
**
17. T2 ERS 0.02 0.09 0.07 0.04 0.18
*
0.02 0.41
***
-0.00 0.14 0.03 0.04 0.15 0.10 0.01 0.47
***
0.21
**
----- 0.02 0.16 0.10
18. T2 PSQ 0.02 -0.01 -0.09 -0.10 -0.05 0.40
***
-0.09 0.56
***
0.06 0.11 0.06 0.11 0.09 -0.16
*
0.01 0.56
***
0.08 ----- -0.05 0.22
*
19. T2 Disc 0.00 0.13 0.23
**
-0.22
**
0.19
*
0.08 0.10 -0.07 0.37
***
-0.05 -0.04 0.10 0.22
**
-0.21
**
0.18
*
0.02 0.08 -0.05 ----- -0.01
20. T2 Friend -0.15
*
0.03 -0.00 -0.15
*
-0.22
**
0.13 -0.13 0.22
**
-0.17
**
0.50
***
-0.02 0.10 0.05 -0.22
**
-0.22
**
0.12 -0.06 0.17
*
-
0.26
***
-----
Note. Boys above the diagonal. Girls below the diagonal.
*
p < .05,
**
p < .01,
***
p <.001.
INTERPERSONAL COPING RESPONSES 55

Table 3
Cross-Sectional Regression Analyses Predicting Depressive Symptoms with Co-rumination and Gender as Moderators
Overt Victimization Relational Victimization Unpopularity Disliking
β sr
2
β sr
2
β sr
2
β sr
2

Step 1
Social Stressor 0.09 0.00 0.11
*
0.01 0.09 0.00 0.09 0.01
Co-rum 0.04 0.01 0.04 0.01 0.06

0.01 0.04

0.01
Gender 0.24
***
0.05 0.23
***
0.05 0.23
***
0.05 0.23
***
0.05
Step 2
Social Stressor -0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.06 0.00 0.08 0.01
Co-rumination 0.05 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.06 0.01 0.03 0.01
Gender 0.23
***
0.05 0.22
***
0.05 0.23
***
0.05 0.23
***
0.05
Social Stressor X Co-rumination -0.10 0.01 -0.09 0.00 -0.06 0.00 0.02 0.00
Social Stressor X Gender 0.15
*
0.01 0.14 0.01 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00
Co-rumination X Gender -0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00
Step 3
Social Stressor 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.06 0.00 0.08 0.01
Co-rumination 0.04 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.06 0.01 0.03 0.01
Gender 0.24
***
0.05 0.22 0.05 0.23
***
0.05 0.23
***
0.05
Social Stressor X Co-rumination 0.05 0.01 -0.05 0.00 -0.06 0.00 -0.00 0.00
Social Stressor X Gender 0.14
*
0.01 0.13 0.01 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00
Co-rumination X Gender -0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00
Social Stressor X Co-rumination X
Gender
-0.10
*
0.02 -0.05 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00
Full Model R
2
=0.08 F =5.72
***
R
2
=0.07 F =4.72
***
R
2
=0.05 F =3.90
***
R
2
=0.05 F =3.69
***

Note. sr
2
= squared semi-partial correlation. Gender was coded as 0 = male and 1 = female.
*
p < .05,
**
p < .01,
***
p<.001.

INTERPERSONAL COPING RESPONSES 56

Figure 1
Regression of Depressive Symptoms on Overt Victimization at Fixed Levels of Co-rumination in Girls

INTERPERSONAL COPING RESPONSES 57

Table 4
Cross-sectional Regression Analyses Predicting Depressive Symptoms with Excessive Reassurance-seeking and Gender as Moderators
Overt Victimization Relational Victimization Unpopularity Disliking
β sr
2
β sr
2
β sr
2
β sr
2

Step 1
Social Stressor 0.01 0.00 0.07 0.01 0.07 0.00 0.05 0.01
ERS 0.33
***
0.12 0.32
***
0.11 0.33
***
0.12 0.33
***
0.12
Gender 0.21
***
0.04 0.21
***
0.05 0.22
***
0.05 0.21
***
0.05
Step 2
Social Stressor -0.04 0.00 0.03 0.01 0.06 0.00 0.07 0.01
ERS 0.15 0.12 0.17
*
0.11 0.18 0.12 0.19
*
0.12
Gender 0.22
***
0.04 0.21
***
0.05 0.22
***
0.05 0.21
***
0.05
Social Stressor X ERS 0.06 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.00 -0.03 0.00
Social Stressor X Gender 0.07

0.00 0.05 0.00 -0.00 0.00 -0.02 0.00
ERS X Gender 0.19
*
0.02 0.18
*
0.01 0.19
*
0.01 0.19
*
0.01
Step 3
Social Stressor -0.04 0.00 0.03 0.01 0.06 0.00 0.06 0.01
ERS 0.16 0.12 0.16
*
0.11 0.19
*
0.12 0.15 0.12
Gender 0.22
***
0.04 0.22
***
0.05 0.22
***
0.05 0.22
***
0.05
Social Stressor X ERS 0.05 0.00 0.08 0.00 -0.03 0.00 0.05 0.00
Social Stressor X Gender 0.07 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00
ERS X Gender 0.18 0.02 0.21
*
0.01 0.18
*
0.01 0.23
**
0.01
Social Stressor X ERS X Gender 0.01 0.00 -0.07 0.00 0.04 0.00 -0.12
*
0.01
Full Model R
2
=0.17 F =11.79
***
R
2
=0.17 F =12.09
***
R
2
=0.17 F =11.75
***
R
2
=0.05 F =3.69
***

Note. sr
2
= squared semi-partial correlation. Gender was coded as 0 = male and 1 = female.
*
p < .05,
**
p < .01,
***
p<.001.

INTERPERSONAL COPING RESPONSES 58

Figure 2
Regression of Depressive Symptoms on Disliking at Fixed Levels of Excessive Reassurance-Seeking in Girls

INTERPERSONAL COPING RESPONSES 59

Table 5
Cross-sectional Regression Analyses Predicting Depressive Symptoms with Problem-solving and Gender as Moderators
Overt Victimization Relational Victimization Unpopularity Disliking
β sr
2
β sr
2
β sr
2
β sr
2

Step 1
Social Stressor 0.10 0.00 0.12 0.01 0.07 0.00 0.09 0.01
Problem-solving -0.12
*
0.01 -0.13
*
0.01 -0.11
*
0.01 -0.12
*
0.01
Gender 0.27
***
0.07 0.25
***
0.07 0.26
***
0.06 0.25
***
0.06
Step 2
Social Stressor 0.01 0.00 0.04 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.08 0.01
Problem-solving 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 -0.00 0.01
Gender 0.26
***
0.07 0.25
***
0.06 0.26
***
0.06 0.25
***
0.06
Social Stressor X Problem-solving -0.05 0.00 -0.06 0.00 -0.05 0.00 0.04 0.00
Social Stressor X Gender -0.17
*
0.01 -0.17
*
0.01 -0.16
*
0.01 -0.16
*
0.01
Problem-solving X Gender 0.12 0.01 0.11 0.01 -0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00
Step 3
Social Stressor 0.12 0.00 0.04 0.01 0.07 0.00 0.08 0.01
Problem-solving -0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
Gender 0.26
***
0.07 0.25
***
0.06 0.25
***
0.06 0.24
***
0.06
Social Stressor X Problem-solving 0.03 0.00 -0.08 0.00 0.01 0.00 -0.01 0.00
Social Stressor X Gender -0.16
*
0.01 -0.17
*
0.01 -0.16
*
0.01 -0.16
*
0.01
Problem-solving X Gender 0.11 0.01 0.11 0.01 -0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00
Social Stressor X Prob-solving X Gender -0.11 0.01 0.02 0.00 -0.09 0.00 0.08 0.00
Full Model R
2
=0.09 F =6.43
***
R
2
=0.09 F =6.36
***
R
2
=0.08 F =5.48
***
R
2
=0.08 F =5.64
***

Note. sr
2
= squared semi-partial correlation. Gender was coded as 0 = male and 1 = female.
*
p < .05,
**
p < .01,
***
p<.001.

INTERPERSONAL COPING RESPONSES 60

Table 6

Cross-sectional Regression Analyses Predicting Depressive Symptoms with Friendedness and Gender as Moderators

Overt Victimization Relational Victimization Unpopularity Disliking
β sr
2
β sr
2
β sr
2
β sr
2

Step 1
Social Stressor 0.10 0.00 0.13
*
0.01 0.08 0.00 0.10
*
0.01
Friends -0.05 0.00 -0.07 0.00 -0.01 0.00 -0.06 0.00
Gender 0.26
***
0.06 0.24
***
0.06 0.24
***
0.06 0.24
***
0.06
Step 2
Social Stressor -0.00 0.00 0.04 0.01 0.16 0.00 0.04 0.01
Friends -0.07 0.00 -0.07 0.00 -0.11 0.00 -0.09 0.00
Gender 0.24
**
0.06 0.26
**
0.06 0.23
**
0.06 0.23
**
0.06
Social Stressor X Friends 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.00 -0.18
*
0.01 0.09 0.00
Social Stressor X Gender 0.11 0.01 0.09 0.00 0.05 0.00 -0.02 0.00
Friends X Gender 0.03 0.00 -0.02 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.00
Step 3
Social Stressor -0.05 0.00 0.05 0.01 0.13 0.00 0.11 0.01
Friends -0.09 0.00 -0.06 0.00 -0.08 0.00 -0.07 0.00
Gender 0.23 0.06 0.26
**
0.06 0.25
**
0.06 0.25
**
0.06
Social Stressor X Friends 0.10 0.00 0.01 0.00 -0.13 0.01 -0.01 0.00
Social Stressor X Gender 0.18 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.10 0.00 -0.11 0.00
Friends X Gender 0.05 0.00 -0.03 0.00 -0.00 0.00 -0.02 0.00
Social Stressor X Friends X Gender -0.10 0.00 0.03 0.00 -0.08 0.00 014 0.00
Full Model R
2
=0.06 F =4.20
***
R
2
=0.06 F =4.31
***
R
2
=0.06 F =4.13
***
R
2
=0.05 F =4.07
***
Note. sr
2
= squared semi-partial correlation. Gender was coded as 0 = male and 1 = female.
*
p < .05,
**
p < .01,
***
p<.001.

INTERPERSONAL COPING RESPONSES 61

Figure 3
Regression of Depressive Symptoms on Unpopularity at Fixed Levels of Numbers of Friends

INTERPERSONAL COPING RESPONSES 62

Table 7
Longitudinal Regression Analyses Predicting T2 Depressive Symptoms with Co-rumination and Gender as Moderators
Overt Victimization Relational Victimization Unpopularity Disliking
β sr
2
β sr
2
β sr
2
β sr
2

Step 1
T1 Depressive Symptoms 0.71
***
0.52 0.71
***
0.52 0.71
***
0.52 0.71
***
0.52
T1 Social Stressor 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.03 0.00 -0.01 0.00
T2 Social Stressor 0.02 0.00 0.07 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00
Co-rumination -0.06 0.00 -0.06 0.00 -0.05 0.00 -0.06 0.00
Gender 0.08 0.01 0.06 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.06 0.00
Step 2
T1 Depressive Symptoms 0.71
***
0.52 0.71
***
0.52 0.71
***
0.52 0.71
***
0.52
T1 Social Stressor 0.08 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.03 0.00
T2 Social Stressor 0.02 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.07 0.00
Co-rumination 0.06 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.06 0.00
Gender 0.07 0.01 0.06 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.00
T1 Social Stressor X Gender -0.04 0.00 -0.06 0.00 -0.03 0.00 -0.07 0.00
T1 Social Stressor X Co-rumination -0.02 0.00 0.01 0.00 -0.02 0.00 0.06 0.00
Co-rumination X Gender -0.15
*
0.01 -0.14
*
0.01 -0.16
*
0.01 -0.14
*
0.01
Step 3
T1 Depressive Symptoms 0.71
***
0.52 0.71
***
0.52 0.71
***
0.52 0.71
***
0.52
T1 Social Stressor 0.08 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.00
T2 Social Stressor 0.03 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.07 0.00
Co-rumination 0.06 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.06 0.00
Gender 0.07 0.01 0.06 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.05 0.00
T1 Social Stressor X Gender -0.04 0.00 -0.07 0.00 -0.02 0.00 -0.07 0.00
T1 Social Stressor X Co-rumination -0.01 0.00 0.09 0.00 -0.08 0.00 0.06 0.00
Co-rumination X Gender -0.15
*
0.01 -0.15
*
0.01 -0.16
*
0.01 -0.14
*
0.01
T1 Soc Stress X Co-rumination X
Gender
-0.02 0.00 -0.11 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.01 0.00
Full Model R
2
=
0.52
F =
33.02
***
R
2
= 0.53 F =
33.58
***
R
2
= 0.52 F =
32.74
***
R
2
= 0.52 F =
33.39
***
Note. sr
2
= squared semi-partial correlation. Gender was coded as 0 = male and 1 = female.
*
p < .05,
**
p < .01,
***
p<.001.
INTERPERSONAL COPING RESPONSES 63

Table 8
Longitudinal Regression Analyses Predicting T2 Depressive Symptoms from T1 Social Difficulties with Excessive Reassurance-seeking and Gender as
Moderators
Overt Victimization Relational Victimization Unpopularity Disliking
β sr
2
β sr
2
β sr
2
β sr
2

Step 1
T1 Depressive Symptoms 0.63
***
0.52 0.63
***
0.52 0.64
***
0.52 0.64
***
0.52
T1 Social Stressor 0.01 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 -0.02 0.00
T2 Social Stressor 0.07 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.07 0.00
ERS 0.19
***
0.03 0.19
***
0.03 0.18 0.03 0.19
***
0.03
Gender 0.07 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.07 0.00
Step 2
T1 Depressive Symptoms 0.62
***
0.52 0.62
***
0.52 0.62
***
0.52 0.62
***
0.52
T1 Social Stressor 0.08 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.03 0.00
T2 Social Stressor 0.05 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.07 0.00
ERS 0.09 0.03 0.06 0.03 0.07 0.04 0.06 0.03
Gender 0.07 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.06 0.00
T1 Social Stressor X Gender -0.07 0.00 -0.06 0.00 -0.05 0.00 -0.05 0.00
T1 Social Stressor X ERS -0.06 0.01 -0.02 0.00 -0.02 0.00 -0.01 0.00
ERS X Gender 0.18
**
0.01 0.19
**
0.02 0.19
**
0.02 0.19
**
0.02
Step 3
T1 Depressive Symptoms 0.62
***
0.52 0.62
***
0.52 0.62
***
0.52 0.62
***
0.52
T1 Social Stressor 0.08 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.03 0.00
T2 Social Stressor 0.05 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.07 0.00
ERS 0.10 0.03 0.05 0.03 0.08 0.03 0.06 0.03
Gender 0.07 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.06 0.00
T1 Social Stressor X Gender -0.07 0.00 -0.06 0.00 -0.04 0.00 -0.05 0.00
T1 Social Stressor X ERS -0.08 0.01 0.03 0.00 -0.08 0.00 -0.00 0.00
ERS X Gender 0.17
*
0.01 0.21
***
0.02 0.17
**
0.02 0.19
**
0.02
T1 Soc Stress X ERS X Gender 0.03 0.00 -0.08 0.00 0.07 0.00 -0.01 0.00
Full Model R
2
= 0.56 F = 38.50
***
R
2
= 0.56 F = 38.67
***
R
2
= 0.56 F = 37.50
***
R
2
= 0.56 F = 37.62
***

Note. sr
2
= squared semi-partial correlation. Gender was coded as 0 = male and 1 = female.
*
p < .05,
**
p < .01,
***
p<.001.
INTERPERSONAL COPING RESPONSES 64

Table 9
Longitudinal Regression Analyses Predicting T2 Depressive Symptoms from T1 Social Difficulties with Problem-solving and Gender as Moderators
Overt Victimization Relational Victimization Unpopularity Disliking
β sr
2
β sr
2
β sr
2
β sr
2

Step 1
T1 Depressive Symptoms 0.70
***
0.52 0.70
***
0.52 0.70
***
0.52 0.71
***
0.52
T1 Social Stressor 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.03 0.00 -0.01 0.00
T2 Social Stressor 0.02 0.00 0.07 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00
Problem-solving -0.07 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.00
Gender 0.07 0.00 0.06 0.00 -0.05 0.00 -0.06 0.00
Step 2
T1 Depressive Symptoms 0.70
***
0.52 0.70
***
0.52 0.70
***
0.52 0.69
***
0.52
T1 Social Stressor 0.10 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.03 0.00
T2 Social Stressor 0.02 0.00 0.07 0.00 -0.01 0.00 0.07 0.00
Problem-solving -0.04 0.00 -0.03 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.04 0.00
Gender 0.07 0.00 0.06 0.00 -0.03 0.00 -0.03 0.00
T1 Social Stressor X Gender -0.05 0.00 -0.07 0.00 -0.03 0.00 -0.07 0.00
T1 Social Stressor X Prob-solving 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.07 0.00
Prob-solving X Gender -0.03 0.00 -0.04 0.00 -0.04 0.00 -0.03 0.00
Step 3
T1 Depressive Symptoms 0.70
***
0.52 0.70
***
0.52 0.70
***
0.52 0.69
***
0.52
T1 Social Stressor 0.10 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.03 0.00
T2 Social Stressor 0.02 0.00 0.08 0.00 -0.01 0.00 0.07 0.00
Problem-Solving -0.04 0.00 -0.02 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.05 0.00
Gender 0.07 0.00 0.06 0.00 -0.03 0.00 -0.03 0.00
T1 Social Stressor X Gender -0.05 0.00 -0.05 0.00 -0.03 0.00 -0.07 0.00
T1 Social Stressor X Prob-solving 0.03 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.06 0.00
Prob-solving X Gender -0.03 0.00 -0.05 0.00 -0.04 0.00 -0.03 0.00
T1 Soc Stress X Prob-solving X
Gender
-0.02 0.00 -0.13 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00
Full Model R
2
= 0.51 F = 31.93
***

R
2
= 0.52 F = 32.90
***

R
2
= 0.51 F = 31.32
***
R
2
= 0.52 F = 32.29
***

Note. sr
2
= squared semi-partial correlation. Gender was coded as 0 = male and 1 = female.
*
p < .05,
**
p < .01,
***
p<.001.

INTERPERSONAL COPING RESPONSES 65

Table 10

Longitudinal Analyses Predicting Depressive Symptoms with Friendedness and Gender as Moderators

Overt Victimization Relational Victimization Unpopularity Disliking
β sr
2
β sr
2
β sr
2
β sr
2

Step 1
T1 Depressive Symptoms 0.70
***
0.52 0.70
***
0.52 0.70
***
0.52 0.70
***
0.52
T1 Social Stressor 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.00 -0.01 0.00
T2 Social Stressor 0.02 0.00 0.08 0.00 -0.02 0.00 0.07 0.00
Friends -0.05 0.00 -0.06 0.00 -0.05 0.00 -0.06 0.00
Gender 0.07 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.06 0.00
Step 2
T1 Depressive Symptoms 0.70
***
0.52 0.69
***
0.52 0.71
***
0.52 0.70
***
0.52
T1 Social Stressor 0.01 0.00 -0.06 0.00 0.11 0.00 -0.05 0.00
T2 Social Stressor 0.03 0.00 0.09 0.00 -0.02 0.00 0.08 0.00
Friends 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.02 0.00
Gender 0.17
*
0.00 0.20
**
0.00 0.25
**
0.00 0.19 0.00
T1 Social Stressor X Gender -0.06 0.00 -0.08 0.00 -0.12 0.00 -0.05 0.00
T1 Social Stressor X Friends 0.10 0.01 0.15
*
0.01 0.03 0.00 0.09 0.00
Friends X Gender -0.15 0.00 -0.21
*
0.00 -0.29
**
0.01 -0.19
*
0.01
Step 3
T1 Depressive Symptoms 0.69
***
0.52 0.69
***
0.52 0.70
***
0.52 0.70
***
0.52
T1 Social Stressor -0.05 0.00 -0.05 0.00 0.10 0.00 -0.09 0.00
T2 Social Stressor 0.03 0.00 0.09 0.00 -0.02 0.00 0.09 0.00
Friends -0.03 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.01 0.00
Gender 0.17
*
0.00 0.20
**
0.00 0.25
**
0.00 0.18 0.00
T1 Social Stressor X Gender 0.04 0.00 -0.09 0.00 -0.10 0.00 0.01 0.00
T1 Social Stressor X Friends 0.18 0.01 0.14 0.01 0.05 0.00 0.15 0.00
Friends X Gender -0.13 0.00 -0.21
*
0.01 -0.30
*
0.02 -0.18 0.01
T1 Soc Stress X Friends X Gender -0.13 0.00 0.02 0.00 -0.03 0.00 -0.08 0.00
Full Model R
2
= 0.53 F = 33.70
***
R
2
= 0.53 F = 34.23
***
R
2
= 0.52 F = 32.94
***
R
2
= 0.52 F = 33.36
***
Note. sr
2
= squared semi-partial correlation. Gender was coded as 0 = male and 1 = female.
*
p < .05,
**
p < .01,
***
p<.001.

INTERPERSONAL COPING RESPONSES 66

Table 11
Longitudinal Regression Analyses Predicting T2 Disciplinary Incidents from T1 Social Difficulties with Co-rumination and Gender as Moderators
Overt Victimization Relational Victimization Unpopularity Disliking
β sr
2
β sr
2
β sr
2
Β sr
2

Step 1
T1 Disciplinary Incidents 0.40
***
0.17 0.40
***
0.17 0.38
***
0.17 0.35
***
0.17
T1 Social Stressor 0.07 0.01 0.07 0.01 -0.04 0.02 0.11 0.03
T2 Social Stressor -0.03 0.00 0.03 0.00 -0.16
*
0.02 0.11 0.01
Co-rumination 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.03 0.00
Gender 0.09 0.01 -0.10 0.01 -0.11 0.01 -0.10 0.01
Step 2
T1 Disciplinary Incidents 0.40
***
0.17 0.39
***
0.17 0.38
***
0.17 0.36 0.17
T1 Social Stressor 0.07 0.01 -0.03 0.01 -0.01 0.02 0.09 0.03
T2 Social Stressor -0.03 0.00 0.03 0.00 -0.16
*
0.02 0.11 0.01
Co-rumination 0.04 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.03 0.00
Gender -0.09 0.01 -0.10 0.01 -0.11 0.01 -0.10 0.01
T1 Social Stressor X Gender -0.01 0.00 0.14 0.01 -0.03 0.00 0.04 0.00
T1 Social Stressor X Co-rumination 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 -0.04 0.00
Co-rumination X Gender -0.01 0.00 -0.03 0.00 0.01 0.00 -0.01 0.00
Step 3
T1 Disciplinary Incidents 0.40
***
0.17 0.39
***
0.17 0.38
***
0.17 0.35
***
0.17
T1 Social Stressor 0.07 0.01 -0.04 0.01 -0.01 0.02 0.09 0.03
T2 Social Stressor -0.02 0.00 0.03 0.00 -0.16
*
0.02 0.11 0.01
Co-rumination 0.03 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.03 0.00
Gender -0.09 0.01 -0.10 0.01 -0.11 0.01 -0.10 0.01
T1 Social Stressor X Gender -0.01 0.00 0.14 0.01 -0.03 0.00 0.04 0.00
T1 Social Stressor X Co-rumination 0.04 0.00 -0.02 0.00 0.02 0.00 -0.01 0.00
Co-rumination X Gender -0.01 0.00 -0.03 0.00 0.01 0.00 -0.01 0.00
T1 Soc Stress X Co-rumination X
Gender
-0.02 0.00 0.02 0.00 -0.01 0.00 -0.04 0.00
Full Model R
2
= 0.16 F = 6.37
***

R
2
= 0.17 F = 6.91
***
R
2
= 0.21 F = 7.67
***

R
2
= 0.19 F = 7.96
***

Note. sr
2
= squared semi-partial correlation. Gender was coded as 0 = male and 1 = female.
*
p < .05,
**
p < .01,
***
p<.001.

INTERPERSONAL COPING RESPONSES 67

Table 12
Longitudinal Regression Analyses Predicting T2 Disciplinary Incidents with Excessive Reassurance-seeking and Gender as Moderators
Overt Victimization Relational Victimization Unpopularity Disliking
β sr
2
β sr
2
β sr
2
β sr
2

Step 1
T1 Disciplinary Incidents 0.39
***
0.17 0.39
***
0.17 0.37
***
0.17 0.34
***
0.17
T1 Social Stressor 0.05 0.01 0.07 0.01 -0.05 0.02 0.11 0.03
T2 Social Stressor -0.02 0.00 0.03 0.00 -0.16
*
0.02 0.12 0.01
ERS 0.05 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.06 0.00
Gender -0.08 0.01 -0.09 0.01 -0.11 0.01 -0.09 0.01
Step 2
T1 Disciplinary Incidents 0.40
***
0.17 0.38
***
0.17 0.37
***
0.17 0.35
***
0.17
T1 Social Stressor 0.06 0.01 -0.04 0.01 -0.02 0.02 0.07 0.03
T2 Social Stressor -0.02 0.00 0.03 0.00 -0.16
*
0.02 0.11 0.01
ERS 0.09 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.05 0.00
Gender -0.09 0.01 -0.09 0.01 -0.11 0.01 -0.09 0.01
T1 Social Stressor X Gender -0.00 0.00 0.14 0.01 -0.03 0.00 0.05 0.00
T1 Social Stressor X ERS -0.04 0.00 0.02 0.00 -0.05 0.00 0.05 0.00
ERS X Gender -0.03 0.00 -0.02 0.00 -0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00
Step 3
T1 Disciplinary Incidents 0.40
***
0.17 0.40
***
0.17 0.37
***
0.17 0.35
***
0.17
T1 Social Stressor 0.04 0.01 -0.05 0.01 -0.02 0.02 0.07 0.03
T2 Social Stressor -0.02 0.00 0.02 0.00 -0.16
*
0.02 0.11 0.01
ERS 0.01 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.04 0.00
Gender -0.07 0.01 -0.09 0.01 -0.10 0.01 -0.10 0.01
T1 Social Stressor X Gender 0.01 0.00 0.15 0.01 -0.04 0.00 0.05 0.00
T1 Social Stressor X ERS 0.08 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.05 0.00
ERS X Gender 0.07 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00
T1 Soc Stress X ERS X Gender -0.17
*
0.02 -0.17
*
0.02 -0.08 0.00 -0.01 0.00
Full Model R
2
= 0.17 F = 6.93
***

R
2
= 0.18 F = 7.52
***

R
2
= 0.19 F = 7.83
***
R
2
= 0.19 F = 7.86
***
Note. sr
2
= squared semi-partial correlation. Gender was coded as 0 = male and 1 = female.
*
p < .05,
**
p < .01,
***
p<.001.

INTERPERSONAL COPING RESPONSES 68

Figure 4
Regression of T2 Disciplinary Incidents on T1 Overt Victimization at Fixed Levels of Excessive Reassurance-Seeking in Girls

INTERPERSONAL COPING RESPONSES 69

Figure 5
Regression of T2 Disciplinary Incidents on T1 Relational Victimization at Fixed Levels of Excessive Reassurance-seeking in Girls

INTERPERSONAL COPING RESPONSES 70

Table 13
Longitudinal Regression Analyses Predicting T2 Disciplinary Incidents with Problem-Solving and Gender as Moderators
Overt Victimization Relational
Victimization
Unpopularity Disliking
β sr
2
β sr
2
β sr
2
β sr
2

Step 1
T1 Disciplinary Incidents 0.39
***
0.16 0.39
***
0.16 0.36
***
0.16 0.34
***
0.16
T1 Social Stressor 0.08 0.01 0.08 0.01 -0.04 0.02 0.11 0.03
T2 Social Stressor -0.04 0.00 0.03 0.00 -0.17
*
0.02 0.12 0.01
Problem-solving -0.06 0.00 -0.06 0.00 -0.09 0.01 -0.06 0.00
Gender -0.08 0.01 -0.09 0.01 -0.10 0.01 -0.10 0.01
Step 2
T1 Disciplinary Incidents 0.38
***
0.16 0.38
***
0.16 0.36
***
0.16 0.34 0.16
T1 Social Stressor 0.08 0.01 -0.02 0.01 -0.02 0.02 0.09 0.03
T2 Social Stressor -0.04 0.00 0.03 0.00 -0.17
*
0.02 0.12 0.01
Problem-solving -0.04 0.00 -0.04 0.00 -0.08 0.01 -0.04 0.00
Gender -0.08 0.01 -0.09 0.01 -0.10 0.01 -0.09 0.01
T1 Social Stressor X Gender 0.01 0.00 0.14 0.01 -0.03 0.00 0.03 0.00
T1 Social Stressor X Prob-solving -0.07 0.00 -0.01 0.00 -0.03 0.00 -0.04 0.00
Prob-solving X Gender -0.02 0.00 -0.04 0.00 -0.01 0.00 -0.04 0.00
Step 3
T1 Disciplinary Incidents 0.38
***
0.16 0.38
***
0.16 0.36
***
0.16 0.34
***
0.16
T1 Social Stressor 0.07 0.01 -0.02 0.01 -0.01 0.02 0.09 0.03
T2 Social Stressor -0.05 0.00 0.03 0.00 -0.17
*
0.02 0.12 0.01
Problem-solving -0.04 0.00 -0.04 0.00 -0.07 0.01 -0.04 0.00
Gender -0.08 0.01 -0.09 0.01 -0.09 0.01 -0.09 0.01
T1 Social Stressor X Gender 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.01 -0.04 0.00 0.03 0.00
T1 Social Stressor X Prob-solving -0.14 0.00 -0.05 0.00 -0.08 0.00 -0.04 0.00
Prob-solving X Gender -0.02 0.00 -0.03 0.00 -0.02 0.00 -0.04 0.00
T1 Soc Stress X Prob-solving X Gender 0.11 0.01 0.05 0.00 0.07 0.00 -0.00 0.00
Full Model R
2
= 0.16 F = 6.42
***

R
2
= 0.16 F = 6.65
***
R
2
= 0.19 F = 7.64
***

R
2
= 0.19 F = 7.65
***
Note. sr
2
= squared semi-partial correlation. Gender was coded as 0 = male and 1 = female.
*
p < .05,
**
p < .01,
***
p<.001.

INTERPERSONAL COPING RESPONSES 71

Table 14

Longitudinal Analyses Predicting Disciplinary Incidents with Friendedness and Gender as Moderators

Overt Victimization Relational Victimization Unpopularity Disliking
β sr
2
β sr
2
β sr
2
β sr
2

Step 1
T1 Disciplinary Incidents 0.41
***
0.17 0.40
***
0.17 0.38
***
0.17 0.36
***
0.17
T1 Social Stressor 0.04 0.00 0.06 0.00 -0.07 0.02 0.08 0.02
T2 Social Stressor -0.02 0.00 0.02 0.00 -0.15
***
0.01 0.11 0.01
Friends 0.05 0.00 0.04 0.00 -0.04 0.00 0.03 0.00
Gender -0.09 0.00 -0.09 0.01 -0.10 0.01 -0.10 0.01
Step 2
T1 Disciplinary Incidents 0.41
***
0.17 0.40
***
0.17 0.38
***
0.17 0.37
***
0.17
T1 Social Stressor 0.02 0.00 -0.20 0.00 -0.07 0.02 0.03 0.02
T2 Social Stressor -0.02 0.00 0.04 0.00 -0.15
***
0.01 0.11 0.01
Friends 0.05 0.00 0.02 0.00 -0.03 0.00 0.04 0.00
Gender -0.09 0.01 -0.06 0.01 -0.10 0.01 -0.08 0.01
T1 Social Stressor X Gender 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 -0.03 0.00 0.03 0.00
T1 Social Stressor X Friends 0.02 0.00 0.24
*
0.02 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.00
Friends X Gender 0.00 0.00 -0.04 0.00 -0.00 0.00 -0.03 0.00
Step 3
T1 Disciplinary Incidents 0.41
***
0.17 0.40
***
0.17 0.38
***
0.17 0.37
***
0.17
T1 Social Stressor 0.02 0.00 -0.14 0.00 -0.05 0.02 0.08 0.02
T2 Social Stressor -0.02 0.00 0.04 0.00 -0.14 0.01 0.10 0.01
Friends 0.05 0.00 0.03 0.00 -0.04 0.00 0.05 0.00
Gender -0.09 0.01 -0.06 0.01 -0.11 0.01 -0.07 0.01
T1 Social Stressor X Gender 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.07 0.00 -0.03 0.00
T1 Social Stressor X Friends 0.02 0.00 0.16 0.02 -0.01 0.00 -0.02 0.00
Friends X Gender 0.00 0.00 -0.06 0.00 0.02 0.00 -0.04 0.00
T1 Soc Stress X Co-rum X Friends 0.01 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.08 0.00
Full Model R
2
=0.16 F = 6.75
***
R
2
= 0.19 F = 8.17
***
R
2
= 0.19 F = 8.22
***
R
2
= 0.18 F = 8.03
***
Note. sr
2
= squared semi-partial correlation. Gender was coded as 0 = male and 1 = female.
*
p < .05,
**
p < .01,
***
p<.001.

INTERPERSONAL COPING RESPONSES 72

Figure 6
Regression of T2 Disciplinary Incidents on Relational Victimization at Fixed Levels of Numbers of Friends

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This study examines a series of interpersonal coping responses in cross-sectional and longitudinal relations between developmentally salient social stressors and internalizing and externalizing outcomes. We also considered the role of gender in our interactive models of peer challenges and interpersonal coping. In the first year of this investigation, 379 ninth graders completed a peer nomination inventory assessing various indices of social reputations (overt and relational peer victimization, peer rejection, and unpopularity), as well as dyadic nominations of friends. Participants also completed self-report measures of depressive symptoms and engagement in different interpersonal coping responses (co-rumination, excessive reassurance-seeking, and problem-solving). Externalizing was indexed via disciplinary referrals obtained from school records. We followed these students over a one-year period and collected the same measures at both waves of data collection. Results highlight a notable pattern of effects, whereby lack of engagement in co-rumination and excessive reassurance-seeking appear to intensify depressive outcomes and engagement in problematic school behaviors. Limitations and implications are discussed.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Depressive outcomes following peer victimization during adolescence: the moderating role of friends’ attributes

PDF

Using observed peer discussions to understand adolescent depressive symptoms and interpersonal interactions

PDF

Social status, perceived social reputations, and perceived dyadic relationships in early adolescence

PDF

Meta-accuracy as a moderator of the association between social experience and emotional adjustment during childhood

PDF

Social attributes of adolescents’ problem-talk partners predict changes in depression

PDF

Actual and perceived social reinforcements of weight-related cognitions and behaviors in adolescent peer groups

PDF

Using virtual humans during clinical interviews: examining pathways to self-disclosure

PDF

Examining the associations of respiratory problems with psychological functioning and the moderating role of engagement in pleasurable activities during late adolescence

Asset Metadata

Creator Luo, Tana Jin (author)

Core Title Interpersonal coping responses during adolescence: implications for adjustment

School College of Letters, Arts and Sciences

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Psychology

Publication Date 10/23/2018

Defense Date 05/22/2018

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag Adolescents,Depression,externalizing,interpersonal coping,OAI-PMH Harvest,peer relationships,peer victimization,Rejection,unpopularity

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Schwartz, David (committee chair), Monterosso, John (committee member), Nation, Daniel (committee member), Read, Stephen (committee member), Traube, Dorian (committee member)

Creator Email Tana.luo@gmail.com,tjluo@ucsd.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-90902

Unique identifier UC11675327

Identifier etd-LuoTanaJin-6810.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-90902 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-LuoTanaJin-6810.pdf

Dmrecord 90902

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Luo, Tana Jin

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 a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA