STRESS AND COPING
IN JAPANESE MIDDLE CHILDHOOD
A Thesis
Presented in
Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of
Master of Arts
BY
DONALD F. KILBURG III
OCTOBER, 1997
Department of Psychology
College of Liberal Arts and Sciences
DePaul University
Chicago, Illinois

ii
THESIS COMMITTEE
Linda A. Camras, Ph.D.
Chairperson
Kathryn E. Grant, Ph.D.

iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I express deep gratitude to Dr. Linda A. Camras for sharing her ideas,
expertise and guidance throughout this research project, and to Dr. Kathryn E. Grant
for her comments on drafts and future directions for this line of research. I am also
grateful to Dr. Paul E. Jose, of Loyola University for providing the original measures
of this research, as well as invaluable direction. Sincere thanks go to Sawako Suzuki
for her careful assistance with data translation and entry. I am also indebted to Rikako
Takatsu and Mikako Nakajima for their work in translating the original measures from
English to Japanese. Additionally, I greatly appreciate Itsuko Takatsu, Mikako
Toshitaka, and Robert Purcell who facilitated the data collection. Lastly, I thank the
children who participated in this study, and their parents for their consent. Without
them, this research would not have been possible.

iv
VITA
Donald Francis Kilburg III was born in Oak Lawn, Illinois on January 15th,
1970. The writer was graduated from Homewood-Flossmoor High School in
Flossmoor, Illinois in 1988. In 1993, he received his Bachelor of Science degree in
Psychology from the University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana in Champaign,
Illinois. He will receive his Master of Arts degree in Experimental Psychology from
DePaul University in Chicago, Illinois in 1997.

v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Thesis Committee………………………………………………………...... ii
Acknowledgments………………………………………………………..... iii
Vita……………………………………………………………………….... iv
List of Tables…………………………………………………………….… viii
List of Figures…………………………………………………………….... ix
CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION ..............................................……........ 1
Definitions of Stress and Coping ...........................................…..... 1
Person-based Approaches to Stress and Coping ......................….... 2
Situation-based Approaches to Stress and Coping ...................…... 4
Interactionist Approaches to Stress and Coping ........................... 4
Transactionist Approaches to Stress and Coping .......................... 5
General Methodological Issues in Stress Research ...................…... 9
General Methodological Issues in Coping Research ...................… 10
Design and Measurement in Stress Research ............................…. 11
Design and Measurement in Coping Research ...........................….. 15
Adult Stress and Coping Research ............................................… 18
Child Stress and Coping Research: General ................................. 22
Child Stress and Coping Research: Middle Childhood .................... 24
Ethnic Differences in Children’s Stress and Coping………………. 26
Parental Warmth and Control………………………........................29
Summary and Critique of American Studies of Children’s
Stress and Coping………………………………………… 30

vi
Cross-cultural Stress and Coping Research: Issues ................……. 31
Japan as a Setting for Cross-cultural Research…………………… 34
Cross-cultural Stress and Coping Research Utilizing Japanese
Participants...........…………………………….................... 35
Rationale, Overview, Hypotheses, and Research Questions………. 41
CHAPTER II. METHOD ..............................................................…... 46
Research Participants ..........................................................…….. 46
Materials .............................................................................…... 47
Design .............................................................................………... 49
Procedure ...........................................................................…….. 50
Coding ..................................................................................…..... 51
CHAPTER III. RESULTS ............................................................…….... 53
Tests of Hypotheses I & II and Research Questions I, II, & III…… 53
Tests of Hypotheses III, IV, V, VI, & VII and Research
Questions IV, V, & VI………………………………......….61
Tests of Hypotheses VIII, IX, X and Research Question VII…….. 68
Tests of Hypotheses XI, XII, XIII, XIV and Research Questions
VIII, IX, X, & XI………………………………….............. 69
Ancillary Analyses of Stress Scales’ Items……………................... 74
Ancillary Analyses of Coping Scale Variables………….................. 82
Ancillary Yamamoto and Davis (1982) Comparison Analyses…..... 84
Summary of Results………………………………………………... 89
CHAPTER IV. DISCUSSION…………………………………….............91

vii
The Experience of Stress……......................................................... 91
The Utilization of Coping Strategies………................................... 101
Cross-cultural Comparisons………………......................................106
Limitations of this Research………………………………….......... 108
Directions for Future Study........………………………………....... 112
CHAPTER V. SUMMARY…………………………...............……... 113
References ................................................................……........……… 118
Appendix A-1. Child Consent Form .......................................................... 129
Appendix A-2. Parent Consent Form……..……………………………..... 130
Appendix B-1. Child Demographic Form……………………………….... 131
Appendix B-2. Parent Demographic Form ................................................ 132
Appendix C. The Everyday Life Events Scale for Children ........................ 133
Appendix D. The Major Life Events Scale for Children ............................. 137
Appendix E. Everyday and Major Life Event Stress Key............................ 140
Appendix F. The Children’s Integrated Stress and Coping Scale ............... 142
Appendix G. The Children’s Integrated Stress and Coping Key .........….... 144
Appendix H. The Children’s Perception of Parenting Style
Questionnaire……………………………………………………..... 145
Appendix I. The Children’s Perception of Parenting Style
Questionnaire Key........…………………………………………..... 146
Appendix J. Japanese Versions of Forms/Measures ................................... 147

viii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Multivariate analysis of variance: children’s everyday
life event stress……………………………………………………...55
Table 2. Multivariate analysis of variance: children’s major
life event stress………………………………………………...........55
Table 3. Mean stress scores for everyday life event stress by sex……........ 56
Table 4. Mean stress scores for everyday life event stress by age……….... 58
Table 5. Mean stress scores for major life event stress by age x sex……....60
Table 6. Multivariate analysis of variance: coping as a function of
sex & age........................................................................................ 63
Table 7. Mean coping scores by sex…....................................................... 63
Table 8. Mean coping scores by age…………........................................... 66
Table 9. Multivariate analysis of variance: coping as a function of
warmth & control…………….........................................................72
Table 10. Mean coping scores by warmth…………….............................. 73
Table 11. Multivariate analysis of variance: selected life events’ stress
intensity as a function of sex & age…………................................. 78
Table 12. Selected life events, stress intensity, & stress occurrence
by age............................................................................................. 79
Table 13. Selected life events, stress intensity, & stress occurrence
by sex….......................................................................................... 80
Table 14. Selected life events, stress intensity, & stress occurrence
by warmth....................................................................................... 81
Table 15. Selected life events, stress intensity, & stress occurrence
by control….................................................................................... 81
Table 16. Multivariate analysis of variance: selected coping strategies
as a function of sex & age…………............................................... 83
Table 17. Selected coping strategies by sex................................................ 84

ix
Table 18. Major life event experiences in Yamamoto & Davis (1982)
and the present study……………....................................................86
Table 19. Mean cumulative stress occurrence and intensity by sex……..... 87
Table 20. Mean cumulative stress occurrence and intensity by age……..... 88

x
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Mean everyday life event stress by SEX……………………….... 56
Figure 2: Mean major life event stress by AGE………………………….... 58
Figure 3: Mean major life event peer relations stress by AGE X SEX……. 61
Figure 4: Mean coping scores by SEX…………………………………….. 64
Figure 5: Mean coping scores by AGE……………………………….......... 67
Figure 6: Mean coping scores by WARMTH…………………………........ 73

CHAPTER I.
INTRODUCTION
Definitions of Stress and Coping
The words “stress” and “coping” are so widely used one would assume their
meanings are completely clear. When you get “stressed out,” you have to “deal with
it.” To many, it is just that simple. Indeed, a staggering number of stress-related
articles and books have been written under the guise of self-help and general advice.
The mass media and popular American culture have become obsessed with such
pursuits. The craze has even gone world-wide, with versions of the word “stress”
coming into use in most of the major languages. The New York Times recently ran an
article that whimsically declared stress to be “as useful as a Visa card and as satisfying
as a Coke. It's noncommittal. Also, noncommittable.” (Shweder, 1997).
The problem with popular conceptions of stress and coping is that they
oversimplify the issues. Stress is described as a kind of tangible force, external to its
victims. In these cases, coping is portrayed as a kind of internal “ammunition.” Under
scrutiny, internal and external dynamics are not so clearly demarcated. In actuality,
direction of cause and effect in stress and coping research is intimately tied to ongoing
exchanges between the person and his or her environment. According to Carolyn M.
Aldwin, a prominent stress researcher, “The important point is to understand clearly
which components of the stress process are important in a given context and to make
sure that the appropriate concepts and tools are being utilized, whether in research or
clinical work.” (1994, p. 43).

2
Person-based Approaches to Stress and Coping
One purpose of studying stress and coping is to see how different people
respond to stress and how that in turn affects their experience of that stress, positively
or negatively. The approaches to these issues differ in the degree to which they
emphasize the importance of the various factors involved.
Person-based approaches suppose that personality characteristics come first in
governing the stress-coping relationship. There are three basic schools of thought
under this rubric: psychoanalytic, personality trait, and perceptual style.
The psychoanalytic school of Sigmond Freud was instrumental in beginning the
systematic observation of coping strategies. The id-ego-superego model set forth by
Freud led to the detailed formulation of defense mechanisms by his daughter Anna
(1966). She described the ways in which the ego acts as a go-between, defending and
negotiating differences between internal demands and external realities. The major
ego defense mechanisms include: suppression, denial, projection, reaction formation,
rationalization, and sublimation (Freud, A., 1966). These defenses have unique
characteristics. For example, projection involves casting off one's feelings onto
someone else. The basic idea of all the defense mechanisms is that over the course of
development, individuals learn to distort reality and/or transduce their internal
demands.
There are several limitations inherent in the psychoanalytic school. The
emphasis is on how the individual defends and controls anxiety. His or her defense
mechanisms are assumed to be the deep-rooted consequences of childhood trauma and
therefore enduring personality factors. Unfortunately, this sidesteps the mutability of

3
such mechanisms given situational variance. Another shortcoming is that the
deliberate, active aspects of coping are often neglected in favor of the view that
negotiations between the individual and environment are typically the result of
unconscious adaptation.
The personality trait school attempts to study coping as it relates to categories
of response dispositions various people may have. A study conducted by Wortman
and Silver (1989) provides an example of this school. Four stable coping styles were
found among people grieving the death of a loved one: acute grievers, chronic
grievers, delayed reaction grievers, and those who appeared not to experience any
distress. Further research conducted by Bolder (1990) and Holakan and Moos (1985)
has confirmed the influence of personality in the coping process. Yet like the
psychoanalytic school, the trait approach is prone to ignore environmental
considerations that influence how someone will react.
Lastly, researchers focusing on perceptual style argue that the basis of coping
is found in how individuals process information, as opposed to emotion. The earliest
example of this kind of study was conducted by Byrne (1964). A dichotomy was
drawn between repression and sensitization (also called blunting and monitoring); that
is, between people who approach information and those who avoid it (the approach-
avoidance dichotomy). This perspective shares advantages and disadvantages with the
previous two schools. It allows for simple comparison. However, that may be at the
expense of situational factors. An individual may be found to typically process
information a certain way, but that could largely be a function of context, for example
work versus home.

4
Situation-based Approaches to Stress and Coping
As the name suggests, situation-based approaches emphasize environmental
demands that shape how individuals respond to stress. Different situations are
presumed to “pull for” different coping reactions. For example, the way in which a
person responds to the stress of losing his or her job could be different from the way in
which he or she responds to divorce. To study these responses one need not have
preconceptions. Rather, one could simply look at a particular stressor and study the
coping strategy employed. Pearlin and Schooler (1978) outlined major social roles:
work, marital, parental, household economics, and health. Some coping strategies
were utilized in some situations but not others. Thus, the importance of situation-
based approaches was shown. Situational influence has been further demonstrated by
other researchers, including Mattlin et al. (1990). Yet, as one might suspect, the
criticism of situation-based approaches has largely been that they neglect personality
factors.
Interactionist Approaches to Stress and Coping
The previous two approaches reduced the stress and coping relationship to one
of stimulus and response. The person type was said to have influenced the coping
type. The environment was said to have influenced the coping type. In a one-way
fashion, the environment might also be said to have influenced the person type, and in
turn, the coping type. Therefore, a resolution of the conflict between personality and
situational approaches ostensibly lies in models that incorporate interaction.
Proponents of such models argue that both environmental and dispositional
characteristics directly affect coping. This is an improvement over the previous two

5
approaches. Aldwin (1994) explains that this model does accommodate both the
personality approach advocated by Bolger’s emotionality concept (1990) and the
environmental approach of Mattlin, Wethington, and Kessler’s stressor-type
formulation (1990). Yet an even more encompassing view is taken with
transactionism.
Transactionist Approaches to Stress and Coping
The model that best represents the transactionist approaches is that of Richard
S. Lazarus, the dominant researcher and theorist in the field, who has provided training
for numerous other researchers, including Aldwin. Lazarus’ refers to his model as the
cognitive-motivational-relational theory of coping (Lazarus and Folkman, 1984;
Lazarus, 1991). The emphasis is on the interdependence of process variables. The
meaning of distinct emotion variables is presumed to change as person-environment
relationships develop. In other words, the emotional values of such changing person-
environment relationships is highly sensitive to cognitive interpretation. Lazarus
therefore argued that a new level of theoretical analysis, called relational meaning, is
necessary in understanding emotion and adaptation. As in the interactionist
approaches, coping is influenced by both the person and the environment. Lazarus
argues that, in addition, coping influences the person and the environment in return.
Moreover, person and environment factors also directly affect one another. If the
three elements are represented ideographically as a triangle, each corner can affect the
others.
According to Lazarus’ view, perception of environmental conditions is
inextricably linked with one’s beliefs and goals. Cognitive processes are, therefore,

6
central to the model. Lazarus identified primary and secondary appraisal as the
defining concepts in this analysis. Primary appraisal involves the determination that an
encounter is relevant to one's well-being. Secondary appraisal involves the
determination of coping options -- that is, “whether any given action might prevent
harm, ameliorate it, or produce additional harm or benefit.” (Lazarus, 1991, p. 133).
So it is through feedback that coping influences appraisal, and hence emotion. It is
useful to conceptualize this as a serial process. However, because coping directly and
indirectly affects subsequent appraisal, it is a reflection of joint involvement of ongoing
parallel interaction between person and environment variables.
According to Lazarus’ formulation, stress depends upon appraisal. That is,
determination that an encounter is relevant to well-being (i.e., that it is stressful or
uplifting) cannot be made apart from the perceiver (i.e., whether something is deemed
stressful always depends on subjective experience). Lazarus points out that
“Ultimately the analogy to load, stress, and strain in engineering, like the activation or
drive model in psychophysiology, failed, because psychological stress and emotion
cannot be adequately defined without reference to an individual's motivation and the
way that individual defines and evaluates relationships with the environment - a
process I have been calling appraisal.” (1991, p. 10).
Coping is defined by Lazarus (1991, p. 112) as consisting of “cognitive and
behavioral efforts to manage specific external or internal demands (and conflicts
between them) that are appraised as taxing or exceeding the resources of the person.”
Folkman and Lazarus (1988) have identified problem-focused coping and emotion-
focused coping as distinct strategies. The former is action-centered and aimed at

7
changing the objective reality of the person-environment relationship. Lazarus
provides the example of facing off with an enemy. Display of aggression could have
the effect of changing the actual relationship if the enemy is warded off. In contrast,
emotion-focused coping involves thinking and activity aimed at changing the
subjective reality of the person-environment relationship. In the face of an enemy, one
may avoid focusing on that enemy and therefore change the mere experience of the
actual relationship. Use of the term "focused" indicates that the distinction between
problem and emotion coping is a matter of emphasis. In practice, coping that changes
appraisal likely results in some degree of actual change and vice versa.
Deliberation is an additional concern in clarifying what constitutes coping.
Lazarus (1991) contrasts deliberate coping efforts with automatic action tendencies.
Biological urges to act distinguish one emotion from another. Lazarus’ examples are
attack/anger and escape/fear. Such emotions are experienced in conjunction with
nondeliberate, primitive motivating tendencies. Coping occurs as one's deliberations
expand or constrain action tendencies.
This deliberation is likely to be very context sensitive. As Laux and Weber
(1991) argue, the intentions underlying coping differ for each emotion. In Lazarus
terminology, “each cognitive-motivational-relational configuration might differently
influence the coping process.” (1991, p. 115). How a person copes depends on
possibilities, appraisals, and goals. To understand an individual’s coping effort, the
specific goals he or she brought to the encounter and the specific goals that emerged in
the encounter must be understood. Lazarus provides the example of an individual who
is threatened. According to Lazarus, if self-image is an important issue with that

8
person, then an anger-appropriate appraisal may be made and anger may be
demonstrated. Conversely, if a person’s primary goals center around relationships,
then anxiety-centered threat encounters are “apt to be dealt with by strategies aimed at
preserving the relationship in the interest of obtaining reassurance and emotional
support.” (1991, p. 15).
Aldwin (1994, p. 6) explains that two assumptions of transactionist models, in
general, are especially relevant to stress and coping research. She argues the first
quite succinctly that “if mind and brain do transact, then, being regulated by the brain,
organ systems are subject to influence by the mind, and, in turn, anything that affects
the mind (e.g. society and culture). Thus, seemingly distinct levels of analysis --
sociocultural, psychological, and biological -- are all linked. Further, how a culture or
society is structured has implications for an individual’s physiological well-being, not
only through the direct allocation of resources (Pearlin, 1989), but also through
influencing characteristic psychological states and stress levels (Colby, 1987).” The
second assumption is that transactionist models necessarily imply the importance of
developmental processes. The nature of transaction is change. Accordingly, coping
should be considered both cause and effect, over a multitude of levels of analysis,
across the entire range of development.
Lazarus’ cognitive-motivational-relational theory will likely be the dominant
model for some time. It appears to encompass all the significant relationships between
factors that have been demonstrated to be important. However, research has not yet
addressed the full range of the model’s implications.
General Methodological Issues in Stress Research

9
Aldwin (1994) cites three basic issues concerning stress research designs. The
first relates to the temporal relationship between stressors and their associated health
outcomes. There may be cases where stress and illness do not coincide in time, yet are
causally related, and vice versa. This is because relatively insignificant illnesses may
come and go in a short time-frame while chronic illnesses may take longer periods to
develop and recede, if there is recession at all. Thus, special consideration of the
nature of particular illnesses is required.
Cultural and developmental appropriateness of stress items is the second issue.
What is potentially stressful for individuals of one age or cultural group may not be for
another. Attention must be paid to research participant demographics from the earliest
stages of instrument design.
Thirdly, whether stress effects are generally cumulative, multiplicative, or
asymptotic remains controversial. It may be a highly situationally-dependent matter.
Length of time a stressor exerts its effects is an issue as well. It is generally thought
that daily life event stress lasts 24 to 48 hours (DeLongis, Folkman, and Lazarus,
1988), major life event stress lasts about six months to a year (Depue and Monroe,
1986), whereas traumatic stress can extend decades after the original event that
precipitated it (Page, Engdahl, and Eberly, 1991).
General Methodological Issues in Coping Research
Measurement of coping is even more challenging than measurement of stress.
Lazarus’ cognitive-motivational-relational theory reasons that the stress-coping
process is multi-faceted. The myriad techniques of measurement reflect this reality.
Researchers typically choose to focus on a particular aspect of the stress-coping

10
process. One researcher’s emphasis is not necessarily more or less important than
another’s. Rather, they are pieces of the same whole.
With that in mind, there are several fundamental controversies relating to
coping theory that merit further elaboration here. Firstly, should inventory items be
general or situation-specific? This question returns to the issue of person versus
environment. To be sure, there is a tradeoff. If coping strategies are assessed in
specific form, findings are at risk of not being easily generalizable. Conversely, if
strategies are assessed too generally, they may not capture contextual peculiarities.
Secondly, are simpler conceptualizations of coping better than complex ones?
An example of a simple conceptualization can be found in the approach-avoidance line
of coping research that will be discussed below. Studies like these are theory driven in
nature. They take broad constructs and attempt to replicate relationships between
them. Researchers may be compromising when they opt for such discrete and often
dichotomous variables. Conversely, complex conceptualizations may limit
generalizability. Whether this is an issue depends in large part on the researchers goal.
Lastly, should coping inventories merely question whether or not a strategy
was used, or should they also have scales for extent of use? If participants are only
asked whether or not they used a strategy, nothing will be learned about how the
strategy was actually carried out. The transactionist would argue that the meaning of
a strategy to a particular person is of prime importance. However, there is concern
about how participants interpret questions about effort. The possibilities are in terms
of: frequency, duration, intensity, and usefulness. Unfortunately, wording questions
about extent of use more specifically may risk making them inapplicable to the

11
particular coping strategy. It seems that there will always be individual differences in
how people interpret questions about extent. Indeed, there can even be different
thresholds for willingness to report mere use of a strategy. Ideally, multiple
assessment items can be used to minimize such biases.
Design and Measurement in Stress Research
Traumatic events, major life events, and daily life events are commonly used to
look at stress. There are also measures that attempt to assess role strain, or systematic
stress from a certain setting. Outside of such inventory methods, are clinical
interviews and laboratory experiments. None of these methods alone are completely
adequate.
Traumatic event stressors fall into three categories: natural and technological
disasters, war and related problems, and individual trauma. Disasters of the first
category typically happen quickly, with extreme impact, allowing victims very little
personal control. Examples include: floods, tornadoes, earthquakes, and nuclear
reactor problems. Because of their magnitude they happen to groups of people, who
usually have little warning. Janis and Mann (1977) showed that even when warning is
provided, people are quite proficient at ignoring it. Of note, people who try to
exercise control in these kinds of traumas (e.g., by rescue or relief attempts) typically
show the fewest psychological symptoms afterwards (Erikson, 1976).
War also affects groups and involves extreme impacts, but this trauma is
usually drawn out after extensive warning. To be sure, there are grave effects for
most involved in this kind of trauma. However, Aldwin et al. (1994) showed that if
veterans could frame their experience of war as having been beneficial, they could

12
decrease Post Traumatic Stress Disorder symptoms later in life. Indeed, combat can
have positive effects on those who endure. Schnurr et al. (1993) demonstrated
moderate combat exposure to improve long-term psychological functioning. Elder
and Clipp (1989) listed several advantages: mastery, self-esteem, improved coping and
leadership skills.
Individual trauma involves major incidents that happen to individuals or small
groups. Major incidents are contrasted with minor ones in terms of quality. For
example, the experiences of rape, molestation, and kidnapping are all qualitatively
different from that of inadvertently locking your keys in your car. The most common
type of individual trauma is an automobile accident (Norris, 1992). Such traumas can
have life-long effects (see Aldwin, 1994, for a review of this literature).
Contrasted with individual traumatic event stressors are major life event
stressors. These include bereavement, divorce, and job loss. Holmes and Rahe (1967)
constructed the Schedule of Readjustment Rating Scale (SRRS) to assess the amount
of adaptational demand that an individual faces. Stressful life events were assigned
values, with death of a spouse ranking the highest. The SRRS spawned other
inventories including the Psychiatric Epidemiological Research Interview
(Dohrenwend et al., 1978) and the Life Experiences Survey (Sarason et al., 1978).
The main validity issue with these kinds of scales is whether or not consensus or
individual perception should be used to determine stressfulness. There are also
reliability concerns as to whether participants’ memories can be trusted.
Daily life event stressors, or hassles as they are known, have been shown to
have a greater effect on health than relatively rare life event stressors (Lazarus and

13
Folkman, 1984; Rowlison and Felner, 1989; Weinberger, Hiner, and Tiernery, 1987).
These include: “problems getting along with fellow workers,” “planning or preparing
meals,” “not getting enough sleep.,” “too many interruptions,” and the like (DeLongis
et al., 1988). The problem is that the greater correlation may be due in part to a
statistical artifact (1994, p. 65). Everyone experiences daily hassles. There are many
life events that affect only a minority of us. Consequently, daily hassle scales typically
have greater variance, and thus better lend themselves to statistical analysis.
Promisingly though, measures of chronic daily hassles may match well with those of
role strain (Lazarus, 1990).
Role strain studies have grown out of attempts to study stress as a contextual,
sociological phenomenon. Sociologists study how societal structures affect
macrolevel stress indicators. For example, they might consider the effect of the
unemployment rate on suicide rates. Work stress has been the main focus of role
strain investigators. Such stress may involve: heavy workload, poor workplace
conditions, and interpersonal problems with other workers.
Early role strain studies looked at the stress, “out there,” in the environment of
particular occupations. This stress was presumed to be injurious to most people. An
example of this is Rose’s (1978) study on air traffic controllers. Higher rates of stress-
related disorders (e.g., high-blood pressure and stomach ulcers) were correlated with
demands on attention, judgment, and decision-making.
More recent studies have admitted the interaction between person and
environment. For example, Carrere et al. (1991) studied the stress of San Fransisco
bus drivers as a function of their personality type. Type A personalities were shown to

14
perceive their environment as more stressful and to have higher levels of urinary
catecholamines. Karasek and Theorell (1990) added the factors of responsibility and
control. Their longitudinal research suggests that workers with high-responsibility and
low-control are more likely to develop, and die from, coronary heart disease.
Pearlin and Schooler (1978) claim that chronic role strain is the best indicator
of an individual's stress. They defined four basic roles: marital, parental, occupational,
and household economics. Their measurement of stress and coping was specific to
those domains. In their view, negative effects of life event stressors happen because
they cause disruptions in the four basic roles. The suggestion of role strain approaches
in general is that there are systematic, social causes of stress.
The clinical interview is another example of how stress has been measured.
The aim is to bypass the accuracy concerns of self-report questionnaires. A popular
semistructured interview called the Life Events and Difficulties Schedules (LEDS) was
developed by Brown (1989). Aldwin et al. (1993) reported that by using interviews,
they were able to substantially decrease the number of participants who reported “no
problems” on self-report measures. However, as with all measures, there are trade-
offs. Interviews are obviously more time-consuming and labor intensive.
Laboratory experiments have been conducted on animals and humans, to afford
greater control over stress and coping variables. A classic example of a study using
humans is that of Lazarus et al. (1962). Participants viewed stressful films and were
asked to either empathize with or detach from the subject of the film, depending on the
condition. Physiological reactions were shown to be affected by the types of cognitive

15
processes participants used. Experimentation is limited by ethical considerations.
However it will likely continue to be useful in examining the neurophysiology of stress.
Design and Measurement in Coping Research
Coping researchers typically ask participants what they did and how they
thought and felt in stressful situations. The main techniques have been reflective of the
theoretical positions mentioned earlier. The basic controversy is over whether coping
is more a function of stable, person-based characteristics or of fluctuating, situation-
based characteristics.
Early person-based approaches typically used standard personality trait tests to
infer coping style (Haan, 1977). More recent ones have inquired as to what
participants usually do in responding to general problems (Carver et al., 1989; Endler
and Parker, 1990). The underlying assumption is that individuals cope the same way,
regardless of stressor type. One problem with person-based approaches is that
participants may overestimate the cross-situational consistency of their coping
responses (Fondacaro and Moos, 1987; McCrae, 1989; Folkman and Lazarus, 1980).
The Pearlin and Schooler (1978) study mentioned in the preceding section,
provides an example of a situation-based approach to coping. Strategies were
assessed within individuals’ role domains (i.e., marital, parental, occupational &
household economics). The researchers attempted to determine how individuals
coped in these domains, hypothesizing that individuals cope in the same manner within
a domain, but not across domains.
This hypothesis is not necessarily more reasonable than that of the person-
based approach. Firstly, there may be cases where person characteristics outweigh

16
situation characteristics. For example, there is some evidence that neurotics may use
more emotion-focused coping than problem-focused, regardless of situation (Bolger,
1990). Secondly, there may be cases of coping inconsistency within situations or
roles, as a function of variation from episode to episode. For example, Folkman and
Lazarus (1985) found that how students cope with test taking can change greatly over
time.
Ogrocki et al. (1990) studied the relationship between person and situation-
based coping measures. Across situations, the situation-based measures were more
strongly correlated with each other than were the person-based measures, suggesting
that they may be more accurate assessments of coping behaviors. Using situation-
based approaches, participants have clearly been shown to use different coping
strategies with different problems (Billings and Moos, 1984; Folkman and Lazarus,
1980; McCrae, 1984; Mattlin et al., 1990).
In contrast to purely person-based or situation-based approaches, transactionist
approaches do not assume any consistency in use of coping strategies within or across
situations. Instead, transactionist approaches ask participants about specific episodes.
For example, Moos et al. (1990) asked participants to recall what they did in a
particular life event of the past year. Other researchers have asked participants to
write in diaries every day (Stone et al., 1993). The important point of a transactionist
approach is that it asks participants to recall specific, recent events and to recount their
emotions, cognitions, and behaviors with each of those events alone. As such, this
approach does not rely on participants’ often dubious generalized descriptions of their
behavior. The most commonly used measure of this type is the Ways of Coping Scale

17
(WOCS) (Folkman and Lazarus, 1980; Folkman et al., 1986). It will be discussed in
the next section.
Transactionist approaches attempt to control both the situation characteristics
and the specific stressful stimulus, in order to best consider person-environment-
coping dynamics. Holding such items constant, researchers have demonstrated that
coping is definitely not a fixed phenomenon. It is influenced by personality (Bolger,
1990; Friedman et al., 1992; Long and Sangster, 1993) and context (Folkman and
Lazarus, 1986; Heim et al., 1993; Mattlin et al., 1990), as well as by physical aspects
of setting (Mechanic, 1978).
The main problem with transactionist approaches is that variability of stressors
is almost unlimited. This being the case, the ultimate choice between the various
approaches would seem to depend on the particular research question. For prediction
of participant performance in a given role domain, without respect to variation within
that domain, situation-based measures may suffice. In contrast, for long-term, general
prediction, a researcher should probably use person-based measures (Aldwin, 1994).
Finally, for prediction of participant performance in particular instances, it is probably
best to use transactionist measures.
Adult Stress and Coping Research
Research on stress and coping in general has burgeoned in the past two
decades. Vingerhoets and Marcellissen’s (1988) review tallied almost 10,000 articles
on stress and coping between 1976 and 1985 alone. Coping has been demonstrated to
be of central importance in the relationship between stress and psychological and
physical adaptation (Aldwin and Revenson, 1987, Billings and Moos, 1981, Collins,

18
Baum, and Singer 1983, Folkman, Lazarus, Gruen, and Delongis, 1986, Pearlin and
Schooler, 1978). It has also been shown to be extremely diverse in the forms it can
take (Coelho, Hamburg, and Adams, 1974). This is due to the many factors that can
influence the overall process. These include situation, personality, and culture (Aldwin
and Revenson, 1987).
Studies on adult stress and coping have been conducted using inventories,
interviews, observation, and even experimentally induced variables. There is a large
body of literature related to the various types of stressors and their effects on physical
and mental health. A full review of this literature is beyond the scope of the present
paper. However, basic findings and concerns will be discussed. For substantial
reviews of the bulk of the literature, see Lazarus (1991) and Aldwin (1994).
Three general observations about research on adult stress, are reported by
Aldwin (1994). The first is that negative health outcomes are more likely to occur in
response to negative stressful events, as opposed to positive ones (Rabkin and
Streuning, 1976). Although there may be stress associated with a positive experience
such as a job promotion or a new marriage, the inauspicious health effects have
generally been shown to be insignificant. However, because even positive events can
tax resources, the totality of an event must be considered (Thoits, 1983).
Secondly, degree of perceived control has been demonstrated to be an
important factor. If an event is seen as being within the sphere of influence of an
individual, he or she is less likely to experience that event as stressful (Reich and
Zautra, 1981). Aldwin (1994, p. 45) argues that this may help to explain why natural
disasters are so stressful. A simple example of contrasting perceptions of control can

19
be seen in the case of a “back seat” driver. Presumably, command of a vehicle allows
greater empowerment and thus less stress.
Lastly, the findings about the relationship between stress and health outcomes
have not been very large in effect size. Usually correlations are between .20 and .30
(Aldwin, 1994, p. 45). Aldwin explains that although this is a pleasant indication of
our species resilience, it makes it difficult to infer causation. Because the health of
most people experiencing stress does not cross the threshold into illness, it is easiest to
access the relationship between stress and exacerbation of illnesses that are already
present (Revenson and Felton, 1989).
How people cope is clearly related to their mental health. Aldwin states that it
can account for as much as 50% of the variance in psychological symptom outcomes
(Aldwin, 1994; Aldwin, 1991; Folkman et al., 1993). Although there appear to be no
panacean coping strategies, several trends in the adult coping and health literature that
suggest there are reliable effects of particular coping strategies on health in particular
conditions (Aldwin, 1994). However, there is a seeming inconsistency running
through a large portion of this literature. Emotion-focused coping is theorized to
regulate negative emotional effects of stress so that problem-focused coping can occur
(Folkman and Lazarus, 1980). In spite of this, most studies show emotion-focused
coping to be correlated with increased stress.
In her espousal of a transactional approach, Aldwin (1994) outlined six
possible reasons for the above paradox, the first of which is that coping strategies have
situation-specific effects. As previously stated, use of coping strategies varies based
on context. The reason is that a particular strategy may be useful in some cases, but

20
not others. Individuals will benefit if they are proficient in moderating both the type of
coping and the amount of effort they use in that coping depending on the type of
stressor (Mattlin, et al., 1990, Mullen and Suls, 1982; Miller and Mangan, 1983). For
example, in an uncontrollable situation, it may be unwise to expend effort on problem-
focused coping strategies.
The second reason emotion-focused coping may be related to increased stress
is that the overall pattern of coping may be more important than any one type of
coping. That is, the ratio of different strategies may be more important than absolute
amounts of any one strategy in particular (Vitaliano et al., 1987). It may also be the
case that a particular strategy is both necessary and sufficient, or not, in a given
situation.
Effort is another consideration in the problem-focused/emotion-focused coping
paradox. If an event is highly stressful, it may require a large amount of coping effort.
Consequently, all the coping strategies will be associated with increased stress.
Separating effort and efficacy may help clarify the issues. However, it would not in all
cases. For example, drug use may require little effort, in spite of its high correlation
with increased stress (Aldwin, 1994, p. 156).
The problem of causal directionality is the fourth reason for the confusion
about emotion-focused coping and health outcomes. As noted in the theoretical
discussion of the present paper, coping may be a function of health, as much as health
may be a function of coping. Coyne et al. (1981) found that chronic depressives in
their study used more emotion-focused coping, and more coping in general, compared
with well individuals.

21
The fifth reason for the paradox is that there may be individual differences in
effectiveness of the same strategies. Aldwin explains that this is perhaps the most
troubling methodological issue if research generalizability is to be established (1994, p.
158). She argues that future work should include qualitative measures, as well as
measures of coping effectiveness.
Lastly, there is concern over whether wider dependent variables should be
considered, beyond depressive symptoms that are perhaps too often the sole outcomes
measured. It may be important to consider what goals individuals have in mind when
they use particular coping strategies. For example, mastery is a potential positive
outcome that could be measured.
Child Stress and Coping Research: General
Developmental studies of stress and coping are only just beginning. However,
it is well known that very early on, children try to change their internal and external
environments. Indeed, even a fetus can kick, arm wave, and thumb suck, albeit likely
in automatic response to changes in utero. Over time children's coping repertoires
increase and shift from behavioral to cognitive-emotional in nature. Children also
come to use more peer support as they develop. The review here will include general
findings with a focus on findings in the middle childhood literature. Numerous studies
have looked at other periods of development, as well as coping socialization. These
are beyond the scope of this paper; for a more extensive review see La Greca et al.
(1992) and Aldwin (1994).
One of the first attempts to investigate children's stress produced a widely used
stress measuring instrument for children by modifying adult scales (Coddington,

22
1972). However, it neglected to sufficiently consider the child's unique perspective.
Since then, many studies have correlated children's stress events with illness or
maladaptation (e.g., Hudgens, 1974; Boyce et al., 1977). Masten (1985) noted,
however, that the correlations in most life-events studies among children are quite low.
Sorenson (1993) adds that it is often unclear to what extent such life events are the
antecedents or the consequences of illness or maladjustment.
Daily hassles have been shown to be more strongly associated than life events
with children's mental and physical health (Sorenson, 1993, p. 52). For example,
Kanner, Coyne, Schaefer, and Lazarus (1981) have demonstrated that hassles were
generally associated with poor outcomes such as depression, low social competence,
and low self-worth. Sorenson cautions, however, that rather than favoring hassles
measures over life events stress measures, integration of the two ought to be the goal
(1993, p. 54). Her reasoning is that the two measures are necessarily correlated at
some level.
Another way that researchers have measured children's stress appraisal has
been to ask the children to rank order perceived stress of major and minor events (e.g.,
Yamamoto, 1979; Brown and Cowen, 1988; Ryan, 1988). The rankings stray
somewhat from the adult preconceptions (Sorenson, 1993, p. 54). At the least, this
line of research has demonstrated the importance of ascertaining the child's perspective
from the child. The usefulness of this approach will depend in part on whether
children can mentally compare the degrees of multiple stressors, particularly when the
stressors are hypothetical.
Child Stress and Coping Research: Middle Childhood

23
Band and Weisz (1988) pioneered the application of the Folkman and Lazarus
(1988) problem and emotion-focused categories to well children of middle childhood.
Their research demonstrated that in the face of a variety of everyday stressors, the
children in their sample would seldom relinquish control, preferring instead to employ
some type of coping. However, as age increased, self-reports of primary control
(a.k.a. problem-focused) coping declined, whereas self-reports of secondary control
(a.k.a. emotion-focused) coping increased. The main interpretation of this data was
that secondary coping may develop more slowly than primary coping, “in part because
it is hidden from view and thus more difficult to learn from observation.” (Band and
Weisz, 1988).
Altshuler and Ruble (1989) further examined children's coping strategies for
uncontrollable stressful situations. Their study helped to illuminate the contextual
dependence of children's coping. Among several unique findings was an age-related
increase in the proportion of “cognitive distraction” strategies. The occurrence of
“behavioral distraction” strategies, however, did not differ significantly across age.
The researchers' primary explanation for this finding was consistent with previous
literature. That is, younger children may not be able to generate as many secondary
appraisal options as older children. This may be due to the fact that they are not as
autonomous as older children. Additionally, they may simply not be aware that they
can manipulate their internal states. Further research has supported this conclusion
(Compas et al., 1992).
It has also been demonstrated that children of middle childhood begin to use
different coping strategies in different contexts. With school problems, they use

24
cognitive restructuring and self-criticism. When dealing with friends and siblings, they
tend to blame others (Spirito, et al., 1991).
In terms of age differences, older children seek more social support outside
their immediate family than do younger children (Bryant, 1985). Interestingly, there
are also sex differences in social support seeking as children grow older. Girls begin
to seek social support more, and this continues into adulthood (Wertlieb, et al., 1987;
Frydenberg and Lewis, 1990).
Kliewer (1991) considered the influence of broader individual differences on
children's coping processes. Among several variables, social competence was
identified as an important correlate of the use of avoidant actions and cognitions.
Whether the children's coping was emotion-focused or problem-focused, socially
competent children tended not to approach the stressful issue. Kliewer explained this
counterintuitive relationship by pointing out that children most often face
uncontrollable stress, in which case avoidance is, perhaps, most adaptive. Kliewer’s
research also examined Miller's (1987) monitoring/blunting distinction, in which
subjects are classified by the degree to which they attend to stressors. Unlike adults,
children in Kliewer’s study classified as high in monitoring sought more support and
comfort from other people (emotion-focused) than did those classified as low in
monitoring. This could have been interpreted as being inconsistent with Altshuler and
Ruble’s (1989) overlapped mapping of problem-focused, approach, and monitoring
strategies. However, Kliewer suggested that seeking comfort from others could
merely be a manifestation of the high self monitor's general tendency to seek out more
information about the stress, as opposed to a disregard for problem-focused coping.

25
Ethnic Differences in Children’s Stress and Coping
Jose, Cafasso, and D’Anna (1994) investigated ethnic group differences in
coping in Caucasian-American, African-American, and Hispanic-American children.
Coping tendencies were assessed using a five-factor structure that included: social
support (both problem & emotion-focused), problem-solving (problem-focused),
rejuvenation (emotion-focused), aggression (emotion-focused), and drug use
(emotion-focused). Stress was considered with respect to various structural levels
using Bronfenbrenner’s (1979, 1986) ecological model. In this model, the child is
affected by the microsystem (e.g., family, peers, school), the mesosystem (e.g., the
PTA), the exosystem (e.g., television programming, government), and the
macrosystem (e.g., cultural values). In their study, Jose et al. examined relationships
between self-reported well-being and the children’s experiences of stress and their
employment of various coping strategies.
The Jose et al. (1994) findings are somewhat complex. Regarding their stress
experiences, Hispanic-American and African-American children were confronted with
ethnic prejudice and immigration/second language use problems more than their
Caucasian-American counterparts. The stress of both these groups, however, was
found to be significantly moderated by family structure (i.e., single, two, or step-parent
family). Interestingly, this was not the case for Caucasian-American children. The
reason for this is not clear, but Jose et al. speculate that the moderating effect of family
structure may have been lost for Caucasian-American children when socioeconomic
status was covaried out of the regression equation.

26
Regarding coping, the three ethnic groups utilized roughly the same number
and amounts of coping strategies. Children from all three ethnic groups were found to
generally rely more on emotion-focused coping than problem-focused for stressors at
the structural level outside of their control (i.e., the exosystem). In terms of problem-
focused and emotion-focused coping, Jose et al. (1994) demonstrated that in arenas
where children had little control (i.e., exosystem matters), they utilized emotion-
focused coping more than problem-focused. This does not necessarily mean, however,
that emotion-focused coping was preferentially employed over problem-focused
coping. Rather, children may have been forced to use emotion-focused coping in
cases where that was the only option (e.g., at the doctor’s office, were the child’s
control may be limited). In any case, it is possible that stress domain (e.g., peer
relations, education, family, etc.) may be more influential in governing stress and
coping than Bronfenbrenner’s (1979, 1986) ecological levels.
With regard to psychological well-being, direct effects were found with some
particular stressors, as well as with both the adaptive and the maladaptive strategies of
all three ethnic groups in the Jose et al. (1994) study. For African-American and
Hispanic-American children, stress deriving from immigration/second language use,
grief and ethnic prejudice was found to detract from their well-being. In terms of
coping, the well-being of all three groups was predicted by rejuvenation and
aggression. The well-being of Caucasian-American children was predicted by social
support. The well-being of African-American children was predicted by social support
and family work problems. The well-being of Hispanic-American children was
predicted by family work problems, drug use, and ethnic prejudice.

27
With regard to gender analyses of the Jose et al. (1994) data, females were
found to use more social support coping than males (reported in Jose et al., 1997).
Conversely, males were found to use more externalizing kinds of coping strategies,
including aggression and drug use in particular. Analyses of the remaining factors,
problem-solving and rejuvenation, yielded no significant gender differences.
Moreover, differences found with the stress measures were marginal.
Age analyses of Jose et al. (1994) revealed few significant differences among
the early adolescents sampled. A weak increase in social support coping was observed
and drug use was seen to significantly increase across grade level. However, the
remaining findings curiously demonstrated minimal differences. Considering that age
differences have been documented in prior literature, it is conceivable that the Jose et
al. (1994) measures were simply not sensitive enough to capture such differences.
Jose et al. (1994) recommend that future work examine a wider range of
coping strategies and resources. They also urge that researchers must uncover the
particular processes of how children come to engage in such maladaptive strategies as
aggression and drug use. Lastly, they discuss longitudinal data collection as a means
of determining robustness of the findings.
Jose et al. (1994) laid a foundation for the investigation of children’s coping in
samples beyond those restricted to Caucasian-American participants. Taken as a
whole, the Jose et al. (1994) findings indicate that distinct ethnic groups conduct the
coping process differently. The ethnic groups in the Jose et al. (1994) study have
many cultural characteristics in common, by virtue of their membership in American
culture and wider Western culture. It would seem then that further examination of

28
stress and coping dynamics embedded in a wider vista might afford greater
understanding of how such processes may be influenced by more higher level elements,
such as cultural values. At present this kind of investigation lacking.
Parental Warmth and Control
Regardless of culture, parental socialization has long been considered a crucial
element in children’s stress and the development of their coping skills. Erik Erikson
(1963) outlined two aspects of parenting that are particularly important during the
elementary school years. They are parental warmth and parental control. Warmth
refers to the level of affection that parents express, and how responsive they are to the
child’s needs for self-esteem. Control is a dimension of regulatory supervision. High
controlling parents expend considerable effort monitoring their children’s behavior and
ensuring that there is adherence to rules deemed important (for a review of this
literature, see Maccoby and Martin, 1983).
The consensus is that parenting which provides warmth, considerable freedom,
yet rational restrictions is most highly correlated with high cognitive and social
competencies (Grolnick and Ryan, 1989). However, the quantification of what
constitutes high and low levels of warmth and control is hardly standardized. It is
reasonable to suspect that children may exhibit considerable differences in their
perception of their parents along these dimensions. Given variation of emotional
expression, such differences may be particularly pronounced across cultures.
Jose and Hunsinger (1997) measured perception of parental control and
warmth among Chinese-American and European-American adolescents. They found
that the two groups evaluated their parents similarly in terms of warmth. However,

29
Chinese-American parents were significantly perceived as being more controlling than
their European-American counterparts. The details of this unique study are not yet
available, as the manuscript is currently under review.
Summary and Critique of American Studies of Children’s Stress and Coping
It is clear that as children develop, their coping repertoires increase and
diversify, with a particular shift toward more emotion-focused strategies. Children
also come to use more social support over time. Girls have reliably been found to use
more social support than boys, but generally no other gender differences have been
found. In terms of stress, everyday life events have been more strongly associated
with health outcomes than major life events. Yet the two types of events are clearly
related to each other. Another key finding has been that children’s coping strategies
may differ across situational contexts. In the domain of education, they may reframe
their stress or become self-critical. In peer relations, they may resort to blame of
others.
In spite of the numerous replicable findings that have produced a basic
understanding of the development of coping, there are many questions left
unanswered. The importance of situational context has been neglected in most
research. In addition, virtually no studies have examined stress and coping as a
function of perceived parenting style. Yet there is reason to suspect that perceived
parenting style may vary widely across cultures. If this is the case, the relationship
between stress and coping may vary as well, by virtue of appraisal differences.
Cross-cultural Stress and Coping Research: Issues

30
Cultural Influences. Considering that the world’s populations have evolved in
varying ecological contexts, it is safe to assume a number of unique patterns of
socialization and enculturation exist. There is clear evidence that stress and coping
processes vary by situational context. Considering that in many cases cultural
differences are more influential than situational ones, such differences are also likely to
affect stress and coping processes.
There are four ways culture can impact the stress and coping process. It can
shape the types of stressors, the appraisal of stressors, the choice of coping strategies,
and the institutional mechanisms by which an individual can cope with stress. As
Lazarus’ transactional model suggests, human beings are in a dialectical relationship
with their cultures. Therefore, the outcomes of coping are not only psychological and
physical, but often social and cultural (Aldwin and Stokols, 1988; Gross, 1970). A
variety of cross-cultural studies of stress and coping exist in the literature. Selected
studies will be discussed here. For a more complete review, see Aldwin (1994).
For a concrete illustration of how particular cultures can dictate unique types
of stress, consider Turner’s (1969) work on puberty rituals. There is widespread
variation in rituals that mark individuals’ passage from childhood to adulthood.
Navajo youths can be required to spend several days in isolation in the wilderness,
Jews often participate in public bar mitzvahs and bat mitzvahs, and Japanese officially
become adults through the national ceremony of “coming of age” day.
Cultural variations in appraisal of stress have frequently been cited in the
anthropological literature. In accordance with the proverb that “a fish does not know
it is wet,” such differences are often hard to imagine. Heider (1958) first drew the

31
now-classic distinction between individualistic and collectivistic cultures, describing
how cultures differentially value autonomy and dependency. An example of how this
can affect appraisal was presented by Radford et al. (1993) who showed that Japanese
participants were higher than their Australian counterparts on decisional stress when
decisions had to be made without the benefit of a social group.
In terms of coping responses to stress, emotional expression is a major point of
cultural variation. Zborowski (1952) demonstrated that among a sample of
hospitalized Italians, Jews, and Irish-Americans, Italians and Jews displayed the most
expressive behavior in response to pain. A study on problem-focused coping by Offer
et al. (1981) provided further evidence of cross-cultural variation in response to stress.
With the use of a self-image questionnaire designed for teenagers, Offer et al.
demonstrated that Israeli participants were more active and mastery oriented than
American, Irish, and Australian participants.
For examples of how cross-culturally varying institutions can function as
coping mechanisms, consider the widely varying legal systems of the world. Nader
(1985) reported that in Mexico and Saudi Arabia, plaintiffs may have considerable
influence over punishment outcomes. In the United States, however, court decisions
are generally made by lawyers and judges.
Bias in Cross-cultural research. In cross-cultural research there is always
concern about cultural bias in measurement and interpretation. The general question is
“whether behavior has to be understood in the context of the culture in which it occurs
or whether cultural differences can be conceived of as variations on a common theme.”
(Berry et al., 1992, p. 219). Furthermore, there is dispute over whether equivalent

32
scores from participants from two different cultures have the same meaning.
Undoubtedly, if hypotheses and findings from research conducted in the U.S. are to be
transported and tested in other cultural settings, care must be taken. Berry et al.
(1992) argue that in theory such care is not unlike that required in general psychology;
that is, when different cultures are compared, there is simply a need for control of
confounding variables.
Japan as a Setting for Cross-cultural Research
The Japanese population is one of the most racially and culturally homogenous
in the world. Japanese culture has had a 2000 year history in which a multitude of
unique facets have evolved. In many ways, mainstream Japanese and American
cultures are radically different from one another.
Japanese culture has been described as collectivistic, relative to the
individualistic mainstream culture of the United States (Heider, 1958). Hofstede (e.g.,
1980) and Triandis (e.g., 1988) have argued that individualistic cultures emphasize
competitiveness, self-confidence, and freedom, while collectivistic cultures emphasize
communal feelings, social usefulness, and acceptance of authority. These concepts are
nicely illustrated by these contrasting metaphors: “the squeaky wheel gets the oil”
(America) and “the nail that stands up gets hammered down” (Japan).
Consistent with an emphasis on community, Japanese people are often
remarkably sensitive to each other’s feelings (Markus and Kitayama,1991). The
Japanese word enryo, has been used to describe a near paralyzing hesitation Japanese
people reportedly feel in certain social settings demanding group harmony. There may
be intense stress associated with the potential of offending others in such cases.

33
Another aspect of Japanese culture that appears to differ substantially from that
of the United States is captured by the Japanese linguistic distinction of honne and
tatemae. The former represents private affect or cognition and the latter represents
public affect or cognition. The notion is that conventional Japanese are not as driven
by values of self-expression as North Americans (Barnlund, 1975; Markus and
Kitayama, 1991). Consistent with emphasis on collectivism, appropriate tatemae is
favored over honne that may differ with convention.
Lastly, modern Japanese society has been characterized as rigid, fast-paced,
and competitive. The Japanese school system is no exception. From relatively early
on, Japanese parents, particularly mothers, are generally very involved and insistent in
their children's educational development (Shelley, 1993). It is thought that children
must gain a competitive edge as soon as possible in their development.
Cross-cultural Stress and Coping Research Utilizing Japanese Participants
A literature search of stress and coping in Japanese participants reveals a
dearth of articles published in English. Indeed, there are scant articles published in
Japanese. However, Nakano has produced several English-language articles reporting
studies aimed at testing American-based results in Japan. Using a translated measure
(i.e., the Hassles Scale, Kanner et al., 1981) she demonstrated daily life stressors, or
hassles, to be highly correlated with physical/psychological symptoms in a sample of
Japanese adults (1988). The Hassles Scale translation was also shown to demonstrate
adequate test-retest reliability over a 3-month period. A follow-up study examined the
relationships between five intervening coping strategies (active-cognitive, active-
behavioral, avoidance, problem-focused, and emotion-focused) and Type A behavior,

34
hardiness, social support, and social interest (Nakano, 1989). This study used a
translated coping measure developed in America by Billings and Moos (1981).
Consistent with American data (Billings and Moos, 1981), symptoms were related to
avoidance, emotion-focused coping, and Type A behavior.
In a further exploration of coping strategies and psychological symptoms in
Japanese participants, Nakano measured everyday stress, depression, physical
symptoms, and coping responses among female college undergraduates (Nakano,
1991a). Because Japanese are thought to be especially oriented toward control of the
personal and psychological impact of external realities, Nakano expected cognitive or
emotion-focused coping to moderate stress. In contrast, problem-focused coping was
found to moderate stress and emotion-focused coping actually enhanced the stress-
symptom relationship. Since these results are similar to results of American studies
(Aldwin and Revenson, 1987; Kobasa, 1982; Mitchell et al., 1983), Nakano
considered the possibility that influences of cultural environments on coping may be
minimal. However, she concluded that because the scales were simply adapted from
American research, they may have missed important coping strategies. She argued
that additional research is needed to develop scales with strategies specifically for
Japanese. Of primary importance, the Japanese translation of the coping inventory
developed by Billings and Moos (1981) was again demonstrated to have some
predictive validity for psychological well-being.
In a subsequent study using adults, the hypothesis that some types of emotion-
focused coping serve as stress moderators whereas other factors operate as stress
enhancers was generally supported (Nakano, 1991b). This study also demonstrated

35
the predictive validity of a translation of the WCCL coping measure (Folkman and
Lazarus, 1980). Results were generally consistent with those obtained by Folkman
and Lazarus (1985). However, in contrast to most studies with American participants
(Aldwin and Revenson, 1987), positive cognitive coping was effective in reducing
stress. Positive cognitive coping was defined by Nakano as a form of emotion-focused
coping that aims to reframe an event so that it can be seen as auspicious. Nakano
suggested that the inconsistency she found may have been due to an orientation
toward secondary control (emotion-focused coping) in Japanese culture.
Nakano also examined coping as it relates to individual differences in adults.
Using a translation of Folkman and Lazarus’ Ways of Coping Questionnaire,
extroverts were found to use both social support and avoidance more than introverts
(Nakano, 1992). Extroversion and independence were also found to be negatively
related to depression and hassles (Nakano, 1993).
To summarize Nakano’s work on stress and coping in Japanese, it seems that
the first steps have been taken to transport and test existing American instruments.
With one exception (Nakano, 1991b, described above), Nakano’s results have
generally been consistent with those reliably found in the literature on American
participants. However, there has been little attempt to critically analyze the results and
interpret them within a cross-cultural framework. In particular, it is not clear whether
the predictive validity of the instruments occurs for the same underlying reasons in
both the American and Japanese cultures. Such dynamics are not yet understood in
either American or Japanese samples.

36
In a related problem area, Radford, Mann, Ohta, and Nakane (1993) compared
decisional self-esteem, decisional stress, and coping styles of Australian and Japanese
college undergraduates. Self-report measurements showed differences consistent with
Hofstede's individualistic/collectivistic societal distinction (1980). Japanese reported
higher levels of stress associated with making a decision by themselves than did their
Australian counterparts.
A cross-cultural study of large scale was undertaken by Mauro et al. (1992) to
assess the role of appraisal in emotion. Over 900 participants from the United States,
Japan, Hong Kong, and the People's Republic of China were asked to re-experience an
emotional episode and then to describe the emotions associated with it, according to
10 dimensions. Many cross-cultural generalities were found. However, the U.S.,
Japanese, and Chinese participants differed on the dimensions of control,
responsibility, and anticipated effort. These differences were essentially related to
whether particular episodes were appraised as being in the participant’s control,
someone else’s control, or no one's control. The means of the U.S. sample in the
scope of the control-related dimensions differed significantly from one or more of
those of the Chinese samples. The Japanese means were found to lie in between those
of the U.S. and Chinese. Mauro et al. speculated that appraisals of being in control
were related to the individualistic qualities of the U.S. culture.
Related to appraisal is causal attribution. Kawanishi (1995) investigated the
effects of culture on beliefs about the cause of stress and successful coping. Over 400
Anglo-American and Japanese participants answered a questionnaire on internal-
external control. Items included statements about both stress and coping, and

37
participants were asked to indicate how often they agreed with the statements. The
Japanese participants were more likely than the Anglo-Americans to attribute
successful coping to good luck and to see stress as caused by bad luck. These results
are discussed in the context of an American sense of free will, perhaps having
developed from the period of Westward expansion. The Japanese Buddhist belief in
karmic fatalism is also considered as an antecedent for potential underlying tendencies
of Japanese people to view events as somehow being predetermined or inevitable.
Although Kawanishi ventures considerable speculation, her data appear to corroborate
those of Mauro et al. (1992).
Yamamoto and Davis (1982) studied the stressful experiences of over 600
Japanese and American children from grade four through six. A 20 event rating scale
was used that included daily and major life events. Events were rated in terms of how
unpleasant they might be on a scale of 1 (“least upsetting”) to 7 (“most upsetting”).
Children also indicated whether they had actually experienced the events.
Frequencies of various events in the Yamamoto and Davis study differed
sharply between the Japanese and American children. However, agreement on the
potential stressfulness of events was quite high, especially for events that were
perceived as being more stressful. No attempt was made to group the events into
context-based categories, but it was noted that the Japanese and American children
tended to differ most on school related items. For these items, the Japanese children
reported considerably higher stressfulness. Overall cultural differences were not
significant for the total number or the cumulative stress values of events experienced.
In both the Japanese and American samples, children in higher grades significantly

38
reported more stress. Significant sex differences were only detected for the Japanese
children. Boys reported more stress than girls. Yamamoto and Davis concluded that
the similarity between the two cultures' perceptions were remarkable. They speculated
that school children in metropolitan areas in industrialized nations may have much in
common, in spite of unique cultural backgrounds. Sex differences in the Japanese
participants were theorized to be the result of long-standing cultural enthusiasm for
boys’ education in particular. Yamamoto and Davis also argued that differing
expectations about the sexes may carry into youth and contribute to the
disproportionately high percentage of males in institutions of higher education.
Crystal et al. (1994) considered parental expectations and satisfactions,
psychological maladjustment, and academic achievement in a large scale study of over
4000 Japanese, Chinese, and American eleventh-grade students. Inventories were
used as well as a mathematics test of achievement. Asian students reported higher
levels of parental expectation and lower levels of parental satisfaction concerning
academic achievement. In spite of this, both the Japanese and the Chinese students
reported less stress than the American students. Crystal et al. (1994) argued that
American youths have greater expectations of leisure time allowance. The higher
levels of stress reported by American students were therefore explained as resulting
from taxed resources. Crystal et al. (1994) also found that Chinese students reported
the highest frequencies of depression and somatic complaints, yet Japanese students
reported the lowest. These results would seem to conflict with previous studies (e.g.,
Yamamoto and Davis, 1982) in which high achievement in Japan was found to come
at greater expense, in terms of stress, relative to the case of America.

39
Rationale, Overview, Hypotheses, and Research Questions
Theories about the stress and coping relationship in general, have attributed
varying contributions on the part of person and environment factors. A transactionist
approach has been purported to be most accurate in accounting for the complex
dynamics involved. A discussion of methodological issues in this general line of
research has revealed a number of important considerations.
A review of related literature has shown a need for cross-cultural,
developmental research utilizing Japanese participants. Measurement of daily and
major life event stress, coping strategies, and perception of parenting style was put
forward as a means of meeting the specific exploratory research needs. In the present
study, several existing instruments (Jose, 1994, 1997) were modified, translated into
Japanese, and used to test Japanese children of 3rd through 6th grade.
Data were collected on Japanese children’s stress, coping, and perception of
parental warmth and control. The study utilized a 2 (sex) X 2 (age) X 2 (warmth: low
versus high) X 2 (control: low versus high) design. In two MANOVAs of stress, sex
and age constituted between subjects, independent variables and stress contexts
(family/home, health/fitness, education, and peer relations) constituted four dependent
variables. In one MANOVA of coping, sex and age constituted between subjects,
independent variables and coping strategies (approach/problem-focused,
approach/emotion-focused, avoidance/problem-focused, and avoidance/emotion-
focused) constituted four dependent variables.
In two additional MANOVAs of stress, perception of parental control and
warmth constituted between subjects, independent variables and stress contexts

40
(family/home, health/fitness, education, and peer relations) constituted four dependent
variables. In one additional MANOVA of coping, parental warmth and control
constituted between subjects, independent variables and coping strategies
(approach/problem-focused, approach/emotion-focused, avoidance/problem-focused,
and avoidance/emotion-focused) constituted four dependent variables. (Note: the
original intent was to analyze warmth and control in the same MANOVAs as sex and
age, however cell sizes were prohibitively small).
The main objective of this research was to ascertain whether Japanese children
would exhibit similar gender differences and developmental changes as American
children have. Modified Jose (1994, 1997) instruments formed the base for cross-
cultural comparisons. This research aimed to expand our knowledge of the types of
stress Japanese children encounter and the coping strategies they utilize at various
ages, in various circumstances. It also probed into the appropriateness of American
codings as they relate to wider populations.
Hypotheses
I. Boys will report greater stress than girls for an education context. (Based on
Yamamoto and Davis, 1979).
II. Older children will report greater stress for an education context than younger
children. (Based on Yamamoto and Davis, 1979).
III. Girls will report greater use of approach/emotion-focused coping than boys for a
tease/avoid scenario. (Based on Wertlieb, et al., 1987; Frydenberg and Lewis,
1990; Jose et al., 1997).

41
IV. Boys will report greater use of avoidance/problem-focused coping than girls for a
tease/avoid scenario. (Based on Jose, et al., 1997).
V. Older children will report greater use of approach/emotion-focused coping for a
tease/avoid scenario than younger children. (Based on Band and Weisz, 1988;
Altshuler and Ruble, 1989; Compas, et al., 1992).
VI. Older children will report less use of avoidance/problem-focused coping for a
tease/avoid scenario than younger children. (Based on Band and Weisz, 1988).
VII. Younger girls will employ approach/emotion-focused coping more than younger
boys. (Based on Wertlieb, et al., 1987; Frydenberg and Lewis, 1990).
VIII. Children with high perceived parental warmth will report less stress than those
with low perceived parental warmth. (Tentatively hypothesized).
IX. Children with high perceived parental control will report greater stress than those
with low perceived parental control. (Tentatively hypothesized).
X. Children with high perceived parental control and low perceived parental warmth
will report greater stress than children with high perceived parental control and
high perceived parental warmth. (Tentatively hypothesized).
XI. Children with high perceived parental warmth will report greater
approach/emotion-focused coping than those with low perceived parental warmth.
(Tentatively hypothesized).
XII. Children with low perceived parental warmth will report greater use of
avoidance/problem-focused coping than those with high perceived parental
warmth. (Tentatively hypothesized).

42
XIII. Children with high perceived parental control and low perceived parental warmth
will report the least approach/emotion-focused coping of all four parental control
and warmth high/low groups. (Tentatively hypothesized).
XIV. Children with high perceived parental control and high perceived parental
warmth will report the greatest use of approach/emotion-focused coping of all four
parental control and warmth high/low groups. (Tentatively hypothesized).
Research Questions
I. Will boys or girls report greater stress for family/home life, health/fitness, and/or
peer relations context?
II. Will older children or younger children report greater stress for a family/home life,
health/fitness, and/or peer relations context?
III. Will there be any interactions between sex and age regarding education,
family/home life, health/fitness, and peer relations stress?
IV. Will boys or girls report greater use of approach/problem-focused and
avoidance/emotion-focused coping for a tease/avoid scenario?
V. Will older children or younger children report greater use of avoidance/emotion-
focused and approach/problem-focused coping for a tease/avoid scenario?
VI. Will there be any interactions with respect to sex, age, and approach/problem-
focused, avoidance/emotion-focused, or avoidance/problem-focused coping?
VII. How will children with low warmth & low control and high warmth & low
control compare with those of high warmth & high control and low warmth & high
control with respect to stress?

43
VIII. How will children with low versus high warmth compare in their use of
approach/problem-focused coping and avoidance/emotion-focused coping?
IX. How will children with low versus high control compare in their use of
approach/emotion-focused, approach/problem-focused, avoidance/emotion-
focused, or avoidance/problem-focused coping?
X. How will children with low warmth & low control and children with high warmth
and low control compare with children of high warmth & high control and low
warmth & high control with respect to approach/emotion-focused coping?
XI. How will children of low versus high control and low versus high warmth compare
in their use of approach/problem-focused, avoidance/emotion-focused, or
avoidance/problem-focused coping?

44
CHAPTER II.
METHOD
Research Participants
Participants were all native Japanese children, sampled from three separate
schools. The first sample was taken from a rural juku, or private “cram” school, in
Meiwa-cho of Mie prefecture. The researcher taught English there for a period of one
year. The second two samples were taken from public elementary schools, one in
Nanto-cho, Mie prefecture, the other in Ichikawa-shi, Chiba prefecture. All three
samples can be classified as being primarily middle-class in student composition.
A total of 114 children participated, however 2 of them did not fill out the
entirety of their questionnaire packets and 3 had extreme data. These cases were
eliminated. Therefore, a total of 109 children were used in the analyses. The Meiwa-
cho sample consisted of 27 participants, the Ichikawa-shi sample, 30 participants, and
the Nanto-cho sample, 52 participants. In the aggregate, there were 21 third graders,
30 fourth graders, 32 fifth graders, and 26 sixth graders. The age ranged from 8 to 12,
with a mean of 10.56 (SD=1.08). Third and fourth graders comprised a younger age
group (N=51, M=9.55, SD=.54) and fourth and fifth graders comprised an older age
group (N=58, M=11.45, SD=.50). There were 49 females (24 in the younger age
group and 25 in the older age group) and 60 males (27 in the younger age group and
33 in the older age group).
Materials

45
Each child completed one questionnaire packet consisting of the following
measures (completed in order of presentation):
The Everyday Life Events Scale for Children [(ELESC) see Appendix C] - A
modified version of Jose’s original (1991) scale was presented to the children to assess
the actual occurrence of everyday events that have been annoying or anxiety-evoking.
After the children were asked to state whether particular items actually happened to
them or not (occurrence), they were asked to state the perceived degree of the stress
(intensity). For example, “you were picked last for a team” – “if it was a problem,
how much of stress did it cause? (a little, some, or a lot).” There was also a blank
provided for a write-in event. There were 44 items in total.
Modifications of the original scale were undertaken to present events more
objectively; that is, free of implied stress value. For example, “not liking the way you
looked” (from the original scale) was changed to “you thought about the way you
look.” The reasoning was that the measurement of stress occurrence should be
distinct from stress intensity where possible. Such neutral presentation of items might
also have prevented biased responses where participants might have otherwise been
inadvertently primed.
In order to increase cultural relevance, several additional items were added to
the original measure. They are: “you had after-school lessons or practice (e.g., juku,
piano, English, etc.),” “you had to do something because you're a boy/girl, but you did
not want to do it,” “you disagreed with most of the people in a group but did what
they wanted anyway,” “you did not want to follow your school’s dress code.” All the

46
additional items were composed based on cultural considerations put forward by two
native born Japanese who translated and consulted for the project.
The Major Life Events Scale for Children [(MLESC) see Appendix D] -- A
modified version of Jose’s original (1991) scale was presented to the children to assess
the actual occurrence of major events that may or may not have changed their lives.
The checklist inquired about events such as: “your parents separated,” “you changed
to a new school,” and “you got caught stealing something.” As in the ELESC, if the
children experienced an event listed or one they themselves had provided, they were
asked to state how much stress it caused (a little, some, or a lot). There were 40 items
in total, the last 7 of which were open. Finally, based on cultural considerations, the
following item was added to the original measure: “You failed to make an athletic
team or play in a game.”
The Children's Integrated Stress and Coping Scale [(CISCS) see Appendix F] -
- A modified version of Jose et al.s’ original (1994) scale was presented to the children
to assess actual and hypothetical responses to the particular event of “kids teased or
avoided you,” that may or may not have actually occurred (this event was chosen after
consideration of pilot data that indicated a majority of the children had actually
experienced having been teased/avoided). They were asked how much they actually
used (or would have used given the scenario) each of 20 or more ways of coping (not
at all, some/a little, or a lot). The ways of coping include the following items: “I
accepted the way things were,” “I tried to solve the problem,” and “I ignored or tried
to get away from the problem.” This modified version of the scale was essentially the

47
same as the original, except that several of the statements were reworded to ensure
clarity before translation. There were 22 items in total, the last of which was open.
The Children's Perception of Parenting Style Questionnaire [(CPPSQ) see
Appendix H] -- A modified version of Jose’s original (1995) questionnaire was
presented to the children to assess their perception of their parents' style along the
dimensions of control and warmth. The children were asked how true a series of
statements were for them on a scale of 0 to 2 (not true, very true, sort of true). Items
assessing parental control included: “When my friends and I disagree, my parents let us
resolve the disagreement on our own.” Questions assessing parental warmth included:
“My parents communicate to me how much they value me.” Several modifications
were made from the original measure to increase item objectivity. One item was
added to the original measure: “My parents communicate to me how much they value
me.” This item was intended to gauge an approximation of perceived parental love.
There were 7 items in total, 4 for control and 3 for warmth.
Design
The study utilized a 2 (sex) X 2 (age) X 2 (control: low vs. high) X 2 (warmth:
low vs. high) design. In two MANOVAs of stress, sex and age constituted between
subjects, independent variables and stress contexts (family/home, health/fitness,
education, and peer relations) constituted four dependent variables. In one MANOVA
of coping, sex and age constituted between subjects, independent variables and coping
strategies (approach/problem-focused, approach/emotion-focused, avoidance/problem-
focused, and avoidance/emotion-focused) constituted four dependent variables.

48
In two additional MANOVAs of stress, perception of parental control and
warmth constituted between subjects, independent variables and stress contexts
(family/home, health/fitness, education, and peer relations) constituted four dependent
variables. In one additional MANOVA of coping, parental warmth and control
constituted between subjects, independent variables and coping strategies
(approach/problem-focused, approach/emotion-focused, avoidance/problem-focused,
and avoidance/emotion-focused) constituted four dependent variables. (Note: the
original intent was to analyze warmth and control in the same MANOVAs as sex and
age, however cell sizes were prohibitively small).
Procedure
The children were asked to complete the questionnaires during normal class
time. They were told that the questionnaires were part of a study examining the
problems that children face. The children were assured that their anonymity would be
respected and that they should not write their names on the questionnaires. They were
also told that upon full completion of the questionnaire packet, they would receive a
candy reward. The full packet of measures only took about 15 minutes to complete
for most of the children. However, the children were given as much time as they need.
This never ran beyond approximately 25 minutes.
All of the measures were independently translated into Japanese by two
bilinguals. They were then exchanged, back-translated, checked, and modified as
necessary to ensure meaning was consistent between the English and Japanese
versions. This researcher was present for the entire process and is confident that the
integrity of the original meanings was maximally preserved.

49
Coding
The Everyday Life Events Scale for Children [(ELESC) see Appendix C] and
The Major Life Events Scale for Children [(MLESC) see Appendix D] - Data obtained
from these two stress measures were grouped into categories predetermined by this
researcher, representing the following contexts: family/home life, health/fitness,
education, and peer relations (see Appendix E: Every day and Major Life Event Stress
Key).
For each participant, scores were computed representing their responses to
each stress context category. For each stress context (Family/Home Life,
Health/Fitness, Education, and Peer Relations), stress intensity values were averaged
(i.e., summed and divided by the number of stress events reported to have occurred
within that category). This resulted in 4 overall stress scores for each participant for
each stress measure.
The Children's Integrated Stress and Coping Scale [(CISCS) see Appendix F] -
- Data obtained from this measure were grouped into categories predetermined by
Jose (1994), representing the following: Approach/Emotion-focused strategies,
Approach/Problem-focused strategies, Avoidance/Emotion-focused strategies, and
Avoidance/Problem-focused strategies (see Appendix G). Each participant received
four scores representing his or her tendency to use each of the four main coping
strategies. Each score was simply an average of the scores for the several items in the
coping strategy category.
The Children's Perception of Parenting Style Questionnaire [(CPPSQ) see
Appendix H] -- Data obtained from this measure were grouped into predetermined

50
categories of either “control” or “warmth” (see Appendix I). Each child received a
score for “warmth” and a score for “control.” Scores were computed by taking the
intensity values of the measure’s items and averaging them for both of the categories.
After the “control” and “warmth” scores were obtained for each participant, median
splits were performed on both the “warmth” scores and the “control” scores. Based
on that, each participant was placed into either the “high control” (N=54) or “low
control” (N=55) group and into either the “high warmth” (N=54) or “low warmth”
(N=55) group.

51
CHAPTER III.
RESULTS
Tests of Hypotheses I & II and Research Questions I, II, & III
The hypotheses and research questions related to the children’s reported stress
scores as a function of sex and age are as follows: HI, HII, RI, RII, RIII. They were
examined in two separate MANOVAs. In each, sex and age (3rd and 4th grade versus
5th and 6th) constituted between subjects variables and the stress scores in each context
(family/home, health/fitness, education, and peer relations) constituted four dependent
variables. The first analysis used participants’ stress scores from the ELESC as the
dependent variables, while the second analysis used participants’ stress scores from the
MLESC.
Diagnostic tests were conducted to evaluate MANOVA assumptions. With
respect to the ELESC scores, Box’s M was found to be significant at 51.32, p<.05.
Consequently, homogeneity of variance could not be guaranteed. However, analysis
of the ELESC data was carried out, in the case that Box’s M may have been over-
sensitive. With respect to the MLESC scores, very few participants experienced the
single health/fitness stress event described (“you got very sick or were badly injured”).
Therefore the health/fitness context was eliminated for the MLESC analyses, leaving
three stress context dependent variables instead of four. Subsequently, results of
evaluation of assumptions were satisfactory.
Hypothesis I predicted that boys would report greater stress than girls for the
education context. With the use of Wilks’ criterion, a significant main effect for SEX
was detected for everyday life event stress, F(4, 102) = 2.55, p<.05 (see Table 1).

52
However, the analysis of major life event stress failed to reach significance (see Table
2). Wilks’ Lambda contrasts were conducted with the everyday life event stress result
using joint multivariate, 95% confidence intervals. No significant difference was found
for education stress. Therefore, hypothesis I was rejected.
Research question I asked whether boys or girls would report greater stress for
family/home life, health/fitness, and/or peer relations contexts. The girls’ everyday
health/fitness stress (M=.86, SD=.59) was found to be significantly greater than that of
the boys (M=.64, SD=.51), t=2.03, p<.05 (see Table 3, Figure 1). The girls’ everyday
peer stress (M=.95, SD=.56) was also found to be significantly greater than that of the
boys (M=.64, SD=.63), t=2.75, p<.01 (see Table 3, Figure 1). In terms of
family/home life stress, no significant difference was found.

53
Table 1
Multivariate Analysis of Variance: Children’s Everyday Life Event Stress
Source Hypothesis df Error df F p
SEX 4 102 2.55 .044
AGE 4 102 .96 .434
AGE X SEX 4 102 .51 .728
Table 2
Multivariate Analysis of Variance: Children’s Major Life Event Stress
Source Hypothesis df Error df F p
SEX 3 103 1.27 .289
AGE 3 103 6.94 .000
SEX X AGE 3 103 5.39 .002

54
Table 3
Mean Stress Scores for Everyday Life Event Stress by Sex
Education Family Health/Fit Peer
Sex N M SD M SD M SD M SD
Girls 49 .87 .51 .77 .44 .86 .59 .95 .56
Boys 60 .81 .61 .72 .38 .64 .51 .64 .63
1.0
.9
mean elesc stress score
.8 context
health/fitness
.7 peer relations
education
.6 family/home life
girls boys
Figure 1: Mean everyday life event stress by SEX.

55
Hypothesis II predicted that older children would report greater stress for the
education context than younger children. With the use of Wilks’criterion, a significant
main effect for AGE was detected for major life event stress, F(3, 103) = 6.94, p<.001
(see Table 2). The test for everyday life event stress, however, failed to reach
significance (see Table 1). Wilks’ Lambda contrasts were conducted with the major
life event stress result using joint multivariate, 95% confidence intervals. The older
children’s major life event education stress (M=.75, SD=.67) was found to be
significantly greater than that of the younger children (M=.33, SD=.60), t=-3.79,
p<.001 (see Table 4, Figure 2). Thus hypothesis II was confirmed in this analysis.
Research question II asked whether older children or younger children would report
greater stress for a family/home life, health/fitness, and/or peer relations context. With
regard to this question, no significant differences were found.

56
Table 4
Mean Stress Scores for Major Life Event Stress by Age
Education Family Peer
Age N M SD M SD M SD
Younger 51 .33 .60 .83 .59 .79 .82
Older 58 .75 .67 .69 .50 .59 .76
.9
.8
mean mlesc stress score
.7
.6
.5
context
.4
education
.3 family/home life
.2 peer relations
younger older
Figure 2: Mean major life event stress by AGE.

57
Research question III asked whether there would be any interactions between
sex and age regarding education, family/home life, health/fitness, and peer relations
stress. With the use of Wilks’criterion, a significant SEX X AGE interaction effect
was detected in the analysis of major life event stress, F(3, 103) = 5.39, p<.01 (see
Table 2). The analysis of everyday life events, however, failed to reach significance
(see Table 1). Wilks’ Lambda contrasts were conducted with the major life event
stress result using joint multivariate, 95% confidence intervals. The SEX X AGE
interaction reached significance for major life event peer stress, t=-3.08, p<.01. A
Tukey post hoc test revealed that the girls’ major life event peer stress significantly
increased across age (younger: M=.56, SD=.80, older: M=.86, SD=.87, see Table 5,
Figure 3). In contrast, that of the boys’ significantly decreased across age (younger:
M=.99, SD=.79, older: M=.39, SD=.59, see Table 5, Figure 3).

58
Table 5
Mean Stress Scores for Major Life Event Stress by Age X Sex
Education Family Peer
Age Sex N M SD M SD M SD
Younger Girls 24 .33 .64 .91 .64 .56 .80
Boys 27 .32 .57 .75 .55 .99 .79
Older Girls 25 1.01 .79 .68 .55 .86 .87
Boys 33 .56 .50 .69 .47 .39 .59

59
1.2
1.0
.8
mean mlesc score
.6
sex
.4
female
.2 male
younger older
Figure 3: Mean major life event peer relations stress by AGE X SEX
Tests of Hypotheses III, IV, V, VI, & VII and Research Questions IV, V, VI
The hypotheses and research questions related to the children’s sex, age, and
use of coping strategies are as follows: HIII, HIV, HV, HVI, HVII, RIV, RV, and
RVI. They were examined in one MANOVA. Sex and age (3rd and 4th grade versus
5th and 6th) were between-subjects variables in the analysis and the four coping strategy
scores (approach/problem-focused, approach/emotion-focused, avoidance/problem-
focused, and avoidance/emotion-focused) were dependent variables. Results of tests
of MANOVA assumptions were satisfactory. It should also be noted that the coping
scenario of “kids teased or avoided you” appears to have been sufficiently stressful to
as to give legitimacy to the reality of the coping responses. 57% of the boys, 65% of
the girls, 55% of the younger children, and 66% of the older children reported having
experienced this event. The overall mean stress intensity associated with the
tease/avoid stress item was .88, with a standard deviation of .90.

60
Hypothesis III predicted that girls would report greater use of
approach/emotion-focused coping than boys for the tease/avoid scenario used in this
study. Hypothesis IV predicted that the boys would report greater use of
avoidance/problem-focused coping than the girls. With the use of Wilks’criterion, a
significant main effect was found for SEX on coping strategies, F(4, 102) = 3.04,
p<.05 (see Table 6). Wilks’ Lambda contrasts were conducted using joint
multivariate, 95% confidence intervals. No significant sex difference was found for
either approach/emotion-focused coping or avoidance/problem-focused coping. Thus,
both hypothesis III and IV were rejected.
Research question IV asked whether boys or girls would report greater use of
approach/problem-focused and avoidance/emotion-focused coping for the tease/avoid
scenario. The girls’ approach/problem-focused coping (M=.79, SD=.44) was found to
be significantly greater than that of the boys (M=.55, SD=.38), t=3.47, p<.001 (see
Table 7, Figure 4). However, no significant difference was found regarding
avoidance/emotion-focused coping.

61
Table 6
Multivariate Analysis of Variance: Coping as a Function of Sex and Age
Source Hypothesis df Error df F p
SEX 4 102 3.04 .021
AGE 4 102 5.48 .000
SEX X AGE 4 102 1.59 .181
Table 7
Mean Coping Scores by Sex
App./Emo. App./Pro. Avo./Emo. Avo./Pro.
Sex N M SD M SD M SD M SD
Girls 49 .81 .43 .79 .44 .55 .35 .53 .26
Boys 60 .69 .34 .55 .38 .45 .33 .50 .29

62
.9
.8
mean ciscs coping score
.7
coping strategy
.6
approach/emotion
approach/problem
.5
avoidance/emotion
.4 avoidance/problem
female male
Figure 4: Mean coping scores by SEX.

63
Hypothesis V predicted that older children would report greater use of
approach/emotion-focused coping for the tease/avoid scenario than younger children.
Hypothesis VI predicted that older children would report less use of
avoidance/problem-focused coping than younger children. With the use of
Wilks’criterion, a significant main effect was found for AGE on coping strategies, F(4,
102) = 5.48, p<.001 (see Table 6). Wilks’ Lambda contrasts were conducted using
joint multivariate, 95% confidence intervals. No significant age difference was found
for approach/emotion-focused coping. Thus, hypothesis V was rejected. In terms of
hypothesis VI, the older children reported significantly greater use of
avoidance/problem-focused coping (M=.59, SD=.27) than the younger children
(M=.43, .26), t=-2.89, p<.01 (see Table 8, Figure 5). This stands in contrast to what
was expected. Thus hypothesis VI was rejected.
Research question V asked whether older or younger children would report
greater use of avoidance/emotion-focused and approach/problem-focused. No
significant difference was found for AGE on avoidance/emotion-focused coping.
However, a significant difference was found for AGE on approach/problem-focused
coping. The older children used this strategy significantly more (M=.76, SD=.38) than
the younger children (M=.53, SD=.43), t=-2.96, p<.01 (see Table 8, Figure 5).

64
Table 8
Mean Coping Scores by Age
App./Emo. App./Pro. Avo./Emo. Avo./Pro.
Age N M SD M SD M SD M SD
Younger 51 .73 .37 .53 .43 .43 .32 .43 .26
Older 58 .75 .40 .76 .38 .55 .35 .59 .27

65
.8
.7
mean ciscs coping score
.6
coping strategy
.5
approach/emotion
approach/problem
.4
avoidance/emotion
.3 avoidance/problem
younger older
Figure 5: Mean coping scores by AGE.

66
Hypothesis VII predicted that younger girls would employ approach/emotion-
focused coping more than younger boys. However, with the use of Wilks’criterion, no
significant interaction between SEX and AGE was found (see Table 6). This result
also addressed research question VI (asking whether there would be any interactions
with respect to sex, age, and approach/problem-focused, avoidance/emotion-focused,
and avoidance/problem-focused coping).
Tests of Hypotheses VIII, IX, X and Research Question VII
The hypotheses and research question related to the children’s reported stress
scores as a function of perceived parental warmth and control are as follows: HVIII,
HIX, HX, and RVII. They were examined in two separate MANOVAs. In each,
perceived parental warmth (low vs. high) and control (low vs. high) constituted
between subjects, independent variables and the stress scores in each context
(family/home, health/fitness, education, and peer relations) constituted four dependent
variables. The first analysis used participants’ stress scores from the ELESC for the
dependent variables, while the second analysis used participants’ stress scores from the
MLESC.
Diagnostic tests were conducted to evaluate MANOVA assumptions. With
respect to the MLESC scores, cell counts were too low for the health/fitness stress
context dependent variable. It was therefore eliminated, leaving three stress context
dependent variables instead of four. Subsequently, results of evaluation of
assumptions were satisfactory.
Hypothesis VIII predicted that the children with high perceived parental
warmth would report less stress than those with low perceived parental warmth.

67
Hypothesis IX predicted that the children with high perceived parental control would
report greater stress than those with low perceived parental control. Hypothesis X
predicted that the children with high perceived parental control and low perceived
parental warmth would report greater stress than the children with high perceived
parental control and high perceived parental warmth. With the use of Wilk’s criterion,
there were no significant main or interaction effects for everyday life event stress or
major life event stress as a function of warmth or control. Hypotheses VIII, IX, and X
were therefore rejected. Research question VII asked how the children with low
warmth & low control and high warmth & low control would compare with those of
high warmth & high control and low warmth & high control with respect to stress.
No significant differences were found.
Tests of Hypotheses XI, XII, XIII, XIV and Research Questions VIII, IX, X, & XI
The hypotheses and research questions related to the children’s perceived
parental warmth & control and use of coping strategies are as follows: HXI, HXII,
HXIII, HXIV, RVIII, RIX, RX, & RXI. They were examined in one MANOVA.
Warmth (low vs. high) and control (low vs. high) were between-subjects, independent
variables in the analysis and the four coping strategy scores (approach/problem-
focused, approach/emotion-focused, avoidance/problem-focused, and
avoidance/emotion-focused) were dependent variables. Results of tests of MANOVA
assumptions were satisfactory.
Hypothesis XI predicted that the children with high perceived parental warmth
would report greater approach/emotion-focused coping than those with low perceived
parental warmth. Hypothesis XII predicted that the children with low perceived

68
parental warmth would report greater use of avoidance/problem-focused coping than
those with high perceived parental warmth. With the use of Wilks’criterion, a
significant main effect was found for WARMTH on coping strategies, F(4, 102) =
3.29, p<.05 (see Table 9). Wilks’ Lambda contrasts were conducted using joint
multivariate, 95% confidence intervals. No significant difference was found for
approach/emotion-focused coping. Thus, hypothesis XI was rejected. However, a
significant difference was found for avoidance/problem-focused coping, t=2.66, p<.01.
The children low in perceived parental warmth reported significantly greater use of
avoidance/problem-focused coping (M=.58, SD=.29, see table 10) than those with
high perceived parental warmth (M=.45, SD=.24, see table10). Thus hypothesis XII
was retained.
Research question VIII asked how the children with low versus high warmth
would compare in their use of approach/problem-focused coping and
avoidance/emotion-focused coping. No significant differences were found for
WARMTH on approach/problem-focused coping or avoidance/emotion-focused
coping.
Research question IX asked how the children with low versus high control
would compare in their use of approach/emotion-focused, approach/problem-focused,
avoidance/emotion-focused, or avoidance/problem-focused coping. There was no
significant main effect for CONTROL.
Hypothesis XIII predicted that the children with high perceived parental
control and low perceived parental warmth would report the least approach/emotion-
focused coping of all four parental control and warmth high/low groups. Hypothesis

69
XIV predicted that the children with high perceived parental control and high
perceived parental warmth would report the greatest use of approach/emotion-focused
coping of all four parental control and warmth high/low groups. With the use of
Wilks’criterion, no significant interaction effect was found for WARMTH and
CONTROL on coping strategies, F(4, 102) = .28, p<.887 (see Table 9). Thus,
hypothesis XIII and XIV were rejected.
Research question X asked how the children with low warmth & low control
and the children with high warmth and low control would compare with the children of
high warmth & high control and the children of low warmth & high control with
respect to approach/emotion-focused coping. Research question XI asked how the
children of low versus high control and low versus high warmth would compare in
their use of approach/problem-focused, avoidance/emotion-focused, or
avoidance/problem-focused coping. With respect to both of these questions, no
significant differences were found.
Table 9
Multivariate Analysis of Variance: Coping as a Function of Warmth and Control
Source Hypothesis df Error df F p
WARMTH 4 102 3.29 .014
CONTROL 4 102 2.31 .063

70
WARMTH X 4 102 .28 .887
CONTROL

71
Table 10
Mean Coping Scores by Warmth
App./Emo. App./Pro. Avo./Emo. Avo./Pro.
Sex N M SD M SD M SD M SD
Low 55 .72 .42 .69 .42 .51 .36 .58 .29
High 54 .77 .35 .62 .43 .49 .33 .45 .24
.8
mean ciscs coping score
.7
.6 coping strategy
approach/emotion
.5 approach/problem
avoidance/emotion
.4 avoidance/problem
Low High
Figure 6: Mean coping scores by WARMTH.

72
Ancillary Analyses of Stress Scales’ Items
Coupled with popular reports, past literature has suggested that, at least
compared to Western cultures, in Japanese culture there exists a considerable amount
of emphasis on: (1) high standards of academic performance, (2) conformity and
politeness aspects of collectivism, and (3) distinct sex-roles (e.g., Barnlund, 1975;
Crystal et al., 1994; Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Triandis, 1988). To explore these
contentions the stress occurrence and intensity values of five individual questionnaire
items were examined. The following four items were selected from the ELESC: 22,
23, 33, and 37. The remaining item, 27, was selected from the MLESC.
All of the selected items were chosen for their theoretical relation to the three
contentions. ELESC #22 (“you got a grade that was less than you expected”) and
MLESC #27 (“you got a bad grade on your report card”) directly relate to academic
performance. ELESC #33 (“you disagreed with most of the people in a group but did
what they wanted anyway”) and #23 (“you did not like someone but were nice to them
anyway”) directly relate to conformity and politeness, respectively. ELESC #37 (“you
had to do something because you’re a boy/girl, but you did not want to do it”) directly
relates to sex-roles. Lastly, items 23, 33, and 37 were specially composed and added
to the modified Jose et al. (1994) ELESC to create an instrument more culturally
sensitive to Japanese participants than the original measure.
The ancillary stress analyses were carried out utilizing chi square tests and
MANOVAs. Twenty chi square tests were conducted to assess stress occurrence
differences. Each evaluated the effect of either AGE, SEX, WARMTH, or
CONTROL on the occurrence values of each of the 5 stressor items. Two

73
MANOVAs were conducted to assess differences in stress intensities. In the first
MANOVA, AGE and SEX served as the independent variables while the intensity
values of the five stressor items served as the dependent variables. In the second
MANOVA, WARMTH and CONTROL served as the independent variables. In both
MANOVAs, Wilks’ Lambda contrasts were conducted with significant results, using
joint, multivariate, 95% confidence intervals. Results of all statistical assumption tests
were satisfactory.
Age-related Chi Square Tests. Significant age differences were detected for
the occurrence of two of the five stress items. These were for ELESC #22 (“you got a
grade that was less than you expected”) and MLESC #27 (“you got a bad grade on
your report card”). For both items, more older children reported academic
performance stress than did their younger counterparts (for ELESC #22, X2=4.49,
df=1, p<.05, for MLESC #27, X2=18.96, df=1, p<.001, see Table 12).
Sex-related Chi Square Tests. A significant sex difference was detected for the
occurrence of one of the five stress items. This was for ELESC #23 (“you did not like
someone but were nice to them anyway”). The number of girls found to report having
had the experience of this politeness-related stressor was significantly greater than the
number of boys (X2=18.53, df=1, p<.0001, see Table 13). However, no significant
sex difference was detected with respect to the number of girls versus boys who
reported having had the conformity-related experience of ELESC #33 (“you disagreed
with most of the people in a group but did what they wanted anyway”).
Warmth-related Chi Square Tests. Two significant differences were detected
with respect to warmth. “You had to do something because you’re a boy/girl, but you

74
did not want to do it” was reported to have been experienced by a significantly greater
number of low perceived parental warmth children than by high perceived parental
warmth children (X2=7.70, df=1, p<.01, see Table 14). “You got a bad grade on your
report card” was also reported to have been experienced by a significantly greater
number of low warmth children than by high warmth children (X2=8.86, df=1, p<.01,
see Table 14).
Control-related Chi Square Tests. Two significant differences were detected
with respect to control. These were for the same academic performance-related (i.e.,
grade-related) items for which significance was obtained in the above age-related chi
square. In this case, more children low in perceived parental control reported
academic performance stress than did children high in perceived parental control for
ELESC #22 (X2=6.69, df=1, p<.01, see Table 15). However, fewer of the low control
children reported academic performance stress for MLESC #27 than did high control
children (X2=5.73, df=1, p<.05, see Table 15).
Age X Sex - Stress Intensity MANOVA. Significant main effects were found
for both age and sex, but no significant interaction effect was detected (see Table 11).
Results of the contrast tests showed that older children reported experiencing
significantly greater stress (M=.72, SD=.79) associated with the everyday life event of
“you got a grade that was less than you expected” than younger children (M=.41,
SD=.63, t=-2.29, df=6, p<.05, see Table 12). Older children also reported
experiencing significantly greater stress (M=.64, SD=.77) associated with the major
life event of “you got a bad grade on your report card” than younger children (M=.24,
SD=.59, t=-3.24, df=6, p<.01, see Table 12). These age differences indicate that older

75
children reported greater stress intensity associated with academic performance than
did younger children.
Significant sex differences were also detected for two items. Girls reported
experiencing significantly greater stress (M=.53, SD=.79) associated with the everyday
life event of “you did not like someone but were nice to them anyway” than did boys
(M=.20, SD=.48, t=2.70, df=6, p<.01, see Table 13). Girls also reported experiencing
significantly greater stress (M=.69, SD=.80) associated with the everyday life event of
“you disagreed with most of the people in a group but did what they wanted anyway”
than did boys (M=.28, SD=.52, t=3.24, df=6, p<.01, see Table 13). These two sex
differences indicate that girls reported greater stress intensity associated with
conformity and politeness pressures than did boys.
Warmth X Control - Stress Intensity MANOVA. No significant main or
interaction effects for warmth and/or control were detected.
Table 11
Multivariate Analysis of Variance: Selected Life Events’ Stress Intensity as a Function
of Sex and Age

76
Source Hypothesis df Error df F p
SEX 6 100 2.55 .025
AGE 6 100 2.23 .046
SEX X AGE 6 100 .868 .521

77
Table 12
Selected Life Events, Stress Intensity, and Stress Occurrence by Age
Younger (N=51) Older (N=58)
Event Stress % Stress %
Intensity Experiencing Intensity Experiencing
M SD M SD
“you got a grade that was less *.41 .63 *61 *.72 .79 *79
than you expected” (ELE #22)
“you got a bad grade on your **.24 .59 ****25 **.64 .77 ****67
report card” (MLE #27)
* = significant difference at p<.05, ** = significant difference at p<.01, **** =
significant difference at p<.0001.

78
Table 13
Selected Life Events, Stress Intensity, and Stress Occurrence by Sex
Girls (N=49) Boys (N=60)
Event Stress % Stress %
Intensity Experiencing Intensity Experiencing
M SD M SD
“you did not like someone but **.53 .79 ****84 **.20 .48 ****43
were nice to them anyway” (ELE
#23)
“you disagreed with most of the **.69 .80 71 **.28 .52 66
people in a group but did what
they wanted anyway” (ELE #33)
** = significant difference at p<.01, **** = significant difference at p<.0001.

79
Table 14
Selected Life Events, Stress Intensity, and Stress Occurrence by Warmth
Low (N=55) High (N=54)
Event Stress % Stress %
Intensity Experiencing Intensity Experiencing
M SD M SD
“you had to do something .53 .69 **66 .33 .64 **39
because you’re a boy/girl, but you
did not want to do it” (ELE #37)
“you got a bad grade on your .58 .76 **62 .31 .64 **33
report card” (MLE #27)
** = significant difference at p<.01
Table 15
Selected Life Events, Stress Intensity, and Stress Occurrence by Control
Low (N=55) High (N=54)
Event Stress % Stress %
Intensity Experiencing Intensity Experiencing
M SD M SD
“you got a grade that was less .67 .77 **82 .48 .69 **59
than you expected” (ELE #22)
“you got a bad grade on your .35 .67 *36 .56 .74 *59
report card” (MLE #27)
* = significant difference at p<.05, ** = significant difference at p<.01

80
Ancillary Analyses of Coping Scale Variables
Past literature has demonstrated that girls are more likely than boys to make
use of emotional & instrumental social support in coping. Conversely, they are less
likely than boys to make use of aggression and drug taking behavior (Wertlieb et al.,
1987; Frydenberg and Lewis, 1990; Jose et al., 1997). Additionally, Japanese in
general have been shown to have a relatively high tendency for self-blame coping
relative to their Western counterparts (Minami, 1987). To explore these differences,
five individual CISCS questionnaire items were analyzed. They are: “I talked to
someone in order to feel better” (#11, emotional social support), “I asked someone to
give me help to solve the problem” (#12, instrumental social support), “I got into a
fight” (#8, aggression), “I smoked cigarettes or drank alcohol in order to feel better”
(#1, drug use), and “I blamed myself for the problem” (#18, self-blame).
Differences in tendencies to use the particular strategies were considered as a
function of AGE, SEX, WARMTH, and CONTROL in 2 MANOVAs. As with all the
previously reported MANOVAs, AGE and SEX were examined separately from
WARMTH and CONTROL, due to participant number constraints. With the
significant results, Wilks’ Lambda contrasts were conducted using joint, multivariate,
95% confidence intervals. Test assumptions were satisfactorily met for all items, with
the exception of drug use. In both analyses, several cells for this item had variances of
zero. Consequently the item was eliminated.
The AGE X SEX MANOVA yielded a significant main effect for sex (see
Table 16). Contrast tests indicated that girls reported significantly greater use of
emotional social support (M=1.10, SD=.69) than boys (M=.80, SD=.63, t=2.37, df=5,

81
p<.05, see Table 17). Girls were also found to report significantly greater use of
instrumental social support (M=.76, SD=.63) than boys (M=.45, SD=.53, t=2.65,
df=5, p<.01, see Table 17). Finally, girls were found to report significantly greater use
of self-blame (M=.74, SD=.64) than boys (M=.43, SD=.50, t=2.90, df=5, p<.01, see
Table 17). No significant effects were obtained in the WARMTH X CONTROL
MANOVA.
Table 16
Multivariate Analysis of Variance: Selected Coping Strategies as a Function of Sex
and Age
Source Hypothesis df Error df F p
SEX 5 101 3.5 .006
AGE 5 101 1.72 .135
SEX X AGE 5 101 1.14 .34

82
Table 17
Selected Coping Strategies by Sex
Girls (N=49) Boys (N=60)
Coping Strategy M SD M SD
“I talked to someone in order to feel better.” (CISCS #11, *1.10 .69 *.80 .63
emotional social support)
“I asked someone to give me help to solve the problem.” **.76 .63 **.45 .53
(CISCS #12, instrumental social support)
“I got into a fight.” (CISCS #8, aggression) .67 .63 .70 .70
“I smoked cigarettes or drank alcohol in order to feel .04 .20 .07 .26
better.” (CISCS #1, drug use)
“I blamed my self for the problem.” (CISCS #18, self- **.74 .64 **.43 .50
blame)
* = significant difference at p<.05, ** = significant difference at p<.01
Ancillary Yamamoto and Davis (1982) Comparison Analyses
As previously discussed in the literature review, Yamamoto and Davis (1982)
conducted a study of stress occurrence and intensity in Japanese and American
elementary school-age children. Further analyses were performed to allow for
comparisons between their study and the present study.
Yamamoto and Davis (1982) used a 20-item, life event inventory with a stress
intensity scale of 1 to 7. The present study had nearly four times that number of items
and used a stress intensity scale of 0 to 2. The difference in intensity scales precluded
direct comparisons of stress intensity. However, it was possible to directly compare
stress occurrence, in terms of percentages of participants having experienced given
events.

83
The Yamamoto and Davis (1982) stress inventory consisted of both everyday
and major life event stress. Five major life event stress items were directly comparable
to items in the present study: “new baby sibling,” “move to new school,” “a poor
report card,” “caught in theft,” and “academic retainment.” Percentages of
participants in Yamamoto and Davis (1982), as well as those of the present study, are
tabled below.
Notably, the percentages of Japanese participants in both samples were similar
for the events of: “move to new school,” “caught in theft,” and “academic retainment.”
Conversely, for the events of “new baby sibling” and “a poor report card,” the
percentages were quite disparate. Chi square tests were employed for further
assessment. The results were not surprising. The percentage of Japanese participants
in Yamamoto & Davis (1982) having reported the experience of “new baby sibling”
was found to be significantly greater than the percentage of Japanese participants in
the present study having reported that experience (X2=15.4, df=1, p<.001, see Table
18). Yamamoto and Davis’ Japanese participants were also significantly more likely
than those of the present study to have experienced “a poor report card” (X2=8.99,
df=1, p<.01, see Table 18). Significant results were not, however, obtained for the
remaining three events. Hence, the percentages of participants experiencing those
events were similar between the two studies.

84
Table 18
Major Life Event Experiences in Yamamoto and Davis (1982) and the Present Study
YAMAMOTO AND DAVIS (1982) PRESENT
STUDY
Major Life Event % experiencing - % experiencing - % experiencing -
(American, N=367) (Japanese, N=248) (Japanese, N=109)
A poor report card 46 **64.9 **48
(MLE #27)
New Baby Sibling 25.6 ***41.5 ***20
(MLE #21)
Move to new school 42.8 4.8 6
(MLE #3)
Caught in theft (MLE 12.3 2.8 3
#6)
Academic retainment 10.9 3.6 0
(MLE #23)
* = significant difference at p<.05, ** = significant difference at p<.01, *** =
significant difference at p<.001
Yamamoto and Davis (1982) analyzed cumulative stress occurrence and
cumulative stress intensity scores for their participants. Similar scores were calculated
and analyzed for the present data so that patterns of developmental change and sex
differences could be compared across the studies. However, because of differences in
the number of items examined and the range of stress intensity scale values,
Yamamoto and Davis’ data and present study’s data could not be examined together
in a single analysis. Thus a MANOVA was performed only on the data from the
present study with sex and age serving as independent variables and cumulative stress

85
occurrence and intensity scores serving as the dependent variables. In keeping with
the Yamamoto and Davis procedure, the analysis was performed with overall stress
scores, irrespective of stress context or whether the stressor was an everyday or major
life event. No significant main or interaction effects were found (see Table 19 for
mean scores).
Table 19
Mean Cumulative Stress Occurrence and Intensity by Sex
Occurrence Intensity
Sex N M SD M SD
Girls 49 31.35 9.15 28.27 17.12
Boys 60 28.43 8.10 21.88 13.35

86
Table 20
Mean Cumulative Stress Occurrence and Intensity by Age
Occurrence Intensity
Age N M SD M SD
Younger 51 28.70 7.98 25.11 16.99
Older 58 30.66 9.20 24.43 14.04

87
Summary of Results
Two analyses examined the Japanese children’s stress in four contexts
(education, health/fitness, family/home life, and peer relations) as a function of sex and
age. On the MLESC, older children reported significantly more education stress than
the younger children (HII). In addition, girls’ peer stress was found to increase with
age, whereas boys’ was found to decrease. On the ELESC, girls reported significantly
greater stress than boys for both the health/fitness context and the peer relations
context.
One analysis examined the Japanese children’s coping as a function of their sex
and age. Girls were found to report significantly more approach/problem-focused
coping use than boys (RIV). In terms of age, in contrast to hypothesis VI, older
children reported significantly greater use of avoidance/problem-focused coping than
younger children. Additionally, older children were found to report significantly more
approach/problem-focused coping than younger children (RV).
One analysis examined the Japanese children’s coping as a function of their
perceived parental warmth and control. Children low in perceived parental warmth
reporting significantly greater use of avoidance/problem-focused coping than those
high in perceived parental warmth (HXII). No effect was found for control.
Several ancillary analyses examined selected individual stressor items. Older
children reported significantly greater stress intensity and event occurrence associated
with academic performance than younger children. Girls reported significantly greater
stress intensity and event occurrence associated with politeness pressures than boys.
They also reported significantly greater stress intensity associated with conformity

88
pressures than boys. In terms of warmth, children low in perceived parental warmth
reported significantly greater event occurrence associated with sex-roles and academic
performance pressure than children high in perceived parental warmth. In terms of
control, results were somewhat inconsistent. Children low in perceived parental
control reported significantly greater event occurrence associated with everyday life
academic performance pressure than children high in perceived parental control, yet
significantly less event occurrence associated with major life academic performance
pressure.
Several ancillary analyses examined selected individual coping items. Girls
reported significantly greater use of emotional and instrumental social support coping
than boys. Girls also reported significantly greater use of self-blame coping than boys.
Finally, general comparisons were made between data of the present study and
those of Yamamoto and Davis (1982). The percentages of Japanese participants of
both studies having experienced events that the two studies had in common were quite
similar for three items, but differed significantly for two items. However, in contrast
to Yamamoto and Davis’ findings, cumulative stress intensity and cumulative event
occurrence analyses of the present data yielded no significant age or sex differences.

89
CHAPTER IV.
DISCUSSION
This research sought to expand the study of children’s stress and coping by
testing hypotheses with Japanese participants. The primary goal was to ascertain
whether Japanese children would exhibit similar gender differences and developmental
changes as American children have. The secondary goal was to explore the effects of
perceived parental warmth and control on stress and coping. The implications of the
results of this study will be discussed in this chapter.
The Experience of Stress
Developmental Differences (HII, RII). Yamamoto and Davis (1982) found
that older children reported having experienced greater stress than younger children.
When the pattern of findings within their study was compared to that of the present
study, results provided only partial support. Yamamoto and Davis found both
cumulative stress occurrence and cumulative stress intensity to increase with age. The
present study found no significant age differences for these cumulative scores.
However, the main stress analyses and the selected item analyses indicated that older
children reported greater major and everyday life event stress than younger children
for an education context.
In the main stress analyses, older children reported significantly more major life
event stress associated with their educational experiences than younger children. This
provides support for Yamamoto and Davis (1982). Stress items related to this finding
included: “you got in trouble for doing something bad at school,” “you failed to make
an athletic team or play in a game,” and “you got a bad grade on your report card.”

90
The ancillary analyses provided further information about the contribution of
specific grades-related items to the results of the main analyses. Older children
reported significantly greater major and everyday life event stress related to
undesirable grades than younger children. The major life event of getting a “bad grade
on your report card” and the everyday life event of getting a “grade that was less than
you expected” were both grouped in the education contexts in the main analyses.
Evidently the major life event version of academic performance pressure accounts for
part of the reason why older children were found to experience more major life event
education-related stress than younger children. This item’s stress occurrence result, in
particular, was found to be highly significant.
The significant effect of the everyday life event of getting a “grade that was
less than you expected” may have been overshadowed in the main analysis by the
contributions of other, non grade-related items occurring in the education context
(e.g., “you used a bus or train to go to school,” etc.). Possibly the stress caused by
these events actually decreased with age, thus “canceling out” the increase in stress
related to grades. Unfortunately, for statistical reasons, it was not possible assess the
relative contributions of all the individual items to each stress context.
There may be additional reasons why older children reported greater overall
education stress for major life events but not everyday life events. It is plausible that
on a daily basis, parents and teachers apply educational performance pressures equally
to older and younger children. In contrast, they may be decidedly more intolerant of
major educational infractions by children as they grow older. Younger children may
simply be granted more latitude in the kinds of major academic evaluations that were

91
measured by the MLESC than those measured by the ELESC. It is quite clear that
younger children are not subject to near the level of educational productivity demands
of their older counterparts. In Japan, merit-based competition for school enrollment
starts at sixth grade. The sharp increase in academic performance pressure observed in
this study appears to reflect this reality. Interestingly, the age difference is also
consistent with widespread reports that early childhood is a time of indulgence in
Japanese culture (Shwalb and Shwalb, 1996).
No significant age differences were obtained for the other three stress contexts
(health/fitness, peer relations, family/home life) in the main analysis of stress. This was
somewhat surprising because Yamamoto and Davis (1982) found significant age
differences in their Japanese sample for a wide variety of events. Older children
experienced more events and more stress than their younger counterparts in
Yamamoto and Davis (1982).
Why did the present study only partially support the above Yamamoto and
Davis (1982) findings? Firstly, the contrast between the two age samples of the
present study may simply have been insufficient for significant differences to emerge.
Presumably, older children have had longer lives in which to experience a wider variety
of events including stressful events. Consistent with this idea, the event occurrence
values in this study were nonsignificantly higher for the older children. Secondly, the
age differences found by Yamamoto and Davis in stress may have been predominantly
related to academic performance. The present analysis of stress was much more
comprehensive than that of Yamamoto and Davis. Their stress measure consisted of
merely 20 items, whereas the present study’s consisted of nearly 80 items. Based on

92
the present study, it would seem that younger Japanese children are not necessarily
under less overall stress than their older counterparts.
The present study extends the Yamamoto and Davis (1982) finding that older
children reported experiencing more stress than younger children for education-related
items. The fourth to sixth grade participant bracket of the Yamamoto and Davis study
was augmented to third grade in the present study. Additionally, as previously stated,
the present study used a much more comprehensive inventory of events than did
Yamamoto and Davis. Thus, it provides grounds for further generalization of
developmental differences to a wider variety of stressors.
Sex Differences (HI, RI, RIII). Yamamoto and Davis (1982) did not detect
sex differences in their U.S. sample. However, they found boys to report greater
stress than girls in their Japanese sample for both cumulative occurrence and intensity.
They concluded that Japanese boys were generally under more pressure than their
female counterparts. The data of the present study do not support this interpretation.
Girls reported having experienced just as many stressful events as boys, at a
mean cumulative intensity that was actually higher than that of the boys. In fact, the
main stress analyses demonstrated girls to report significantly greater stress for the
contexts of health/fitness and peer relations. Moreover, the ancillary analyses of single
items showed girls to report significantly greater stress intensity than boys for 2 items
and significantly greater stress occurrence for 1 item. There is absolutely no evidence
in the present study that boys experience more stress than girls.
Girls reported significantly greater everyday stress for the context of
health/fitness. This context included many physical wellness items such as: “you

93
thought about the way you look,” “you thought about your weight,” and “you were
ill.” As is generally found in America (Attie and Brooks-Gunn, 1989; Adler et al.,
1992), it seems that Japanese girls may be under a considerable amount of pressure to
meet perceived standards of physical appearance, relative to Japanese boys. It is also
possible that boys are merely more reluctant than girls to disclose dissatisfaction with
themselves.
Girls also reported significantly greater everyday life event stress than boys for
peer relations. Stressors in this context included items such as: “you thought about
what your classmates thought of you,” “kids teased or avoided you,” and “people
thought you did something foolish.” Evidently, Japanese girls - like American girls
(Miller, et al., 1986) - are relatively more preoccupied with avoiding falling into ill-
regard with their peers than are boys.
Possibly girls reported greater concern with pleasing their peers due to a
greater reliance on social support. This interpretation would appear to be consistent
with the reliable finding that girls are much more engaged in maintaining a multitude of
harmonious social relations than boys (Wertlieb, et al., 1987; Frydenberg and Lewis,
1990; Jose et al., 1997). Certainly this is a reflection and manifestation of girls’
greater interest in social support coping strategies than boys.
The coping results of the present study provide some corroboration for this
interpretation. Girls were more likely than boys to utilize both emotional and
instrumental social support when dealing with being teased/avoided. This would seem
to be related, in part, to differential sex-role norms and expectations in communication
styles. These issues will be discussed further in the subsequent section on coping.

94
Not surprisingly, the general picture of girls being more socially preoccupied
than boys appears to be further substantiated by the selected item analyses. The
findings support the contention that girls are more concerned with politeness and
conformity related pressure than their male counterparts. The experience of politeness
pressure (i.e., having to be nice to an adversary) was found to be particularly common
among girls.
Based on Yamamoto and Davis (1982), boys were predicted to report greater
stress than girls for an education context. However, no sex significant difference was
found. Yamamoto and Davis (1982) interpreted their sex difference as being a
consequence of sex-differential “zeal for education” in Japanese culture.
Possibly the instruments utilized in this study were simply not sensitive enough
to capture a sex difference for education. There are, in fact, disproportionate numbers
of males and females enrolled in Japanese universities. The overriding opinion is that
men should receive four-year university degrees to prepare them for professions,
whereas women should attend junior colleges and vocational schools to prepare them
for motherhood.
Another possible explanation for the finding is that the education of girls may
have become a higher priority in Japan than it was 15 years ago when the Yamamoto
& Davis (1982) study was conducted. If this is the case, the sex-differential “zeal for
education” may have simply shifted to a higher age bracket. This remains to be
demonstrated.
Sex Differences in Developmental Change (RIII). Interestingly, girls’ reports
of major life event peer stress significantly increased across age, whereas boys’

95
significantly decreased across age. These major life event peer stressors included: “a
close friend stopped being a friend,” “you had trouble getting along with classmates,”
and “someone you liked very much went away.”
The age x sex interaction may be best explained by sex-differential
developmental factors. Firstly, within North American samples, boys’ same-sex
relationships have been shown to center around athletic events, games, and the like
(Adler, 1992). Perhaps elementary school age boys are relatively content with peer
relations, so long as game playing is “smooth” (i.e., rules are followed in a sportsmanly
fashion). Older boys may simply be more principled game players than younger boys.
Secondly, older girls’ reports of greater peer relations stress may be an indication that
they are delving into complex social dynamics sooner than their male counterparts.
Lastly, the age x sex interaction may partly be a reflection of greater emotional
sensitivity and/or willingness of social-emotional self-disclosure among older girls.
The Effects of Warmth (HVIII). Based on Grolnick and Ryan (1989), children
high in perceived parental warmth were predicted to report less stress than those low
in perceived parental warmth. Surprisingly, in the main stress analyses there were no
significant differences in children’s reported stress as a function of perceived parental
warmth. However, there were significant differences in the ancillary analyses of
selected items.
Many more children low in perceived parental warmth reported having
experienced the major life event of getting a poor grade on their report card than did
children high in perceived parental warmth. This difference is rather striking. Only a
third of the high warmth participants reported a poor grade, whereas roughly two

96
thirds of the low warmth participants reported this experience. Interestingly, however,
the stress intensity scores for this item did not significantly differ by warmth.
Unfortunately, these data do not indicate what children felt constituted a poor
grade. It may be that children low in warmth simply had higher expectations for
grades. Such expectations might be self-imposed and/or fostered by greater parental
dissatisfaction with report cards, regardless of the grades. Conversely, it may be that
children have a stable consensus about what constitutes a poor grade, by virtue of their
shared peer culture and shared classroom norms. If this is the case, the grade report
difference found here in relation to perceived parental warmth may reflect actual
academic performance. This finding would be consistent with the literature that has
shown high perceived parental warmth to be associated with positive cognitive
development (e.g., Grolnick and Ryan, 1989). Objective data on grade reports would
help to clarify this issue.
Warmth was also found to be related to the item: “you had to do something
because you’re a boy/girl, but you did not want to do it.” Roughly two thirds of the
low warmth children experienced this event, compared to roughly one third of the high
warmth children. One explanation for the finding may be that parents high in warmth
have less extreme sex-role expectancies for their children than parents low in warmth.
Interestingly, no significant sex difference was detected with respect to “you
had to do something because you’re a boy/girl but you did not want to do it.” This
may simply be a reflection of relatively highly differentiated sex-roles in Japanese
culture. That is, sex role expectations may be equally high for both boys and girls. Of
additional interest, no significant sex difference in stress intensity was observed for this

97
item. This may indicate that boys and girls are equally content (or discontented) with
their apparently differentiated sex-roles.
The Effects of Control (HIX). Based on Grolnick and Ryan (1989), children
high in perceived parental control were predicted to report greater stress than those
low in perceived parental control. Surprisingly, in the main stress analyses there were
no significant differences in children’s reported stress as a function of perceived
parental control. However, significant differences were found in the ancillary analyses.
Two grades-related items were found to significantly vary as a function of
control. Thirty-six percent of the low control children reported experiencing a poor
report card (major life event), whereas 59% of the high control children reported this
experience. Yet oddly, 82% of the low control children reported experiencing a grade
that was less than they expected (everyday life event), whereas 59% of the high
control children reported this experience.
How might this seeming discrepancy be explained? Perhaps low control
children’s perception of academic performance pressure is simply more variable than
that of high control children. The occurrence figure is 82% for low control children in
the everyday life version of the undesirable grade event, whereas it is only 36% in the
major life version. In contrast, the occurrence figure is 59% for high control children
in both the everyday life and the major life version of the undesirable grade event.
Unfortunately, there is no past literature with which to check the reliability of these
findings.
The Effects of Warmth and Control Interactions (HX, RVII). Based on
Grolnick and Ryan (1989), high control/low warmth children were predicted to report

98
significantly greater stress than high control/high warmth children. However, no
significant interaction was found between warmth and control. It is certainly plausible
that these two dimensions are independent of one another.
There are numerous possible reasons for the failure to find more significant
differences for both warmth and control. Firstly, the seven-question, combined
warmth and control measure may simply have been too crude to detect the true range
of participant variation along the warmth and control dimensions. Secondly,
participants from all three of the schools sampled may have been relatively moderate in
warmth and control, owing to their middle-class standing in Japan. Thirdly,
dichotomous coding may have obscured the full range of warmth and control in
parenting styles. It may be helpful in future research to separate warmth and control
into more than two levels, considering that moderate levels of warmth and control
(rather than very high or very low levels) may be most advantageous for children.
Finally, warmth and control may simply not play a major role in Japanese children’s
stress beyond the domain of academic performance. After all, schoolwork is the
primary occupation of Japanese middle childhood.
The Utilization of Coping Strategies
Developmental Differences (HV, HVI, RV). Older children have been found
to utilize more coping strategies than younger children (e.g., Band and Weisz, 1988;
Altshuler and Ruble, 1989). In particular, emotion-focused coping has been found to
increase for American children. In the present study, no significant age differences
were detected with either of the two types of emotion-focused coping strategies
(approach and avoidance). However, at p<.07, the result for avoidance/emotion-

99
focused strategies did approach significance. This appears to be consistent with the
existing literature.
In terms of problem-focused coping, past developmental studies have typically
found modest increases. However, one of the most prominent findings of the present
study was that older children reported significantly greater use of both approach and
avoidance kinds of problem-focused coping. Avoidance/problem-focused coping
items included: “I did something like watched TV, listened to music, or played sports
or a game so that I didn’t have to think about the problem for awhile,” “I didn’t do
anything about the problem,” and “I blamed someone else, lied, gave excuses, or
cheated.” Approach/problem-focused coping items included: “I tried to get more
information about the problem,” “I thought about all the things I could do to make the
situation better,” and “I tried to solve the problem.”
The sharpest increase in problem-focused coping was observed for the
approach/problem-focused strategies. These involve information seeking, problem
solving, and option generating. Such techniques would seem to be effective in dealing
with being teased/avoided. It is therefore not surprising that approach/problem-
focused coping increased with age while emotion-focused coping did not. Presumably
this means that older children are more proficient than their younger counterparts at
resolving the “teased/avoided” event. Coping efficacy data were not collected,
however. Such data would further clarify the issue.
Sex Differences (HIII, HIV, RIV). The data suggest there are significant
differences in Japanese children’s reports of coping strategy use as a function of sex,
independent of age. Girls were found to report significantly greater use of

100
approach/problem-focused coping than boys. In the ancillary item-specific analyses,
girls were also found to report significantly greater use of three selected coping
strategies: emotional social support, instrumental social support, and self-blame.
Girls have been found to be more gregarious than boys (Wertlieb, et al., 1987;
Frydenberg and Lewis, 1990; Jose et al., 1997). There is general agreement between
this finding and those of the social-support-related coping items. Girls were observed
to report seeking help from others to improve their subjective and objective plights
more than boys. They were also found to report higher levels of self-critical,
responsibility-taking coping than boys.
There are several possible reasons why girls also appeared to be more prone to
self-blame than boys in the tease/avoid scenario. As previously argued, girls and boys
are held to different sets of social norms for politeness. Thus girls may be more
inclined than boys to apologize when there is peer discord. In addition, if self-blame is
a mature means of conflict resolution in Japanese culture, girls may simply be more
advanced in their development of this characteristic than are boys.
Based loosely on Jose et al. (1997), boys were predicted to report significantly
greater use of avoidance/problem-focused coping than girls. This hypothesis was
rejected. The failure to replicate Jose’s finding may be due to an important
methodological difference between the two studies. Jose et al. did not ask their
participants to complete their coping measure (the original version of the CISCS) in
response to any particular stressor. Hence, the Jose et al. coping measure evaluated
general coping tendencies. In contrast, the present study asked children to complete
the CISCS exclusively in response to the specific situation of “kids teased or avoided

101
you.” Possibly boys use avoidance/problem-focused coping strategies more than girls
in only other types of stressful situations.
Boys reported using aggression more than girls. However, surprisingly, this
difference was not significant. This finding appears inconsistent with this researcher’s
anecdotal experience teaching elementary school age children in Japan for a year.
Boys were observed to resort to aggression much more frequently than girls in the
class environment, at least in situations where they had been teased.
Possibly the CISCS failed to measure aggression adequately for Japanese
children. The aggression item was worded: “I got into a fight.” It is unclear whether
this implies use of physical assault, especially in Japanese. Perhaps this item was
interpreted by the Japanese boys as simply representing a more vivid description of the
tease/avoid scenario, as opposed to a physically aggressive coping response. A clearer
example of a distinct coping strategy using aggression might be: “I hit the person who
was teasing me.” It would be judicious to better clarify aggression in future research,
especially when participants are asked to respond to a tease/avoid scenario.
Overall, girls seemed to use more approach strategies than did boys. As
previously stated, girls were found to report significantly greater use of
approach/problem-focused coping than boys. Girls’ were also found to report
nonsignificantly greater use of approach/emotion-focused coping than boys (p=.08).
Instrumental social support is included in the approach/problem-focused category and
emotional social support is included in the approach/emotion-focused category. The
results for these two social support categories were highly significant. This may partly

102
account for the observed trend for boys and girls to differ in their scores for the
approach strategies.
Sex Differences in Developmental Change (HVII and RVI). Younger girls
were predicted to employ approach/emotion-focused coping more than younger boys
(based on Wertlieb, et al., 1987; Frydenberg and Lewis, 1990; Jose et al., 1997).
However, no significant interaction was detected between sex and age. A significant
age x sex interaction was found for peer relations stress. Girls’ major life event peer
stress increased developmentally, whereas that of boys decreased. It is surprising that
this difference did not coincide with a sex differential, developmental change in coping.
Perhaps a significant sex x age interaction would have been detected had more than
one stress scenario been used.
The Effects of Warmth (HXI, HXII, RVIII). As expected, children
significantly differed in their use of coping strategies as a function of their perceived
parental warmth. Specifically, children with low perceived parental warmth reported
significantly greater use of avoidance/problem-focused coping than children with high
perceived parental warmth. However, the two groups did not differ for the three other
types of coping strategies.
One possible implication of these findings is that children low in warmth do not
lack coping strategies that would be constructive for a “tease/avoid” scenario (i.e.,
approach-oriented strategies). Rather, they appear to supplement constructive
strategies with seemingly self-defeating ones. The avoidance/problem-focused coping
category includes items such as: “I pretended it wasn’t a problem,” “I ignored or tried
to get away from the problem by not thinking about it,” and “I didn’t do anything

103
about the problem.” Such strategies were deemed by Jose et al. (1994) to be helpless
and denying in nature. Hence, they would seem to be maladaptive in dealing with
being teased or avoided.
The Effects of Control (RIX). There were no significant effects with respect
to control. There were merely four items in the CPPSQ aimed at assessing control.
This measure may not have been sufficiently comprehensive or sensitive to register the
magnitude of true differences between low and high control children.
The Effects of Warmth and Control Interactions (HXIII, HXIV, RX, RXI).
Surprisingly, there were no significant interaction effects with respect to warmth and
control. There are numerous possible reasons for the failure to find more significant
differences for both warmth and control. Some of these were previously discussed.
Firstly, the warmth and control measure may have been too crude. Secondly,
participants may have been moderate in warmth and control, owing to their middle-
class standing in Japan. Thirdly, dichotomous coding may have obscured the full
range of warmth and control in parenting styles. Finally, warmth and control may
simply not play a major role in Japanese children’s coping.
Cross-cultural Comparisons
There were limits to the ancillary analyses comparing this study’s data to those
of Yamamoto and Davis (1982) because of extensive methodological differences
between the two studies. Yet five stress items were similar enough in content that
they could be directly compared. Comparisons were made in terms of the percentages
of the samples having experienced particular events.

104
In the American sample of Yamamoto and Davis (1982), 42.8% of the children
reported having moved to a new school. In the Japanese samples of both Yamamoto
and Davis and the present study, less than 6% of the children reported this experience.
Yamamoto and Davis interpreted the relatively low incidence of moving to a new
school in their Japanese sample as reflective of a less mobile population with more
stable family patterns than in the U.S.
In the American sample of Yamamoto and Davis (1982), 12.3% of the children
reported having been caught in theft. In the Japanese samples of both Yamamoto and
Davis and the present study, less than 3% of the children reported this experience.
Yamamoto and Davis interpreted the relatively low incidence of being caught in theft
in their Japanese sample as reflective of a long-standing emphasis on honesty in
Japanese culture.
In the American sample of Yamamoto and Davis (1982), 10.9% of the children
reported having been academically retained. In the Japanese samples of both
Yamamoto and Davis and the present study, less than 3.6% of the children reported
this experience. It seems that the policy of academic retainment is much less practiced
in Japan than in the U.S. It is not clear whether it is frowned upon, or just
unnecessary.
Interestingly, the percentages of participants having experienced a poor report
card were nearly equal for the Japanese sample of the present study (48%) and the
U.S. sample of Yamamoto and Davis (46%). In contrast, 64.9% of Yamamoto and
Davis’ Japanese participants reported having had the experience. If the two studies
can be reasonably compared, it appears that the percentage of Japanese having

105
experienced a poor report card has sharply dropped from around two thirds to less
than half. It is possible that academic guidelines have been relaxed since the Japanese
economic “miracle” of the 1980s, but such a hypothesis is purely speculative at this
point.
Another difference was observed in Japanese participants having experienced
the birth of a new baby sibling. About 26% of Yamamoto and Davis’ U.S. participants
and 42% of their Japanese participants reported having had this experience, whereas
only 20% of the present study’s participants did. It is well documented that the
Japanese birth rate has fallen dramatically over the past decade. This comparison
would seem to be a reflection of that population dynamic.
Limitations of this Research
There were a number of general limitations in the present study. Firstly, the
participant sample may have been unrepresentative. The Meiwa-cho sample was taken
from a private juku, or “cram” school, where the researcher taught English. The other
two samples were taken from public elementary schools. Although, most Japanese
children attend some form of supplementary schooling, perhaps a select group studies
English. The Meiwa-cho sample constitutes roughly one third of the total number of
participants. It is possible that this affected the results in some particular way.
A second general limitation is procedural in nature. Participants were told they
would receive a candy reward upon completion of the measures. This may have
introduced an element of haste. Arguably, a select group of participants was
motivated to obtain the reward at the expense of thorough completion of the

106
measures. Perhaps in the future it would be best to inform participants that they must
take a full period of time, for example 30 minutes.
A third general limitation was that a shortage of participants precluded analysis
of all four independent variables (age, sex, warmth, and control) in the same model.
Age and sex were analyzed in one model and warmth and control in another.
Consequently, interactions between these four variables could not be fully considered.
Obviously, this problem can be corrected in the future with a greater number of
participants.
Several limitations of the present study were related to the stress measures.
Firstly, the individual stress items were grouped into the four contexts (education,
health/fitness, family/home life, and peer relations) based on their theoretically
assumed membership in these categories. Most of the items were easily assigned. For
example, “you got a grade that was less than you expected” clearly belongs in the
education context. Unfortunately, several items were not so easily assigned. For
example, “you got caught stealing” was put into the family/home life context. Yet the
event may occur in a number of settings. This kind of item misplacement may have
affected the balance of items within a context.
Another limitation was that some of the participants may not have precisely
understood the concept of stress intensity. On both the ELESC and the MLESC,
participants were asked about the stress intensity of particular events they had
experienced. The Japanese word sutoresu was used in this inquiry. This word was
adapted from the English word “stress” and has only come into widespread use in
Japan in the past few years. As such, it may not have been fully understood by the

107
children. The term was explained to all of the children before they completed the
measures. However, it is unclear whether the children focused on the psychological or
physiological aspects of the word.
A third limitation was that important events may have been omitted on the
MLESC and ELESC. These measures were adapted from American studies. They
may be biased in one way or another, due to the proportions of particular kinds of
events. It may be useful to further expand the measures so as to increase their cultural
sensitivity.
A final limitation in the measurement of stress was that event occurrence and
stress intensity were averaged in the main analyses. For each stress context
(Family/Home Life, Health/Fitness, Education, and Peer Relations), stress intensity
values were summed and divided by the number of stress events reported to have
occurred within that category. This resulted in 4 overall stress scores for each
participant for each stress measure. These scores were calculated in this fashion to
simplify the analyses. Unfortunately, the entirety of the information could not be
preserved in the process. This kind of computation is always a compromise.
In addition to the general and stress-related limitations, there were at least
three coping-related limitations in the present study. Firstly, memories and/or images
of two distinct scenarios may have been invoked by the CISCS stress item: “kids
teased or avoided you.” This scenario was taken directly from the ELESC for the
sake of consistency. Unfortunately, it is possible that being teased and being avoided
are two different stressors that require diametrically opposed coping strategies for

108
effective resolution. In the future, it may be prudent to separate “teased” from
“avoided.”
Another issue with the measure of coping is that participants’ reports were
undoubtedly constrained by the fact that strategies were assessed exclusively in
response to one scenario. The decision to use only one scenario was a methodological
compromise. It was important that participants not envision radically different
stressors when responding. Otherwise, internal validity would be questionable. Yet,
the results here may be specific to the “teased/avoided” scenario, to the extent that
particular stressors elicit unique patterns of coping. In fact, this might explain why
emotion-focused coping was not shown to significantly increase with age.
A final coping-related limitation was that no attempt was made to gauge
children’s perception of control over the “teased/avoided” event on the CISCS.
Altshuler and Ruble (1989) found children’s choices of coping to be related to their
perceptions of whether they could influence the particular stressor at hand. Children
of the present study may have chosen to cope with being teased/avoided based on such
a consideration.
Directions for Future Study
Future work should expand upon and refine the present study. A wider range
of participants should be tested with a wider range of stressors and coping strategies.
In terms of participants, a greater number of Japanese children from a wider age range
and variety of backgrounds need to be tested. Then the next logical step would be to
test a matched sample of American children with the same instruments. It may also be
helpful to consider children’s perceived degree of control over particular events. At

109
this stage of the research it would be premature to dismiss this variable. Additionally,
coping should be assessed with stressors from a variety of contexts. In this case,
context could serve as an independent variable. Lastly, perhaps the most important
direction for future research deals with coping outcomes. We need to know more
about the efficacy of coping strategies in particular situations, within particular cultural
groups. That is, we need to know how children’s coping relates to their success and
well-being, as defined by their unique milieus. Only then will we have a useful
understanding of the stress and coping process.

110
CHAPTER V.
SUMMARY
The present research explored stress and coping in Japanese children of middle
childhood. Several existing instruments (Jose, 1994, 1997) were modified and
translated to measure daily and major life event stress, coping strategies, and
perception of parenting style in Japanese children of 3rd through 6th grade. Data were
analyzed in a 2 (sex) X 2 (age) X 2 (perception of parental warmth: high/low) X 2
(perception of parental control: high/low) design. Stress and coping served as
dependent variables. In particular, everyday and major life event stress were
considered in four contexts: education, family/home life, health/fitness, and peer
relations. Additionally, coping was considered in four categories: approach/emotion-
focused, approach/problem-focused, avoidance/emotion-focused, and
avoidance/problem-focused. These categories were assessed in response to the
scenario of: “kids teased or avoided you.” Lastly, several ancillary analyses examined
cumulative scores of stress and selected items of both stress and coping.
The Experience of Stress. In contrast to previous findings, older children did
not report significantly more cumulative stress intensity or cumulative event
occurrence than younger children. However, they did report experiencing greater
education-related stress than their younger counterparts. Firstly, when the four
contexts of stress were analyzed, older children reported significantly more major life
event stress than younger children for the education context. This strongly confirmed
hypothesis HII. Secondly, when selected stress items were analyzed, older children

111
reported significantly greater stress intensity and event occurrence associated with
major and everyday life academic performance pressures than younger children.
In spite of previous findings, results did not suggest that girls were under
significantly less stress than boys overall. Also, contrary to hypothesis I, girls did not
report significantly less education stress than boys. In fact, girls were found to
experience significantly greater stress than boys in several cases. Firstly, when the four
contexts of stress were analyzed, girls reported significantly greater everyday life event
stress than boys for both the health/fitness context and the peer relations context.
Interestingly, girls’ peer relations stress was found to increase across age, whereas that
of boys’ was found to decrease. Secondly, when selected items of stress were
analyzed, girls reported significantly greater stress intensity and event occurrence
associated with politeness pressures than boys. They also reported significantly
greater stress intensity associated with conformity pressures than boys.
The perceived parental control results were somewhat inconsistent. Firstly,
when the four contexts of stress were analyzed, control did not play a significant role
for any of the contexts. Thus hypotheses IX and X were not confirmed. Secondly,
when selected items of stress were analyzed, children low in control reported
significantly greater event occurrence associated with everyday academic performance
pressures than children high in control. Yet these same children reported significantly
less event occurrence associated with major life academic performance pressures than
their high control counterparts.
The perceived parental warmth results were also mixed. When the four
contexts of stress were analyzed, warmth did not play a significant role. Thus

112
hypothesis VIII was not confirmed. However, when selected items of stress were
analyzed, children low in warmth reported significantly greater event occurrence
associated with sex-role and academic performance pressures than children high in
perceived parental warmth. These findings may be reflective of high warmth parents’
less extreme sex-role expectancies, relative to low warmth parents. They may also be
an indication that the likelihood of academic success is higher among children of high
warmth parents in contrast to those of low warmth parents.
The Utilization of Coping Strategies. Hypothesis VI predicted that older
children would report significantly less use of avoidance/problem-focused coping than
younger children. This hypothesis was not confirmed. In fact, when the four
categories of coping were analyzed, older children reported significantly greater use of
avoidance/problem-focused coping than younger children. Other differences predicted
in hypothesis V and VII were not confirmed either. However, interestingly, older
children reported significantly greater use of approach/problem-focused coping than
younger children (RV). To the extent that this category of coping includes many
constructive strategies, the developmental increase seems to reflect older children’s
greater proficiency at dealing with being teased/avoided. Lastly, selected coping item
analyses yielded no significant age differences.
Hypothesis III predicted that girls would report significantly greater use of
approach/emotion-focused coping than boys. Hypothesis IV predicted that boys
would report significantly greater use of avoidance/problem-focused coping than girls.
Neither of these hypotheses were confirmed. However, several sex differences did
emerge. Firstly, when the four categories of coping were analyzed, girls were found to

113
report significantly greater approach/problem-focused coping use than boys (RIV).
Analyses of selected items of coping, revealed that girls reported significantly greater
use of emotional and instrumental social support coping than boys. They also reported
significantly greater use of self-blame coping than boys.
When the four categories of coping were analyzed, children low in perceived
parental warmth reported significantly greater use of avoidance/problem-focused
coping than those high in perceived parental warmth. Thus hypothesis HXII was
strongly confirmed. However, the other warmth-related hypotheses (XI, XIII, and
XIV) were not supported. Lastly, when selected items of coping were analyzed, no
significant warmth relationships were detected.
With respect to perceived parental control, there were no significant results for
any of the coping analyses.
Cross-cultural comparisons. Results from general comparisons between the
present data and those of Yamamoto and Davis (1982) revealed several interesting
relationships. The percentages of Japanese participants of both studies having
experienced events that the two studies had in common were quite similar for the
events of: “move to new school,” “caught in theft,” and “academic retainment.”
Interestingly, the percentage of children in the present study having
experienced a poor report card was nearly equal to that of the U.S. children in
Yamamoto and Davis (1982). If the two studies can be reasonably compared, it
appears that the percentage of Japanese having experienced a poor report card has
sharply dropped from around two thirds in the Yamamoto and Davis study to less than
half in the present study.

114
Another difference was observed in Japanese participants having experienced
the birth of a new baby sibling. About 26% of Yamamoto & Davis’ U.S. participants
and 42% of their Japanese participants reported having had this experience. In
contrast, only 20% of the present study’s participants did.

115
References
Adler, Patricia A., Kless, Steven J., Adler, Peter. “Socialization to Gender Roles:
Popularity Among Elementary School Boys and Girls.” Sociology of
Education, 65, July 1992: 169-187.
Aldwin, C. M. (1991). Does age affect the stress and coping process? Implications of
age differences in perceived control. Journal of Gerontology, 46, 174-180.
Aldwin, C. M. (1994). Stress, coping, and development: An integrative perspective.
New York: Guilford Press.
Aldwin, C. M., Chiara, G., & Sutton, K.J. (1993). Stress and coping in older men:
Findings from the Normative Aging Study. The Gerontologist, 33, 248.
Aldwin, C. M. & Revenson, T. (1987). Does coping help? A reexamination of the
relation between coping and mental health. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 53, 337-348.
Aldwin, C. M., & Stokols, D. (1988). The effects of environmental change on
individuals and groups: Some neglected issues in stress research. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 8, 57-75.
Altshuler, J., & Ruble, D. (1989). Developmental changes in children's awareness of
strategies for coping with uncontrollable stress. Child Development, 60, 1337-
1349.
Attie, I., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (1989). Development of eating problems in adolescent
girls: A longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 25, 70-79.
Band, E., and Weisz, J.R. (1988). How to feel better when it feels bad: children's
perspectives on coping with everyday stress. Developmental Psychology, 24, 2,
247-253.
Barnlund, D. (1975). Public and private self in Japan and the United States. San
Fransisco: Intercultural Press.
Berry, J. W., Poortinga, Y. H., Segall, M. H., & Dasen, P. R. (1992). Cross-cultural
psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Billing, A. G., & Moos, R. H. (1981). The role of coping responses and social
resources in attenuating the impact of stressful life events. Journal of
Behavioral Medicine, 4, 139-157.

116
Billing, A. G., & Moos, R. H. (1984). Coping, stress, and social resources among
adults with unipolar depression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
46, 877-891.
Bolger, N. (1990). Coping as a personality process: A prospective study. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 525-537.
Boyce, T. W., Jensen, E. W., Cassell, J. C., Collier, A. M., Smith, A. H., & Ramey, C.
T. (1977). Influence of life events and family routines on childhood respiratory
tract illness. Pediatrics, 60, 609-615.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by
nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986). Ecology of the family as a context for human
development: research perspectives. Developmental Psychology 22: 723-742.
Brown, G. W. (1989). Life events and measurement. In G. W. Brown & T. O. Harris
(Eds.), Life events and illness (pp.3-45). New York: Guilford Press.
Brown, L., Cowen, E. (1988). Children's judgments of event upsettingness and
personal experiencing of stressful events. American Journal of Community
Psychology, 16, 123-135.
Bryant, B. K. (1985). The neighborhood walk: Sources of support in middle
childhood. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 50
(3, Serial No. 210).
Byrne, D. (1964). Repression-sensitization as a dimension of personality. In B. A.
Maher (Ed.), Progress in experimental personality research (Vol. 1, pp. 169-
220). New York: Academic Press.
Carrere, S., Evans, G. W., Palsane, M. N., Rivas, M. (1991). Job strain and
occupational stress among urban transit operators. Journal of Occupational
Psychology, 64, 305-316.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F., & Weintraub, J. K. (1989). Assessing coping
strategies: A theoretically-based approach. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 56, 267-283.
Coddington, R. (1972). The significance of life events as etiologic factors in disease of
children. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 16, 7-18.
Coelho, G. V., Hamburg, D. A., Adams, J. E. (Eds.). (1974). Coping and adaptation.
New York: Basic Books.

117
Cohen, F., & Lazarus, R. S. (1973). Active coping processes, coping dispositions, and
recovery from surgery. Psychosomatic Medicine, 35, 375-389.
Colby, B. N. (1987). Well-being: A theoretical program. American Anthropologist,
89, 879-895.
Collins, D. L., Baum, A., & Singer, J. E. (1983) Coping with chronic stress at Three
Mile Island: Psychological and biochemical evidence. Health Psychology, 2,
149-166.
Compas, B. E., Worsham, N. L., & Ey, S. (1992). Conceptual and developmental
issues in children's coping with stress. In A. M. La Greca, L. J. Siegal, J. L.
Wallander, & C. E. Walker (Eds.), Stress and coping in child health (pp. 7-24).
New York: Guilford Press.
Coyne, J., Aldwin, C., & Lazarus, R. S. (1981). Depression and coping in stressful
episodes. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 90, 439-447.
Crystal, D. S., Chen, C., Fuligni, A. J., Stevenson, H. W., Hsu, C., Ko, H., Kitamura,
S., Kimura, S. (1994). Psychological Maladjustment and Academic
Achievement: A Cross-Cultural Study of Japanese, Chinese, and American
High School Students. Child Development, 65, 738-753.
DeLongis, A., Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R.S. (1988). The impact of daily stress on
health and mood: Psychology and social resources as mediators. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 486-495.
Depue, R. A., & Monroe, S. M. (1986). Conceptualization and measurement of
human disorder in life stress research: The problem of chronic disturbance.
Psychological Bulletin, 99, 36-51.
Dohrenwend, B.S., Krasnoff, L., Askenasy, A., & Dohrenwend, B.P. (1978).
Exemplification of a method for scaling life events: The PERI life events scale.
Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 19, 205-229.
Elder, G., & Clipp, E. (1989). Combat experience and emotional health: Impairment
and resilience in later life. Journal of Personality, 57, 311-341.
Endler, N., & Parker, J. D. A. (1990). Multidimensional assessment of coping: A
critical evaluation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 844-854.
Erikson, E. H. (1963). Childhood and society (2nd ed.). New York: Norton.
Erikson, K. T. (1976). Everything in its path. New York: Simon & Schuster.

118
Fabes, R., Eisenberg, N., & Bernzweig, J. (1990). The Coping with Children's
Negative Emotions Scale: Procedures and Scoring. Available from authors.
Arizona State University.
Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1980). An analysis of coping in a middle-aged
community sample. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 21, 219-239.
Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1985). If it changes it must be a process: Study of
emotion and coping during three stages of a college examination. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 150-170.
Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1988). Coping as a Mediator of Emotion. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 3, 466-475.
Folkman, S., Lazarus, R. S., Dunkel-Schetter, C., Delongis, A., & Gruen, R. (1986).
The dynamics of a stressful encounter: Cognitive appraisal, coping, and
encounter outcomes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 992-
1003.
Folkman, S., Lazarus, R. S., Gruen, R., & Delongis, A. (1986). Appraisal, coping,
health status, and psychological symptoms. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 50, 571-579.
Folkman, S., Chesney, M., Pollack, L., & Coates, T. (1993). Stress, control, coping
and depressive mood in human immunodeficiency virus-positive and -negative
gay men in San Francisco. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 181, 409-
416.
Fondacaro, M. R., & Moos, R. H. (1987). Social support and coping: A longitudinal
analysis. American Journal of Community Psychology, 15, 653-673.
Freud, A. (1966). The ego and the mechanisms of defense (rev. ed.). New York:
International Universities Press.
Frydenberg, E., & Lewis, R. (1990). How adolescents cope with different concerns:
The development of the Adolescent Coping Checklist (ACC). Psychological
Test Bulletin, 3, 63-73.
Grolnick, W., & Ryan, R. (1989). Parent styles associated with self-regulation and
competence in school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 143-154.
Gross, E. (1970). Work, organization and stress. In S. Levine & N. A. Scotch (Eds.),
Social stress (pp. 54-110). Chicago: Aldine.

119
Haan, N. (Ed.). (1977). Coping and defending. New York: Academic Press.
Hardy, Power, and Jaedicke (1993). Examining the relation of parenting to children's
coping with everyday stress. Child Development, 64, 1829-1841.
Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley.
Hoffner, C. (1993). Children's strategies for coping with stress: blunting and
monitoring. Motivation and Emotion, 17(2), 91-106.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's consequences: International differences in work-
related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Holahan, C., & Moos, R. (1985). Life stress and health: Personality, coping and family
support in stress resistance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49,
739-747.
Holmes, D., & Rahe, R. (1967). The Social Readjustment Rating Scale. Journal of
Psychosomatic Research, 11, 213-218.
Hudgens, R. W. (1974). Personal catastrophe and depression: A consideration of the
subject with respect to medically ill adolescents, and a requiem for
retrospective life events studies. In B. S. Dohrenwend & B. P. Dohrenwend
(Eds.), Stressful life events: Their nature and effect (pp. 119-134). New York:
Wiley.
Hui, C. H., & Triandis, H. C. (1985). Measurement in cross-cultural psychology: A
review and comparison of strategies. Journal of cross-cultural psychology, 16,
131-152.
Janis, I., & Mann, L. (1977). Decision-making: A psychological analysis of conflict,
choice, and commitment. New York: Free Press.
Jose, P. (1991a). The Children's Integrated Stress and Coping Scale. Unpublished
manuscript, Loyola University Chicago, Chicago, Illinois.
Jose, P. (1991b). The Everyday Life Events Scale for Children. Unpublished
manuscript, Loyola University Chicago, Chicago, Illinois.
Jose, P. (1991c). The Major Life Events Scale for Children. Unpublished manuscript,
Loyola University Chicago, Chicago, Illinois.
Jose, P. (1995). Children's Perception of Parenting Style Questionnaire. Unpublished
manuscript, Loyola University Chicago, Chicago, Illinois.

120
Jose, P., Cafasso, L., & D'Anna, C. (1994). Ethnic Group Differences in Children's
Coping Strategies. Sociological Studies of Children, 6, 23-53.
Jose, P., Cafasso, L., & D’Anna, C. (1997). Gender differences in stressors and coping
strategies among early adolescents. Manuscript in preparation.
Jose, P., Hunsinger, C. (1997). Stress and psycho-social adjustment of Chinese-
American and European American Adolescents. Manuscript submitted for
publication.
Kanner, A., Coyne, J., Schaefer, C., & Lazarus, R. (1981). Comparison of two modes
of stress measurement: Daily hassles and uplifts versus major life events.
Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 4, 1-39.
Karasek, R., & Theorell, T. (1990). Healthy work: Stress, productivity, and the
reconstruction of working life. New York: Basic Books.
Kawanishi, Y. (1995). The Effects of Culture On Beliefs About Stress and Coping:
Causal Attribution of Anglo-American and Japanese Persons. Journal of
Contemporary Psychotherapy, 25, 1, 1995.
Kliewer, W. (1991). Coping in middle childhood: relations to competence, type A
behavior, monitoring, blunting, and locus of control. Developmental
Psychology, 27, 689-697.
Kobasa, S. C. (1982). Commitment and coping in stress resistance among lawyers.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 707-717.
Kovacs, M. (1985). The children's depression inventory. Psychopharmacological
Bulletin, 21, 995-998.
La Greca, A. M., Siegal, L. J., Wallander, J. L., & Walker, C. E. (Eds.). (1992). Stress
and Coping in Child Health. New York: Guilford Press.
Laux, L. & Weber, H. (1991). Presentation of self in coping with anger and anxiety:
An intentional approach. Anxiety Research, 3, 233-255.
Lazarus, R. S. (1990). Theory-based stress measurement. Psychological Inquiry, 1, 3-
13.
Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotion and Adaptation. New York: Oxford University Press.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York:
Springer.

121
Lazarus, R. S., Speisman, J. C., Markoff, A. M., & Davison, L. A. (1962). A lab study
of psychological stress produced by a motion picture film. Psychological
Monographs, 76 (34, Whole No. 553).
Maccoby, & Martin (1983). Socialization in the context of the family: parent-child
interaction. In E. M. Hetherington (Ed.), P. H. Mussen (Series Ed.),
Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 4. Socialization, personality, and social
development (pp. 1-101). New York: Wiley.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the Self: Implications for
Cognition, Emotion, and Motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 2, 224-253.
Masten, A., (1985). Stress, coping, and children's health. Pediatric Annals, 14, 543-
547.
Mattlin, J., Wethington, E., & Kessler, R. C. (1990). Situational determinants of
coping and coping effectiveness. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 31,
103-122.
Mauro, R., Sato, K., & Tucker, J. (1992). The Role of Appraisal in Human Emotions:
A Cross-Cultural Study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 2,
301-317.
MacCoby, E., & Martin, J. (1983). Socialization in the context of the family: Parent-
child interaction. In E. M. Hetherington (Ed.; P. H. Mussen, General Ed.),
Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 4: Socialization, personality, and social
development (4th ed.). New York: Wiley.
McCrae, R. R. (1984). Situational determinants of coping responses: Loss, threat, and
challenge. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 919-928.
McCrae, R. R. (1989). Age differences and changes in the use of coping mechanisms.
Journals of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 44, 161-169.
Mechanic, D. (1978). Students under stress: A study in the social psychology of
adaptation. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Miller, P., Danaher, D., & Forbes, D. (1986). Sex-related strategies for coping with
interpersonal conflict in children ages five and seven. Developmental
Psychology, 22, 543-548.
Miller, S. (1987). Monitoring and blunting: validation of a questionnaire to assess
styles of information seeking under threat. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 52, 345-353.

122
Miller, S., & Mangan, C. E. (1983). Interacting effects of information and coping style
in adapting to gynecological stress: When should the doctor tell all? Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 223-236.
Minami, O. (1987). Nihontekijiga (Japanese Self) Tokyo: Iwanami Shinsho Publishing.
Mitchell, R. E., Cronkite, R. C., & Moos, R. H. (1983). Stress, coping, and depression
among married couples. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 92, 433-448.
Mullen, B., & Suls, J. (1982). The effectiveness of attention and rejection as coping
styles: A meta-analysis of temporal differences. Journal of Psychosomatic
Research, 26, 43-49.
Murphy, L., & Moriarty, A. (1976). Vulnerability, coping, and growth: from infancy
to adolescence. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Nader, L. (1985). A user theory of legal change as applied to gender. Nebraska
Symposium on Motivation, 33, 1-33.
Nakano, K. (1988). Hassles as a measure of stress in a Japanese sample: Preliminary
research. Psychological Reports, 63(1), 252-254.
Nakano, K. (1989). Intervening variables of stress, hassles, and health. Japanese
Psychological Research, 31(3), 143-148.
Nakano, K. (1991a). Coping strategies and psychological symptoms in a Japanese
sample. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 47(3), 346-350.
Nakano, K. (1991b). The role of coping strategies on psychological and physical well-
being. Japanese Psychological Research, 33(4), 160-167.
Nakano, K. (1992). The Role of personality characteristics in coping behaviors.
Psychological Reports, 71, 687-690.
Nakano, K. (1993). Personality, hassles, and psychological and physical well-being.
Japanese Journal of Psychology. 64, 123-127.
Norris, F. H. (1992). Epidemiology of trauma: Frequency and impact of different
potentially traumatic events on different demographic groups. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 60, 409-418.
Offer, D., Ostrov, E., & Howard, K. (1981). The adolescent: A psychological self-
portrait. New York: Basic Books.

123
Ogrocki, P. K., Stephens, M. A. P., & Kinney, J. (1990, November). Assessing
caregiver coping: State vs. trait approaches. The Gerontologist, 30, 135A.
Page, W. F., Engdahl, B. F., & Eberly, R. E. (1991). Prevalence and correlates of
depressive symptoms among former prisoners of war. Journal of Nervous and
Mental Disease, 179, 670-677.
Peak, L. (1991). Learning to go to school in Japan: The transition from home to
preschool life. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Pearlin, L. (1989). The sociological study of stress. Journal of Health and Social
Behavior, 30, 241-256.
Pearlin, L., & Schooler, C. (1978). The structure of coping. Journal of Health and
Social Behavior, 19, 2-21.
Rabkin, J., Streuning, E. (1976). Life events, stress, and illness. Science, 194, 1013-
1020.
Radford, M., Mann, L., Ohta, Y., & Nakane, Y. (1993). Differences between
Australian and Japanese students in decisional self-esteem, decisional stress,
and coping styles. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 24, 3, 284-297.
Reich, J. W., & Zautra, A. (1981). Life events and personal causation: Some
relationships with satisfaction and distress. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 41, 1002-1112.
Revenson, T. A., & Felton, B. J. (1989). Disability and coping as predictors of
psychological adjustment to rheumatoid arthritis. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 57, 344-348.
Rollins, and Thomas (1979). Parental support, power, and control techniques in the
socialization of children. In W. R. Burre, R. Hill, F. I. Nye, and I. L. Reiss
(eds.), Contemporary theories about the family: Research based theories
(pp.317-364). New York: Free Press.
Rose, R. M. (1978). Air traffic controller health change study: A prospective
investigation of physical, psychological and work-related changes. Springfield,
VA: National Technical Information Service.
Rosenberger, N. R. (1992). Japanese sense of self. Cambridge: University Press.
Rowlison, R., & Felner, R. (1989). Major life events, hassles, and adaptation in
adolescence: Confounding in the conceptualization and measurement of life
events revisited. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 432-444.

124
Ryan, N. (1988). The stress-coping process in school-age children: Gaps in the
knowledge needed for health promotion. Advances in Nursing Science, 11, 1-
12.
Sarason, I., Johnson, J. H., & Siegel, J. M. (1978). Assessing the impact of life
changes: Development of the Life Experiences Survey. Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology.
Schnurr, P., Rosenberg, S., & Friedman, M. (1993). Change in MMPI scores from
college to adulthood as a function of military service. Journal of Abnormal
Psychology, 102, 288-296.
Shelley, R. (1993). Japan. Portland: Graphic Arts Center Publishing Company.
Shwalb, D. W., & Shwalb, B. J. (1996). Japanese childrearing: Two generations of
scholarship. New York: The Guilford Press.
Shweder, R. (1997, January 26). America's Latest Export: A Stressed-Out World. The
New York Times, pp. C19.
Spirito, A., Stark, L. J., Grace, N., & Stamoulis, D. (1991). Common problems and
coping strategies reported in childhood and early adolescence. Journal of
Youth and Adolescence, 20, 531-544.
Sorenson, E. (1993). Children's stress and coping: A family perspective. New York:
The Guilford Press.
Stevenson, H., Azuma H., Hakuta, K. (Eds.) (1986). Child development and education
in Japan. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company.
Stevenson, H. & Stigler, J. (1992). The learning gap: Why our schools are failing and
what we can learn from Japanese and Chinese education. New York: Summit
Books.
Thoits, P. (1983). Dimensions of life events that influence psychological distress: An
evaluation and synthesis of the literature. In B. Kaplan (Ed.), Psycho-social
stress: Trends in theory and research (pp. 33-103). New York: Academic
Press.
Triandis, H. (1978). Some universals of social behavior. Personality and social
psychology bulletin, 4, 1-16.

125
Triandis, H. (1988). Collectivism Vs individualism: A reconceptualization of a basic
concept in cross-cultural social psychology. In C. Bagley & G. Verma (Eds.).
Personality, cognition and values (pp. 60-95). London: Macmillan.
Turner, V. S. (1969). The ritual process: Structure and anti-structure. Chicago:
Aldine.
Vingerhoets, A. J., & Marcellissen, F. G. (1988). Stress research: Its present status
and issues for future developments. Social Science and Medicine, 36, 279-291.
Vitaliano, P. P., Russo, J., Maiuro, R. D. (1987). Locus of control, type of stressor,
and appraisal within a cognitive-phenomenological model of stress. Journal of
Research in Personality, 21, 224-237.
Weinberger, M., Hiner, S. L., & Tiernery, W. M. (1987). In support of hassles as a
measure of stress in predicting health outcomes. Journal of Behavioral
Medicine, 10, 19-31.
Wertlieb, D., Weigel, C., & Feldstein, M. (1987). Measuring children's coping. Journal
of Orthopsychiatry, 57, 548-560.
Yamamoto, K. (1979). Children's ratings of the stressfulness of experiences.
Developmental Psychology, 15, 581-582.
Yamamoto, K. (1993). Their world, our world: Reflections on childhood. Westport,
Connecticut: Praeger.
Zborowski, M. (1952). Culture and symptoms: An analysis of patients' presenting
problems. American Sociological Review, 31, 615-630.

126
A-1.
Consent for Participation (Child)
Director of Research: Donald Kilburg [Telephone: (773)325-7000, x2046]
Supervisor of Research: Linda Camras, Ph.D. [Telephone: (773)325-7000, 2029]
Dear Student,
This is a request for you to complete a questionnaire for the research of stress
at DePaul University of Chicago. The research of stress is very important for health.
There is nothing difficult about the questionnaire and it will not take long to complete.
You are not required to participate, but your help would be greatly appreciated. Your
answers to the questions will be kept strictly confidential. If you agree to complete the
questionnaire, please sign and date below.
Signature: ___________________________________
Date: ____________________

127
A-2.
Consent for Participation (Parent)
Director of Research: Donald Kilburg [Telephone: (773)325-7000, x2046]
Supervisor of Research: Linda Camras, Ph.D. [Telephone: (773)325-7000, 2029]
Dear Parent,
This is a request for you to complete a questionnaire for the research of stress
at DePaul University of Chicago. The research of stress is very important for health.
There is nothing difficult about the questionnaire and it will not take long to complete.
You are not required to participate, but your help would be greatly appreciated. Your
answers to the questions will be kept strictly confidential. If you agree to complete the
questionnaire, please sign and date below.
Signature: ___________________________________
Date: ____________________

128
B-1.
Demographic Information (Child)
Please fill in the following blanks. So that no one will know which questionnaire is
yours, please do not write your name anywhere.
Age: _______________
Sex: _______________
Home town: __________________________
Your parents' occupations: __________________________

129
B-2.
Demographic Information (Parent)
Please fill in the following blanks. So that no one will know which questionnaire is
yours, please do not write your name anywhere.
Age: _______________
Sex: _______________
Home town: __________________________
Your occupation: __________________________
Ages of children: ______________________
Sexes of children: ______________________

130
C.
The Everyday Life Events Scale for Children
Instructions:
A) The following are things that can happen to anyone. Has any of the following ever happened to
you? Circle yes or no.
B) If you circle "yes", how much stress did you feel? Circle 0 (None), 1 (Some), or 2 (A lot) by each
thing.
Happened? How much stress?
None Some A lot
1. You and your sister
or brother disagreed Yes No 0 1 2
2. You and your
mom or dad disagreed Yes No 0 1 2
3. You thought too
many people lived
in your house Yes No 0 1 2
4. You thought too
few people lived in
your house Yes No 0 1 2
5. You saw a family
member who drank
a lot of alcohol Yes No 0 1 2
6. You used a bus or
train to go to school Yes No 0 1 2
7. You could not talk
to other people about
your feelings Yes No 0 1 2
8. You could not
find something you
looked for Yes No 0 1 2
9. You thought about
having school work
to do Yes No 0 1 2
10. Someone in your
family was ill Yes No 0 1 2
11. You did not have
anything to do Yes No 0 1 2

131
Happened? How much stress?
None Some A lot
12. You were
disciplined by your
mom or dad Yes No 0 1 2
13. People thought
you did something
foolish Yes No 0 1 2
14. You could not
watch TV or play
video games Yes No 0 1 2
15. Your sister or
brother did better than
you at something Yes No 0 1 2
16. You were ill Yes No 0 1 2
17. Someone in your
family was very angry
or cried a lot Yes No 0 1 2
18. You did a chore
at home Yes No 0 1 2
19. You wanted money
to buy something Yes No 0 1 2
*20. You had after-school
lessons or practice
(e.g., juku, piano,
English, etc.) Yes No 0 1 2
21. Kids teased or
avoided you Yes No 0 1 2
22. You got a grade
that was less than you
expected Yes No 0 1 2
23. You did not like someone
but were nice to them anyway Yes No 0 1 2
24. You went to the
doctor, dentist, or took
medicine Yes No 0 1 2

132
Happened? How much stress?
None Some A lot
25. Your mom and
dad disagreed in
front of you Yes No 0 1 2
26. Your mom or dad
talked about their
problems or worries Yes No 0 1 2
27. You could not do
something with
grandparents or other
relatives Yes No 0 1 2
28. You thought about
the way you look Yes No 0 1 2
29. You thought about
what your classmates
thought of you Yes No 0 1 2
30. You were in
bed early Yes No 0 1 2
31. You took care
of younger children Yes No 0 1 2
32. You and your
mom could not be
together Yes No 0 1 2
*33. You disagreed
with most of the people
in a group but did what
they wanted anyway Yes No 0 1 2
34. You and your dad
could not be together Yes No 0 1 2
*35. You did not want
to follow your school's
dress code Yes No 0 1 2
36. You went to
bed late Yes No 0 1 2
*37. You had to do
something because
you're a boy/girl, but
you did not want
to do it Yes No 0 1 2

133
Happened? How much stress?
None Some A lot
38. You could not play Yes No 0 1 2
39. You thought about
your weight Yes No 0 1 2
40. You were alone Yes No 0 1 2
41. There was fighting
or violence at your
school or in your
neighborhood Yes No 0 1 2
42. You thought about
what your mom or dad
thought of you Yes No 0 1 2
43. Someone stole
something you own Yes No 0 1 2
Is there anything else?
44. ___________________ 0 1 2
[* = item added to original measure to increase cultural relevance]

134
D.
The Major Life Events Scale for Children
Instructions:
A) Below is a list of things that could happen to anyone. Has one of these things ever happened in
your life? Circle "Yes" or "No".
B) If you circle "yes", how much stress did you feel? Circle 0 (None), 1 (Some), or 2 (A lot) by each
thing.
Happened? How much stress?
None Some A lot
1. your family moved
to a new house Yes No 0 1 2
2. you had to learn
a foreign language Yes No 0 1 2
3. you changed to a
new school Yes No 0 1 2
4. someone in your family
got very sick or was badly
injured Yes No 0 1 2
5. your parents divorced Yes No 0 1 2
6. you got caught
stealing Yes No 0 1 2
7. your mom or dad lost
his or her job Yes No 0 1 2
8. a family member or
relative past away Yes No 0 1 2
9. your parents
lived separately Yes No 0 1 2
10. a close friend past
away Yes No 0 1 2
11. you moved to a different
town Yes No 0 1 2
12. your brother or sister
left home Yes No 0 1 2
13. a close friend got very
sick or was badly injured Yes No 0 1 2

135
Happened? How much stress?
None Some A lot
14. your parent was
away from home for
at least a day Yes No 0 1 2
15. you got a new stepmother
or stepfather Yes No 0 1 2
16. you told a big lie Yes No 0 1 2
17. your parents made less
money than they used to Yes No 0 1 2
18. one of your parents
hit you Yes No 0 1 2
19. one of your parents
got a new job Yes No 0 1 2
20. a close friend stopped
being a friend Yes No 0 1 2
21. a brother or sister
was born Yes No 0 1 2
22. you got very sick or were
badly injured Yes No 0 1 2
23. you were held back
a year in school Yes No 0 1 2
24. you got in trouble
for doing something
bad at school Yes No 0 1 2
*25. you failed to make an
athletic team or play in
a game Yes No 0 1 2
26. you fought or argued
with parents Yes No 0 1 2
27. you got a bad grade
on your report card Yes No 0 1 2
28. a parent stayed at
home because they
couldn't get a job Yes No 0 1 2
29. you had trouble
getting along with classmates Yes No 0 1 2

136
Happened? How much stress?
None Some A lot
30. you had trouble
getting along with
a brother or sister Yes No 0 1 2
31. a parent stayed away
from home for at least a week Yes No 0 1 2
32. someone moved into
your house Yes No 0 1 2
33. someone you liked
very much went away Yes No 0 1 2
Is there anything else?
34. ___________________________ 0 1 2
35. ___________________________ 0 1 2
36. ____________________________ 0 1 2
37. ____________________________ 0 1 2
38. ____________________________ 0 1 2
39. ____________________________ 0 1 2
40. ____________________________ 0 1 2
[* = item added to original measure to increase cultural relevance]

137
E.
Everyday and Major Life Event Stress Key
What follows are lists of the particular events of the ELESC and MLESC grouped by four
different contexts: Family/Home Life, Health/Fitness, Education, and Peer Relations. The original
item number of each event on the ELESC and MLESC is noted in parenthesis after each event (E =
ELESC, M = MLESC).
1. Family/Home Life (47 total)
A. ELESC Items
-You and your sister or brother disagreed (E1)
-You and your mom or dad disagreed (E2)
-You thought too many people lived in your house (E3)
-You thought too few people lived in your house (E4)
-You saw a family member who drank a lot of alcohol (E5)
-Someone in your family was ill (E10)
-You did not have anything to do (E11)
-You were disciplined by your mom or dad (E12)
-You could not watch TV or play video games (E14)
-Your sister or brother did better than you at something (E15)
-Someone in your family was very angry or cried a lot (E17)
-You did a chore at home (E18)
-You wanted money to buy something (E19)
-Your mom and dad disagreed in front of you(E25)
-Your mom or dad talked about their problems or worries(E26)
-You could not do something with grandparents or other relatives(E27)
-You were in bed early(E30)
-You took care of younger children(E31)
-You and your mom could not be together(E32)
-You could not find something you looked for (E8)
-You and your dad could not be together(E34)
-You went to bed late(E36)
-You had to do something because you're a boy/girl, but you did not want to do it(E37)
-You could not play(E38)
-You thought about what your mom or dad thought of you(E42)
-Someone stole something you own(E43)
-You were alone(E40)
B. MLESC Items
-Your family moved to a new house(M1)
-Someone in your family got very sick or was badly injured(M4)
-Your parents divorced(M5)
-You got caught stealing(M6)
-Your mom or dad lost his or her job(M7)
-A family member or relative past away(M8)
-Your parents lived separately(M9)
-Your brother or sister left home(M12)
-Your parent was away from home for at least a day(M14)
-You got a new stepmother or stepfather(M15)
-You told a big lie(M16)
-Your parents made less money than they used to(M17)
-One of your parents hit you(M18)
-One of your parents got a new job(M19)

138
-A brother or sister was born(M21)
-You fought or argued with parents(M26)
-A parent stayed at home because they couldn't get a job(M28)
-You had trouble getting along with a brother or sister(M30)
-A parent stayed away from home for at least a week(M31)
-Someone moved into your house(M32)
2. Health/Fitness (6 total)
A. ELESC Items
-You went to the doctor, dentist, or took medicine(E24)
-You thought about the way you look(E28)
-You were ill (E16)
-You thought about your weight(E39)
-There was fighting or violence at your school or in your neighborhood(E41)
B. MLESC Items
-You got very sick or were badly injured(M22)
3. Education (11 total)
A. ELESC Items
-You had after-school lessons or practice (e.g., juku, piano, English, etc.) (E20)
-You did not want to follow your school's dress code(E35)
-You got a grade that was less than you expected (E22)
-You used a bus or train to go to school (E6)
-You thought about having school work to do (E9)
B. MLESC Items
-You have to learn a foreign language(M2)
-You changed to a new school(M3)
-You were held back a year in school(M23)
-You got in trouble for doing something bad at school(M24)
-You failed to make an athletic team or play in a game(M25)
-You got a bad grade on your report card(M27)
4. Peer Relations (12 total)
A. ELESC Items
-You did not like someone but were nice to them anyway(E23)
-You could not talk to other people about your feelings (E7)
-You thought about what your classmates thought of you(E29)
-You disagreed with most of the people in a group but did what they wanted anyway(E33)
-Kids teased or avoided you (E21)
-People thought you did something foolish (E13)
B. MLESC Items
-A close friend past away(M10)
-You moved to a different town(M11)
-A close friend got very sick or was badly injured(M13)
-A close friend stopped being a friend(M20)
-You had trouble getting along with classmates(M29)
-Someone you liked very much went away(M33)

139
F.
The Children's Integrated Stress and Coping Scale
Please remember the last time kids teased or avoided you. If this never happened to you, imagine that
it did. Below are ways to cope with stress. How much did you use each of them in dealing with the
stressful event of being teased or avoided?
1. I smoked cigarettes or drank alcohol in order to feel better.
Not at all Some A lot
2. I did something like watched TV, listened to music, or played sports or a game so that I didn't
have to think about the problem for awhile.
Not at all Some A lot
3. I ignored or tried to get away from the problem by not thinking about it.
Not at all Some A lot
4. I pretended that it wasn't a problem.
Not at all Some A lot
5. I wished that the problem had never happened or that the problem would go away.
Not at all Some A lot
6. I went off by myself to get away from other people.
Not at all Some A lot
7. I didn't do anything about the problem.
Not at all Some A lot
8. I got into a fight.
Not at all Some A lot
9. I showed how I was feeling: cried, yelled, looked sad, or other things.
Not at all Some A lot
10. I prayed or asked God for help.
Not at all Some A lot
11. I talked to someone in order to feel better.
Not at all Some A lot

140
12. I asked someone to give me help to solve the problem.
Not at all Some A lot
13. I thought about the problem in a different way, and tried to see the good side.
Not at all Some A lot
14. I tried to solve the problem.
Not at all Some A lot
15. I accepted the way things were.
Not at all Some A lot
16. I tried to get more information about the problem.
Not at all Some A lot
17. I thought about all the things I could do to make the situation better.
Not at all Some A lot
18. I blamed myself for the problem.
Not at all Some A lot
19. I blamed someone else, lied, gave excuses, or cheated.
Not at all Some A lot
20. I tried to control my feelings, calm down, and make my feelings better.
Not at all Some A lot
21. I laughed or joked to make myself feel better.
Not at all Some A lot
22. Was there anything else you did? If so, write it in the blank. _________________________
Not at all Some A lot

141
G.
The Children's Integrated Stress and Coping Key
Note: number in parentheses indicates item number on the CISCS (see Appendix E).
1=Approach/Emotion-focused
Emotional Expression (9)
Control Feelings (20)
Humor (21)
Emotional Social Support (11)
Spiritual Social Support (10)
Endurance (5)
2=Approach/Problem-focused
Problem Solving (14)
Instrumental Social Support (12)
Information Seeking (16)
Cognitive Restructuring (13)
Metacognitive Skills (17)
Acceptance (15)
3=Avoidant/Emotion-focused
Self-Blame (18)
Isolation (6)
Aggression (8)
4=Avoidant/Problem-focused
Denial (4)
Avoidance (3)
Drug Use (1)
Distraction (2)
Helplessness (7)
Other Blame (19)

142
H.
The Children's Perception of Parenting Style Questionnaire
How true are the following statements for you?
Not true Sort of true Very true
1. My parents make sure I finish my homework.
0 1 2
2. When I want my friends to come over,
my mom or dad says, "Yes." 0 1 2
3. I have daily household chores to do,
like making my bed, throwing out the garbage,
or walking the dog. 0 1 2
4. My parents value my opinion even if it is
different from theirs. 0 1 2
5. My parents will help me if I
need help. 0 1 2
6. When my friends and I disagree, my
parents let us resolve the disagreement on our own. 0 1 2
7. My parents communicate to me how
much they value me. 0 1 2

143
I.
Children's Perception of Parenting Style Key
Clusters
1=Control
2=Warmth
Question # - Cluster #
1-1
2-1 (reversed scored)
3-1
4-2
5-2
6-1 (reversed scored)
7-2

144
J.
Japanese Version of Forms/Measures
(in order of English equivalents)