• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
2001 Socialization Of Stress, Coping, & Adjustment In Japan
 

2001 Socialization Of Stress, Coping, & Adjustment In Japan

on

  • 2,106 views

Kilburg, D.F. III (2001). Socialization of Stress, Coping, and Adjustment in Japan. Dissertation Abstracts International, Section B: The Sciences & Engineering, 62(09), 4253-4470. Ph.D. Dissertation.

Kilburg, D.F. III (2001). Socialization of Stress, Coping, and Adjustment in Japan. Dissertation Abstracts International, Section B: The Sciences & Engineering, 62(09), 4253-4470. Ph.D. Dissertation.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
2,106
Views on SlideShare
2,104
Embed Views
2

Actions

Likes
1
Downloads
31
Comments
0

2 Embeds 2

http://donkilburg3.blogspot.com 1
http://www.linkedin.com 1

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    2001 Socialization Of Stress, Coping, & Adjustment In Japan 2001 Socialization Of Stress, Coping, & Adjustment In Japan Document Transcript

    • SOCIALIZATION OF STRESS, COPING, AND ADJUSTMENT IN JAPAN A Dissertation Presented to The Department of Psychology DePaul University BY DONALD FRANCIS KILBURG III JUNE, 2001
    • DISSERTATION COMMITTEE Kathryn E. Grant, Ph.D. Chairperson Ralph Erber, Ph.D. (Psychology) Fred Heilizer, Ph.D. (Psychology) Nobuko Chikamatsu, Ph.D. (Modern Languages) Roger Graves, Ph.D. (English) 2
    • ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I express deep gratitude to Dr. Kathryn E. Grant (DePaul University) for sharing her ideas, expertise and guidance throughout this research project, and to Dr. Linda A. Camras (DePaul University) for her crucial help in the early stages of this research. I am also grateful to Dr. Paul E. Jose (Victoria University, New Zealand) for providing the original measures of this research, as well as invaluable direction and guidance. Sincere thanks go to Dr. Kazuo Nishikawa (Mie University, Japan) for his careful assistance with theoretical considerations, translation, and administration. I am also thankful to Shouko Murakami, Kazuyo Fujii, Makiko Hamamoto, and Yuusuke Matsuura (Mie University, Japan) for help in data collection and entry. Furthermore, I express great appreciation to the administrators of the schools of Japan where data were collected: Fuzoku Elementary, Fuzoku Junior High, Kyohoku Junior High, and Tsu Higashi High. For providing useful commentary and advice, many thanks go to my dissertation committee members as well: Dr. Ralph Erber (Psychology Department), Dr. Fred Heilizer (Psychology Department), Dr. Nobuko Chikamatsu (Modern Languages Department), Dr. Roger Graves (English Department) [DePaul University]. Additionally, I thank the Japanese children and parents who participated in this study. Without them, this research would not have been possible. Lastly, I would like to thank my parents, Donald and Patricia, for all their love and support throughout graduate school. 3
    • VITA Donald Francis Kilburg III was born in Oak Lawn, Illinois on January 15th, 1970. He 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. In 1997, he received his Master of Arts degree in Experimental Psychology from DePaul University in Chicago, Illinois. In that same year, he was awarded the Japanese Ministry of Education (Monbusho) Fellowship for Predoctoral Study in Psychology. In June 2001, Mr. Kilburg will receive his Doctorate in Experimental Psychology from DePaul University. In the Fall of 2001, he hopes to begin postdoctoral study to expand his dissertation work at the professional level. Kilburg, Donald F., III & Nishikawa, Kazuo (2001). Stress and Coping in Japanese Middle Childhood. The Bulletin of the Faculty of Education, Mie University (Educational Science), Vol. 52 (in Japanese). Kilburg, D.F. III (1997). Stress and Coping in Japanese Middle Childhood. M.A. Thesis. Tracy, R. J., Pabis, M., & Kilburg, D. (1997-98). The effect of schematic context on mental imagery. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 17(3), pp. 191-214. For further information contact the author at: dkilburg@condor.depaul.edu http://www.depaul.edu/~dkilburg 4
    • CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES.......................................................................................................................................... 7 LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................................ 9 CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 10 THE TOPIC: SOCIALIZATION OF STRESS, COPING, AND ADJUSTMENT IN JAPAN................................. 10 THE MODEL: THE COGNITIVE-MOTIVATIONAL-RELATIONAL THEORY .............................................. 11 Stress, Appraisal, and Coping: Definitions ........................................................................................ 11 Problem-focused and Emotion-focused Coping ................................................................................. 12 RESEARCH ON AMERICAN CHILDREN’S STRESS AND COPING.............................................................. 13 Stress ..................................................................................................................................................... 14 Coping ................................................................................................................................................... 15 Adjustment ............................................................................................................................................ 17 RESEARCH ON JAPANESE CHILDREN’S STRESS AND COPING ............................................................... 18 Stress ..................................................................................................................................................... 18 Coping ................................................................................................................................................... 21 Adjustment ............................................................................................................................................ 26 THE LINK BETWEEN MATERNAL SOCIALIZATION AND CHILDREN’S STRESS AND COPING: U.S. AND JAPAN ........................................................................................................................................................ 28 RATIONALE ............................................................................................................................................... 31 RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES ............................................................................................. 35 Stress ..................................................................................................................................................... 35 Coping ................................................................................................................................................... 35 Adjustment: School Performance and Life Satisfaction .................................................................... 36 Maternal Socialization: Discouragement/Encouragement of Coping .............................................. 36 CHAPTER II. METHOD ........................................................................................................................ 37 RESEARCH PARTICIPANTS........................................................................................................................ 37 MATERIALS............................................................................................................................................... 38 Age, Sex, Grade .................................................................................................................................... 39 Stress ..................................................................................................................................................... 39 Coping ................................................................................................................................................... 41 School Performance ............................................................................................................................. 44 Life Satisfaction .................................................................................................................................... 45 Maternal Socialization: Discouragement/Encouragement of Coping .............................................. 45 DESIGN ...................................................................................................................................................... 46 PROCEDURE .............................................................................................................................................. 46 CHAPTER III. RESULTS ...................................................................................................................... 49 STRESS ...................................................................................................................................................... 49 COPING...................................................................................................................................................... 57 ADJUSTMENT: SCHOOL PERFORMANCE AND LIFE SATISFACTION ....................................................... 65 MATERNAL SOCIALIZATION: DISCOURAGEMENT/ENCOURAGEMENT OF COPING .............................. 67 EXPLORATORY COPING FACTORS ........................................................................................................... 75 ANALYSES OF THE EXPLORATORY COPING FACTORS ........................................................................... 78 CHAPTER IV. DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................ 96 OVERVIEW OF HYPOTHESIS TEST OUTCOMES ....................................................................................... 97 5
    • STRESS ...................................................................................................................................................... 98 COPING.................................................................................................................................................... 100 ADJUSTMENT .......................................................................................................................................... 104 MATERNAL SOCIALIZATION: DISCOURAGEMENT/ENCOURAGEMENT OF COPING ............................ 105 EXPLORATORY COPING FACTORS ......................................................................................................... 109 ANALYSES OF THE EXPLORATORY COPING FACTORS ......................................................................... 111 LIMITATIONS OF THIS RESEARCH.......................................................................................................... 115 GENERAL IMPLICATIONS AND DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE STUDY....................................................... 117 CHAPTER V. SUMMARY ................................................................................................................... 122 REFERENCES......................................................................................................................................... 123 APPENDIX A. CODING KEYS................................................................................................................ 131 APPENDIX B. FORMS ............................................................................................................................. 136 APPENDIX C. CHILD QUESTIONNAIRES........................................................................................... 145 APPENDIX D. MOTHER QUESTIONNAIRES ...................................................................................... 163 APPENDIX E. JAPANESE VERSIONS OF QUESTIONNAIRES ......................................................... 177 6
    • LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1: Between-Subjects Factors (Analysis 1) 50 TABLE 2: Descriptive Statistics (Analysis 1) 51 TABLE 3: Multivariate Tests (Analysis 1) 52 TABLE 4: Tests of Between-Subjects Effects (Analysis 1) 53 TABLE 5: Multiple Comparisons (Analysis 1) 54 TABLE 6: Descriptive Statistics (Analysis 2) 58 TABLE 7: Multivariate Tests (Analysis 2) 59 TABLE 8: Tests of Between-Subjects Effects (Analysis 2) 59 TABLE 9: Multiple Comparisons (Analysis 2) 60 TABLE 10: Group Statistics (Analysis 3) 63 TABLE 11: Independent Samples Test (Analysis 3) 64 TABLE 12: Descriptive Statistics (Analysis 4) 65 TABLE 13: Correlations (Analysis 4) 66 TABLE 14: Between-Subjects Factors (Analysis 5) 68 TABLE 15: Descriptive Statistics (Analysis 5) 69 TABLE 16: Multivariate Tests (Analysis 5) 70 TABLE 17: Multiple Comparisons (Analysis 5) 70 TABLE 18: Descriptive Statistics (Analysis 6) 73 TABLE 19: Correlations (Analysis 6) 74 TABLE 20: Preliminary Factor Analysis of Maternal 76 Discouragement/Encouragement Coping (Analysis 7) TABLE 21: Total Variance Explained (Analysis 7) 76 TABLE 22: Descriptive Statistics (Analysis 8) 80 TABLE 23: Multivariate Tests (Analysis 8) 81 TABLE 24: Correlations (Analysis 9) 83 TABLE 25: Descriptive Statistics (Analysis 10) 85 TABLE 26: Multivariate Tests (Analysis 10) 86 TABLE 27: Multiple Comparisons (Analysis 10) 86 7
    • TABLE 28: Descriptive Statistics (Analysis 11) 88 TABLE 29: Correlations (Analysis 11) 89 TABLE 30: Total Variance Explained (Analysis 12) 91 TABLE 31: Items with factor loadings of at least .60, from the 92 preceding 3-Factor solution (Analysis 12) TABLE 32: Descriptive Statistics (Analysis 13) 95 TABLE 33: Correlations (Analysis 13) 95 8
    • LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1: Stress Intensity within Context as a Function of Sex of Child 55 (Analysis 1) FIGURE 2: Stress Intensity by Context as a Function of Grade of Child 56 (Analysis 1) FIGURE 3: Coping Type as a Function of Sex of Child 61 (Analysis 2) FIGURE 4: Coping Type as a Function of Grade of Child (Analysis 2) 62 FIGURE 5: Social Support Seeking (EF & PF) as a Function of Sex 64 (Analysis 3) FIGURE 6: Maternal Discouragement and Encouragement of Coping as a 71 Function of Grade of Child (Analysis 5) FIGURE 7: Coping Type (Exploratory) as a Function of Sex of Child 81 (Analysis 8) FIGURE 8: Maternal Discouragement and Encouragement of Coping 87 (Exploratory) as a Function of Grade of Child (Analysis 10) 9
    • CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION The Topic: Socialization of Stress, Coping, and Adjustment in Japan American folk psychological notions of emotional adaptation have long held that what constitutes a stressful event depends upon whether one “looks at the bright side.” In the past several decades, experimental psychology has indeed found that stress can have major health and adjustment consequences for some people and yet minor ones for others (Kessler, 1997; Lazarus, 1990, 1991; La Greca, Siegal, Wallander, & Walker, 1992). What is crucial is not only how one looks at one’s stress, but how one copes with it. Researchers have found that coping behavior can ameliorate the experience of stress consequences. In doing so it can modify the mere relationship one has with one’s surroundings, as well as the actual surroundings themselves – not to mention, one’s body and one’s very sense of self (Aldwin, 1994; Lazarus, 1991). American researchers of emotional adaptation are now engaged in taking the stress-coping-adjustment socialization patterns they have found in America and transporting and testing them in other cultures – to see how well they generalize. Research involving Japanese participants who have never lived outside of Japan is a uniquely exciting prospect. The Japanese say kaikatsu wa kenkou ni saku hana da (roughly, “cheerfulness is the very flower of health”). This would indicate that they have their own folk psychological notions about emotional adaptation, and “looking at the bright side”. With a 2,000-year-plus history, one might expect as much. What is remarkable is that most of this history was spent in isolation from other peoples. As a result, the Japanese are one of the most genealogically distinct and culturally homogenous populations in the world. The Japanese population of 125 million people constitutes the only non-Western nation that has attained economic development on par with that of the United States. In fact, Japan has the second largest economy in the world. Interestingly, economic development in Japan has taken place without compromising much of the country’s original traditions and values (Hendry, 1998; McCargo, 2000; Beasley, 1990). American psychologists are therefore becoming increasingly interested in understanding potentially unique patterns of Japanese emotional adaptation, which presumably underlie Japan’s unique cultural and historical path. 10
    • The Model: The Cognitive-Motivational-Relational Theory The dominant American model of stress and coping is the Cognitive-motivational-relational theory, by Richard S. Lazarus (Lazarus and Folkman, 1984; Lazarus, 1991). This transactionist model states that the stress-coping relationship is one of process. Its emphasis is on the interdependence of variables changing through time. In this formulation, cognitive interpretation and personal motivation play a major role – hence the name, Cognitive-motivational-relational theory. Inclusion of the term “relational” serves to underscore the importance of a new level of theoretical analysis, called “relational meaning.” Relational meaning refers to that which incorporates an individual’s unique experience within a given stress-coping encounter, taking into account the individual’s beliefs and goals about that encounter. In other words, the stress-coping process must not only be considered in terms of context (e.g. “school” or “peer relations”), but also in terms of the individual’s experience and interpretation of the particulars of the given encounter within the given context. Stress, Appraisal, and Coping: Definitions According to Lazarus (1991), stress cannot be clearly defined without reference to one’s perception. He explains: “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” (1991, p. 10). Lazarus’ Cognitive-motivational- relational theory therefore addresses the definition of stress by way of “appraisal.” Appraisal is essentially cognitive evaluation or interpretation of one’s experience. According to Lazarus and Folkman (1984), “Psychological stress involves a particular relationship between the person and the environment that is appraised by the person as taxing or exceeding his or her resources and endangering his or her well being” (p. 19). “Primary appraisal” and “secondary appraisal” govern the experience of stress (Lazarus, 11
    • 1991). Primary appraisal involves the determination that an encounter is relevant to one's well being, based on one’s beliefs and goals. 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). Coping itself is defined by Lazarus (1991) 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” (p. 112). Appraisal is involved in a feedback process with coping. Appraisal initiates coping, which in turn initiates reappraisal. Appraisal and coping are therefore sometimes difficult to distinguish. For simplicity, the appraisal-coping process can be conceptualized as a serial one (e.g., an employee may appraise an upcoming performance evaluation as consequential to his/her well-being, leading him/her to employ a problem-solving strategy). However, it is actually a parallel, transactional one – because appraisal and coping reflect joint involvement of ongoing interaction between person and environment variables (e.g., in the preceding case, the boss may meanwhile notice the employee taking the upcoming evaluation seriously and therefore decide to reduce the stringency of the evaluation – as a result of this joint involvement, the employee may ultimately begin to see him/herself as the kind of person who need not fear evaluations). Coping itself is further delineated in Lazarus’ framework, as discussed in the following section. Problem-focused and Emotion-focused Coping Lazarus and Folkman (1984) have identified “problem-focused coping” and “emotion-focused coping” as conceptually distinct kinds of coping. The former is action-centered and aimed at changing the objective reality of the person-environment relationship. The latter is cognition-centered and aimed at changing one’s subjective experience of the person-environment relationship. To illustrate the problem/emotion-focused coping distinction, Lazarus provides the example of facing off with an enemy. In the context of the child’s world, the “enemy” might be a bully on the playground. Problem-focused coping would include display of aggression to ward off the enemy. It 12
    • aims to change the actual relationship between the individual and the enemy. Emotion-focused coping would include “thinking positive” in the face of the enemy. It aims to change one’s subjective experience of the enemy. In practice, any coping that changes one’s objective reality, by way of problem-focused coping, likely results in some degree of change in one’s subjective experience. Conversely, any coping that changes one’s subjective experience, by way of emotion-focused coping, likely results in some degree of change in one’s objective reality. Moreover, coping may have the appearance of being emotion-focused when it is actually problem-focused, or vice versa. Consider a crying child. He or she may be crying simply as a means of “releasing” emotion – in order to feel better. Conversely, he or she may be crying as a means of attracting the attention of others – in order to fix his or her problem, and subsequently feel better. Additionally, sometimes one coping strategy is intended to simultaneously serve both problem and emotion-focused purposes. For example, one may choose to ignore a problem and by not thinking about it feel better (emotion-focused coping). At the same time, one may choose to ignore the problem in order to convey to others that one is not concerned with it, such that others’ confidence will either increase or decrease, depending on the goal (problem-focused coping). In regards to gaining self-confidence and increasing the confidence of others, consider a military commander who denies the intensity of a mission in order to increase his own morale and that of his troops, in the face of an impending threat that would otherwise be psychologically insurmountable. In regards to gaining self-confidence and decreasing the confidence of others, consider a victim of bullying who ignores derision in order to increase his self-esteem and to demonstrate to the bullies that he or she is unaffected. Research on American Children’s Stress and Coping Developmental studies of stress and coping provide a means of understanding stress and coping as a process. They have blossomed in the past 10 years. Psychologists have learned that early 13
    • in development, children try to change their internal and external environments. Over time, children's coping repertoires increase and shift from problem-focused to emotion-focused in nature. The review here will include basic findings in the middle childhood literature. Numerous studies have looked at other periods of development. For extensive reviews see Ayers, Sandler, & Twohey (1998), La Greca, Siegal, Wallander, & Walker (1992), and Aldwin (1994). The purpose of this section is to provide a context with which to consider Japanese stress and coping in the next section. Stress Everyday life events are particularly important. One of the first attempts to investigate children's stress produced a widely used stress-measuring instrument for children by modifying adult scales (Coddington, 1972). This instrument advanced the field, but neglected to sufficiently consider the child's unique perspective. Since then, many studies have correlated children's major life events with illness or maladaptation (e.g., Hudgens, 1974; Boyce, Jensen, Cassell, Collier, Smith, & Ramey, 1977). Masten (1985) noted, however, that these correlations were quite low. Sorenson (1993) added that it was often unclear to what extent such major life events were the antecedents or the consequences of the correlated illness and maladjustment. This led researchers to focus more on everyday life events. Everyday life events have been shown to be much more strongly associated with children's mental and physical health than major life events have been (Sorenson, 1993, p. 52). For example, Kanner, Coyne, Schaefer, and Lazarus (1981) demonstrated that hassles such as quibbles with peers and getting poor school marks were generally associated with poor outcomes such as depression, low social competence, and low self-worth. Measurement of these kinds of mundane stressors is therefore paramount in stress research with children. Once the task of fully delineating everyday life event stress has been more clearly accomplished, everyday and major life event measures might be better integrated by researchers (Sorenson, 1993, p. 54). 14
    • Understanding children’s own perspectives is important. Many researchers have measured children's stress by examining their ranked appraisal of events – i.e., their perceptions of the stressfulness of events relative to other events (e.g., Yamamoto & Davis, 1979; Brown and Cowen, 1988; Ryan, 1988). These rankings have tended to stray somewhat from adult preconceptions (Sorenson, 1993, p. 54). The importance of ascertaining the unique perspectives of children has therefore become evident. Of course the usefulness of this approach will depend in part upon whether children are truly able to retrospectively compare degrees of multiple stressors. Coping Emotion-focused coping tends to increase across age. Band and Weisz (1988) pioneered the application of Lazarus’ problem and emotion-focused categories (Folkman & Lazarus, 1984, 1988) to well children of middle childhood. Their research demonstrated that in the face of a variety of everyday stressors, children would seldom relinquish control, preferring instead to employ at least some type of coping. However, as age increased, self-reports of problem-focused coping did not necessarily increase, whereas self-reports of emotion-focused coping typically did increase. The main interpretation of this data was that emotion-focused coping may develop more slowly than problem- focused coping, “in part because it is hidden from view and thus more difficult to learn from observation” (Band and Weisz, 1988). Similar conclusions were reached by Altshuler and Ruble (1989) and Compas, Worsham, and Ey (1992), who pointed out that younger children may not be able to generate as many secondary appraisal options as older children. Younger children may not be as aware that internal states can be manipulated. Furthermore, they may simply be less autonomous. Social support seeking tends to increase across age. Other age differences have been found in use of social support as a coping strategy. Older children tend to seek more social support outside their immediate family than do younger children (Bryant, 1985). Interestingly, this is also tied to sex differences. Girls begin to seek social support earlier than do boys. They then utilize such support more than do boys, throughout middle childhood. This trend has been demonstrated to continue into 15
    • adulthood (Wertlieb, Weigel, & Feldstein, 1987; Frydenberg and Lewis, 1990). Coping tends to be depend on context. Since the early studies above, context-dependence of coping has come to the forefront of the research on children’s stress and coping. It has been found that with school problems, children tend to use “cognitive restructuring” and “self-criticism.” Conversely, with sibling and peer relations problems, children tend to prefer coping that involves blaming others (Spirito, Stark, Grace, & Stamoulis, 1991). However, due to lack of information about subjects’ cognitive interpretation and motivation within specific scenarios of the problem contexts, it is not always easy to tell which coping strategies are mostly emotion-focused and which are mostly problem- focused. For this reason, these kinds of context effects will likely be scrutinized and conditioned on other factors (e.g., the details of the given scenario, the child’s perception of his or her options, the child’s intent, and so on) as researchers strive to flesh out the specific relational meanings necessitated by transactionist models of coping (e.g., Lazarus, 1991). To illustrate, consider a child facing a bully on the playground. The scenario could be considered a “peer relations” context. The researcher might go about drawing conclusions about the kinds of coping children tend to use in this context. However, unless such conclusions consider the details of the coping context (e.g., the unique issues of the given scenario, the child’s perception of his or her options, the child’s intent, and so on), they will likely over-generalize at the risk of excluding more important considerations. For instance, when children are said to tend to use “blaming” in peer relations problems, it may be the case that they do not use “blaming” in those problems per se – rather they may use blaming whenever they feel the problem is not their fault, they see no other option, they think it will fix the problem, etcetera. At the least, statements about coping tendencies in given contexts should attempt to consider whether children employed certain coping strategies in order to fix the problem or simply to feel better. In short, relational meanings such as these might be much more important than simply characterizing children’s coping behaviors across a given context. The dynamics of problems in contexts can very greatly, in spite of the superficial features that allow researchers to lump them into given contexts. 16
    • Adjustment Social and problem-solving coping tends to be adaptive. As an ultimate goal, it is hoped that stress and coping processes can be better linked with cognitive, emotional, and behavioral outcomes or indicators of adaptation. Accordingly, various attempts at measuring adjustment have been made. For example, Causey and Dubow (1992) examined schoolwork and peer relations, in a study of 4th to 6th graders. They found that “social support seeking” and “problem solving” were positively correlated with favorable characteristics, such as high “self-worth” and “behavioral esteem.” In contrast, “distancing” and “externalizing” were negatively correlated with these characteristics, as well as with grade point averages. Active, flexible coping tends to be adaptive. In a related study, Ayers, Sandler, West, and Roosa, (1996) examined what children 9 to 13 years old do to solve problems or to feel better about them. They found that coping which avoids problems tends to be associated with depression and poor conduct. They also found that “active” coping (similar to “approach” coping) negatively relates to depression and positively relates to self-esteem. “Active” coping included both problem-focused and emotion-focused strategies, so long as the child focused on the stressful event, either to change the situation or to think about it in a positive way. Hence, the skillful use of problem-focused and emotion-focused coping strategies in dealing with a problem is perhaps most at issue and not the mere use of strategies that qualify as such per se. Lastly, Kurtz (1994) attempted to integrate caregiver reports of coping and adjustment. Examining 8 to 12 year-old children, coping was divided into three dimensions: “productive,” “active,” and “flexible.” Productive coping was characterized by goal-orientation. Active coping was characterized by focusing on the particular problem. Flexible coping was characterized by a willingness to change one’s behavior. Not surprisingly, Kurtz found that children who used less productive and less active coping tended to be from disrupted homes. Disrupted homes were those with problems such as parental separation, divorce, alcoholism, and so forth. Further, high coping rigidity (i.e. low flexibility) was noted as being a contributor to maladjustment. In sum, adjustment- 17
    • related findings have been generally consistent with what a layperson might predict. That is, children who are actively engaged in their environments and diligent about this engagement tend not to have deficits in measures of well being (Ayers, Sandler, & Twohey, 1998). Research on Japanese Children’s Stress and Coping Stress Research on everyday life events in Japan has begun. Yamamoto and Davis (1979) carried out one of the earliest systematic studies of Japanese children’s stress. They studied the stressful experiences of over 600 Japanese and American children from grade 4 through 6. A 20-event rating scale was employed that included everyday life events 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. Japanese have been found to be similar to Americans in many ways, but sufficient data is lacking. In both the Japanese and American samples of Yamamoto and Davis (1979), children in higher grades reported significantly more stress. Significant sex differences were only detected for the Japanese children. Boys reported more stress than girls did. Yamamoto and Davis concluded that the similarity between the two cultures' perceptions were considerable. They speculated that school children in metropolitan areas in industrialized nations may have much in common, in spite of distinct 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. Unfortunately, there is some inconsistency in the literature. Nagane (1991) developed an everyday life event, school stress scale for 239 Japanese elementary school students of 4th, 5th, and 6th grade. Factor analysis revealed four domains: peer relations, class presentations, school 18
    • achievement, and school failure. Significant differences were found between sexes, but not between grades. Girls actually reported more stress in school achievement than boys did. It is not clear why, but perhaps they become conscientious about schoolwork earlier than do boys. Additional work needs to be done to clarify this issue. Contemporary findings show age differences depend on context. Building a foundation for the present proposal, Kilburg (1997) analyzed Japanese, upper-grade elementary school children’s stress in four contexts (education, health/fitness, family/home life, and peer relations) as a function of sex and age. For major life events, older children reported significantly more education stress than younger children did. 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.” The Kilburg study thereby extended the Yamamoto and Davis (1979) finding that older children reported experiencing more stress than younger children did for education- related items. However, considering that the Kilburg measure was much more comprehensive (80 items versus 20 in Yamamoto and Davis), it would seem that younger Japanese children are not under less stress in all domains relative to their older counterparts – because for health/fitness, family/home life, and peer relations, age differences were not significant. Contemporary findings show that sex differences appear to depend on context. In terms of sex differences, Kilburg (1997) reported that girls had experienced just as many stressful events as boys, at a mean intensity of no significant difference. The main stress analyses actually demonstrated girls to report significantly greater stress for the contexts of health/fitness and peer relations. The health/fitness context included many physical wellness and body image items such as: “you thought about the way you look,” “you thought about your weight,” and “you were ill.” As is generally found in American girls (Attie and Brooks-Gunn, 1989; Adler, Kless, Adler, 1992), it seems that Japanese girls may be under a considerable amount of pressure to meet perceived standards of physical appearance, relative to their male counterparts. In terms of peer relations, items included: “you thought about what your classmates thought of you,” “kids teased or avoided you,” and “people 19
    • thought you did something foolish.” Evidently, Japanese girls – like American girls (Miller, Danaher, & Forbes, 1986) – are relatively more preoccupied with avoiding falling into ill regard with their peers than are boys. Possibly girls report 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 are boys (Wertlieb, Weigel, & Feldstein, 1987; Frydenberg and Lewis, 1990; Jose & Hunsinger, 1997). In summary of Kilburg (1997), there was no evidence of any kind that boys experienced more stress than girls did. It is possible that the education of girls may have become a higher priority in Japan than it was when Yamamoto and Davis (1979) conducted their study. The overriding opinion in Japan does still seem to be 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 (White, 1996). However, one might speculate that a well-educated wife has become more desirable in post-industrial Japan, increasing the value Japanese society places on girls’ education. In any case, the Kilburg (1997) findings underscore the importance of considering multiple stressors within various contexts. By junior high school, age and sex differences tend to increase. Japanese researchers Okayasu, Shimada, Niwa, Mori, & Yatomi (1992) also developed an everyday life event, school stress scale – for 552 Japanese junior high students to measure stressors and stress responses. Factor analysis yielded six school domains: peer, club, study, teacher, rule, and “official activity.” Multiple regression analyses showed a strong relationship between stress in the peer domain and “depression- anxiety,” as well as between stress in the study domain and “cognitive helplessness.” In most cases, stress tended to increase across age, especially for study-related items. In terms of gender differences, girls reported more stress for study-related items, as well as for teacher-related items. These findings would appear to corroborate other findings that girls are under at least as much education stress as boys in Japan. Yet the literature clearly needs to be updated as a lot can change in a society in a decade. 20
    • Coping Research on coping in Japan has begun. Japanese researcher Ohsako (1994) studied coping effectiveness in 151 Japanese high school students (10th grade) using a translated version of the Ways of Coping Checklist (Folkman & Lazarus, 1980) and an original Japanese state-trait anxiety inventory. This study appears to be the first Japanese attempt at linking Japanese children’s coping research to the wider American coping literature. Appraisal and stress were also examined. No attempt to analyze sex or age differences was reported. Further, no attempt to consider socialization and coping was made – a connection surprisingly lacking in the Japanese coping literature and one the current study aims to address. Subjects were first asked to appraise how “hard” (from -3 to 0) or how “easy” (from 0 to +3) each of five domains of life are (“schoolwork,” “friends/sweet-hearts,” “teachers/school environment,” “personality/body,” and “home.”) They were then asked how much they generally use particular coping strategies within the 5 domains. For the coping strategies they used in each of these domains, subjects gave their opinions about whether such strategies are the “right” way to cope with such kinds of events. Finally, they completed the state-trait anxiety inventory as a measure of their stress response (an adjustment measure). Appraisal and stress response tend to be linked. Appraisal scores were shown to be correlated with stress response. That is, subjects who indicated a domain was very “hard,” tended to also indicate experiencing high stress response, as measured by the state-trait anxiety inventory. This would indicate that separating appraisal from stress response is a difficult research endeavor (indeed, the transactionalist approach espoused in this paper argues that appraisal is part and parcel of the very definition of stress and by extension adjustment). Surprisingly, however, appraisal scores for the “teacher/school environment” domain were not correlated with stress response. A possible reason for this exception is discussed below, where Ohsako’s speculations are reported. Coping tends to depend on context. In terms of coping, Ohsako’s results indicated that the students used a wide variety of strategies across the five domains (schoolwork, friends/lovers, 21
    • teachers/school environment, personality/body, and home). Moreover, their choice of coping strategies was shown to be highly dependent upon domain. For schoolwork stressors, students tended to use problem-focused strategies of “information-seeking” and “resource-seeking.” They also tended to use “social support” strategies of “asking for help” and “seeking sympathy.” For friend/lover stressors, they tended to use “information-seeking” and “resource-seeking.” With teachers/school environment stressors, they tended to shift to emotion-focused strategies. These included “patience,” “avoidance,” “not thinking,” “trying to change my mood,” and “giving up.” For personality/body stressors, no clear preference of coping strategies was detected. For family stressors, a distinct preference for “emotion-focused” strategies emerged. American study of Japanese coping has begun. The previously mentioned Kilburg (1997) study explored Japanese, upper-grade elementary school children’s coping by transporting several existing instruments from American research (Jose, 1994, 1997). This was the first attempt by an American researcher to examine Japanese children’s coping. It considered coping in four categories outlined by Jose (1994, 1997): approach/emotion-focused, approach/problem-focused, avoidance/emotion-focused, and avoidance/problem-focused. Coping items in these categories were all assessed by subjects exclusively in response to the peer relations scenario of: “kids teased or avoided you.” Age differences in emotion-focused coping have not been found. In reviewing previous literature, this proposal has noted that in studies of American subjects, older children have been found to utilize a wider variety of coping strategies than younger children have been (e.g., Band and Weisz, 1988; Altshuler and Ruble, 1989). In particular, older children have been found to utilize more emotion-focused coping. However, surprisingly no significant age differences were detected by Kilburg (1997) with either of the two types of emotion-focused coping strategies measured (approach and avoidance). Possible reasons for this discrepancy are discussed below. Large increases in problem-focused coping have been found across age. In terms of problem- focused coping, as was noted previously, modest increases have typically been found across age, in 22
    • American subjects. In contrast, Kilburg (1997) found large increases in problem-focused coping across age, in Japanese children. This included both approach and avoidance kinds of problem- focused coping. Avoidance/problem-focused coping items include (according to Jose, 1994, 1997): “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 include (again, according to Jose 1994, 1997): “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. Kilburg noted that such techniques would seem to be effective in dealing with being teased/avoided. Kilburg concluded that 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. That this finding contrasts somewhat with American findings may simply be a function of the specificity of the coping scenario in Kilburg (1997). Findings of sex differences have persisted. Independent of age, the Kilburg (1997) data suggest there are significant sex differences in Japanese children’s reports of coping strategy use that are roughly consistent with findings for American children. In main analyses, girls were found to report significantly greater use of approach/problem-focused coping than boys were. In 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. American girls have been found to seek more social support than American boys do, in the face of stress (Wertlieb, Weigel, & Feldstein, 1987; Frydenberg & Lewis, 1990; Jose & Hunsinger, 1997). Kilburg noted general agreement between this finding and those of his social-support-related coping items. Girls were observed to report seeking help from others to improve their subjective and 23
    • objective plights more than boys were. They were also found to report higher levels of self-critical, responsibility-taking coping than boys were. Kilburg argued that there are several possible reasons why girls 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 (Minami, 1987), girls may simply develop faster than boys do with respect to this strategy. Girls tend to use more approach strategies than boys. Overall, girls in Kilburg (1997) used more approach strategies than did boys. As previously stated, girls were found to report significantly greater use of approach/problem-focused coping than boys. Further, girls’ use of approach/emotion- focused coping exceeded that of boys (approaching significance at p=.08). Whether this is due to chance alone would need to be further examined. In any case, 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 account for the observed trend for boys and girls to differ in their scores for the approach strategies. It is also consistent with previous literature (Wertlieb, Weigel, & Feldstein, 1987; Frydenberg & Lewis, 1990; Jose & Hunsinger, 1997). Boys have not been found to be more aggressive than girls. Based loosely on Jose & Hunsinger (1997), boys were predicted to report significantly greater use of avoidance/problem- focused coping than girls were. This hypothesis was rejected by Kilburg (1997). 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 in response to any particular stressor. Hence, the Jose et al. coping measure evaluated general coping tendencies. In contrast, Kilburg (1997) asked children to complete the Jose-based “CISCS” measure exclusively in response to the specific situation of “kids teased or avoided you.” Possibly boys use avoidance/problem-focused 24
    • coping strategies more than girls do in only other types of stressful situations. Boys did report using aggression (an avoidance/problem-focused item according to Jose, 1994, 1997) slightly more than girls did in the Kilburg study. However, surprisingly, this difference was not significant. It is possible that such a presumed difference develops subsequent to the upper-elementary school age bracket that Kilburg (1997) sampled. It is also very likely that 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 verbal or physical assault, especially in the Japanese language version of the item. 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 certainly be judicious to better detail aggression in future research, especially when participants are asked to respond to a tease/avoid scenario. Past measures have had major limitations. A crucial reason why Kilburg (1997) presented mixed conclusions overall with respect to previous American findings probably stems from two measurement issues. Firstly, the original Jose (1994, 1997) coping categorizations of problem/emotion-focused and approach/avoidance are not wholly consistent with those in Band and Weisz (1988), Altshuler and Ruble (1989), and other studies sited in this proposal. This is understandable because the original Jose measures evolved out of a separate line of research. Yet the discrepancy is an extremely important reminder that conceptually driven category labels may not be entirely consistent throughout the various branches of the coping literature. Secondly, and perhaps equally important, many of the American findings are not at all based on relational meaning, as outlined by Lazarus (1991). Often they are based on procedures that ask subjects to report how they cope generally. Lazarus’ work argues that to truly understand coping, researchers must do the best they can to focus on cognitive interpretations and convictions in particular stress-coping encounters that have actually happened. This arguably includes providing subjects with a means of identifying 25
    • their own intent with respect to the definitions of “emotion/problem focused,” “approach/avoidance,” or any other coping categories that necessitate contextual understanding. Adjustment The buffering effects of coping tend to be context-dependent. In terms of the stress-coping link and inferred buffering effects of coping, use of social support strategies with personality/body stressors (i.e. perceptions of dissatisfaction with various components of one’s perceived personality and body image) was positively correlated with stress (as an outcome variable) in Ohsako (1994). Use of problem-focused strategies was positively correlated with stress when used with teacher/school environment stressors, but negatively correlated with stress when used with friend/lover stressors. Use of emotion-focused strategies was positively correlated with stress when used with teacher/school environment stressors, but negatively correlated with stress when used with family stressors. Ohsako speculated on several issues. He considered that social support strategies may serve to heighten stress associated with personality/body stressors. Additionally, it was considered that such strategies may not necessarily decrease stress when used with schoolwork problems, in spite of students’ preference for such use. Perhaps procrastination is at issue. This is an important reminder that a strategy’s effectiveness depends on whether it is skillfully employed. Surprisingly, it is unclear from Ohsako’s data which strategies are effective with schoolwork problems, however. In terms of teacher/school environment stressors, Ohsako remarked that nothing seems to alleviate stress, in spite of the evidenced preference for emotion-focused strategies. Problem-focused strategies were argued to be effectively applied to friend/lover stressors, however. Finally, the preferred use of emotion- focused strategies with family stressors was argued to be an effective way to alleviate such stress. Yet whether this finding is valid for children’s relationships with parents and siblings alike is unclear. The Ohsako (1994) study is, in sum, laudable for having broken new ground in the rigorous analysis of high school students’ stress and coping. Perhaps most importantly, it showed that measures derived from American research could reasonably differentiate patterns of Japanese stress 26
    • and coping. Certainly the general finding of this study could be of use in hypothesis-formation for future studies. That is, coping efficacy appears to depend largely on the match between coping strategy type and context. A summary of the research shows specific needs. In summarizing the literature on Japanese children’s stress and coping [Yamamoto & Davis (1979), Kilburg (1997), Nagane (1991), Okayasu et al. (1992), Ohsako (1994)], several patterns have emerged, but many questions remain. It seems clear that Japanese children of upper-elementary school and junior high school ages face an increasing amount of stress as they age, particularly education-related stress. There does not seem to be a reliable sex difference regarding education-related stress. However, there is indication that girls experience more stress than boys when it comes to their bodies and their peers. In coping with their stress (at least peer conflict stress), upper-grade elementary school Japanese children use a variety of strategies. Older ones use more kinds of coping that include: information seeking, social support seeking, and rejuvenation. Unfortunately, previous measures have not been clear regarding the distinctions between the presumed kinds of coping represented by these strategies – especially regarding the problem/emotion- focused coping distinction. It is therefore difficult to make broad conclusions about developmental changes in Japanese coping. Sex differences presented in past research are much clearer. Japanese girls tend to (again, at least with peer conflict stress) use more social support seeking and self-blame than do Japanese boys. In terms of context effects of coping choice, there is not enough evidence to draw a firm conclusion regarding the upper-grade elementary school period in Japan. There is significant evidence that high school age Japanese children tend to choose strategies based on the stress domain and situation. For education-related stress that is specifically schoolwork- related, they tend to use problem-focused strategies that include information and resource seeking, as well as problem-related social support seeking. They also tend to use the emotion-focused strategy of sympathy-related social support seeking. For education-related and family-related stress that involves issues with teachers, parents, and siblings, Japanese children tend to use emotion-focused strategies 27
    • that include “patience,” “avoidance,” and “trying to change my mood.” In terms of coping as a buffer of stress, there is basic evidence (at least at the 10th grade level) that: (1) social support strategies exacerbate personality/body-related stress, perhaps by heightening awareness of it, (2) social support strategies do not necessarily alleviate schoolwork stress – perhaps because procrastination is at issue, (3) problem-focused strategies exacerbate teacher/school environment-related stress, but alleviate friend/lover stress – perhaps because the former is perceived as uncontrollable whereas the latter is not, (4) emotion-focused strategies exacerbate teacher/school environment-related stress, but alleviate family-related stress – perhaps because the former overwhelms students and the latter does not. [Referring to Yamamoto & Davis (1979), Kilburg (1997), Nagane (1991), Okayasu et al. (1992), Ohsako (1994)]. Unfortunately, the above pieces of evidence are based on research inventory items that are broad-based and few, defined without reference to relational meaning (Lazarus, 1991). Further, they do not lend themselves to consistent categorizations within subject-defined, emotion-focused and problem-focused groupings. What is needed at this stage of the research is a more comprehensive coping measure – one sensitive enough to capture a fuller range of coping types. It must allow for easy categorization of coping strategies in terms of the well-established emotion/problem-focused distinction. It must do so in a manner conducive to linkage with Japanese children’s adjustment, as no study to date has initiated this important piece. It should also allow for easy categorization of coping strategies in terms that might be vital for capturing potential U.S.-Japan differences in future research. Finally, a coping measure that could link to maternal socialization of coping would further break new ground. The Link between Maternal Socialization and Children’s Stress and Coping: U.S. and Japan Mothers have a profound, if not the most profound, influence on the socialization of their children into their respective societies. This assertion has its roots in the earliest expressions of developmental psychology as a discipline (e.g. Freud, 1924; Harlow, 1959; Bowlby, 1951; Erikson, 28
    • 1963). To be sure, father, sibling, peer, teacher, and other agents of socialization must be studied for a full account of the development of emotional adaptation in general. Nevertheless, due to the natural connection between mother and child in the human species, maternal socialization represents the most logical starting point in research attempts to understand the development of children’s stress and coping. Unfortunately, the literature on Japanese maternal socialization in stress and coping published in English is scant (see Shwalb & Shwalb, 1996). Conversely, the literature on U.S. maternal socialization in stress and coping is extensive and unwieldy (see: Kuhn & Sieger, 1998; Aldwin, 1994; Kliewer, Fearnow, & Miller, 1996; Maccoby & Martin, 1983; Menhaghan, Kowaleski-Jones, & Mott, 1997). As a reasonable starting point, selected highlights from overlapping, U.S.-Japan comparisons of socialization of emotional adaptation will be discussed. A noteworthy comparison study was done by Crystal, Chen, Fuligni, Stevenson, Hsu, Ko, and Kitamura (1994). Crystal et al. 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. Japanese, Asian children tend to report high parental, academic expectations. In Crystal et al. (1994), 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. Zahn-Waxler, Friedman, Cole, Mizuta, & Hiruma (1996) examined the influence of culture, gender, and maternal child-rearing values on 60 Japanese and American preschool children’s responses to hypothetical interpersonal dilemmas. The children responded to hypothetical conflict or distress situations by choosing one of several pictures that best showed how they would feel. They 29
    • then chose one of several pictures of behavioral solutions to the conflicts. Lastly, the children listened to short conflict stories with props and then chose how the stories would end. The children’s mothers participated by completing a questionnaire on child rearing that inquired about attitudes, behaviors, values, and goals. Japanese children tend to be non-aggressive; Japanese mothers tend to use induction. Overall, Zahn-Waxler et al. (1996) demonstrated Japanese children to express less anger and less aggressive behavior and language than their U.S. counterparts. This was correlated with maternal encouragement of emotional expressivity. Japanese mothers were more likely than U.S. mothers to utilize “psychological discipline” (reasoning, guilt, and anxiety induction). In terms of sex differences, both the Japanese and the American girls communicated more pro-social themes and at times more anger than did the boys of the two cultures. Parenting style appears to impact on coping and adjustment. Kilburg (1997) examined Japanese children’s perceptions of both their mothers and fathers, in terms of warmth and control. Analyses pointed to possible coping socialization links that are consistent with the above findings. Firstly, children low in perceived parental warmth reported significantly greater use of avoidance/problem-focused coping than those high in perceived parental warmth. In the Jose (1994, 1997) groupings that Kilburg used, avoidance/problem-focused coping items included: “I didn’t do anything about the problem” and “I blamed someone else, lied, gave excuses, or cheated.” Such coping would seem to be at odds with effective peer conflict resolution. In addition to this coping finding, many more children low in perceived parental warmth reported having experienced the event of getting a poor grade on their report card than did children high in perceived parental warmth. This difference was rather striking. Only a third of the high warmth participants reported a poor grade, whereas roughly two thirds of the low warmth participants reported this experience. A summary of the research suggests patterns, further questions to be addressed. In concluding this section, it is noted that the above studies have revealed several broad patterns in Japanese maternal 30
    • socialization of emotional adaptation. Firstly, it seems Japanese children are raised to have relatively high expectations for academic achievement. Secondly, Japanese mothers may be focused on using induction as a means of influencing their children, perhaps in order to minimize aggressive responses in particular. Thirdly, Japanese parents who have relatively warm parenting styles may be more likely to have well-adjusted children, at least academically. Research directly measuring Japanese maternal encouragement and discouragement of various kinds of coping might shed greater light on these patterns. Rationale At the beginning of this proposal, a statement was made that American researchers of emotional adaptation are now engaged in taking the stress-coping-adjustment socialization patterns they have found in America and transporting and testing them in Japan – to see how well they generalize. After a review of the literature, it is apparent that the evidence is generally not yet well established. Further data collection is necessary. A study that is more comprehensive and refined than previous studies, particularly in terms of coping strategies, would do much to address inadequacies in the literature. Stress. Evidence to date regarding stress in Japanese children is not entirely clear. Researchers of Japanese children’s stress have found participants to report experiencing a variety of daily life event stressors, from various contexts including education, health/fitness, family/home life, and peer relations (e.g., Kilburg, 1997; Nagane, 1991; Okayasu, Shimada, Niwa, Mori, & Yatomi, 1992). In most cases they have found stress to increase across age, especially for education-related items. However, sex/gender differences have been less clear with education-related items. Early studies indicated that boys experience more education-related stress than girls do and later studies indicated few such differences. In a later study, girls did report, however, greater health/fitness and peer relations stress than boys did (Kilburg, 1997). Which of any of these findings are robust would be determined by the present research. 31
    • Coping. In terms of coping, there is great need in the literature to build a wider and deeper base of understanding of Japanese reports and interpretations. The present project proceeded with analyses that could evaluate subject-defined, emotion-focused (EF) and problem-focused (PF) groupings. This categorization is vital if future, direct U.S.-Japan comparisons are to surmount standardization issues, which could hinder cross-cultural interpretation of findings. As a reasonable means of overcoming past difficulties with the approach/avoidance distinction, EF and PF strategies were further cast in terms of whether they are primarily cognitive or behavioral. It was then the task of factor analysis to reveal underlying factor structures. Adjustment. Research must begin to consider the issue of children’s adjustment, well being, or life-satisfaction. American research has shown that older children are more able to generate coping options than younger children (Band & Weisz, 1988; Altshuler & Ruble, 1989; Compas, Worsham, & Ey, 1992). This is a hallmark of maturity and adaptation. It has further been found that coping such as “social support seeking” and “problem solving” correlate positively with self-esteem (Causey & Dubow, 1992). Other studies by Ayers, Sandler, West, and Roosa (1996) and Kurtz (1994) have found that children who use “avoidance” and have less productive, less flexible coping tend to be depressed and/or disruptive. There is very little research addressing these issues in Japanese participants. Ohsako (1994) and Kilburg (1997) have found patterns that are not inconsistent with the above American findings. Yet these findings are conditioned on the domain in question. Social support seeking strategies do not appear to result in greater well being in personality/body-related stress, nor in schoolwork stress (Ohsako, 1994). Further, problem-focused and emotion-focused strategies generally both seem to exacerbate teacher/school environment-related stress (Ohsako, 1994). Perhaps perceptions of control are at issue (Ohsako, 1994). Limited to one coping context (bullying), Kilburg (1997) could not clarify this issue. Again, to date, no study has measured Japanese children’s adjustment as linked to coping behavior. The initial steps into this research area would be taken in the present study so that conclusions could be drawn about wider patterns of Japanese emotional adaptation. 32
    • Maternal Socialization. Finally, a review of the stress and coping literature has also shown a need for developmental research utilizing Japanese children and their mothers. There is very little research documenting maternal socialization of Japanese children’s coping behavior itself. Most of the work done in this area consists of broad queries into parenting attitudes, values, and goals and their impacts on children’s emotional expressiveness and academic performance (e.g., Lahnam & Garrick, 1996; Machida, Hess, & Azuma, 1996; Zahn-Waxler, Friedman, Cole, Mizuta, & Hiruma, 1996). To date, there is no research investigating the specific links between maternal encouragement/discouragement of particular coping strategies and the impact of that encouragement/discouragement on children’s reports of their own coping. Research into this connection would be highly illuminating as to the transmission of hypothesized, unique cultural patterns of emotional adaptation in Japan. The basic project. As a means of meeting the specific exploratory research needs discussed above, measurement of the following was put forth: everyday life event stress, coping strategies, maternal encouragement/discouragement of coping, and child adjustment. Several existing instruments (Kilburg, 1997) were modified where necessary and used to test Japanese children and their mothers to yield a database that would enable systematic analysis. The Everyday Life Event Scale (Kilburg, 1997) was utilized to measure children’s stress. A coping scale from Kilburg (1997) was greatly expanded yielding two forms, one for children and one for mothers. A newly created School Performance and Life Satisfaction Scale was utilized to measure adjustment, or coping outcomes. These measures are outlined in detail in the subsequent chapter and appear in full in the appendices. Relational meaning. A final word should be stated with respect to relational meaning as defined by Lazarus (1991). Throughout the introduction of the present paper, the case was made that past stress-coping studies have often failed to consider the unique relational meaning that is invariably part of any “real life” situation in which individuals encounter stress and employ coping strategies. While people may indeed have dispositional traits and while people may indeed be induced to behave 33
    • in certain ways as a function of situation, every coping act occurs within a unique moment-to-moment context that underscores its relational meaning, as defined in Lazarus’ Cognitive-motivational- relational theory (1991). That is, cognitive interpretation and motivation are assumed to invariably be part and parcel of what drives coping. It is therefore important to recognize these components in a progressive stress-coping research methodology. In the above regard, the following specifications were to stand as unique assurances that the measures of the current study have been designed not only to compensate for many of the inadequacies of the previous studies, but also to conform to the dictates of the well-established work of Lazarus (1991). The reader will note that the coping measures of the present study [the Children’s Inventory of Coping (CIC) and its maternal analog, the Socialization Inventory of Coping (SIC)], are designed such that subjects rate coping use intensity in response to the recall of a particular event they define as actually having happened, within a given stress domain (education, health/fitness, peer relations, or family/home life), within the past week. The measures are also designed to account for the basic elements of cognitive interpretation and motivation (e.g., control/opportunity, fault, effort, emotional sensitivity, individual/collective initiative, etceteras) as defined by Lazarus (1991). This is the stuff of relational meaning and thereby appraisal – upon which Lazarus’ Cognitive-motivational- relational theory rests. In the event of ambiguities in the interpretation of various results of the coping analyses of this proposed study, the option to engage in further controls based on indications of appraisal (Lazarus, 1991) was to be available. That is, the coping measures provide indications of cognitive interpretation and motivation (i.e., control/opportunity, fault, effort, emotional sensitivity, individual/collective initiative) in the items of its opening section. These items were to be referred to if questions arose regarding the details of the coping episodes. In any event, subject selection of coping items was to go about under highly contextual recall circumstances and according to research participants’ own indications of whether coping was done in order to “fix the problem” or to “feel better.” In sum, the above steps represented the foundation building that is needed in this area of research. 34
    • A two-fold purpose. Lastly, the ultimate purpose of this research as a whole was two-fold: 1) to increase American understanding of Japanese interpretations of the stress-coping-adjustment process and 2) to develop a set of measures that could be used for a direct U.S.-Japan comparison in a future study, such that potential cultural differences in emotional adaptation could be understood in the absence of serious concern about cultural bias. Research Questions and Hypotheses Stress 1. Will boys or girls report greater stress for family/home life, health/fitness, education, and/or peer relations contexts? HYPOTHESIS 1: Girls will report greater stress for health/fitness and peer relations contexts than boys will (based on Kilburg, 1997). 2. Will younger children or older children report greater stress for family/home life, health/fitness, education, and/or peer relations contexts? HYPOTHESIS 2: Older children will report greater stress for the education context than younger children will (based on Kilburg, 1997). 3. Will there be any interactions between sex and age regarding stress for family/home life, health/fitness, education, and/or peer relations contexts? Coping 4. Will boys or girls report greater use of problem-focused coping (cognitive & behavioral) and/or emotion-focused coping (cognitive & behavioral)? HYPOTHESIS 3: Girls will report greater use of cognitive, problem-focused coping than boys will (Based on Band & Weisz, 1988; Folkman & Lazarus, 1988; Altshuler & Ruble, 1989; Compas, Worsham, & Ey, 1992). HYPOTHESIS 4: Girls will report greater use of cognitive, emotion-focused coping than boys will (Based on Band & Weisz, 1988; Folkman & Lazarus, 1988; Altshuler & Ruble, 1989; Compas, Worsham, & Ey, 1992). 5. Will younger or older children report greater use of problem-focused coping (cognitive & behavioral) and/or emotion-focused coping (cognitive & behavioral)? HYPOTHESIS 5: Older children will report greater use of cognitive, problem-focused coping than younger children will (Based on Kilburg, 1997; Band & Weisz, 1988; Folkman & Lazarus, 1988; Altshuler & Ruble, 1989; Compas, Worsham, & Ey, 1992). HYPOTHESIS 6: Older children will report greater use of cognitive, emotion-focused coping than younger children will (Based on Kilburg, 1997; Band & Weisz, 1988; Folkman & Lazarus, 1988; Altshuler & Ruble, 1989; Compas, Worsham, & Ey, 1992). 6. Will there be any context effects for problem-focused coping (cognitive & behavioral) and/or emotion-focused coping (cognitive & behavioral)? 35
    • 7. Will there be any interactions between sex and age, sex and context, age and context, and/or between sex, age, and context for use of problem-focused coping (cognitive & behavioral) and/or emotion-focused coping (cognitive & behavioral)? Adjustment: School Performance and Life Satisfaction 8. Will there be a positive or negative correlation between school performance and/or life satisfaction and use of problem-focused coping (cognitive & behavioral) and/or emotion-focused coping (cognitive & behavioral)? Maternal Socialization: Discouragement/Encouragement of Coping 9. Will mothers of boys or mothers of girls report greater discouragement/encouragement of problem-focused coping (cognitive & behavioral) and/or emotion-focused coping (cognitive & behavioral)? 10. Will mothers of younger children or mothers of older children report greater discouragement/encouragement of problem-focused coping (cognitive & behavioral) and/or emotion-focused coping (cognitive & behavioral)? 11. Will there be any context effects for discouragement/encouragement of problem-focused coping (cognitive & behavioral) and/or emotion-focused coping (cognitive & behavioral)? 12. Will there be any interactions between child sex and child grade, child sex and context, child age and context, and/or between child sex, child age, and context for discouragement/encouragement of problem-focused coping (cognitive & behavioral) and/or emotion-focused coping (cognitive & behavioral)? 13. Will there be a positive or negative correlation between child use of problem-focused coping (cognitive & behavioral) and/or emotion-focused coping (cognitive & behavioral) and maternal discouragement/encouragement of problem-focused coping (cognitive & behavioral) and/or emotion-focused coping (cognitive & behavioral)? 36
    • CHAPTER II. METHOD Research participants Participants were all native Japanese who have never lived outside of Japan. They were sampled from four separate schools near Tsu City in Mie prefecture, Japan: Fuzoku Elementary, Fuzoku Junior High, Kyohoku Junior High, and Tsu Higashi High. Tsu City is essentially a suburb of Nagoya, Aichi Prefecture. Additionally, all four schools can be classified as being primarily middle- class in terms of both income and education level. Based on student classes to which the researcher was granted access, a total of 1610 questionnaires were distributed to 805 mother-child pairs (805 child questionnaires to 805 children, 805 mother questionnaires to 805 mothers). For Fuzoku Elementary School, 226 questionnaires were distributed to 113 mother-child pairs. One-hundred-twelve child questionnaires were returned for a 99% response rate. One-hundred-seven mother questionnaires were returned for a 95% response rate. For Fuzoku Junior High School, 314 questionnaires were distributed to 157 mother-child pairs. Thirty-nine child questionnaires were returned for a 25% response rate. Thirty-eight mother questionnaires were returned for a 24% response rate. For Kyohoku Junior High School, 294 questionnaires were distributed to 147 mother-child pairs. One-hundred-forty-seven child questionnaires were returned for a 100% response rate. One-hundred-thirty-five child questionnaires were returned for a 92% response rate. For Tsu Higashi High School, 776 questionnaires were distributed to 388 mother-child pairs. Two-hundred-ninety-nine child questionnaires were returned for a 77% response rate. One-hundred-fifty-seven mother questionnaires were returned for a 40% response rate. Overall, out of 805 child questionnaires distributed, 597 were returned, for a 74% response rate. Out of 805 mother questionnaires distributed, 437 were returned, for a 54% response rate. See “Procedure” section below for further explanation of these response rates. After an additional counting of the questionnaires, it became apparent that some (43) of those intended for the mothers were actually completed by the fathers. Those questionnaires were subtracted from the analyses, so the study could focus on maternal influences. That left a total of 394 37
    • mother questionnaires to be used for the analyses. Further, some of those 394 questionnaires and some of the 597 child questionnaires were unusable, due to being incomplete in places. Some were discarded, depending on the analysis. The exact subject numbers included in each analysis are reported in the results section, with respect to the given analysis. In sum, a total of approximately 400 mothers and 600 children participated in the study (for a total of 400, matched mother-child pairs). This allowed for assignment of approximately 100 mother- child pairs for each of four stress-coping domains (education, family/home-life, peer relations, and health/fitness) and approximately 133 mother-child pairs for each of three school grades: 5, 8, and 10 (ages 10-11, 13-14, 15-16, respectively). For analyses related only to the children, approximately 150 children could be assigned to each of the four stress-coping domains, with approximately 200 at each of the three school grades. These numbers are approximate because response rates varied for each stress-coping context and for each grade at each school. The exact subject numbers are reported with each analysis in the results section below. Materials Materials consisted entirely of questionnaires. The questionnaires contain measures that were independently translated into Japanese by two Japanese-American, female bilinguals in the twenties age range (Rikako Takatsu and Mikako Nakajima). One of the bilinguals was born and raised in Japan, the other was born and raised in the United States, but spoke only Japanese in the house and spent several years studying in Japan. The measures were subsequently exchanged, back-translated, checked, and modified as necessary to ensure meaning was consistent between the English and Japanese versions. A third bilingual was enlisted independent of the original two. He is a Japanese professor (Kazuo Nishikawa, Mie University, Japan), in the fifties age range, born and raised in Japan. This third bilingual ensured that the Japanese measures were natural and fluid to the reader. This researcher was present for the entire process and is confident that the integrity of the original meanings was maximally preserved. 38
    • Each child and each mother completed one child and mother questionnaire packet, respectively. These packets consisted of the following measures (in order of presentation to the participants): Age, Sex, Grade A demographic inquiry provided personal data. This data yielded the variables of AGE, SEX, and GRADE (5, 8, and 10), as well as some other items for peripheral research. In all the analyses GRADE was used, instead of AGE, because of the presumed developmental implications of the institutionalized markers of maturity that grade levels provide. Stress The New Everyday Life Events Scale for Children (New ELESC) - This measure was derived from Jose (1994) and Kilburg (1997). Jose’s original (1994) scale was presented to the children to assess the actual occurrence of everyday events that have been annoying or anxiety evoking. Jose (1998) reported the original Jose (1994) scale to have demonstrated a Cronbach's alpha of .99 for an American sample. Kilburg (1997) made a first attempt at translation of Jose (1994) into Japanese. In Jose (1994), after the children were asked to state whether particular items were actually a problem for them or not (occurrence of problem), 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 stress did it cause? (a little, some, or a lot).” [Because causality is relatively diffuse in the Japanese language, the Japanese version of this question actually reads more like “if it was a problem, how much stress was involved?”]. There were also blanks provided for write-in events. There were 43 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 event occurrence should be distinct from stress intensity where possible, to prevent biased responses 39
    • where participants might be inadvertently primed to indicate stressfulness when it did not actually exist. 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.” Due to translation issues, not all of these additional items are maximally free of implied stress value. Nevertheless, they suffice as pilot items. All of them were composed based on cultural considerations put forward by two native born Japanese who translated and consulted for an earlier project (Kilburg, 1997). In addition to the above modifications, a question about the frequency of problems was placed after each item. So rather than simply indicating whether a given event occurred or not, children were asked to indicate how many times the given event occurred in the past week (maximum: 7 times; i.e., to account for as much as one occurrence a day). It was considered that this is a more accurate way to measure the relative stress of, for example, “you were ill” and “kids teased or avoided you” - in the case that the latter is a daily event for a child. Items from the stress measure were grouped into categories logically predetermined by this researcher on the basis of conceptual similarity, representing the following stress contexts: family/home-life, health/fitness, education, and peer relations. Event stress intensity values (for each stress context: family/home life, health/fitness, education, and peer relations), were calculated into averages. So too were event stress frequency values. Reliability analyses (Cronbach’s Alphas) were conducted to test the association between the event frequency data and the event stress intensity data. Prior to the analyses it was decided that if the analyses yielded alphas of .70 or better, the event frequency data would be deemed redundant and subsequent stress analyses would be conducted exclusively on the event stress intensity data, without the event occurrence data. In any event, collecting both sorts of data would not have been done in 40
    • vain, because presumably asking the children about both frequency and intensity dimensions would facilitate memory recall and thus accuracy of the data. As it turned out, the Cronbach’s Alphas were higher than .70 in all cases (in total stress intensity scores and total stress frequency scores, as well as in stress intensity and frequency scores by stress-coping domain – i.e., education, peer, home/family life, and health/fitness). Hence the event stress intensity data alone were used in all subsequent stress analyses. Thus, since the event frequency data were deemed redundant by the previously discussed Cronbach’s Alpha analyses, the stress intensity values reported were simply summed and averaged with respect to the stress context to which they belong (i.e., the stress intensity values of a given stress context were summed and divided by the number of items in that stress context). This resulted in 4 overall stress scores for each participant (please see coding key and measures in Appendices). Hence, four dependent variables were created: FAMILY/HOME LIFE STRESS, HEALTH/FITNESS STRESS, EDUCATION STRESS, AND PEER RELATIONS STRESS. Coping The Children’s Inventory of Coping (CIC) - This measure was created by the present researcher in an attempt to expand previous measures. Data obtained from it were grouped into two coping strategy categories: PROBLEM-FOCUSED (PF) and EMOTION-FOCUSED (EF). Both of these were subdivided into COGNITIVE PF, BEHAVIORAL PF, COGNITIVE EF, and BEHAVIORAL EF (please see coding key and measures in Appendices). There were four versions of this measure, wherein COPING CONTEXT was varied between subjects. The four coping contexts correspond to the previously mentioned four stress contexts: family/home life, education, peer relations, and health/fitness. They were represented as levels of COPING CONTEXT. Respective to these levels, the following events were used (one per measure version): having an argument with a sibling (family/home life event), having a lot of school work to do (education event), and being bullied/teased by another child (peer relations event), and having negative 41
    • thoughts about personal appearance (health/fitness event). Reliability analysis (Cronbach’s Alpha) was conducted to test the association between the items across COPING CONTEXT. Prior to the analysis it was decided that if the analysis yielded an alpha at .70 or better, the COPING CONTEXT distinctions would be deemed superfluous and would be ignored for the subsequent coping analyses. The analysis yielded a Cronbach’s Alpha of .95 from the children’s data. A subsequent analysis of the mothers’ data yielded a Cronbach’s Alpha of .88. Hence, the COPING CONTEXT distinctions were deemed superfluous and ignored for all subsequent coping analyses. Further, the research questions related to context were dropped. The context distinctions were not noted in vain, however. They presumably added much to the realism of children’s responses to the coping questionnaire. The PROBLEM-FOCUSED and EMOTION-FOCUSED coping categories discussed above were derived from a coping measure used by Kilburg (1997). This measure was originally designed by Jose (1994, 1997). The original coping categories used by Jose are abandoned in this new model. However, the basic Jose items remain. Jose (1998) reported the original Jose (1994 & 1998) items to have demonstrated Cronbach's Alphas of between .65 and .83 (for subscales), for an American sample. Jose et al. (1994) showed the item subscales to demonstrate validity by mediating and moderating the influence of stress on outcome measures. What differentiates the new system of this study from the old one of Jose (1994, 1998) is that all the items were essentially expanded three-fold; so they might elicit more detailed responding on the part of subjects. The Jose (1994 & 1998) and Kilburg (1997) coping measures contained between 22 and 32 items. The present Kilburg coping measure contains 65 items, representing 65 coping strategies. For each item, participants made use of a 5 point scale to convey how much they engaged in the given coping strategy: “None at all” (0), “A little” (1), “A moderate amount” (2), “Much” (3), and “Very much” (4). The expanded items of the CIC were assigned to the PROBLEM-FOCUSED and EMOTION- FOCUSED categories based on a focus group meeting between research team members, including two 42
    • Americans and three Japanese. The categorization of these items into PROBLEM-FOCUSED and EMOTION-FOCUSED is in most cases evident by the wording of the item. That is, most PROBLEM-FOCUSED items contain the phrase “…to help fix the problem” and most EMOTION- FOCUSED items contain the phrase “… so I would feel better.” In cases where these phrases are not included, the underlying meaning is assumed in the main parts of the item. The COGNITIVE PF/EF and BEHAVIORAL PF/EF subdivisions represent a logical distinction between subjective (cognitive) and objective (behavioral). These subdivisions served as the basis for the primary coping analyses. The new coding scheme of this research represents a departure from the “approach” and “avoidance” categories of Jose (1997). The supposition is that given relational meaning (Lazarus, 1991), the questionnaire researcher cannot easily define what constitutes approach or avoidance in a given encounter. For instance, social withdrawal, which is considered by many to be a way of avoiding a problem, could actually be an effective means of approaching the problem – e.g., when giving the “silent treatment” works to improve one’s lot (similarly, social seeking may simply be a means of avoiding the “real” issue, e.g., by means of procrastination with friends). As another example, “self-blame”, which is also considered by many to be a way of avoiding a problem, could actually be an effective means of approaching the problem – e.g., when “taking the fall” works to improve one’s lot. Aggression is another example. Many consider it a classic way of avoiding a problem – yet there is no denying that in many cases it is not only directly effective, but also societally acceptable. In sum, “approach” and “avoidance” are much more elusive as concepts than researchers generally acknowledge (Aldwin, 1991). It is certainly possible to conduct interviews with subjects regarding their coping intent, but that is very laborious. As a starting point, it was arguably better to construct coping questionnaire items such that problem-focused or emotion-focused indicators in those items would force subjects to respond as to why they used a given strategy. In any event, the current state of the literature dictates that researchers should first establish clearly how Japanese children rate with regard to the problem/emotion-focused distinction. 43
    • To this end, coping data collected using the CIC were sorted into PROBLEM- FOCUSED/BEHAVIORAL, PROBLEM-FOCUSED/COGNITIVE, EMOTION- FOCUSED/BEHAVIORAL, AND EMOTION-FOCUSED/COGNITIVE scores, such that each participant (i.e., each child) had a score for each of these categories. These are average scores (i.e., scores resulting from the summed values of responses divided by the number of coping strategies within the respective classification). Thus, each participant had 4 coping scores (see coding key and measures in Appendices). In addition to the analysis of the above scores, exploratory factor analysis was conducted on the maternal coping discouragement/encouragement data (see below). Prior to the analysis, it was decided that if the resultant factor structure merited further analysis, by virtue factor loadings above .60, it would form the basis for a new set of scores for the child data. Then further analyses would be conducted on these scores (see Results section). That factor structure did in fact merit further analysis and will be discussed further in the Results section. Of additional note, for the Fuzoku Elementary School and the Fuzoku Junior High School child questionnaires, item #59 (related to tobacco use as a coping strategy) had to be exchanged for a substitute item (related to singing and “karaoke” as a coping strategy). This substitution was made for these two schools, because the Fuzoku administrators did not consent to the use of the tobacco use item, giving the reason that it might be injurious to the children. Care was taken to insure that this substituted item was withheld in the appropriate analyses. No item substitutions were made on the mother questionnaires. School Performance As a measure of adjustment, school performance items were drawn from a 10-item questionnaire entitled “School Performance and Well-Being.” School performance items included numbers 1-3 (please see coding key and measures in Appendices). These items inquire about school grades, attendance, and behavior. All three of these forms of school performance data are on the same 44
    • scale. They were averaged and analyzed as one score, henceforth referred to as SCHOOL PERFORMANCE. There is also a maternal analog to this measure. Data from it are in the same form as the child data. As an expedient attempt to “triangulate” on the objective reality of the child’s adjustment, the maternal analog data were included in this averaging of SCHOOL PERFORMANCE. Life Satisfaction As a measure of adjustment, life satisfaction items were drawn from the aforementioned questionnaire entitled “School Performance and Well-Being.” Life Satisfaction items include numbers 4-10. They consist of four domains established in the New ELESC: Family/Home Life, Health/Fitness, Education, and Peer Relations (please see coding key and measures in Appendices). Item numbers 6, 8, and 9 belong to family/home life satisfaction. Item number 5 belongs to health/fitness satisfaction, 7 to education satisfaction, and 4 to peer relations satisfaction. Item number 10 belongs to general satisfaction. All of these forms of life satisfaction are on the same scale. They were averaged and analyzed as one score, henceforth referred to as LIFE SATISFACTION. There is also a maternal analog to this measure. Data from it are in the same form as the child data. As an expedient attempt to “triangulate” on the objective reality of the child’s adjustment, the maternal analog data were included in this averaging of LIFE SATISFACTION. Maternal Socialization: Discouragement/Encouragement of Coping The Socialization Inventory of Coping (SIC) - This measure was created by the present researcher in an attempt to expand previous measures. It is essentially an analog of the CIC. Questions are phrased to elicit answers about the extent to which mothers encourage or discourage the coping strategies their children may use. Data obtained from it were grouped in the same fashion as those from the CIC (please see previous section). That is, coping data collected using the SIC were sorted into PROBLEM-FOCUSED/BEHAVIORAL, PROBLEM-FOCUSED/COGNITIVE, EMOTION-FOCUSED/BEHAVIORAL, AND EMOTION-FOCUSED/COGNITIVE scores, such that each participant (i.e. each mother) had a score for each of these categories. These are average 45
    • scores (i.e., scores resulting from the summed values of responses divided by the number of coping strategies within the respective classification). Thus, each participant had 4 coping encouragement/discouragement scores (see coding key and measures in Appendices). In terms of COPING CONTEXT, a mother was assigned to the same group as her child. As previously mentioned, in addition to the analysis of the above scores, exploratory factor analysis was conducted on the maternal coping discouragement/encouragement data (see below). Prior to the analysis, it was decided that if the resultant factor structure merited further analysis, by virtue of factor loadings above .60, it would form the basis for a new set of scores for the child data. Then further analyses would be conducted on those scores (see Results section). That is, the factor structure yielded from the maternal coping discouragement/encouragement data would be utilized to form corresponding factor scores in the child coping data (recall that the SIC is an analog of the CIC, permitting such linkage). Subsequently, further analyses would be conducted on these scores. The factor structure resulting from the exploratory factor analysis did in fact merit further analysis and will be discussed further in the Results section. Design The study generally utilized a 2 (SEX: male vs. female) X 3 (GRADE: 5 vs. 8 vs. 10) design. Variations in the design according to whether the children or the mothers were the focus will be addressed in the subsequent sections covering results. Furthermore, to accommodate to the standard formula for MANOVA subject minimums (#IV levels X #DVs X 20), several analyses were broken down into component analyses (see Chapter III: Results). Procedure Participants were asked to complete questionnaire packets during their regular class time, scheduled at the convenience of the schools involved. Several Japanese undergraduate assistants supervised in conjunction with the teachers of the respective classrooms. They announced that they 46
    • were conducting a research project on the problems that children have and how they learn to solve them. They explained that problems can be mental, emotional, or physical. They explained that “everyone has some problems” and “everyone has to learn how to have a healthy life”. They further explained that “the research is very important for understanding health”. The assistants then told the children that the questions would not be hard to answer and might be interesting to them. The children were further reassured that no one would know whose questionnaire is whose because “secret” numbers would be used. They were also informed that the questionnaire is not a test and that there are no wrong or right answers. This was to provide a basis for asking the children to share their real feelings. In order that the children would complete the questionnaires carefully and within a reasonable time frame, research assistants were asked to read each item aloud. The children were instructed to listen carefully, in silence. A short and regular pause allowed them to answer each question in a paced fashion. In this way, all the children finished at about the same time. If the children had any questions, they were encouraged to ask. Due to limitations placed on the research by the school administrators, the procedure of having research assistants read each item aloud was possible at Kyohoku Junior High School and Fuzoku Elementary School, but not Fuzoku Junior High School and Tsu Higashi High School. For Fuzoku Junior High School and Tsu Higashi High School, the children were not required to complete the questionnaires in class and instead were asked to take them home to complete them. Consequently, the response rates for these latter two schools were not as high as the former two (see Research Participants section, above). The mothers of the children were asked to fill out questionnaires as well. After the children had finished theirs, the assistants gave them envelopes to bring home. The children were instructed that the envelopes should not be opened by anyone but the mothers. The mothers were to read that after they had finished their questionnaires, they were to seal the envelopes and have their children return them to the teacher. All materials were coded to correspond to the mothers’ respective children so mother-child pairs could be formed for data analysis. 47
    • Finally, the children and the teachers were thanked with a small gift of appreciation (i.e., a food item). 48
    • CHAPTER III. RESULTS Testing the Hypotheses and Answering the Research Questions Stress Child Stress Scores as a Function of Sex and Grade Based on the analyses below, it was possible to address the hypotheses and research questions regarding stress as a function of sex and age. Utilizing MANOVA procedures and Wilks’ criterion, significant main effects were detected for both SEX and GRADE. Both effects were highly significant at p<.0001 (SEX: F=10.22{4, 385}, GRADE: F=5.54{8, 770}). The tests of between-subjects effects revealed that the main effect for SEX referred to the dependent variables of Health/Fitness Stress (F=25.61, p<.0001, Male M=.55, Male SD=.55, Female M=.90, Female SD=.59) and Peer Relations Stress (F=7.88, p=.005, Male M=.67, Male SD=.59, Female M=.87, Female SD=.65). Considering the mean stress intensity for males versus females with regard to these dependent variables, it became evident that Hypothesis 1 was strongly supported. The mean stress intensity for the Health/Fitness context for males was .55 and for females it was .90. The mean stress intensity for the Peer Relations context for males was .67 and for females it was .87. Therefore, it seems clear that females reported significantly more stress than males did for Health/Fitness stress and for Peer Relations stress. No other significant SEX differences regarding stress intensity were detected. Lastly, it should be noted that a diagnostic test of Box’s M was conducted to test the null hypothesis that the observed covariance matrices of the dependent variables are equal across groups. The test result was not significant. Hence a measure of confidence in the findings of significant main effects is assured. Graphic representation of the above SEX differences follows. In one MANOVA, SEX, and GRADE constituted between-subjects, independent variables and FAMILY/HOME-LIFE STRESS, HEALTH/FITNESS STRESS, EDUCATION STRESS, and PEER RELATIONS STRESS constituted four dependent variables. 49
    • Analysis 1 - Multivariate Analysis of Variance: Stress as a Function of Sex and Grade TABLE 1: Between-Subjects Factors Between-Subjects Factors Value Label N Child's 1 male 167 Sex 2 female 227 Child's 5 Fifth Grade 92 Grade 8 Eighth 158 Grade 10 Tenth 144 50
    • TABLE 2: Descriptive Statistics Descriptive Statistics Child's Sex Child's Grade Mean Std. Deviation N Family/Home Life Stress male Fifth Grade .5617 .3811 48 Intensity Eighth Grade .6574 .3497 68 Tenth .4829 .4018 51 Total .5766 .3802 167 female Fifth Grade .5278 .3983 44 Eighth Grade .7267 .3610 90 Tenth .5082 .3067 93 Total .5986 .3615 227 Total Fifth Grade .5455 .3876 92 Eighth Grade .6969 .3567 158 Tenth .4992 .3422 144 Total .5893 .3692 394 Health/Fitness Stress male Fifth Grade .5729 .6013 48 Intensity Eighth Grade .5662 .5853 68 Tenth .4902 .4554 51 Total .5449 .5518 167 female Fifth Grade .6080 .5941 44 Eighth Grade .9750 .5180 90 Tenth .9543 .6244 93 Total .8954 .5929 227 Total Fifth Grade .5897 .5948 92 Eighth Grade .7991 .5827 158 Tenth .7899 .6107 144 Total .7468 .6007 394 Education Stress Intensity male Fifth Grade .7625 .6279 48 Eighth Grade .8588 .5604 68 Tenth .9176 .6002 51 Total .8491 .5921 167 female Fifth Grade .7636 .6918 44 Eighth Grade .9244 .5492 90 Tenth .8473 .5937 93 Total .8617 .5974 227 Total Fifth Grade .7630 .6556 92 Eighth Grade .8962 .5533 158 Tenth .8722 .5949 144 Total .8563 .5944 394 Peer Relations Stress male Fifth Grade .7619 .6418 48 Intensity Eighth Grade .6954 .5595 68 Tenth .5490 .5837 51 Total .6698 .5940 167 female Fifth Grade .7857 .6288 44 Eighth Grade .9810 .6684 90 Tenth .7942 .6401 93 Total .8666 .6531 227 Total Fifth Grade .7733 .6322 92 Eighth Grade .8580 .6380 158 Tenth .7073 .6297 144 Total .7832 .6355 394 51
    • TABLE 3: Multivariate Tests Multivariate Tests Effect Value F Hypothesis df Error df Sig. Intercept Wilks' Lambda .265 266.469 4.000 385.000 .000 SEX Wilks' Lambda .904 10.223 4.000 385.000 .000 GRADE Wilks' Lambda .894 5.542 8.000 770.000 .000 SEX * GRADE Wilks' Lambda .965 1.735 8.000 770.000 .087 52
    • TABLE 4: Tests of Between-Subjects Effects Tests of Between-Subjects Effects Source Dependent Variable df F Sig. SEX Family/Home Life Stress 1 .285 .594 Intensity Health/Fitness Stress 1 25.607 .000 Intensity Education Stress Intensity 1 .000 .985 Peer Relations Stress 1 7.879 .005 Intensity GRADE Family/Home Life Stress 2 11.509 .000 Intensity Health/Fitness Stress 2 2.945 .054 Intensity Education Stress Intensity 2 1.527 .219 Peer Relations Stress 2 2.538 .080 Intensity SEX * GRADE Family/Home Life Stress 2 .597 .551 Intensity Health/Fitness Stress 2 4.376 .013 Intensity Education Stress Intensity 2 .464 .629 Peer Relations Stress 2 1.351 .260 Intensity 53
    • TABLE 5: Multiple Comparisons Multiple Comparisons Tukey HSD Mean Difference Dependent Variable (I) Child's Grade (J) Child's Grade (I-J) Std. Error Sig. Family/Home Life Stress Fifth Grade Eighth Grade -.1514* 4.716E-02 .004 Intensity Tenth 4.626E-02 4.799E-02 .600 Eighth Grade Fifth Grade .1514* 4.716E-02 .004 Tenth .1977* 4.143E-02 .000 Tenth Fifth Grade -4.6263E-02 4.799E-02 .600 Eighth Grade -.1977* 4.143E-02 .000 Health/Fitness Stress Fifth Grade Eighth Grade -.2094* 7.451E-02 .014 Intensity Tenth -.2003* 7.583E-02 .023 Eighth Grade Fifth Grade .2094* 7.451E-02 .014 Tenth 9.120E-03 6.546E-02 .989 Tenth Fifth Grade .2003* 7.583E-02 .023 Eighth Grade -9.1201E-03 6.546E-02 .989 Education Stress Intensity Fifth Grade Eighth Grade -.1332 7.806E-02 .203 Tenth -.1092 7.944E-02 .354 Eighth Grade Fifth Grade .1332 7.806E-02 .203 Tenth 2.398E-02 6.857E-02 .935 Tenth Fifth Grade .1092 7.944E-02 .354 Eighth Grade -2.3980E-02 6.857E-02 .935 Peer Relations Stress Fifth Grade Eighth Grade -8.4755E-02 8.204E-02 .556 Intensity Tenth 6.595E-02 8.349E-02 .709 Eighth Grade Fifth Grade 8.476E-02 8.204E-02 .556 Tenth .1507 7.207E-02 .092 Tenth Fifth Grade -6.5951E-02 8.349E-02 .709 Eighth Grade -.1507 7.207E-02 .092 Based on observed means. *. The mean difference is significant at the .05 level. 54
    • FIGURE 1: Stress Intensity within Context as a Function of Sex of Child 1.0 .9 .8 .7 Stress Context Health/Fitness .6 Stress Intensity Mean Peer Relations .5 Stress Intensity male female Sex of Child Stress Intensity within Context as a Function of Sex of Child. Females reported significantly more stress than males did for Health/Fitness stress and for Peer Relations stress, supporting Hypothesis 1. Health/Fitness Stress (p<.0001, Male M=.55, Male SD=.55, Female M=.90, Female SD=.59) and Peer Relations Stress (p=.005, Male M=.67, Male SD=.59, Female M=.87, Female SD=.65). Regarding the main effect for GRADE, Tukey Post Hoc analysis was performed in order to detect which level(s) of the independent variable were significantly different from each other. For the Family/Home Life context, the test revealed a highly significant difference between 5th grade and 8th grade at (F=11.51, p=.004, 5th grade M=.55, 8th grade M=.70, 5th grade SD=.39, 8th grade SD=.36). It also revealed a highly significant difference between 8th grade and 10th grade at (F=11.51, p<.0001, 10th grade M=.50, 10th grade SD=.34). However, no difference between 5th and 10th grade was detected. For the Health/Fitness context, the test revealed a significant difference between 5th and 8th grade (F=2.95, p=.014, 5th grade M=.59, 5th grade SD=.59, 8th grade M=.80, 8th grade SD=.58). It also revealed a significant difference between 5th and 10th grade at (p=.023, 10th grade M=.79, 10th grade SD=.61). However, no difference between 8th and 10th grade was detected. Because no difference was detected for Education stress, it is apparent that Hypothesis 2 was rejected. [Note: Box’s M diagnostic test, again, provided assurance of homogeneity of variance.] 55
    • FIGURE 2: Stress Intensity by Context as a Function of Grade of Child .9 .8 .7 .6 Stress Context Family/Home Life .5 Stress Intensity Mean Health/Fitness .4 Stress Intensity Fifth Grade Eighth Grade Tenth Grade of Child Stress Intensity by Context as a Function of Grade of Child. Eighth graders reported significantly more Family/Home Life Stress than both 5th graders and 10th graders (p=.004, p<.0001, respectively). Fifth graders reported significantly less Health/Fitness Stress than both 8th graders and 10th graders (p=.014, p=.023, respectively). 56
    • Coping Child Coping Strategy Scores as a Function of Sex and Grade Based on the analysis below, it was possible to address the hypotheses and research questions regarding coping as a function of sex and age. Utilizing MANOVA procedures and Wilks’ criterion, significant main effects were detected for both SEX and GRADE. The main effect for SEX was highly significant at p<.001 (F=4.61, {4, 385}). The main effect for GRADE was marginally significant at p=.042 (F=2.01, {8, 770}). The tests of between-subjects effects revealed that the main effect for SEX referred to the dependent variables of Cognitive Problem-Focused Coping (F=4.15, p=.042, Male M=.91, Female M=1.11, Male SD=.82, Female SD=.87) and Cognitive Emotion- Focused Coping (F=6.0, p=.015, Male M=.88, Female M=1.09, Male SD=.70, Female SD=.65). Considering the mean stress intensity for males versus females with regard to these dependent variables, it became evident that Hypothesis 3 and 4 were supported. The mean use of Cognitive Problem-Focused Coping for males was .91, whereas for females it was 1.11. The mean use of Cognitive Emotion-Focused Coping for males was .88, whereas for females it was 1.09. Therefore, it is clear that females reported significantly more coping use than males did for both Cognitive Problem-Focused and Cognitive Emotion-Focused Coping. No other significant SEX differences regarding coping use were detected. A diagnostic test of Box’s M was conducted to test the null hypothesis that the observed covariance matrices of the dependent variables are equal across groups. The test result was significant (p<.001). Hence a measure of confidence in the findings of significant main effects was undermined. Levine’s Test of Equality of Error Variances was employed to clarify the source of the violation of homogeneity of variance. Results were significant for all four of the coping types (p<.05), except for Cognitive Problem-Focused Coping (p=.21). Hence, although complete confidence in the significance of the main effect for Cognitive Emotion-Focused Coping is not assured, confidence in the significance of the main effect for Cognitive Problem-Focused Coping is assured. Most importantly, normal Q-Q plots were generated for each type of coping data, and each revealed observed values that were well in line with the expected normal values. Hence the Q-Q plots provide justification for proceeding. A MANOVA was performed wherein SEX and GRADE constituted between-subjects, independent variables and COGNITIVE PF, COGNITIVE EF, BEHAVIORAL PF, & BEHAVIORAL PF coping strategies constituted 4 dependent variables. 57
    • Analysis 2 - Multivariate Analysis of Variance: Coping as a Function of Sex and Grade TABLE 6: Descriptive Statistics Descriptive Statistics Child's Sex Child's Grade Mean Std. Deviation N Cognitive male Fifth Grade .8698 .6773 48 Problem-Focused Coping Eighth Grade .8897 .8374 68 Tenth .9828 .9243 51 Total .9124 .8201 167 female Fifth Grade 1.0313 .8602 44 Eighth Grade 1.1208 .8891 90 Tenth 1.1384 .8610 93 Total 1.1107 .8692 227 Total Fifth Grade .9470 .7702 92 Eighth Grade 1.0214 .8721 158 Tenth 1.0833 .8839 144 Total 1.0266 .8533 394 Behavioral male Fifth Grade .5110 .4840 48 Problem-Focused Coping Eighth Grade .6138 .6532 68 Tenth .6161 .5977 51 Total .5849 .5902 167 female Fifth Grade .4641 .4098 44 Eighth Grade .6316 .4872 90 Tenth .5490 .5098 93 Total .5653 .4848 227 Total Fifth Grade .4886 .4482 92 Eighth Grade .6239 .5628 158 Tenth .5727 .5414 144 Total .5736 .5314 394 Cognitive male Fifth Grade .7557 .5357 48 Emotion-Focused Coping Eighth Grade .9278 .7591 68 Tenth .9483 .7600 51 Total .8846 .7033 167 female Fifth Grade .8636 .6242 44 Eighth Grade 1.1051 .7061 90 Tenth 1.1818 .5940 93 Total 1.0897 .6540 227 Total Fifth Grade .8073 .5790 92 Eighth Grade 1.0288 .7323 158 Tenth 1.0991 .6645 144 Total 1.0028 .6820 394 Behavioral male Fifth Grade .5994 .4377 48 Emotion-Focused Coping Eighth Grade .7076 .6122 68 Tenth .7006 .6013 51 Total .6743 .5628 167 female Fifth Grade .5874 .4335 44 Eighth Grade .8453 .5495 90 Tenth .7494 .5400 93 Total .7560 .5311 227 Total Fifth Grade .5936 .4334 92 Eighth Grade .7860 .5795 158 Tenth .7321 .5609 144 Total .7214 .5456 394 58
    • TABLE 7: Multivariate Tests Multivariate Tests Effect Value F Hypothesis df Error df Sig. Intercept Wilks' Lambda .318 206.330 4.000 385.000 .000 SEX Wilks' Lambda .954 4.606 4.000 385.000 .001 GRADE Wilks' Lambda .959 2.013 8.000 770.000 .042 SEX * GRADE Wilks' Lambda .988 .586 8.000 770.000 .790 TABLE 8: Tests of Between-Subjects Effects Tests of Between-Subjects Effects Source Dependent Variable df F Sig. SEX Cognitive 1 4.151 .042 Problem-Focused Coping Behavioral 1 .328 .567 Problem-Focused Coping Cognitive 1 5.996 .015 Emotion-Focused Coping Behavioral 1 1.040 .308 Emotion-Focused Coping GRADE Cognitive 2 .458 .633 Problem-Focused Coping Behavioral 2 1.877 .154 Problem-Focused Coping Cognitive 2 4.245 .015 Emotion-Focused Coping Behavioral 2 3.329 .037 Emotion-Focused Coping SEX * GRADE Cognitive 2 .085 .919 Problem-Focused Coping Behavioral 2 .247 .781 Problem-Focused Coping Cognitive 2 .238 .789 Emotion-Focused Coping Behavioral 2 .590 .555 Emotion-Focused Coping 59
    • TABLE 9: Multiple Comparisons Multiple Comparisons Tukey HSD Mean Difference Dependent Variable (I) Child's Grade (J) Child's Grade (I-J) Std. Error Sig. Cognitive Fifth Grade Eighth Grade -7.4350E-02 .1117 .784 Problem-Focused Coping Tenth -.1363 .1137 .454 Eighth Grade Fifth Grade 7.435E-02 .1117 .784 Tenth -6.1973E-02 9.816E-02 .803 Tenth Fifth Grade .1363 .1137 .454 Eighth Grade 6.197E-02 9.816E-02 .803 Behavioral Fifth Grade Eighth Grade -.1354 6.974E-02 .127 Problem-Focused Coping Tenth -8.4176E-02 7.097E-02 .461 Eighth Grade Fifth Grade .1354 6.974E-02 .127 Tenth 5.118E-02 6.126E-02 .681 Tenth Fifth Grade 8.418E-02 7.097E-02 .461 Eighth Grade -5.1183E-02 6.126E-02 .681 Cognitive Fifth Grade Eighth Grade -.2215* 8.797E-02 .032 Emotion-Focused Coping Tenth -.2918* 8.953E-02 .003 Eighth Grade Fifth Grade .2215* 8.797E-02 .032 Tenth -7.0347E-02 7.728E-02 .634 Tenth Fifth Grade .2918* 8.953E-02 .003 Eighth Grade 7.035E-02 7.728E-02 .634 Behavioral Fifth Grade Eighth Grade -.1924* 7.108E-02 .019 Emotion-Focused Coping Tenth -.1385 7.234E-02 .135 Eighth Grade Fifth Grade .1924* 7.108E-02 .019 Tenth 5.392E-02 6.244E-02 .663 Tenth Fifth Grade .1385 7.234E-02 .135 Eighth Grade -5.3923E-02 6.244E-02 .663 Based on observed means. *. The mean difference is significant at the .05 level. 60
    • FIGURE 3: Coping Type as a Function of Sex of Child 1.2 1.1 1.0 .9 Coping Type Cognitive PF Mean .8 Cognitive EF male female Sex of Child Coping Type as a Function of Sex of Child. Females reported significantly greater use of both Cognitive Problem-Focused Coping and Cognitive Emotion-Focused Coping, supporting both Hypothesis 3 and Hypothesis 4. The main effect for SEX was highly significant at p<.001 (F{4, 385}); Cognitive Problem-Focused Coping (p=.042, Male M=.91, Female M=1.11, Male SD=.82, Female SD=.87); Cognitive Emotion-Focused Coping (p=.015, Male M=.88, Female M=1.09, Male SD=.70, Female SD=.65). Regarding the main effect for GRADE, Tukey Post Hoc analysis was performed in order to detect which level(s) of the independent variable were significantly different from each other. It was revealed that for Cognitive Emotion-Focused Coping, 5th graders significantly differed from both 8th graders (p=.032) and 10th graders (p=.003). Fifth graders had a mean of .81 (SD=.58), 8th graders a mean of 1.03 (SD=.73), and 10th graders a mean of 1.1 (SD=.66). Hence, Hypothesis 6 was supported. No significant GRADE differences were detected for Cognitive Problem-Focused Coping. Hence, Hypothesis 5 was rejected. Further, for Behavioral Emotion-Focused Coping, 5th graders (M=.59, SD=.43) differed significantly from 8th graders (M=.79, SD=.58), at p=.019. No other significant grade differences were detected in this analysis. Graphic representation of the above significant differences follows. 61
    • FIGURE 4: Coping Type as a Function of Grade of Child. 1.2 1.1 1.0 .9 .8 .7 Coping Type .6 Cognitive EF Mean .5 Behavioral EF Fifth Grade Eighth Grade Tenth Grade Grade of Child Coping Type as a Function of Grade of Child. Eighth and 10th graders reported significantly greater use of Cognitive Emotion-Focused Coping than 5th graders, supporting Hypothesis 6. Further, 8th graders reported significantly greater use of Behavioral Emotion-Focused Coping than 5th graders. For Cognitive Emotion-Focused Coping , 5th graders significantly differed from both 8th graders (p=.032) and 10th graders (p=.003). For Behavioral Emotion-Focused Coping, 5th graders differed significantly from 8th graders at p=.019. 62
    • Analysis 3 - T-test of Social Seeking Items In addition to the above MANOVA, a t-test was performed on the four social-seeking coping items, in order to assess social-seeking coping as a function of SEX (a specific question from the literature review). In that analysis (described in tables below), a significant SEX difference was detected for item #18, “I talked to someone – so I would feel better”, but for no other item. For item #18, girls reported significantly greater use of social-seeking for the sake of emotion-focused coping, at a mean of 1.24 (SD=1.32). Boys had a mean of .95 (SD=1.17). TABLE 10: Group Statistics Group Statistics Std. Error Child's Sex N Mean Std. Deviation Mean 18. I talked to someone male 167 .95 1.17 9.06E-02 - so I would feel better. female 227 1.24 1.32 8.74E-02 23. I went to be with male 167 .56 .90 6.93E-02 someone - to help fix female the problem. 227 .57 .85 5.61E-02 25. I talked to someone male 167 .75 1.06 8.21E-02 - to help fix the problem. female 227 .99 1.21 8.04E-02 29. I went to be with male 167 .37 .72 5.54E-02 someone - so I would female 227 .42 .84 5.57E-02 feel better. 63
    • TABLE 11: Independent Samples Test Independent Samples Test t-test for Equality of Means Mean t df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference 18. I talked to someone Equal variances -2.265 392 .024 -.29 (EF) assumed 23. I went to be with Equal variances -.129 392 .898 -1.14E-02 someone (PF) assumed 25. I talked to someone Equal variances -2.018 392 .044 -.24 (PF) assumed 29. I went to be with Equal variances -.587 392 .557 -4.72E-02 someone (EF) assumed FIGURE 5: Social Support Seeking (EF & PF) as a Function of Sex. 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.0 .9 Talked to Somone... .8 to feel better (#18) .7 Mean to fix the problem .6 (#25) male female Sex of Child Social Support Seeking (EF & PF) as a Function of Sex. To address the specific issue of sex differences in social support, a t-test was conducted. Girls reported significantly more use than boys did for the social-seeking/emotion-focused coping item of “I talked to someone – so I would feel better” (#18). Girls had a mean of 1.24 (SD=1.32) and boys a mean of .95 (SD=1.17). 64
    • Adjustment: School Performance and Life Satisfaction School Performance & Life Satisfaction and Child Coping Strategy Scores Based on the analysis below, it was possible to measure the correlation between adjustment and coping. Several significant correlations emerged. All four of the coping types were strongly, positively correlated with each other (at p=.01, see correlation matrix below). However, surprisingly, only Behavioral Problem-Focused coping was significantly correlated with either of the two adjustment measures, School Performance and Life Satisfaction. Further, Behavioral Problem- Focused coping was significantly, negatively correlated with both of those adjustment measures, at p=.05. That is, children with high Behavioral Problem-Focused coping scores had lower School Performance (r=-.108) and Life Satisfaction (r=-.106). To rule out issues of non-normal distribution of the School Performance and Life Satisfaction data, Q-Q plots were generated. They revealed observed values that were well in line with expected normal values. Analysis 4 - Correlation Analysis: School Performance/Life Satisfaction and Coping Pearson product-moment correlation analysis was performed wherein the relationship between School Performance & Life Satisfaction and Child Coping Strategy Scores was considered. This proceeded according to the COGNITIVE PF, COGNITIVE EF, BEHAVIORAL PF, & BEHAVIORAL PF classifications. TABLE 12: Descriptive Statistics Descriptive Statistics Mean Std. Deviation N Cognitive 1.0266 .8533 394 Problem-Focused Coping Behavioral .5736 .5314 394 Problem-Focused Coping Cognitive 1.0028 .6820 394 Emotion-Focused Coping Behavioral .7214 .5456 394 Emotion-Focused Coping School Performance 2.8025 .5243 394 (Child's+Mom's) Life Satisfaction 2.3900 .4741 394 (Child's+Mom's) 65
    • TABLE 13: Correlations Correlations Behavior Cognitive al Cognitive Behavioral School Life Problem- Problem- Emotion- Emotion-F Performance Satisfaction Focused Focused Focused ocused (Child's+Mo (Child's+Mo Coping Coping Coping Coping m's) m's) Cognitive Pearson 1.000 .523** .736** .552** .083 .037 Problem- Correlation Focused Sig. Coping . .000 .000 .000 .098 .462 (2-tailed) N 394 394 394 394 394 394 Behavior Pearson .523** 1.000 .624** .884** -.108* -.106* al Correlation Problem- Sig. Focused (2-tailed) .000 . .000 .000 .032 .036 Coping N 394 394 394 394 394 394 Cognitive Pearson .736** .624** 1.000 .697** .050 -.068 Emotion- Correlation Focused Sig. Coping .000 .000 . .000 .320 .176 (2-tailed) N 394 394 394 394 394 394 Behavior Pearson .552** .884** .697** 1.000 -.096 -.079 al Correlation Emotion- Sig. Focused .000 .000 .000 . .058 .117 (2-tailed) Coping N 394 394 394 394 394 394 School Pearson .083 -.108* .050 -.096 1.000 .501** Performa Correlation nce Sig. (Child's+ .098 .032 .320 .058 . .000 (2-tailed) Mom's) N 394 394 394 394 394 394 Life Pearson .037 -.106* -.068 -.079 .501** 1.000 Satisfacti Correlation on Sig. (Child's+ .462 .036 .176 .117 .000 . (2-tailed) Mom's) N 394 394 394 394 394 394 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). 66
    • Maternal Socialization: Discouragement/Encouragement of Coping Mother’s Coping Discouragement/Encouragement as a Function of Child’s Sex and Grade The analyses below made it possible to examine research questions 9-12. They revealed a significant main effect for GRADE, at p=.007 (F{8, 770}), as indicated by Wilks’ Lambda. No other significant main or interaction effects were detected. Subsequent Tukey’s Post Hoc analysis revealed that the main effect for GRADE emerged based entirely on significant differences between 5th and 10th graders in terms of three out of four of the types of coping that mothers could report encouraging or discouraging. Stated differently, whether a child was a 5th grader or a 10th grader significantly affected the chances that his or her mother would report encouraging/discouraging the following three coping types: Behavioral Problem-Focused Coping (p<.001), Cognitive Emotion-Focused Coping (p<.05), and Behavioral Emotion-Focused Coping (p<.05). In particular, mothers tended to discourage Behavioral Problem-Focused Coping in 5th graders (M= -.28, SD=.42) more so than in 10th graders (M= -.12, SD=.32), nevertheless discouraging it in both, as evidenced by negative means (the scale ran from –2 to +2, for discourage and encourage, respectively). Mothers tended to encourage Cognitive Emotion-Focused Coping in 5th graders (M=.26, SD=.29) more so than in 10th graders (M=.17, SD=.27), nevertheless encouraging it in both (as evidenced by positive means). Lastly, mothers tended to discourage Behavioral Emotion-Focused Coping in 5th graders (M= -.14, SD=.33) more so than in 10th graders (M= -.005, SD=.27), nevertheless discouraging it in both (again, as evidenced by negative means). It should be noted that these figures reflect over-arching coping categories (for instance, Behavioral Problem-Focused Coping includes some pro-social and some anti-social items). Also, it is apparent that in all three coping types, the means, although different by GRADE, are quite low, considering the scale ran from –2 to +2. Unfortunately, diagnostic tests of homogeneity of variance revealed significant probability values. Box’s test of equality of covariance matrices yielded a significance value of p=.004. A subsequent Levene’s test of equality of error variances yielded another p=.004 significance value for discouragement/encouragement of Behavioral Problem-Focused Coping. However, Q-Q plots were generated for each of the coping encouragement/discouragement variables and each revealed observed values that were essentially well in line with the expected normal values. Hence there was good reason to proceed. A MANOVA was performed wherein SEX and GRADE constituted between-subjects, independent variables and discouragement/encouragement COGNITIVE PF, COGNITIVE EF, BEHAVIORAL PF, & BEHAVIORAL PF coping strategies constituted 4 dependent variables. 67
    • Analysis 5 - Multivariate Analysis of Variance: Maternal Coping Discouragement/Encouragement as a Function of Child Sex and Grade TABLE 14: Between-Subjects Factors Between-Subjects Factors Value Label N Child's 1 male 167 Sex 2 female 227 Child's 5 Fifth Grade 92 Grade 8 Eighth 158 Grade 10 Tenth 144 68
    • TABLE 15: Descriptive Statistics Descriptive Statistics Child's Sex Child's Grade Mean Std. Deviation N Maternal Cognitive male Fifth Grade .4375 .3701 48 Problem-Focused Coping Eighth Grade .4375 .4875 68 Tenth .3554 .4454 51 Total .4124 .4426 167 female Fifth Grade .6165 .4727 44 Eighth Grade .4472 .4426 90 Tenth .4382 .3921 93 Total .4763 .4324 227 Total Fifth Grade .5231 .4294 92 Eighth Grade .4430 .4610 158 Tenth .4089 .4121 144 Total .4492 .4374 394 Maternal Behavioral male Fifth Grade -.2544 .4172 48 Problem-Focused Coping Eighth Grade -.1734 .3394 68 Tenth -.1373 .3018 51 Total -.1856 .3540 167 female Fifth Grade -.3158 .4249 44 Eighth Grade -.1865 .3216 90 Tenth -.1047 .3312 93 Total -.1780 .3545 227 Total Fifth Grade -.2838 .4197 92 Eighth Grade -.1808 .3284 158 Tenth -.1162 .3204 144 Total -.1813 .3539 394 Maternal Cognitive male Fifth Grade .2178 .2873 48 Emotion-Focused Coping Eighth Grade .2019 .3264 68 Tenth .1604 .3147 51 Total .1938 .3110 167 female Fifth Grade .3037 .2967 44 Eighth Grade .1768 .2817 90 Tenth .1711 .2434 93 Total .1990 .2735 227 Total Fifth Grade .2589 .2934 92 Eighth Grade .1876 .3010 158 Tenth .1673 .2698 144 Total .1968 .2896 394 Maternal Behavioral male Fifth Grade -.1130 .3239 48 Emotion-Focused Coping Eighth Grade -8.54E-02 .2738 68 Tenth -7.16E-02 .2960 51 Total -8.91E-02 .2943 167 female Fifth Grade -.1774 .3447 44 Eighth Grade -.1107 .2567 90 Tenth -3.76E-02 .2515 93 Total -9.37E-02 .2776 227 Total Fifth Grade -.1438 .3337 92 Eighth Grade -9.98E-02 .2636 158 Tenth -4.97E-02 .2676 144 Total -9.18E-02 .2845 394 69
    • TABLE 16: Multivariate Tests Multivariate Tests Effect Value F Hypothesis df Error df Sig. Intercept Wilks' Lambda .446 119.751 4.000 385.000 .000 SEX Wilks' Lambda .988 1.211 4.000 385.000 .305 GRADE Wilks' Lambda .947 2.661 8.000 770.000 .007 SEX * GRADE Wilks' Lambda .984 .777 8.000 770.000 .623 TABLE 17: Multiple Comparisons Multiple Comparisons Tukey HSD Mean Difference Dependent Variable (I) Child's Grade (J) Child's Grade (I-J) Std. Error Sig. Maternal Cognitive Fifth Grade Eighth Grade 8.006E-02 5.707E-02 .339 Problem-Focused Coping Tenth .1142 5.808E-02 .120 Eighth Grade Fifth Grade -8.0060E-02 5.707E-02 .339 Tenth 3.418E-02 5.013E-02 .774 Tenth Fifth Grade -.1142 5.808E-02 .120 Eighth Grade -3.4184E-02 5.013E-02 .774 Maternal Behavioral Fifth Grade Eighth Grade -.1029 4.589E-02 .064 Problem-Focused Coping Tenth -.1675* 4.671E-02 .001 Eighth Grade Fifth Grade .1029 4.589E-02 .064 Tenth -6.4618E-02 4.032E-02 .244 Tenth Fifth Grade .1675* 4.671E-02 .001 Eighth Grade 6.462E-02 4.032E-02 .244 Maternal Cognitive Fifth Grade Eighth Grade 7.132E-02 3.782E-02 .143 Emotion-Focused Coping Tenth 9.160E-02* 3.849E-02 .046 Eighth Grade Fifth Grade -7.1321E-02 3.782E-02 .143 Tenth 2.027E-02 3.323E-02 .815 Tenth Fifth Grade -9.1595E-02* 3.849E-02 .046 Eighth Grade -2.0274E-02 3.323E-02 .815 Maternal Behavioral Fifth Grade Eighth Grade -4.4007E-02 3.715E-02 .462 Emotion-Focused Coping Tenth -9.4133E-02* 3.780E-02 .034 Eighth Grade Fifth Grade 4.401E-02 3.715E-02 .462 Tenth -5.0126E-02 3.263E-02 .274 Tenth Fifth Grade 9.413E-02* 3.780E-02 .034 Eighth Grade 5.013E-02 3.263E-02 .274 Based on observed means. *. The mean difference is significant at the .05 level. 70
    • FIGURE 6: Maternal Discouragement and Encouragement of Coping as a Function of Grade of Child .6 .4 .2 Coping Type 0.0 Cognitive PF -.2 Behavioral PF Cognitive EF Mean -.4 Behavioral EF 5th Grade 8th Grade 10th Grade Grade of Child Maternal Discouragement and Encouragement of Coping as a Function of Grade of Child. Whether a child was a 5th grader or a 10th grader significantly affected the chances that his or her mother would report encouraging/discouraging the following three coping types: Behavioral Problem-Focused Coping (p<.001), Cognitive Emotion-Focused Coping (p<.05), and Behavioral Emotion-Focused Coping (p<.05). Child Coping and Maternal Discouragement/Encouragement of Coping The analysis below addressed Research Question 13. It attempted to address the issue of whether children’s coping use scores were correlated with their mother’s coping discouragement/encouragement scores. The results of the analysis revealed a number of correlations significant at the p<.01 level, for the different types of maternal discouragement and encouragement. Just as with the children’s coping data, the mother’s coping discouragement/encouragement scores were all highly correlated. The main issue, however, was whether child scores would be correlated with mother scores, demonstrating a socialization impact, or at least a cross-generational connection. Evidence of a mother-child coping connection was found in only one pair of coping types, child Cognitive Problem-Focused Coping and maternal encouragement of Cognitive Problem-Focused 71
    • Coping. That correlation was .11, significant at the p=.05 level. Stated more clearly, children who reported higher levels of Cognitive Problem-Focused Coping tended to have mothers who reported higher levels of encouragement of Cognitive Problem-Focused coping, relative to their counterparts. Again, there was concern that homogeneity of variance assumptions were violated with both the child Cognitive Problem-Focused Coping scores and the mother discouragement and encouragement of Cognitive Problem-Focused Coping scores, as evidenced by significant p-values for Box’s M diagnostic test. However, subsequent Levine’s diagnostic tests did reveal non-significant p-values for this type of coping for both the child scores and the mother scores. Further, as previously stated, Q-Q plots revealed observed values that were well in line with the normal expected values. Analysis 6 - Correlation Analysis: Child Coping and Maternal Discouragement/Encouragement of Coping Pearson product-moment correlation analysis was performed wherein the relationship between Child Coping Strategy Scores and Maternal Encouragement and Discouragement of Coping Strategy Scores was considered. This proceeded according to the COGNITIVE PF, COGNITIVE EF, BEHAVIORAL PF, & BEHAVIORAL PF classifications. 72
    • TABLE 18: Descriptive Statistics Descriptive Statistics Mean Std. Deviation N Cognitive 1.0266 .8533 394 Problem-Focused Coping Behavioral .5736 .5314 394 Problem-Focused Coping Cognitive 1.0028 .6820 394 Emotion-Focused Coping Behavioral .7214 .5456 394 Emotion-Focused Coping Maternal Cognitive .4492 .4374 394 Problem-Focused Coping Maternal Behavioral -.1813 .3539 394 Problem-Focused Coping Maternal Cognitive .1968 .2896 394 Emotion-Focused Coping Maternal Behavioral -9.18E-02 .2845 394 Emotion-Focused Coping 73
    • TABLE 19: Correlations Correlations Cog Cog Maternal Maternal Maternal Maternal PF Beh PF EF Beh EF Cog PF Beh PF Cog EF Beh EF Coping Coping Coping Coping Coping Coping Coping Coping Cog Pear. PF Corr. 1.000 .523** .736** .552** .106* .022 .072 .014 Sig. . .000 .000 .000 .036 .667 .153 .784 2-tail Beh Pear. PF Corr. .523** 1.000 .624** .884** .058 -.013 .034 -.007 Sig. .000 . .000 .000 .249 .800 .507 .890 2-tail Cog Pear. EF Corr. .736** .624** 1.000 .697** .076 .046 .044 .041 Sig. .000 .000 . .000 .133 .365 .383 .415 2-tail Beh Pear. EF Corr. .552** .884** .697** 1.000 .087 -.022 .062 -.014 Sig. .000 .000 .000 . .083 .659 .219 .786 2-tail Mat Pear. Cog Corr. .106* .058 .076 .087 1.000 -.213** .511** -.100* PF Sig. .036 .249 .133 .083 . .000 .000 .047 2-tail Mat Pear. Beh Corr. .022 -.013 .046 -.022 -.213** 1.000 .125* .878** PF Sig. .667 .800 .365 .659 .000 . .013 .000 2-tail Mat Pear. Cog Corr. .072 .034 .044 .062 .511** .125* 1.000 .309** EF Sig. .153 .507 .383 .219 .000 .013 . .000 2-tail Mat Pear. Beh Corr. .014 -.007 .041 -.014 -.100* .878** .309** 1.000 EF Sig. .784 .890 .415 .786 .047 .000 .000 . 2-tail **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). N = 394 throughout. 74
    • Exploratory Coping Factors Analysis 7 - Exploratory Factor Analysis on Maternal Coping Encouragement/Discouragement In addition to the above analyses of the predetermined coping categories, exploratory factor analysis was conducted on the maternal coping discouragement and encouragement data. First, a preliminary factor analysis was conducted on the maternal coping discouragement/encouragement data (using Principal Component Analysis and Varimax rotation). This data comes from the 65-item measure, referred to as “The Socialization Inventory of Coping”). There were 394 participants included in the analysis, a figure nearly 25% higher than what Tabachnick and Fidell assert to be adequate in their reference book, “Using Multivariate Statistics” (1996, p. 640). From the scree plot of that output, there appeared to be either a three-factor or two-factor structure. To clarify, two additional factor analyses were performed – one specified three factors and the other specified two factors. After Varimax rotation, all items that loaded at least .40 on these solutions were selected (at the advice of Jose, 1998 and personal correspondence). Then Cronbach’s Alphas were calculated on all five factors. The results of these analyses led to the conclusion that a three-factor solution was most reasonable (Factor 1 Alpha = .9627, Factor 2 Alpha = .9055, Factor 3 Alpha = .7950). Subsequently, questionnaire items (within each factor) with Alphas of at least .60 were used to create new variables (again, at the advice of Jose, 1998 and personal correspondence). These new variables were in turn utilized in MANOVAs and correlations along the lines of the preceding analyses of the a priori categories (i.e., the COGNITIVE PF, COGNITIVE EF, BEHAVIORAL PF, & BEHAVIORAL PF classifications). The emergent factor structures were also imposed on the child data. Therefore, each child and each mother have a score for each of the three new variables (detailed tables follow). The decision to impose the maternal data on the child data was made for two important reasons. Firstly, the focus of the study was socialization of the child by the mother—the emphasis was therefore on understanding how children’s coping is a reflection of maternal coping encouragement and discouragement. Secondly, the imposition of the maternal factors on the child data would allow for better symmetry in the data analysis—because the maternal factors would have child counterparts (just as the maternal measures had child counterparts). 75
    • TABLE 20: Preliminary Factor Analysis of Maternal Discouragement/Encouragement Coping. Total Variance Explained Extraction Sums of SquaredRotation Sums of Squared Initial Eigenvalues Loadings Loadings Compo % of Cumula % of Cumula % of Cumula nent Total Variance tive % Total Variance tive % Total Variance tive % 1 18.591 28.602 28.602 18.591 28.602 28.602 15.083 23.204 23.204 2 7.018 10.797 39.398 7.018 10.797 39.398 6.145 9.455 32.659 3 2.633 4.051 43.449 2.633 4.051 43.449 3.189 4.906 37.565 4 2.525 3.884 47.334 2.525 3.884 47.334 3.030 4.662 42.227 5 1.853 2.851 50.184 1.853 2.851 50.184 2.104 3.237 45.464 6 1.692 2.604 52.788 1.692 2.604 52.788 2.062 3.172 48.636 7 1.619 2.490 55.278 1.619 2.490 55.278 1.893 2.912 51.548 8 1.458 2.243 57.522 1.458 2.243 57.522 1.767 2.719 54.267 9 1.406 2.162 59.684 1.406 2.162 59.684 1.724 2.653 56.920 10 1.360 2.093 61.776 1.360 2.093 61.776 1.705 2.624 59.544 11 1.271 1.955 63.731 1.271 1.955 63.731 1.660 2.553 62.097 12 1.216 1.871 65.602 1.216 1.871 65.602 1.550 2.384 64.481 13 1.106 1.702 67.304 1.106 1.702 67.304 1.468 2.259 66.740 14 1.053 1.620 68.924 1.053 1.620 68.924 1.419 2.184 68.924 15 .997 1.534 70.458 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Three-Factor Solution of the maternal coping discouragement/encouragement data. TABLE 21: Total Variance Explained Total Variance Explained Initial Eigenvalues Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings Component Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative % 1 18.591 28.602 28.602 15.678 24.121 24.121 2 7.018 10.797 39.398 6.792 10.449 34.569 3 2.633 4.051 43.449 5.772 8.880 43.449 4 2.525 3.884 47.334 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. 76
    • Items with Factor Loadings of at least .60, from the preceding 3-Factor solution. Rotated Component Matrix Component 1 2 3 3. to try to hurt or do harm to someone’s body or someone’s stuff - .658 without that person knowing it - so he/she (my ch… 5. to try to get someone to feel guilty or to feel sorry for him/her - so .629 he/she (my child) would feel better. 6. to try to annoy someone in a “light” or “indirect” way (for example: .743 to make someone wait for him/her; to purposely 11. to think about all the things he/she could possibly do to fix the .659 problem. 12. to get angry and yell and/or hit something (in front of someone) - .713 to help fix the problem. 13. to say bad things directly to someone’s face - so he/she (my child) .750 would feel better. 14. to get more information about the problem. .638 15. to tell him/herself to divide the problem and take it “one step at a .662 time.” 19. to try to directly hurt or do harm to someone’s body or someone’s .820 stuff - so he/she (my child) would feel better. 21. to tell someone a lie (good or bad) - to help fix the problem. .695 22. to try to hurt or do harm to someone’s feelings - without that .843 person knowing it – to help fix the problem. 24. to make a plan to solve the problem. .725 25. to talk to me or to someone else - to help fix the problem. .736 26. to tell him/herself to keep trying as hard as he/she can. .690 27. to try to directly hurt or do harm to someone’s body or someone’s .844 stuff - to help fix the problem. 30. to tell someone a lie (good or bad) - so he/she (my child) .773 31. to try to directly annoy someone by doing things like poking .851 him/her, grabbing at his/her things, making faces at… 33. to try to annoy someone in a “light” or “indirect” way (for .862 example: to make someone wait for him/her; to purposely… 34. to try to think what would work best to fix the problem. .665 35. to try to get someone to feel guilty or to feel sorry for him/her - to .724 help fix the problem. 36. to say bad things directly to someone’s face – to help fix the .826 problem. 37. to try to hurt or do harm to someone’s feelings - without that .867 person knowing it - so he/she (my child) would feel… 38. to tell someone that the problem was his or her fault and/or to tell .760 someone to say sorry - so he/she (my child)… 42. to try to be polite or humble, or to show respect or honor - so *.584 he/she (my child) would feel better. 43. to tell someone that the problem was his or her fault and/or to tell .778 someone to say sorry - to help fix the problem… 45. to try to hurt or do harm to someone’s body or someone’s stuff - .866 without that person knowing it - to help fix the… 47. to get angry and yell and/or hit something (in front of someone) - .818 so he/she (my child) would feel better. 50. to try to directly annoy someone by doing things like poking .854 him/her, grabbing at his/her things, making faces at… 77
    • 51. to try to be cheerful or happy in front of someone, or to do nice .623 things for someone - to help fix the problem. 57. to laugh or joke aloud - so he/she (my child) would feel better. *.569 59. to smoke cigarettes, drink alcohol, take some pills, or take some .790 kind of drug (not medicine) - so he/she would feel… *Value taken to be .60 when rounded up. After theoretical consideration of the exploratory 3-Factor Solution, subjective labels were applied to each of the factors, representing the overall themes. Item #59 was dropped from subsequent analyses because it had previously been excluded from a significant portion of the children’s questionnaires. The new variables are ANTAGONISM, PROBLEM-SOLVING, and CHEERFUL DEFERENCE (factors 1-3, respectively). They were formed by averages (i.e., by summing the item scores and dividing by the total number of items accepted from the given factor). Not only are these variables rooted in relatively high Alpha scores, they are also comprised of items with considerable theoretical cohesion. ANTAGONISM is clearly a variable that encompasses anti-social, aggressive items. PROBLEM-SOLVING is clearly a variable that includes the classic hallmarks of the planful, “working out” of issues. Lastly, CHEERFUL DEFERENCE, appears to embody coping that strives to present a joyful and respectful tone to others, perhaps to remedy an issue. *Note: this variable was comprised exclusively of one item, according to the .60 cut-off. However, the items with the next two highest factor loadings in this category, which nearly made the .60 cutoff, were conceptually similar enough to merit inclusion {i.e., “to try to be polite or humble” (#42, loading=.584) and “to laugh or joke aloud” (#57, loading=.569)}. It could be argued that a factor with so few items is not a true factor, and is instead simply a “trail” behind the preceding factor. Yet the content of PROBLEM-SOLVING and CHEERFUL DEFERENCE would seem to be sufficiently theoretically distinct to merit two separate variables of analysis. The connection between the two factors will be further considered in subsequent correlational analyses. Analyses of the Exploratory Coping Factors Child Coping Strategy Scores (Exploratory) as a Function of Sex and Grade The analysis below made it possible to examine the exploratory factor structures in the same manner as the preceding coping analyses, but with different coping types. Coping was considered here as a function of SEX and GRADE. A highly significant main effect was revealed for SEX, at p=.009 (F{3, 386}). Tests of between-subjects effects indicated a significant difference between males and females with respect to Problem-Solving, at p=.017. The mean use of Problem-Solving Coping for boys was .95, whereas for girls it was 1.19. Diagnostic tests were performed to test the assumptions of the above analysis. Unfortunately, 78
    • Box’s M indicated a highly significant p-value at .0001. Levine’s Test of Equality of Error Variances was subsequently employed – to assess the source of the violation. Its result was significant for Antagonism, but not for Problem-Solving or Cheerful Deference. Thus, there is limited assurance to proceed with tentative interpretation of the above significant finding regarding the sex difference with Problem-Solving use. Further, Q-Q plots were generated for the three exploratory coping types. All plots did approximate normal distributions, with partial exceptions. That of Problem-Solving demonstrated the closest observed-expected fit. Graphic representation follows. A MANOVA was performed wherein SEX and GRADE constituted between-subjects, independent variables and the following exploratory coping strategy scores constituted 3 dependent variables: ANTAGONISM, PROBLEM-SOLVING, and CHEERFUL DEFERENCE. 79
    • Analysis 8 - Multivariate Analysis of Variance: Coping (Exploratory) as a Function of Sex and Grade TABLE 22: Descriptive Statistics Descriptive Statistics Child's Sex Child's Grade Mean Std. Deviation N Antagonism male Fifth Grade .5139 .6475 48 Eighth Grade .5476 .7810 68 Tenth .5154 .6850 51 Total .5281 .7117 167 female Fifth Grade .3106 .4325 44 Eighth Grade .4979 .5712 90 Tenth .3881 .5872 93 Total .4166 .5564 227 Total Fifth Grade .4167 .5616 92 Eighth Grade .5193 .6677 158 Tenth .4332 .6242 144 Total .4639 .6285 394 Problem-Solving male Fifth Grade .9286 .7951 48 Eighth Grade .9265 .9134 68 Tenth 1.0168 .8740 51 Total .9547 .8646 167 female Fifth Grade 1.1981 1.0293 44 Eighth Grade 1.2349 1.0041 90 Tenth 1.1306 .8364 93 Total 1.1850 .9411 227 Total Fifth Grade 1.0575 .9195 92 Eighth Grade 1.1022 .9752 158 Tenth 1.0903 .8486 144 Total 1.0874 .9154 394 Cheerful Deference male Fifth Grade .4375 .6456 48 Eighth Grade .6176 .8331 68 Tenth .6078 .7766 51 Total .5629 .7656 167 female Fifth Grade .6061 .7818 44 Eighth Grade .6704 .8354 90 Tenth .6093 .8321 93 Total .6329 .8209 227 Total Fifth Grade .5181 .7150 92 Eighth Grade .6477 .8322 158 Tenth .6088 .8101 144 Total .6032 .7977 394 80
    • TABLE 23: Multivariate Tests Multivariate Tests Hypothesis Effect Value F df Error df Sig. Intercept Wilks' Lambda .392 199.769 3.000 386.000 .000 Sex Wilks' Lambda .971 3.893 3.000 386.000 .009 Grade Wilks' Lambda .993 .475 6.000 772.000 .827 Sex * Gra Wilks' Lambda .993 .446 6.000 772.000 .848 FIGURE 7: Coping Type (Exploratory) as a Function of Sex of Child. 1.4 1.2 1.0 .8 .6 Coping Type Antagonism .4 Problem-Solving Mean .2 Cheerful Deference male female Sex of Child Coping Type (Exploratory) as a Function of Sex of Child. A highly significant main effect was revealed for SEX, at p=.009 (F{3, 386}). The difference between males and females for Problem- Solving is significant at p=.017. 81
    • School Performance and Life Satisfaction and Coping (Exploratory) The analysis below attempted to consider whether the exploratory coping factors were correlated with child adjustment in the form of School Performance and Life Satisfaction. The correlation matrix revealed that all three of the coping types (Antagonism, Problem-Solving, and Cheerful Deference) were positively correlated at the p=.01 level. Most importantly, out of the three coping types, only Antagonism was correlated with adjustment. Namely, Antagonism was negatively correlated with both School Performance (-.15) and Life Satisfaction (-.13), at the p=.01 significance level. Analysis 9 - Correlation Analysis: School Performance/Life Satisfaction and Child Coping (Exploratory) Pearson product-moment correlation analysis was performed wherein the relationship between School Performance & Life Satisfaction and Child Coping Strategy Scores (Exploratory) was considered. This proceeded according to the ANTAGONISM, PROBLEM-SOLVING, and CHEERFUL DEFERENCE classifications. 82
    • TABLE 24: Correlations Correlations School Life Performance Satisfaction Antago Problem Cheerful (Child's+Mo (Child's+Mo nism -Solving Deference m's) m's) Antagonism Pearson 1.000 .172** .318** -.154** -.132** Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) . .001 .000 .002 .009 N 394 394 394 394 394 Problem-Solving Pearson .172** 1.000 .449** .095 .095 Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) .001 . .000 .060 .061 N 394 394 394 394 394 Cheerful Pearson .318** .449** 1.000 -.035 -.050 Deference Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 . .483 .326 N 394 394 394 394 394 School Pearson -.154** .095 -.035 1.000 .501** Performance Correlation (Child's+Mom's) Sig. (2-tailed) .002 .060 .483 . .000 N 394 394 394 394 394 Life Satisfaction Pearson -.132** .095 -.050 .501** 1.000 (Child's+Mom's) Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) .009 .061 .326 .000 . N 394 394 394 394 394 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). 83
    • Mother’s Coping Discouragement/Encouragement (Exploratory) as a Function of child’s Sex and Grade The analysis below made it possible to examine maternal coping discouragement and encouragement as a function of child SEX and GRADE. It revealed no significant main or interaction effects, as evidenced by the Wilks’ Lambda criterion. However, the main effect for GRADE approached significance, at p=.07. Therefore post hoc analyses were performed. One significant GRADE difference was found vis-à-vis Antagonism. Fifth grade (M=-.69, SD=.06) differed from 10th grade (M=-.40, SD=.06) at a p-value of .001. In terms of diagnostics, Box’s M diagnostic test revealed a highly significant result of p=.007. Additionally, Levene’s diagnostic test revealed significant results for both Antagonism (p=.03) and Cheerful Deference (p=.01). In both tests, significant findings indicate violations of the homogeneity of variance assumption of the MANOVA procedure. A MANOVA was performed wherein SEX and GRADE constituted between-subjects, independent variables and discouragement/encouragement of ANTAGONISM, PROBLEM- SOLVING, and CHEERFUL DEFERENCE coping strategies constituted 3 dependent variables. 84
    • Analysis 10 - Multivariate Analysis of Variance: Coping Discouragement/Encouragement (Exploratory) as a Function of Child Sex and Age TABLE 25: Descriptive Statistics Descriptive Statistics Child's Child's Std. Sex Grade Mean Deviation N Mom male Fifth Grade -.6270 .6833 48 Antagonism Eighth Grade -.5287 .6322 68 Tenth -.4435 .5973 51 Total -.5309 .6372 167 female Fifth Grade -.7543 .7197 44 Eighth Grade -.5698 .6239 90 Tenth -.3610 .5894 93 Total -.5200 .6445 227 Total Fifth Grade -.6879 .7000 92 Eighth Grade -.5521 .6258 158 Tenth -.3902 .5915 144 Total -.5246 .6406 394 Mom male Fifth Grade .5863 .5029 48 Problem-Solving Eighth Grade .5420 .6144 68 Tenth .4930 .5899 51 Total .5398 .5745 167 female Fifth Grade .7532 .6195 44 Eighth Grade .5952 .5783 90 Tenth .4977 .5158 93 Total .5859 .5672 227 Total Fifth Grade .6661 .5648 92 Eighth Grade .5723 .5928 158 Tenth .4960 .5411 144 Total .5664 .5700 394 Mom Cheerful male Fifth Grade .2778 .5252 48 Deference Eighth Grade .2010 .4118 68 Tenth .1765 .4539 51 Total .2156 .4586 167 female Fifth Grade .2197 .5131 44 Eighth Grade .2037 .4653 90 Tenth .1756 .3053 93 Total .1953 .4166 227 Total Fifth Grade .2500 .5174 92 Eighth Grade .2025 .4417 158 Tenth .1759 .3633 144 Total .2039 .4344 394 85
    • TABLE 26: Multivariate Tests Multivariate Tests Hypothesis Effect Value F df Error df Sig. Intercept Wilks' Lambda .474 142.506 3.000 386.000 .000 Sex Wilks' Lambda .994 .807 3.000 386.000 .491 Grade Wilks' Lambda .970 1.959 6.000 772.000 .069 Sex * Gra Wilks' Lambda .992 .488 6.000 772.000 .818 TABLE 27: Multiple Comparisons Multiple Comparisons Tukey HSD Mean Dependent (I) Child's (J) Child's Difference Variable Grade Grade (I-J) Std. Error Sig. Mom Fifth Grade Eighth Grade -.1358 8.301E-02 .231 Antagonism Tenth -.2977* 8.448E-02 .001 Eighth Grade Fifth Grade .1358 8.301E-02 .231 Tenth -.1619 7.292E-02 .068 Tenth Fifth Grade .2977* 8.448E-02 .001 Eighth Grade .1619 7.292E-02 .068 Mom Fifth Grade Eighth Grade 9.382E-02 7.453E-02 .419 Problem-Solving Tenth .1701 7.585E-02 .064 Eighth Grade Fifth Grade -9.3816E-02 7.453E-02 .419 Tenth 7.630E-02 6.548E-02 .474 Tenth Fifth Grade -.1701 7.585E-02 .064 Eighth Grade -7.6301E-02 6.548E-02 .474 Mom Cheerful Fifth Grade Eighth Grade 4.747E-02 5.719E-02 .684 Deference Tenth 7.407E-02 5.821E-02 .411 Eighth Grade Fifth Grade -4.7468E-02 5.719E-02 .684 Tenth 2.661E-02 5.024E-02 .857 Tenth Fifth Grade -7.4074E-02 5.821E-02 .411 Eighth Grade -2.6606E-02 5.024E-02 .857 Based on observed means. *. The mean difference is significant at the .05 level. 86
    • FIGURE 8: Maternal Discouragement and Encouragement of Coping (Exploratory) as a Function of Grade of Child. .8 .6 .4 .2 0.0 -.2 Coping Type -.4 Antagonism -.6 Problem-Solving Mean -.8 Cheerful Deference 5th Grade 8th Grade 10th Grade Grade of Child Maternal Discouragement and Encouragement of Coping (Exploratory) as a Function of Grade of Child. In contrast, to the previous analysis of Maternal Discouragement and Encouragement of Coping as a Function of Grade of Child, there were no initial significant differences between the grades in the above chart. However, one univariate effect for Grade was detected between 5th and 10th for Antagonism (p=.001). Further, the overall trend of reduced encouragement and discouragement across age appears clearly in the graphic representation of the data. Children’s Coping (Exploratory) and Maternal Discouragement/Encouragement of Coping (Exploratory) The analysis below attempted to consider whether the exploratory factors for maternal discouragement/encouragement of coping were correlated with the exploratory factors for child coping. As the reader will recall, the exploratory child coping scores were derived using the items analogous to those that comprised the exploratory maternal discouragement/encouragement variables (i.e., Antagonism, Problem-Solving, and Cheerful Deference). The above analysis revealed that in terms of child coping, all three of the exploratory factors where positively correlated, at the p<.01 level. As for the maternal scores, Cheerful Deference and Problem-Solving were positively correlated at p<.01 (r=.45). However, Antagonism was negatively correlated with both Problem-Solving (r=.17) 87
    • and Cheerful Deference (r=.32), at p<.01. Surprisingly, there were no significant correlations between any of the maternal variables and the child variables. Analysis 11 - Correlation Analysis: Children’s Coping (Exploratory) and Maternal Discouragement/Encouragement of Coping (Exploratory) Pearson product-moment correlation analysis was performed wherein the relationship between the Child Coping Strategy Scores and the Maternal Socialization of Coping Strategy Scores was considered. This proceeded according to the 3 exploratory coping strategy classifications of: ANTAGONISM, PROBLEM-SOLVING, and CHEERFUL DEFERENCE. TABLE 28: Descriptive Statistics Descriptive Statistics Mean Std. Deviation N Mom Antagonism -.5246 .6406 394 Mom Problem-Solving .5664 .5700 394 Mom Cheerful Deference .2039 .4344 394 Antagonism .4639 .6285 394 Problem-Solving 1.0874 .9154 394 Cheerful Deference .6032 .7977 394 88
    • TABLE 29: Correlations Correlations Mom Mom Mom Antago Problem- Cheerful Antago Problem- Cheerful nism Solving Deference nism Solving Deference Mom Pearson 1.000 -.545** -.238** -.090 -.011 -.047 Antagonis Correlation m Sig. (2-tailed) . .000 .000 .075 .822 .353 N 394 394 394 394 394 394 Mom Pearson -.545** 1.000 .349** .031 .076 .070 Problem- Correlation Solving Sig. (2-tailed) .000 . .000 .543 .132 .168 N 394 394 394 394 394 394 Mom Pearson -.238** .349** 1.000 -.009 .070 .071 Cheerful Correlation Deference Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 . .864 .166 .160 N 394 394 394 394 394 394 Antagonis Pearson -.090 .031 -.009 1.000 .172** .318** m Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) .075 .543 .864 . .001 .000 N 394 394 394 394 394 394 Problem- Pearson -.011 .076 .070 .172** 1.000 .449** Solving Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) .822 .132 .166 .001 . .000 N 394 394 394 394 394 394 Cheerful Pearson -.047 .070 .071 .318** .449** 1.000 Deference Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) .353 .168 .160 .000 .000 . N 394 394 394 394 394 394 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). 89
    • Analysis 12 - Exploratory Factor Analysis on Children’s Coping Because of the surprising absence of significant correlations between maternal coping discouragement/encouragement and child coping that resulted from the imposition of the maternal exploratory factors on the child coping data, an additional exploratory factor analysis was performed on the child coping data. This would enable the formation of a new set of child coping variables that could be analyzed in an additional correlational analysis with the factor analytical maternal scores. Hence both the maternal scores and the child scores for coping would be transformed into data-driven factors. The hope was that the new variables would show greater correlation, by virtue of reduced noise in the data. After conducting a preliminary factor analysis on the child coping data (using Principal Component Analysis and Varimax Rotation), a scree plot was constructed. It revealed what appeared to be either a three-factor or two-factor solution. To clarify, two additional factor analyses were performed—one specified three factors and the other specified two factors. After Varimax rotation, all items that loaded at least .40 on these solutions were selected (at the advice of Jose, 2001, personal correspondence). Then Cronbach’s Alphas were calculated on all five factors. The results of these analyses led to the conclusion that a three factor solution was most reasonable (Factor 1 Alpha = .93, Factor 2 Alpha = .94, Factor 3 Alpha = .81). Subsequently, factors with Alphas of at least .60 were used to create new variables (again, at the advice of Jose, 1998 & personal correspondence). These new variables were in turn utilized in a correlational analysis with the previously derived maternal coping encouragement/discouragement variables (i.e. ANTAGONISM, PROBLEM-SOLVING, AND CHEERFUL DEFERENCE). 90
    • Three-Factor Solution of the child coping data. TABLE 30: Total Variance Explained Total Variance Explained Initial Eigenvalues Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings Component 1 15.455 23.778 23.778 10.199 15.691 15.691 2 7.358 11.319 35.097 9.831 15.125 30.815 3 2.736 4.210 39.307 5.519 8.491 39.307 4 2.182 3.357 42.664 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. 91
    • TABLE 31: Items with factor loadings of at least .60, from the preceding 3-Factor solution. Rotated Component Matrix Component 1 2 3 2. I thought about why the problem happened. .677 3. I tried to hurt or do harm to someone’s body or .659 someone’s stuff - without that person knowing I did it - so I would 5. I tried to get someone to feel guilty or to feel sorry for .628 me - so I would feel better. 6. I tried to annoy someone in a “light” or “indirect” way .694 (for example: I made him/her wait for me; I purposely forgo 11. I thought about all the things I could possibly do to fix .718 the problem. 12. In front of someone, I got angry and yelled and/or hit .607 something - to help fix the problem. 13. I said mean things directly to someone’s face - so I .639 would feel better. 14. I tried to get more information about the problem. .684 15. I told myself to divide the problem and take it “one .744 step at a time.” 19. I tried to directly hurt or do harm to someone’s body .705 or someone’s stuff - so I would feel better. 22. I tried to hurt or do harm to someone’s feelings - .740 without that person knowing I did it - to help fix the problem. 24. I made a plan to solve the problem. .652 26. I told myself to keep trying as hard as I could. .698 27. I tried to directly hurt or do harm to someone’s body .767 or someone’s stuff - to help fix the problem. 28. I cried and showed sad feelings in front of someone - .665 so I would feel better. 31. I tried to directly annoy someone by doing things like .753 poking him/her, grabbing at his/her things, making faces at 33. I tried to annoy someone in a “light” or “indirect” way .714 (for example: I made him/her wait for me; I purposely forg 34. I tried to think what would work best to fix the .764 problem. 35. I tried to get someone to feel guilty or to feel sorry for .647 me - to help fix the problem. 36. I said mean things directly to someone’s face - to help .677 fix the problem. 37. I tried to hurt or do harm to someone’s feelings - .736 without that person knowing I did it - so I would feel better. 38. I told someone that the problem was his or her fault .669 and/or told someone to say sorry – so I would feel better. 43. I told someone that the problem was his or her fault .669 and/or told someone to say sorry – to help fix the problem. 44. I cried and showed sad feelings in front of someone - .631 to help fix the problem. 45. I tried to hurt or do harm to someone’s body or .741 someone’s stuff - without that person knowing I did it - to help f 92
    • 48. I tried to remember what I did last time I had a similar .630 problem. 56. I imagined what someone else would do if they had .651 the same problem. 60. I went off by myself to get away from other people - to *.567 help fix the problem. 64. I went off by myself to get away from other people - .614 so I would feel better. 65. I cried (but no one saw me do this) - so I would feel .614 better. *Value taken to be .60 when rounded up. 93
    • After theoretical consideration of the exploratory 3-Factor Solution, subjective labels were applied to each of the factors, representing overall themes. The new variables are KID PROBLEM- SOLVING, KID ANTAGONISM, and KID SADNESS/ISOLATION. They were formed by averages (i.e., by summing the item scores and dividing by the total number of items accepted from the given factor). Not only are these variables rooted in relatively high Alpha scores, they are also comprised of items with considerable theoretical cohesion. KID PROBLEM-SOLVING is clearly a variable that includes the classic hallmarks of the planful, “working out” of issues, just as the previously reported PROBLEM-SOLVING variable, derived from the maternal data. KID ANTAGONISM is clearly a variable that encompasses anti-social, aggressive items, just as the previously reported ANTAGONISM variable, derived from the maternal data. Lastly, KID SADNESS/ISOLATION appears to represent a construct not yet considered as a variable. It seems to embody a type of coping that involves expression of sadness or suffering, coupled with social withdrawal. *Note: this variable was comprised of four items, according to the .60 cut-off. However, the next highest item was also included in the variable, because it rounded to .60 and had close theoretical relation to the variable theme (#60, “I went off by myself to get away from other people – to help fix the problem”). Analysis 13 - Correlational Analysis: Children’s Coping and Maternal Encouragement/Discouragement of Coping In the same manner as the previous analysis of children’s coping and maternal encouragement/discouragement of coping, the newly derived children’s coping variables were correlated with the previous ones of the mothers. That is, maternal encouragement of ANTAGONISM, PROBLEM-SOLVING, and CHEERFUL DEFERENCE were correlated with KID PROBLEM-SOLVING, KID ANTAGONISM, and KID SADNESS/ISOLATION. The analysis revealed highly significant correlations between variables stemming from the same measure, at the p<.01 level, as could be expected. However, between mother and child measures, only maternal encouragement/discouragement of PROBLEM-SOLVING and KID PROBLEM-SOLVING had a significant correlation. These two variables were positively correlated at the p<.05 level, with a Pearson’s r of .10. 94
    • TABLE 32: Descriptive Statistics Descriptive Statistics Mean Std. Deviation N Mom Antagonism -.5246 .6406 394 Mom Problem-Solving .5664 .5700 394 Mom Cheerful Deference .2039 .4344 394 kid problem solving 1.0638 .9037 394 kid antagonism .4603 .6704 394 kid sadness/isolation .6056 .7661 394 TABLE 33: Correlations Correlations Mom Mom Mom kid kid kid Antagon Problem- Cheerful problem antago sadness/ ism Solving Deference solving nism isolation Mom Pearson 1.000 -.545** -.238** -.024 -.088 .008 Antagonism Correlation Sig. . .000 .000 .642 .080 .878 (2-tailed) N 394 394 394 394 394 394 Mom Pearson -.545** 1.000 .349** .102* .029 .011 Problem-Solving Correlation Sig. .000 . .000 .043 .563 .827 (2-tailed) N 394 394 394 394 394 394 Mom Cheerful Pearson -.238** .349** 1.000 .072 -.011 .037 Deference Correlation Sig. .000 .000 . .152 .824 .466 (2-tailed) N 394 394 394 394 394 394 kid problem Pearson -.024 .102* .072 1.000 .182** .296** solving Correlation Sig. .642 .043 .152 . .000 .000 (2-tailed) N 394 394 394 394 394 394 kid antagonism Pearson -.088 .029 -.011 .182** 1.000 .330** Correlation Sig. .080 .563 .824 .000 . .000 (2-tailed) N 394 394 394 394 394 394 kid Pearson .008 .011 .037 .296** .330** 1.000 sadness/isolatio Correlation n Sig. .878 .827 .466 .000 .000 . (2-tailed) N 394 394 394 394 394 394 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). 95
    • CHAPTER IV. DISCUSSION The purpose of this research was two-fold: 1) to increase American understanding of Japanese interpretations of the stress-coping-adjustment process and 2) to develop a set of measures that could be used for a direct U.S.-Japan comparison in a future study, such that potential cultural differences in emotional adaptation could be understood in the absence of serious concern about cultural bias. This study was an attempt to take stress-coping-adjustment socialization patterns found in America and transport and test them in Japan – to see how well they generalize. A review of the literature had indicated a specific need for a study more comprehensive and refined than previous studies. In terms of stress, the goal of the present study was to address inconsistencies in the literature regarding which sex and age differences are robust. Those differences would be evaluated in the contexts of education, health/fitness, family/home life, and peer relations. In terms of coping, the goal of the present study was to build a wider and deeper base of understanding of Japanese reports and interpretations. After reviewing inconsistencies and inadequacies in the literature regarding potentially unique cultural interpretations of Japanese coping, it was determined that comprehensive measurement of coping on the basis of subject-defined categories would be most useful. To this end, measurement took place along the lines of coping categories with a history in the literature – namely, Emotion-Focused versus Problem-Focused and Cognitive versus Behavioral. Further, because data often fail to confirm speculation, exploratory factor analysis was undertaken to drive additional examination of the data. In terms of children’s adjustment, the present study hoped to gain a better understanding of how coping is related to life satisfaction and school performance among children as they develop. Very little American research has addressed these issues in Japanese participants, so it was important to take the initial steps into the area. By measuring children’s adjustment, it was hoped that ultimately a better understanding of Japanese emotional adaptation would follow. Finally, the present research sought to forge original work in linking maternal encouragement 96
    • and discouragement of coping with children’s reports of their own coping. Most of the work in this area has had to do with broad queries into parental attitudes, values, and goals. The present study had hoped to focus more precisely on the cross-generational transmission of particular coping strategies. Not only is this important for better understanding socialization of emotional adaptation in Japan, but also it would provide a basis for future cross-cultural comparisons aimed at delineating culturally differential rates of development of particular kinds of coping. In sum, the present study was undertaken as a means of meeting specific exploratory research needs in the research on the socialization of Japanese stress, coping, and adjustment. Sampling nearly 400 mother-child pairs, the present research measured: everyday life event stress, coping strategies, adjustment in the form of life satisfaction and school performance, and maternal encouragement/discouragement of coping. The results this study produced are varied and far- reaching. Their implications are discussed below, in the order of the original hypotheses and research questions. Overview of Hypothesis Test Outcomes Hypothesis # Hypothesis Test Outcome (4/6 Supported) 1 Girls will report greater stress for Supported health/fitness and peer relations contexts than boys will. 2 Older children will report greater stress for Rejected the education context than younger children will. 3 Girls will report greater use of cognitive, Supported problem-focused coping than boys will. 4 Girls will report greater use of cognitive, Supported emotion-focused coping than boys will. 5 Older children will report greater use of Rejected cognitive, problem-focused coping than younger children will. 6 Older children will report greater use of Supported cognitive, emotion-focused coping than younger children will. 97
    • Stress Research on sex differences in children’s experience of stress has generated several reliable findings. Firstly, numerous studies have shown the importance of everyday life events as opposed to major life events, on grounds that everyday life events are a better reflection of how stressed children actually are, in terms of measurable consequences (Hudgens, 1974, Boyce et al., 1985, Sorenson, 1993). Further, the literature is solid in its argument that understanding children’s own perspectives on stress is important, as opposed to superimposed parental perspectives (Brown & Cowen, 1988, Ryan, 1988, Sorenson, 1993). The present study was therefore structured to measure everyday life events and to do so in a manner wherein the children themselves would indicate the stress intensity of events, as free of implied stress value as possible. Sex Differences. (Hypothesis 1 and Research Question 1 & 2) The approach of the present study did in fact prove to be fruitful in discerning sex-differential reports of stress experience, enabling a sense as to whether findings to date could be extended or whether they would require reinterpretation. Yamamoto & Davis (1979) had shown in their cross- cultural study that, in terms of stress, sex differences were more evident in Japanese than Americans. Japanese boys were found to report more education-related stress, which was theorized to be the result of a Japanese emphasis on boys’ education. In contrast, Nagane (1991) found that girls actually reported more stress on school achievement items than did boys. Further, Kilburg (1997) found no sex differences in education-related stress, yet a sizeable sex difference in health/fitness and peer relations forms of stress, with girls evidencing greater stress intensity. Considering Kilburg (1997) was based on a more comprehensive measure than its predecessors and posted them, its findings were given precedence. The open question had to do with the robustness of the Kilburg (1997) findings. Perhaps the findings represent a shift in sex differences in Japanese society in the twenty years since Yamamoto and Davis (1979). The results of the present study appear to lend support to this interpretation. That is, once again, no significant sex difference was detected for education-related stress items. Moreover, 98
    • females reported significantly more stress than males did for health/fitness stress and for peer relations stress, thereby extending the findings of Kilburg (1997) with a sample four times the size. Indeed, it is clear that stress context is of paramount importance when attempting to understand sex differences in stress experience. Of course, whether or not girls actually lead more stressful emotional lives than boys, subjectively, remains open to interpretation. However, these particular findings suggest that girls are relatively more preoccupied with peer discord than are boys. Moreover, girls would seem to be much more concerned with physical wellness and body image items than boys. In terms of family/home life stress, there appears to be no discernable sex difference. Either the domestic life of boys and girls is not vastly different, or at least boys and girls are similarly contented with their unique versions of that domestic life. Developmental Differences. (Hypothesis 2 and Research Question 2 & 3) The primary question with age differences in stress reports was whether older children would exhibit more education-related stress than their younger counterparts. Yamamoto & Davis (1979) and Kilburg (1997) had both found older children to report more stress for education-related events (e.g. homework, exams, marks and the like). Hence, Hypothesis 2 took the position that the present results would extend the previous finding. That hypothesis was rejected, as no age difference was found on education-related items. This was surprising given that the Japanese junior high school in particular is seen as a place of intense study and preparation for exams that dictate subsequent high school entrance decisions (the Japanese junior high school has been likened to an enculturative “boot camp”). It is possible that the grades and/or schools sampled by the present study did not coincide with those alleged changes in academic demands. Yamamoto & Davis (1979) and Kilburg (1997) were studies of upper-elementary school children. The present study, having 5th, 8th, and 10th graders would have missed such upper-elementary school changes. However, there is still strong indication that junior high is a time of unique stress in Japan. Eighth graders reported significantly more Family/Home Life Stress than both 5th graders and 10th graders (p=.004, p<.0001, respectively). Additionally, 5th graders reported significantly less 99
    • Health/Fitness Stress than both 8th graders and 10th graders (p=.014, p=.023, respectively). Graphed out in the Results section, these changes are rather dramatic. Health and fitness stress intensity appears to jump up as children pass from elementary school to junior high, and then to level off as children pass to early high school. Furthermore, there appears to be a spike in family/home life stress in junior high, with both 5th graders and 10th graders reporting significantly less of that type of stress than 8th graders. This might very well reflect physiological and social-psychological changes classically associated with puberty in any culture (a future, direct cross-cultural comparison would be instructive). Such changes would not have been evident in Yamamoto & Davis (1979) nor Kilburg (1997) because they did not sample junior high school children. There were no interaction effects of stress for sex and age. This is not surprising given that Kilburg (1997) found no such interaction using essentially the same measure of everyday life event stress as the present study. It is surprising, however, considering again that junior high school age would seem to be a time when sex-roles shift relative to their elementary school positions. It is possible that the Everyday Life Event Stress Scale was simply not sensitive enough to capture developmental changes in sex-based stress reports. It may also simply be that the stress effects of sex and age are relatively independent across the sampled developmental period (5th, 8th, & 10th grade). Perhaps sex and age interaction effects are confined to spurts or changes that occur in the early to middle elementary school years and/or in the late high school to college years. Additional samples of data would be needed to rule out these possibilities. Coping Sex Differences. (Hypothesis 3 & 4 and Research Question 4) Based loosely on American findings (Band & Weisz, 1988; Folkman & Lazarus, 1988; Altshuler & Ruble, 1989; and Compas et al., 1992), girls were hypothesized to report greater use of cognitive, problem-focused coping than boys would. Girls were further hypothesized to report greater use of cognitive, emotion-focused coping than boys would. The underlying reasoning was that girls gain awareness of subjective coping 100
    • tools earlier than do boys, during adolescence, perhaps as a function of girls maturing faster (socio- emotionally) than boys. At the least, it was expected that girls would be more prone to report on such cognitive strategies, by virtue of greater introspection and willingness to self-disclose. Indeed, Kilburg (1997) found Japanese girls to report greater use of approach/problem-focused coping and approach/emotion-focused strategies, which included: “problem-solving”, “metacognitive skills”, “acceptance”, “”control feelings”, and “endurance”. In fact, Hypotheses 3 & 4 were supported in the present study. Females reported significantly more coping use than males did for both Cognitive Problem-Focused and Cognitive Emotion-Focused Coping. No sex differences were detected, however, regarding the behavioral versions of problem- focused and emotion-focused coping. Considering the behavioral categories were much more varied in the types of coping they included, sex differences may have been obscured. That is, there could have been sizeable sex differences in the use of qualitatively different coping types within the broad behavioral groupings. For instance, were behaviorally aggressive items to be analyzed separate from behavioral items of sadness-expression, marked sex differences might become emerge. Developmental Differences. (Hypothesis 5 & 6 and Research Question 5, 6 & 7) As demonstrated by Band & Weisz (1988) and Folkman & Lazarus (1984, 1988), American children, as they age, use increasing amounts of emotion-focused coping, in conjunction with a steady level of problem-focused coping. As demonstrated by Bryant (1985), American children use increasing amounts of social support coping as they age. Further, American children become more aware that coping can differ in effectiveness depending on context (Spirito et al., 1991). Japanese children have evidenced increasing use of a wider variety of coping across age (Kilburg, 1997). They have also shown a developmental increase in context-dependent use of coping strategies (Ohsako, 1994). However, in contrast to their American counterparts, they have not evidenced increasing use of emotion-focused coping across age. Instead, they have shown large increases in problem-focused coping. As discussed in Chapter 1 of the present paper, this lack of evidence for the robust American finding of a developmental increase in emotion-focused coping is 101
    • likely an artifact of the measuring instrument of Kilburg (1997), exaggerated by an absence of work on the topic by other researchers. Further lack of clarity would seem to stem from a lack of uniformity of coping item categorizations in literature. One goal of the present research was to ascertain whether or not a developmental increase in emotion-focused coping would be demonstrated in a Japanese sample, given refinements in measurement. Indeed, in the present study, 8th and 10th graders reported significantly greater use of Cognitive Emotion-Focused Coping than did 5th graders, supporting Hypothesis 6. Further, 8th graders reported significantly greater use of Behavioral Emotion-Focused Coping than did 5th graders. No significant difference in Behavioral Emotion-Focused Coping was detected between 8th and 10th graders, however – indicating a plateau. Additionally, in line with American findings, no significant developmental increases in either Cognitive Problem-Focused or Behavioral Problem-Focused Coping were detected (hence, rejection of Hypothesis 5). In sum, the present study of Japanese children would seem to extend the overarching developmental findings of emotion-focused and problem-focused coping in American children. In terms of context effects, surprisingly, there was remarkable consistency in coping choice across coping scenarios (education, family/home life, peer, health/fitness). As the reader will recall, this consistency was noted early in the paper, in the Methods section. Cronbach’s Alpha analyses resulted in high inter-item consistency, therefore context was deemed superfluous as a variable (and Research Question 6 became mute). Most likely, this is not a function of any true absence of context- dependent coping, rather it is an artifact of the measuring instruments. The coping questionnaire (along with the others as a packet) might have been too long for the children to maintain motivation. Perhaps overwhelmed by the size of the task, the children chose to respond in a general fashion to the coping questions, as opposed to responding in a manner that would be consistently mindful of the given coping scenario/context. In short, in spite of the importance of context effects throughout the literature, context did not emerge as a major factor in this data set. This is surprising, since context is reported to have great significance in the literature and in transactionist 102
    • theories. This issue will be discussed further in “General Implications and Directions for Future Study”. If it is assumed that the results herein are entirely valid with respect to context, it might be argued that children in the given age bracket cope with stress in a fairly consistent way, regardless of variations in the problem scenario or location. Perhaps children do not diversify and tailor their coping efforts to fit unique situations until later in development. Indeed, one hallmark of maturity is presumably the practice of flexibility in dealing with wider and wider varieties of stressful situations as one navigates through changing demands across the life span (Erikson, 1963). Yet perhaps such flexibility does not fully emerge until adulthood. This explanation and that of measurement error are not mutually exclusive, of course. In terms of Research Question 6 (which asked about interaction effects), surprisingly, no evidence of sex differences in developmental change in coping was found. As noted above, a variety of sex differences were detected. However, none of these was found to interact with age. This extended the results of Kilburg (1997) which also did not find any sex/age interactions in coping. However, American girls have been found to use social support seeking more than do boys (Bryant, 1985, Wertlieb et al., 1987, Frydenberg & Lewis, 1990). The factors analyzed in the present study were broad enough so as to obscure findings related to the specific question of sex differences in social support seeking. This begged the question of whether individual item analyses would elucidate the matter. Individual item analysis was therefore performed on the social-seeking coping items. The findings were mixed. A sex difference was detected for an emotion-focused, social support seeking individual coping item: “I talked to someone – so I would feel better”. Girls were found to report significantly greater use of this type of coping than boys. However, no significant difference was found for the problem-focused version of the question: “I talked to someone – to help fix the problem”. Therefore, it seems that a sex difference in social support use may be confined to that which is emotion-focused in nature. That is, when it comes to trying to feel better, girls appear to use 103
    • more social support than boys do. Yet when it comes to trying to solve problems, boys appear to use social support as much as girls do. The strength of this finding will depend on future studies. Adjustment School Performance. (Research Question 8) and Life Satisfaction. (Research Question 8) Research on the relationship between children’s coping and adjustment has generated several intuitively sound findings, in terms of what folk psychology might speculate. American researchers have found that “social support seeking” and “problem-solving” positively correlate with self-esteem (Causey & Dubow, 1992) and that “avoidance” positively correlates with depression and behavior problems (Ayers, et al., 1996, Kurtz, 1994). Ohsako (1994) and Kilburg (1997) have found patterns in Japanese children not inconsistent with those found in American children. Yet prior to the present study, no one had attempted to correlate coping strategy use with adjustment in terms of life satisfaction and school performance, especially with regard to the over-arching problem/emotion- focused, cognitive/behavioral categories. As it turns out, all four types of the broad coping categories were strongly, positively correlated with each other (with Pearson’s rs of .52 to .74). But surprisingly, only Behavioral Problem-Focused coping was significantly correlated with either of the two adjustment measures, School Performance and Life Satisfaction (with a Pearson’s r of only -.11). Further, Behavioral Problem-Focused coping was significantly, negatively correlated with both of those adjustment measures. Stated another way, children with high Behavioral Problem-Focused coping scores tended to have lower School Performance and Life Satisfaction scores. Considering that the Behavioral Problem-Focused coping category included active-aggressive strategies, the above finding is perhaps not surprising. There is good reason to think the correlation is actually an artifact of the broad categorizations of disparate types of coping. Glancing at the categorization of the various items, it seems that the breadth of the items may have obscured important connections between coping and adjustment. As explained in the Methods section, coping had been 104
    • categorized into the broad rubrics of emotion/problem and behavioral/cognitive mainly as an issue of theoretical purity. The disadvantage of course is that categories like behavioral-cognitive must encompass presumably disparate (adjustment-wise) coping strategies, such as “information seeking” and “telling a lie”. In sum, it is difficult to say what the implications of a negative correlation between adjustment and behavioral-cognitive coping are, given the inclusion of markedly different strategies. The correlational analysis of the exploratory coping factors was designed to address the above limitation. School Performance and Life Satisfaction were analyzed with Antagonism, Problem- Solving, and Cheerful Deference. Interestingly, Antagonism was shown to be negatively correlated with both School Performance and with Life Satisfaction. Hence, it appears that the above negative correlation between adjustment and behavioral-cognitive coping was driven largely by antagonistic items. Indeed, it stands to reason that individuals high in Antagonism would be less likely to perform well in school in terms of coursework and attendance. Further, if antagonism is associated with low performance in children’s primary occupation (i.e. school), one would expect an associated, reduced experience of life satisfaction or well being. Indeed, particularly if Japanese culture places considerable value on non-aggression (Zahn-Waxler et al., 1996), children high in Antagonism are presumably on the margins of their respective peer groups, and thereby among those who incur reduced well being, by virtue of alienation. Ultimately, the measurement of adjustment in this study was simply an expedient method of getting an initial sense of what valid coping outcome measurement would require. The life satisfaction and school performance items did not have an established validity or reliability in the literature. They were simply a short list of questions aimed at directly asking the children and their parents about their levels of adjustment. Considerations about the future of this approach will be discussed in “Directions for Future Study”. Maternal Socialization: Discouragement/Encouragement of Coping A review of the socialization of coping literature has revealed a dearth of articles. Noteworthy 105
    • U.S.-Japan comparisons have yielded several trends however. Relative to their American counterparts, Japanese children tend to report high parental expectations placed upon them, particularly of an academic nature (Crystal et al., 1994). Zahn-Waxler et al. (1996) found that Japanese mothers were particularly oriented towards instilling non-aggressive attitudes in their children. Japanese mothers were further more likely to make use of a kind of “psychological discipline” (reasoning, guilt, and anxiety induction) in dealing with their children’s behavior problems, as opposed to direct proscription and punishment. Kilburg (1997) carried out pilot work suggesting coping socialization links between the Japanese child and parent. Children who perceived their parents as low in warmth were more likely to report use of avoidance/problem-focused coping than their “high warmth” counterparts. Further, such children tended to report having relatively lower grades. In spite of the absence of research on maternal influences on children’s coping, the present study proceeded on the basis of the above findings. In fact, it stands as the first study to investigate specific links between maternal encouragement and discouragement of particular coping strategies and the impact of that on children’s reports of their own coping. Research questions were generated around possible differences in the way mothers might treat their children as a function of their sex and age, as well as along the lines of whether cognitive/behavioral and emotion-focused/problem-focused coping would be encouraged/discouraged. This seemed like the logical place to start, given the trends in the coping literature. Maternal Discouragement/Encouragement of Coping on the Basis of Sex and Grade of Child Sex Differences. (Research Question 9) Perhaps surprisingly, there were no significant differences found in the way mothers encouraged or discouraged coping on the basis of their child’s sex. The common and anecdotal wisdom surrounding Japan is that strict sex-role stereotyping and socialization prevail. One could imagine that would play out in terms of how mothers encourage/discourage coping behavior in their sons and daughters. The sex difference result, 106
    • however, did not even approach significance. There are many conceivable explanations. It is possible that in modern Japan there are few differences in how mothers treat their children along the lines of the coping strategies studied. Perhaps the mothers have similar goals for their children’s emotional adaptiveness, regardless of sex. Mothers may treat their children fairly equally in terms of conveying preferred methods of coping. One could imagine a potential difference in how mothers and fathers socialize children on the basis of sex. For instance, fathers might stereotypically be less inclined to reinforce boys’ emotional expressiveness (e.g., crying) to the same extent as that of girls. Without data from fathers, it is difficult to clarify this matter. Another possibility is that the mothers answered the questionnaires in terms of whether particular items appealed to them, losing sight of the task request to envision one’s son or daughter in a scenario. It is also likely that the coping categories, on the basis of their breadth, precluded sex differences from emerging. The coping categories examined here are overarching categories designed for their logical/conceptual coherence and consequently include many disparate strategies in terms of what mothers would likely encourage or discourage. This presents an interpretation problem, to be sure. It is one that is partly resolved in the subsequent discussion of the exploratory factor analysis. Developmental Differences. (Research Question 10-12) Interestingly, mothers were found to treat their children differently on the basis of their age (grade). Whether a child was a 5th grader or a 10th grader significantly affected the chances that his or her mother would report encouraging/discouraging the following three coping types: Behavioral Problem-Focused Coping, Cognitive Emotion-Focused Coping, and Behavioral Emotion-Focused Coping. After viewing the data graphed out, it was quite clear that overall mothers tended to report much greater encouragement and discouragement of the various strategies with younger children than older. Specifically, mothers tended to discourage Behavioral Problem-Focused Coping mostly in 5th graders, with that discouragement lessening across age. The same held true for Behavioral Emotion-Focused Coping. In terms of Cognitive Emotion-Focused Coping, mothers tended to encourage such strategies mostly 107
    • in 5th graders, with that encouragement lessoning across age. For Cognitive Problem-Focused coping, an age/grade affect was not found, indicating this type of coping may be consistently encouraged (the values were positive, indicating encouragement) across grade 5 to 10. It is difficult to integrate these findings with previous studies, because of the novelty of the present study. However, considering Japanese parents have been shown to particularly value achievement, reasoning, and non-aggression, the present results should hardly be surprising. Both of the encouraged coping types include many problem-solving types of strategies. Further, both of the discouraged types include many aggressive or antagonistic types of strategies. Again, some reservation in interpreting these results is in order, however. As previously stated, the coping categories examined here include many disparate strategies in terms of what mothers would likely encourage or discourage. This is addressed in the subsequent discussion of the exploratory factor analysis. Child Coping and Maternal Discouragement/Encouragement of Coping (Research Question 13) The main issue here was whether child scores would be correlated with mother scores, demonstrating a socialization impact, or at least a cross-generational connection. Interestingly, evidence of a mother-child coping connection was found in one pair of coping types: child Cognitive Problem-Focused Coping and maternal Encouragement of Cognitive Problem-Focused Coping. That is, children who reported higher levels of Cognitive Problem-Focused Coping tended to have mothers who reported higher levels of encouragement of Cognitive Problem-Focused coping, relative to their counterparts (significance was p<.05, however, the Pearson’s r was only .11). Unfortunately, one significant correlation out of over a dozen is close to what one would expect by chance. No other such mother-child correlation was found, indicating a general disconnect between how mothers encourage/discourage and how their children cope, or at least between how mothers say they encourage/discourage and how their children say they cope. A second possibility is that there is measurement error in the two different assessments that is not correlated; and thereby the chance is 108
    • reduced of seeing what the real correlation might be. A third possibility is that the problem of logical, but perhaps over-inclusive coping categories intrudes on interpretation yet again. That is, the use of broad, a priori coping categories may have precluded the emergence of effects on the basis of finer grained coping categories within the a priori categories. A discussion of the exploratory coping factors is particularly instructive here, because they are data-driven. Of course, the three above explanations are not mutually exclusive. Exploratory Coping Factors It was planned from the outset that coping categories generated by exploratory factor analysis would be the ultimate authority on the specific relationships between the child coping items and the socialization piece of the research in particular. The a priori coping categories were purposefully crafted such that the issue over accurate characterization of emotion-focused and problem-focused coping (and cognitive/behavioral coping) could be resolved, through analysis of conceptually “pure” divisions of the individual coping items. However, many of the original research questions and those that emerged in the above discussion could not be resolved by consideration of the a priori coping categorizations. Hence exploratory factor analysis was undertaken to let patterns emerge from the data themselves. As reported in the Results section, a 3-factor solution emerged based on analysis of the maternal coping encouragement/discouragement data. The decision to perform the factor analysis on that data was based on the conception that the primary interest of the research was to investigate the impact mothers had on their children’s coping. Hence, the groupings of the maternal data would drive the groupings of the child data. Fortunately, the analysis produced 3 clear categories of coping that were quite easy to subjectively label on the basis of theoretical similarity: Antagonism, Problem- Solving, and Cheerful Deference. Antagonism. Antagonism is clearly a variable that encompasses anti-social, aggressive items. As a factor it explained 24% of the variance, which is considerable. Further, twenty-one items loaded 109
    • quite well onto this factor. They tended to have a strong theoretical relationship to one another on grounds of expression of anger, annoyance, and blaming. They included variations of: “saying bad things to someone”, “hurting or harming someone’s feelings”, “getting angry and harming someone’s body or things”, and “telling lies”. It seems obvious that this factor emerged as the strongest and tightest cluster of the lot, mainly because it is easy to envision mothers in unequivocal union against such actions, on grounds that they are anti-social. This would seem especially true given such strong prohibitions against expression of anger and negativity in Japanese culture. Indeed, subsequent analyses showed that mothers were quite unified in their discouragement of this category of coping. Problem-Solving. Problem-Solving is clearly a variable that includes the classic hallmarks of the planful, “working out” of issues. As a factor, it explained 10% of the variance, which is fair – given the diversity of the coping items and the exploratory nature of the measure (Tabachnick and Fidell, 1996). All the items representing the problem-solving factor loaded at high values and evidently share the themes of: planning, information-seeking, metacognition, analysis, option- generating, and endurance. In short, this is a factor that represents resolving stress with cognitive tools. Again, it is not difficult to see that these items cluster well together because of a presumed unequivocal stance among mothers that such coping strategies are useful in the strict sense of the word. Given evidence that Japanese mothers in particular may be oriented towards instilling understanding and tangible achievement in their children, the appearance of this factor comes as no surprise. Indeed, subsequent analyses showed that mothers were quite unified in their encouragement of this category of coping. Cheerful Deference. Cheerful Deference is a variable that appears to embody coping which strives to present a joyful and respectful tone to others, perhaps to remedy an issue. As a factor, it explained roughly 9% of the variance. By itself, this is not extraordinary, but in conjunction with the preceding two factors, there is accounting for nearly half the total variance – a considerable amount for an exploratory measure (Tabachnick and Fidell, 1996). The items representing this factor included: “being polite”, “being cheerful or happy in front of someone”, and “laughing or joking aloud”. Given 110
    • not only an intuitive understanding of the potential relationship between these items in a social context, but also one of the Japanese social milieu, this factor is not surprising. It has been labeled “Cheerful Deference” in order to summarize both the expression of positive emotionality or affect as well as that of respect and humility, two social stances common in Confucian heritage cultures such as that of Japan. The relationship between this factor and the others would become apparent in subsequent analyses. Analyses of the Exploratory Coping Factors It was possible to examine the exploratory factor structures in the same manner as the preceding coping analyses, but with different coping types. In one analysis coping was considered as a function of sex and grade. In another, the correlation between coping and adjustment was examined. In a third, maternal differences in encouragement/discouragement of coping were investigated on the basis of sex and grade of child. In a fourth and final analysis, socialization of coping was investigated by correlating maternal encouragement/discouragement of coping with child coping scores. The goal was to obtain an overall picture of how the exploratory factors would fare in the same analyses performed on the a prior coping categories, for a data-driven perspective. The results of these analyses were somewhat unexpected and require a tempered interpretation. Sex Differences. In contrast to common stereotyping about female intuition and male logic and reasoning, a difference between males and females in Problem-Solving coping was detected, with females reporting significantly greater use. This is well in line with the previous discussion of Hypothesis 3, that girls would report greater use of cognitive, problem-focused coping than boys would – a hypothesis that was supported. Again, it could be that girls have richer inner lives than boys, that they mature faster, or that they are at least more introspective and willing to self-disclose about metacognitive activities. It may also be that a different set of stressor scenarios would yield different coping findings. It is difficult to form definitive conclusions on these issues without additional, qualitative background data. Yet the sex difference found here appears to be quite robust, 111
    • given that there is general evidence for it in Band & Weisz (1988), Folkman & Lazarus (1988), Altshuler & Ruble, 1989, and Compas et al. (1992) and specific evidence for it in Kilburg (1997). Developmental Differences. Quite surprisingly, no significant grade differences were detected in children’s reports of coping on the basis of the exploratory factors. Considering the highly significant grade differences in Cognitive Emotion-Focused and Behavioral Emotion-Focused coping previously detected with the previous coping analyses this was largely unexpected. Further, given that highly significant grade differences had been detected in terms of how mothers encouraged and discouraged coping in the a priori categories, it made sense to assume that some aspect of that phenomenon would manifest in the exploratory factors. That no developmental differences and no sex/grade interactions were detected here would seem to strongly suggest that the a priori coping categories and the exploratory categories are tapping into two sets of rather distinct phenomena. Of course, with such a wide array of coping types measured, there would likely be a complex set of dynamics at work. For instance, t-tests of individual items could easily produce a high number of sex and age differences that would be difficult to interpret in conjunction with the over-arching categories. As a whole, these results would appear to suggest that dividing coping items into categories on the basis of logical similarity can be quite distinct from dividing them on the basis of the actual actions of participants as reported by such participants. Nevertheless, both methods of analysis have useful implications. The a priori categories provide a structural understanding of the coping items, whereas the factor analytical categories provide a functional understanding of them. In comparing the two understandings, it becomes evident that structure and function need not overlap in practice. Adjustment: School Performance & Life Satisfaction. Correlational analysis of the exploratory coping factors and the adjustment variables of School Performance and Life Satisfaction revealed a number of significant correlations. Firstly, all three of the coping factors were significantly correlated with each other, as would be expected of factors derived from the same measure. Surprisingly, however, only Antagonism was significantly correlated with either adjustment measure. 112
    • Graphed out, the correlations did not appear to be very pronounced. However, Antagonism was significantly, negatively correlated with both School Performance and Life Satisfaction (yet the Pearson’s rs were only -.15 and -.13, respectively). A glance at the nature of the twenty some items that loaded well onto the Antagonism factor reveals that few if any of the items would seem to be adaptive for school performance or life satisfaction, particularly in the Japanese cultural milieu. Indeed, as previously reported, researchers of both American and Japanese children have found evidence that coping which is antithetical to social support seeking and problem-solving (e.g., “distancing” and “externalizing”) is typically negatively correlated with favorable characteristics such as “self-worth” and “behavioral esteem”, as well as with grade point averages – and positively correlated with depression and poor conduct (Causey & Dubow, 1992; Ayers et al., 1996; Ohsako, 1994; Kilburg, 1997). Maternal Discouragement/Encouragement of Coping. One of the most surprising findings of the present study was that there were no significant main or interaction effects regarding the impact of sex and grade of child on maternal encouragement and discouragement of coping. Especially given that significant grade differences were detected in terms of three out of four of the a priori coping types, it would have been reasonable to speculate that a grade difference would be detected with the exploratory coping types as well. Again, evidently the a priori and exploratory coping categories are phenomenally distinct from each other. Yet there was one univariate effect detected, upon probing of a main effect that approached significance. That is, for grade, maternal encouragement/discouragement was found to significantly differ between 5th graders and 10th graders. Mothers evidently reported significantly more discouragement of Antagonism with regard to 5th graders in comparison to 10th graders. The interpretation of this finding is no different than that of the a priori coping categories. Likely, mothers must provide more overt dissuading of antagonism among their younger children than their older ones. This seems reasonable, given younger children’s presumed greater need for guidance. Further, in viewing the graphic representation of the data, the overall trend of reduced 113
    • encouragement/discouragement across age appears clearly, just as it did with the significant results of the corresponding analysis of the a priori coping categories. Hence, it is clear that regardless of the coping type, mothers tended to report less and less encouragement and discouragement with older children, presumably based on their increased independence. Child Coping and Maternal Discouragement/Encouragement of Coping. As with the previously discussed correlational analysis of child coping and maternal discouragement/encouragement of coping, the main issue here was whether a socialization impact could be demonstrated, or at least a cross-generational connection. Unfortunately, there was a complete disconnect between the maternal scores and the child scores. In terms of the maternal scores, all three of the exploratory factors were correlated with each other (yet the sizes of the effects ranged from only -.55 to .35). Cheerful Deference and Problem-Solving were positively correlated with each other, yet negatively correlated with Antagonism. In terms of the child scores, again, all three of the exploratory factors were correlated with each other. However, in contrast to the maternal correlations, the child correlations were all positive. That is, Antagonism was positively correlated with Cheerful Deference and Problem-Solving. Overall, it seems that the connection between the maternal coping encouragement/discouragement measure and the child coping measure is limited. It may be that asking mothers what how they influence their children’s coping simply produces responding based on social desirability. A less direct and invasive instrument may be required to assess how mothers actually perform in terms of encouraging and discouraging their children’s coping. In any event, the absence of significant correlations between child coping and parental coping is common in this line of research (Jose, 2001, personal correspondence). The measurement issues are complex and will likely require revision before substantive socialization connections can be delineated. As a final attempt to demonstrate a correlation between maternal coping discouragement/encouragement and child coping, an additional factor analysis of the child coping data was undertaken for the purpose of a subsequent correlational analysis of the resultant variables with 114
    • the pre-existing maternal coping variables. The factor analysis yielded three child coping variables: Problem-Solving, Antagonism, and Sadness/Isolation. Interestingly, Problem-Solving and Antagonism appeared to be counterparts to two of the factors from the maternal coping factor analysis. The third, Sadness/Isolation bore little relation. One of newly derived variable did yield a connection to the maternal data. That variable was Problem-Solving. It was positively correlated with the maternal version of Problem-Solving, at the p<.05 level. However, the Pearson’s r was small at .10. Likely, the act of performing factor analysis on the child data resulted in a reduction of data noise such that the relationship between maternal Problem-Solving and child Problem-Solving could be observed. Yet the Pearson’s r indicates that in spite of the p-value, the variables do not share much of their variance in common. Hence, the basic conclusion that the child coping and maternal coping measures are generally disconnected remains. Again, there may be response set bias and/or measurement error to blame. Limitations of this Research There were at least three general limitations in the present study. Firstly, the measures might have been too long and taxing to hold the interest of the participants. As discussed in the Methods section, at the time the study was designed it seemed prudent to expand the coping measure in particular, so it would encompass finer grained responses than those of previous studies. It may have been expanded excessively, however. There was evidence from the reports of the proctors, as well as from the data, that some participants might have reached a measure of apathy in responding and subsequently reverted to selecting middle values on the scales, to expend less effort. The second limitation was that it might have been unreasonable to ask participants to respond in a fashion so quantitative regarding their experience of stress, coping, and encouragement/discouragement of coping. This is perhaps a criticism of stress and coping inventories in general. With coping in particular, participants may not have the level of introspection required to report on precisely what types of strategies they employed in recalled encounters. This is a difficult 115
    • challenge to surmount. It would probably be very difficult to collect adequate data through naturalistic observation methods, which would likely be non-standardized and/or contrived anyway. However, an experimental component to the research might prove useful in complementing survey methods. At the very least, the measures of the present study need to be tested for reliability. The third limitation was that the participants might have been predisposed to avoid extreme ends of the scales of the measures used. Japanese participants in particular may be disinclined to disclose unequivocally. Japanese culture is surely not known for its emphasis on forthright and blunt communication. It is probably safe to assume that some degree of Japanese reservedness manifested itself in the range of responding to scaled options. Such a response set bias might be controlled for, in a subsequent study, perhaps by utilizing a measure of social desirability and/or social reservedness. With the above general limitations in mind, there is further question as to whether the various independent variables (e.g. sex, age, coping type, etc.) can be said to have causal status. It is important to remember that no element of the present study involved manipulation of a variable. Further, controls were limited. To fashion certain variables as independent in the present study was purely conceptual. Therefore, interpretation of the findings should proceed with a measure of caution. For example, sex and age differences found here are not necessarily caused by anything intrinsic to sex and age. There are likely confounding variables that remained outside of observation, for instance, degree of gender identification and maturity level within age/grade – which are actually the more interesting constructs. In terms of external validity, there is question as to whether the participants sampled can stand as representative of Japanese youngsters in general. There is considerable variety within the Japanese population. Children living in the suburbs of Tokyo, for instance, are likely to be much more cosmopolitan and much less provincial than their counterparts in rural Japan, and perhaps even in suburban Nagoya. Not only is Western influence, for example, more profound in Tokyo and the surrounding areas, but also traditional Japanese ways are more robust the further away from Tokyo one gets. The present study sampled from suburbs of Nagoya, in Mie Prefecture. Sampling from 116
    • other regions of the country might produce markedly different responding. Finally, it should be stated that any absences of significant findings in the present study do not necessarily confirm the null hypotheses. In many cases, predicted relationships in the present study were not found. Especially in light of the above limitations, it is possible that a follow-up study might find results that contrast with those of the present study. Any firm conclusions about the relationships between the variables under study should come after a steady accumulation of findings from a variety of complementary research paradigms. General Implications and Directions for Future Study The implications of the present findings are manifold and provide important directions for future study. Firstly, there is question about the extent to which the transactionist perspective is appropriate for developmental research. Secondly, there is considerable evidence in support of the universality of the problem-focused/emotion-focused distinction in coping. Thirdly, there is reason to speculate that Japanese coping is unique in certain respects. Fourthly, there is compelling evidence that a different tack should be taken in drawing connections between maternal socialization of coping and child coping itself. Taken as a whole, these four implications cast new light on the direction future research should take. The next step should be to collect an American sample matched with the present Japanese sample on as many variables as possible. A direct cross-cultural comparison of this sort would clarify the relative differences between Japanese and American culture with regard to the established distinctions in stress, coping, and adjustment. The first general implication calls into question the usefulness of transactional models of stress and coping, like Lazarus’ Cognitive-motivational-relational theory. In the Introduction section of the present paper, the transactional definition/model of stress and coping was espoused. It posits that stress and coping are dependent on the extent to which individuals perceive environmental demands as threatening, challenging, or harmful. No doubt, this makes a certain amount of sense and logic when one considers that stress necessarily involves appraisal. However, there may be a disconnect between 117
    • theory and data, especially in terms of the importance of relational meaning, which is a concept created to incorporate appraisal – beliefs and goals about an encounter, within a given context. That is, perhaps interpretation of stress is less important as a factor than previously thought. The present study began with speculation that coping context would be particularly important in governing the types of coping children employ. This much is predicted by transactional models like that of Lazarus’ Cognitive-motivational-relational theory. In spite of this theoretical orientation, context was surprisingly quite inconsequential in the present study. As stated in the Methods section, reliability analysis (Cronbach’s Alpha) showed that the coping context distinctions were superfluous vis-à-vis the coping data. That is, the children tended to report coping strategy use similarly across contexts. This suggests that context, relational meaning, and appraisal may not be as important as predicted by transactional models. To be sure, it is very possible that the strong association of coping responses across contexts had more to do with how participants complete questionnaires than how they actually behave. Transactional predictions may prove to be accurate given a better understanding of how children actually cope in “real life” settings. Yet the fact that context was not important in the present study indicates at the least that even if transactional models are more accurate than their counterparts, they may not be more practical or useful. The second general implication is that the broad theoretical distinction of problem- versus emotion-focused coping, discussed at length in the Introduction section, appears to have cross-cultural relevance between American and Japanese samples. The present study found significant developmental increases in emotion-focused coping, but not in problem-focused coping. That this is fully consistent with pervasive American findings (Band & Weisz, 1988; Folkman & Lazarus, 1988; Altshuler & Ruble, 1989) suggests the problem/emotion-focused distinction is a useful one beyond American borders. Likely, emotion-focused strategies develop later than problem-focused strategies by virtue of the fact that “they are hidden and therefore more difficult to learn from observation”, as posited by Band and Weisz (1988). There is no unique reason why such an explanation would not hold true for non-American populations. 118
    • At the same time, it would be prudent to withhold firm judgment on the cross-cultural applicability of the problem/emotion-focused distinction until a matched sample of American data have been collected with the same measures used in the present study. A direct comparison of this type would enable an understanding of exactly how Japanese and Americans may or may not differ with regard to the coping categories. Presumably results from an American sample would yield similar developmental findings with respect to the problem/emotion-focused distinction, especially because the present measures were largely derived from American research. Yet there could be some interesting Japan-U.S. differences with, for instance, the age of onset for an emotion-focused coping increase. The third general implication of the present findings is that grounds exist for speculation that Japanese coping is unique in certain respects. This indication comes mainly from the results and interpretation of the exploratory factor analysis that was performed on the coping data, which yielded data-driven coping types: Antagonism, Problem-Solving, and Cheerful Deference. Antagonism was the most cohesive factor of the three. It also explained the most variance. Antagonistic items included: “saying bad things to someone”, “hurting or harming someone’s feelings”, “getting angry”, etcetera. These items were highly discouraged by Japanese mothers. Problem-Solving was the second important factor and included: “getting more information about the problem”, “thinking about why the problem happened”, “thinking about all the things that could be done to fix the problem”, etcetera. These items were highly encouraged by Japanese mothers. Lastly, Cheerful Deference was the third important factor and included: “being polite or humble, to show respect or honor”, “being cheerful or happy in front of someone”, and “laughing or joking aloud”. These items were highly encouraged by Japanese mothers. Interestingly, they each involve display components: “to show”, “in front”, and “aloud”. Taken as a whole with the other items, it is as if the message for preferred coping in Japan is this: “Keep your anger to yourself, stay on task with the problem, and remain cheerful and courteous throughout.” To be sure, the above interpretation is liberal and will be conditioned upon further study and 119
    • direct cross-cultural comparison. Yet given mainstream understandings of Japanese values and communication styles, the present findings are not surprising. They are well in line with what one might expect of a culture reputed to emphasize “face-saving” in particular. To substantiate the extent to which this is unique, an American sample could be collected. One would predict that overt expression and use of anger and “negativity” would be less discouraged and perhaps more useful in American culture. Indeed, for anyone who has spent significant amounts of time in both Japan and the U.S., this is glaringly obvious. In America, which has been referred to as the “zenith of individualism” by Triandis (1988, 1994), often “nice guys finish last”, and therefore overt expression of anger and the like can be adaptive. One might further predict that U.S.-Japan differences could emerge for Problem-Solving and Cheerful Deference as well. Cheerful Deference in particular might be predicted to exhibit a cross-cultural difference in line with the individualism-collectivism dimension. Collectivistic cultures with Confucian heritage in particular tend to value the maintenance of a cheerful countenance and at the least an adherence to respect for position and status – at least relative to Western cultures (Triandis, 1988, 1994). The fourth general implication of the present findings is that a different tack should be taken in drawing connections between maternal socialization of coping and child coping itself. Unfortunately, the results of the present study regarding the main correlational analyses of maternal coping encouragement/discouragement and child coping showed a general disconnect between the mother and child coping measures, with only one significant finding. This is not unlike what has been found in other such studies of this sort. So it is not entirely disheartening. However, other types of research methods should probably be considered for future studies. Perhaps a more projective measure (e.g., see Zahn-Waxler et al., 1996), for instance, might be more conclusive, as it may be difficult for subjects to introspect and disclose on the precise nature of their coping strategies. Further, an actual experiment that places children in some sort of predicament and requires mothers to encourage or discourage some course of action could be illuminating, at the very least as a supplementary measure. 120
    • In sum, the two-fold purpose of this research has been successfully met. Firstly, the results herein have allowed for a deeper American understanding of Japanese interpretations of the stress- coping-adjustment process. Patterns from the American literature have been transported and tested. In particular, the over-arching problem- and emotion-focused categories have been demonstrated to be useful in a Japanese sample. Further, potentially unique patterns of Japanese coping have been fleshed out and given grounding for future investigation. Secondly, a set of measures have been developed for use in a direct U.S.-Japan comparison in a future study. That the measures employed herein were able to differentiate a considerable amount of significant findings on the basis of the independent variables stands as reasonable indication that they could legitimately differentiate cross-cultural phenomena. The next logical step would be to collect data on a matched sample of Americans, enabling a direct cross-cultural comparison. Only then will the relative standings of Japanese and Americans’ stress and coping be ascertainable. 121
    • CHAPTER V. SUMMARY American psychologists would like to know the extent to which their understanding of stress, coping, and adjustment in youth applies beyond the U.S., to Japan. The present study explored this question according to the outline of the dominant American coping theorist, Richard S. Lazarus. Using inventories of everyday life event stress and coping strategies, it addressed the elementary issues of stress experience and coping-type preferences in Japanese youth. It further addressed the elementary issues of maternal socialization of coping. The purpose of this research was two-fold: 1) to increase American understanding of Japanese interpretations of the stress-coping-adjustment process and 2) to develop a set of measures that can be used for a direct U.S.-Japan comparison in a future study, such that potential cultural differences in emotional adaptation can be understood in the absence of serious concern about cultural bias. The analyses utilized a 2 (SEX: male vs. female) X 3 (GRADE: 5 vs. 8 vs. 10) design. With a sample of roughly 400 mother-child pairs, a number of significant findings emerged. As predicted: 1) girls reported greater stress for health/fitness and peer relations contexts than did boys, 2) girls reported greater use of cognitive, problem-focused and emotion-focused coping than did boys, 3) older children reported greater use of cognitive, emotion-focused coping than did younger children. In contrast to prediction: 1) older children did not report greater stress than younger children did for the education context, 2) older children did not report greater use of cognitive, problem- focused coping than younger children did. Additionally, correlations between mother-child coping in terms of the a priori categories showed a positive relationship between maternal encouragement of and child use of cognitive, problem-focused coping. Lastly, exploratory factor analysis yielded three important variables: Antagonism, Problem-Solving, and Cheerful Deference. Antagonism was negatively correlated with school performance and life satisfaction in children. The findings were discussed in the context of cross-cultural validity. The implication is that a sample of American data should be collected for a direct cross-cultural comparison with the existing Japanese data. Only then will the relative standings of Japanese and Americans’ stress and coping be ascertainable. 122
    • References Adler, P. A., Kless, S. J., Adler, P. (1992). Socialization to gender roles: Popularity among elementary school boys and girls. Sociology of Education, 65, 169-187. Aldwin, C. M. (1994). Stress, coping, and development: An integrative perspective. New York: Guilford Press. 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. Ayers, T.S., Sandler, I.N., & Twohey, J.L. (1998). Conceptualization and measurement of coping in children and adolescents. In Ollendick, T.H. & Prinz, R.J. (Eds.), Advances in Clinical Child Psychology (pp. 243-301), Volume 20. New York: Plenum Press. Ayers, T.S., Sandler, I.N., West, S.G., & Roosa, M.W. (1996). A dispositional and situational assessment of children’s coping: Testing alternative models of coping. Journal of Personality, 64, 923-958. Azuma, H. (1984). Secondary control as a heterogeneous category. American Psychologist, 39, 970-971. 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. Beasley, W. G. (1989, 1990). The Rise of Modern Japan. St. Martin's. Berry, J. W., Poortinga, Y. H., Segall, M. H., & Dasen, P. R. (1992). Cross-cultural psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press. Bowlby, J. (1951). Maternal Care and Mental Health. World Health Organization Monograph 2. Geneva: World Health Organization. 123
    • 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. 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. Causey, D.L., & Dubow, E.G. (1992). Development of a self-report coping measure for elementary school children. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 21, 47-59. Coddington, R. (1972). The significance of life events as etiologic factors in disease of children. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 16, 7-18. 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. Erikson, E. H. (1963). Childhood and Society (2nd ed.). New York: Norton. 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. Freud, S. (1900). The interpretation of dreams. In J. Strachey (Ed.), The standard edition of 124
    • the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud: Vol. 8. London: Hogarth Press. 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. Grant, K., Compas, B., Thurm, A., and McMahon, S. (2001). Stress and Developmental Psychopathology: Moving from Markers to Mechanisms of Risk. Guthrie, G.M. (1979). A cross-cultural odyssey: Some personal reflections. In A.J. Marsella, R.G. Tharp, & T.J. Ciborowski (Eds.), Perspectives on cross-cultural psychology (pp. 349-368). New York: Academic Press. Harlow, H. F. (1959, June). Love in infant monkeys. Scientific American, 68-74. Hendry, Joy. (1998). Understanding Japanese Society, 2nd Edition. London: Routledge. Huang, K. (1977). Campus mental health: The foreigner at your desk. Journal of the American College Health Association, 25, 216-219. Huntsinger, C.S., Jose, P.E., & Larson, S.L. (1988). Do parent practices to encourage academic competence influence the social adjustment of young European American and Chinese American Children? Developmental Psychology, 34, 747-756. Iwao, S. (1997). Consistency orientation and models of social behavior: Is it not time for West to meet East? Japanese Journal of Psychological Research, 39, 323-332. 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 125
    • manuscript, Loyola University Chicago, Chicago, Illinois. Jose, P., Cafasso, L., & D’Anna, C. (1997). Gender differences in stressors and coping strategies among early adolescents. Manuscript in preparation. 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. & Hunsinger, C. (1997). Stress and psycho-social adjustment of Chinese-American and European American Adolescents. Manuscript submitted for publication. Jose, P.E., D’Anna, C.A., Cafasso, L.L., Bryant, F.B., Chiker, V., Gein, N., & Zhezmer, N. (1998). Stress and coping among Russian and American Early Adolescents, Developmental Psychology 34, 757-769. 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. Kawanishi, Y. (1995a). The relationship between self-esteem and psychological stress process. The Japanese Journal of Health Psychology, 8, 22-30. In Japanese. Kawanishi, Y. (1995b). 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. Kessler, R.C. (1997). The effects of stressful life events on depression. Annual Review of Psychology, 48, 191-214. Kilburg, D.F. III (1997). Stress and Coping in Middle Childhood. Unpublished Master’s thesis. Chicago: DePaul University (482.259). Kliewer, W., Fearnow, M.D., & Miller, P.A. (1996). Coping socialization in middle childhood: tests of maternal and paternal influences. Child Development, 67, 2339-2357. Kojima, H. (1984). A significant stride toward comparative study of control. American Psychologist, 39, 972-973. 126
    • Kuhn, D. & Sieger, K. (Eds.) (1998). Handbook of child psychology, Vol. 2, Cognition, perception, and language. New York: Wiley. Kurtz, L. (1994). Psychosocial coping resources in elementary school-age children of divorce. American Journal of Orthopscychiatry, 64, 554-563. 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. Lanham, B.B. & Garrick, R.J. (1996). Adult to child in Japan: interaction and relations. In Shwalb, D. W., & Shwalb, B. J. (eds.), Japanese childrearing: Two generations of scholarship. (pp. 97-124) New York: The Guilford Press. 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. 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, E. & Martin, J. (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. 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. Machida, S., Hess, R. & Azuma, H. (1996). Maternal and cultural socialization for schooling: lessons learned and prospects ahead. In Shwalb, D. W., & Shwalb, B. J. (eds.), Japanese childrearing: Two generations of scholarship. (pp. 241-259) New York: The Guilford Press. Masten, A., (1985). Stress, coping, and children's health. Pediatric Annals, 14, 543-547. McCargo, D. (2000). Contemporary Japan. New York: St. Martin’s Press. 127
    • Menhaghan, E.G., Kowaleski-Jones, L., & Mott, F.L. (1997). The intergenerational costs of parental social stressors: Academic and social difficulties in early adolescence for children of young mothers. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 38, 72-86. Miele, F. (1979). Cultural bias in the WISC-R. Intelligence, 3, 149-164. 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. Minami, O. (1987). Nihontekijiga (Japanese Self) Tokyo: Iwanami Shinsho Publishing. Nagane, M. (1991). Analysis of psychological stress in school life. Japanese Journal of Educational Psychology, 39, 182-185. In Japanese. Ohsako, H. (1994). Diversity and effectiveness of high school students’ stress-coping depending on situations. The Japanese Journal of Health Psychology, 7, 26-34. In Japanese. Okayasu, T., Shimada, H., Niwa, Y., Mori, T., & Yatomi, N. (1992). The relationship between evaluation of school stressors and stress responses in junior high school students. The Japanese Journal of Psychology, 63, 310-318. In Japanese. 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. Sandoval, J. (1979). The WISC-R and internal evidence of test bias with minority groups. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 47, 919-927. Segall, M.H., Lonner, W.J., & Berry, J.W. (1998). Cross-cultural psychology as a scholarly discipline: On the flowering of culture in behavioral research. American Psychologist, 53, 1101-1110. Shwalb, D. W., & Shwalb, B. J. (1996). Japanese childrearing: Two generations of scholarship. New York: The Guilford Press. Sorenson, E. (1993). Children's stress and coping: A family perspective. New York: The Guilford Press. 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- 128
    • 544. Stening, B.W. (1979). Problems in cross-cultural contact: A literature review. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 3, 269-313. Tabachnick, B. & Fidell, L. (1996). Using Multivariate Statistics, 3rd Edition. New York: Harper Collins College Publishers. 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. Triandis, H.C. (1994). Culture and social behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill. Vaughn, C.A. (1996). Socialization and school adaptation: on the life work of George De Vos. In Shwalb, D. W., & Shwalb, B. J. (eds.), Japanese childrearing: Two generations of scholarship. (pp. 85-96) New York: The Guilford Press. Vogel, S. (1996). Urban middle-class Japanese family life, 1958-1996: a personal and evolving perspective. In Shwalb, D. W., & Shwalb, B. J. (eds.), Japanese childrearing: Two generations of scholarship. (pp. 177-200) New York: The Guilford Press. Weisz, J., Rothbaum, F., & Blackburn, T. (1984). Standing out and standing in: the psychology of control in America and Japan. American Psychologist, 39, 955-969. Weisz, J., Rothbaum, F., & Blackburn, T. (1984). Swapping recipes for control. American Psychologist, 39, 974-975. Wertlieb, D., Weigel, C., & Feldstein, M. (1987). Measuring children's coping. Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 57, 548-560. White, M. (1996). Renewing the new middle class: Japan’s next families. In Shwalb, D. W., & Shwalb, B. J. (eds.), Japanese childrearing: Two generations of scholarship. (pp. 208-219) New York: The Guilford Press. Yamamoto, K. & Davis (1979). Children's ratings of the stressfulness of experiences. Developmental Psychology, 15, 581-582. 129
    • Zahn-Waxler, C., Friedman, R. J., Cole, P. M., Mizuta, I., & Hiruma, N. (1996). Japanese and United States preschool children’s responses to conflict and distress. Child Development, 67, 2462- 2477. 130
    • Appendix A. Coding Keys 131
    • The Children’s Inventory of Coping (CIC) and The Socialization Inventory of Coping (SIC) Part A (Miscellaneous items for controlling variables and for exploratory research) 1 - 3. (Intended only to assist recall.) Children: 4. Stress intensity 14. Free recall – PF 5. Control/Opportunity 15. Free recall – EF 6. Fault (Self) 7. Fault (Other) Mothers: 8. Stress frequency (past week) 14. Free recall – Discourage – PF 9. Effort 15. Free recall – Discourage – EF 10. Emotional sensitivity (Self) 16. Free recall – Encourage – PF 11. Emotional sensitivity (Other) 17. Free recall – Encourage – EF 12. Individual initiative 13. Collective initiative Part B [Note: what follows are the CIC versions of the items; the SIC versions are simply the the infinitive forms of the CIC versions (see SIC questionnaire)] Problem-Focused items: 27; Emotion-Focused items: 38; 65 Total (numbers in parenthesis correspond to item order numbers on the CIC questionnaire) Problem-Focused Items: (strategies that try to manage or modify the source of the problem) Cognitive 1. (11) I thought about all the things I could possibly do to fix the problem. 2. (2) I thought about why the problem happened. 3. (34) I tried to think what would work best to fix the problem. 4. (56) I imagined what someone else would do if they had the same problem. 5. (48) I tried to remember what I did last time I had a similar problem. 6. (15) I told myself to divide the problem and take it “one step at a time.” 7. (24) I made a plan to solve the problem. 8. (32) I prayed to God, or to a relative who is no longer living, or to some other spirit - to help fix the problem. Behavioral 9. (14) I tried to get more information about the problem. 10. (27) I tried to directly hurt or do harm to someone’s body or someone’s stuff - to help fix the problem. 11. (43) I told someone that the problem was his or her fault and/or told someone to say sorry - to help fix the problem. 12. (36) I said mean things directly to someone’s face - to help fix the problem. 13. (31) I tried to directly annoy someone by doing things like poking him/her, grabbing at his/her things, making faces at him/her - to help fix the problem. 14. (12) In front of someone, I got angry and yelled and/or hit something - to help fix the problem. 15. (22) I tried to hurt or do harm to someone’s feelings - without that person knowing I did it - to help fix the problem. 16. (33) I tried to annoy someone in a “light” or “indirect” way (for example: I made him/her wait for me; I purposely forgot to do something for him/her; I hid something he/she was looking for; I was sarcastically polite to him/her, etc.) - to help fix the problem. 17. (45) I tried to hurt or do harm to someone’s body or someone’s stuff - without that person knowing I did it - to help fix the problem. 18. (39) I told someone the problem was my fault and/or I said I was sorry - to help fix the problem. 19. (51) I tried to be cheerful or happy in front of someone, or do nice things for someone - to help fix the 132
    • problem. 20. (1) I laughed or joked aloud - to help fix the problem. 21. (63) I tried to be polite or humble, or to show respect or honor - to help fix the problem. 22. (44) I cried and showed sad feelings in front of someone - to help fix the problem. 23. (35) I tried to get someone to feel guilty or to feel sorry for me - to help fix the problem. 24. (23) I went to be with someone - to help fix the problem. 25. (25) I talked to someone - to help fix the problem. 26. (60) I went off by myself to get away from other people - to help fix the problem. 27. (21) I told someone a lie (good or bad) - to help fix the problem. Emotion-Focused Items: (Strategies that try to manage or reduce emotional distress) Cognitive 1. (7) I ignored or tried to get away from the problem, by not thinking about it - so I would feel better. 2. (4) I day-dreamed about something and forgot all about the problem - so I would feel better. 3. (61) I pretended there was not a problem - so I would feel better. 4. (58) I tried to be patient and “put up” with things the way they were. 5. (26) I told myself to keep trying as hard as I could. 6. (62) I prayed to God, or to a relative who is no longer living, or to some other spirit - so I would feel better. 7. (46) I told myself the problem would be over in a short time. 8. (54) I told myself that the problem is not so bad; that it could be worse. 9. (17) I imagined that I could easily solve the problem. 10. (8) I tried to think of the problem as a good challenge. 11. (55) I tried to calm down. Behavioral 12. (52) I did something physically active like: rode my bike, went for a walk, or played sports - so I would feel better. 13. (16) I sat down and did something fun like: watched TV, listened to music, or played a game - so I would feel better. 14. (53) I got angry and yelled and/or hit something (but no one saw me do this) - so I would feel better. 15. (40) I held or played with my pet or stuffed animal - so I would feel better. 16. (10) I had something to eat or drink - so I would feel better. 17. (59) I smoked cigarettes, drank alcohol, took some pills, or took some kind of drug (not medicine) - so I would feel better. 18. (49) I took a nap or went to bed early - so I would feel better. 19. (65) I cried (but no one saw me do this) - so I would feel better. 20. (41) I tried to focus on my breathing and make it right. 21. (19) I tried to directly hurt or do harm to someone’s body or someone’s stuff - so I would feel better. 22. (38) I told someone that the problem was his or her fault and/or told someone to say sorry - so I would feel better. 23. (13) I said mean things directly to someone’s face - so I would feel better. 24. (50) I tried to directly annoy someone by doing things like poking him/her, grabbing at his/her things, making faces at him/her, etc. - so I would feel better. 25. (47) In front of someone, I got angry and yelled and/or hit something - so I would feel better. 26. (37) I tried to hurt or do harm to someone’s feelings - without that person knowing I did it - so I would feel better. 27. (6) I tried to annoy someone in a “light” or “indirect” way (for example: I made him/her wait for me; I purposely forgot to do something for him/her; I hid something he/she was looking for; I was sarcastically polite to him/her, etc.) - so I would feel better. 28. (3) I tried to hurt or do harm to someone’s body or someone’s stuff - without that person knowing I did it - so I would feel better. 29. (9) I told someone the problem was my fault and/or I said I was sorry - so I would feel better. 30. (20) I tried to be cheerful or happy in front of someone, or do nice things for someone - so I would feel better. 133
    • 31. (57) I laughed or joked aloud - so I would feel better. 32. (42) I tried to be polite or humble, or to show respect or honor - so I would feel better. 33. (28) I cried and showed sad feelings in front of someone - so I would feel better. 34. (5) I tried to get someone to feel guilty or to feel sorry for me - so I would feel better. 35. (29) I went to be with someone - so I would feel better. 36. (18) I talked to someone - so I would feel better. 37. (64) I went off by myself to get away from other people - so I would feel better. 38. (30) I told someone a lie (good or bad) - so I would feel better. 134
    • The New Everyday Life Event Scale for Children (New ELESC) Key What follows are lists of the particular events of the New ELESC grouped by four different contexts: Family/Home Life, Health/Fitness, Education, and Peer Relations. The original item number of each event on the New ELESC is noted in parenthesis after each event. A. Family/Home Life (27 total) 1-You and your sister or brother disagreed (1) 15-Your mom or dad talked about their problems 2-You and your mom or dad disagreed (2) or worries(26) 3-You thought too many people lived in your 16-You could not do something with grandparents house (3) or other relatives(27) 4-You thought too few people lived in your house 17-You were in bed early(30) (4) 18-You took care of younger children(31) 5-You saw a family member who drank a lot of 19-You and your mom could not be together(32) alcohol (5) 20-You could not find something you looked for 6-Someone in your family was ill (10) (8) 7-You did not have anything to do (11) 21-You and your dad could not be together(34) 8-You were disciplined by your mom or dad (12) 22-You went to bed late(36) 9-You could not watch TV or play video games 23-You had to do something because you're a (14) boy/girl, but you did not want to do it(37) 10-Your sister or brother did better than you at 24-You could not play(38) something (15) 25-You thought about what your mom or dad 11-Someone in your family was very angry or thought of you(42) cried a lot (17) 26-Someone stole something you own(43) 12-You did a chore at home (18) 27-You were alone(40) 13-You wanted money to buy something (19) 14-Your mom and dad disagreed in front of you(25) B. Health/Fitness (4 total) 1-You went to the doctor, dentist, or took medicine(24) 2-You thought about the way you look(28) 3-You were ill (16) 4-You thought about your weight(39) C. Education (5 total) 1-You had after-school lessons or practice (e.g., juku, piano, English, etc.) (20) 2-You did not want to follow your school's dress code(35) 3-You got a grade that was less than you expected (22) 4-You used a bus or train to go to school (6) 5-You thought about having school work to do (9) D. Peer Relations (7 total) 1-You did not like someone but were nice to them anyway(23) 2-You could not talk to other people about your feelings (7) 3-You thought about what your classmates thought of you(29) 4-You disagreed with most of the people in a group but did what they wanted anyway(33) 5-Kids teased or avoided you (21) 6-People thought you did something foolish (13) 7-There was fighting or violence at your school or in your neighborhood(41) *[Note: in Kilburg (1997), item #41 was listed as “health/fitness.” It was moved to “peer relations.”] 135
    • Appendix B. Forms 136
    • Child Consent Child Consent for Participation Research Assistants: Murakami, Shouko [Telephone: (059)231-4793] Fujii, Kazuyo [Telephone: (059)226-8707] Director of Research: Nishikawa, Kazuo [Telephone: (059)231-9327] Hello. This is a request for you to complete a questionnaire for the research of children’s problems, at Mie University. The research of children’s problems 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. No one will know which questionnaire you answered, because you will be given a secret number. If you agree to complete the questionnaire, please sign and date below. Signature: ___________________________________ Date: ____________________ 137
    • Child Demographics Child Demographics Please fill in the following blanks. (So that no one will know which questionnaire is yours, please do not write your name anywhere.) 1. Your age: _______________ 2. Your sex (circle one): Male or Female 3. Your grade in school: _______________ 4. The name of your school: __________________________ 5. The sexes and ages of your brothers and/or sisters: (Circle Sex) (Write Age) M F ____________ M F ____________ M F ____________ M F ____________ M F ____________ 138
    • Mother Consent Mother Consent for Participation Research Assistants: Murakami, Shouko [Telephone: (059)231-4793] Fujii, Kazuyo [Telephone: (059)226-8707] Director of Research: Nishikawa, Kazuo [Telephone: (059)231-9327] Hello. This is a request for you to complete a questionnaire for the research of children’s problems, at Mie University. The research of children’s problems 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. No one will know which questionnaire you answered, because you will be given a secret number. If you agree to complete the questionnaire, please sign and date below. Signature: ___________________________________ Date: ____________________ 139
    • Teacher Letter Teacher letter Research Assistants: Murakami, Shouko [Telephone: (059)231-4793] Fujii, Kazuyo [Telephone: (059)226-8707] Director of Research: Nishikawa, Kazuo [Telephone: (059)231-9327] Hello. We are from Mie University. We are doing a research project on the problems that children have and how they learn to solve them. Problems can be mental, emotional, or physical. Everyone has some problem and everyone has to learn how to have a healthy life. Therefore, this research is very important. We would like your students to fill out some questionnaires about their problems. The questions are not hard to answer and might be interesting to them. No one will know whose questionnaire is whose because secret numbers will be used. Also, this is not a test and there are no wrong or right answers. So ideally the children should share their real feelings. If they do not, the research will fail. Please take time from your class for the children to complete the questionnaires. A proctor will help the children through the process. If the children have any questions, they should be encouraged to ask. Also, we would like mothers of the children to fill out questionnaires too. After the children have finished theirs questionnaires, we will give them envelopes to bring home. They should not be opened by anyone but the mothers. After the mothers have finished, the questionnaire materials should be brought back to you, the teacher. At that time, we would like to collect everything from you. we would also like to thank the children with a small gift of appreciation. [Special Note: in the past when this research has been done, some children with certain problems (for example, divorced parents) were excluded. A teacher thought it was rude to ask such children about their problems. Actually, children often feel better after expressing their problems. In this research, if children with certain problems are excluded, the research results will be biased. Therefore, if possible, please include everyone. Ideally, the questionnaires should be given to whole classes of students.] Thank you very much for your cooperation. -------------------------------- Instructions: 1) Have proctor read proctor script. 2) Have proctor hand out consent forms, then collect them. 3) Hand proctor hand out child questionnaires and oversee the process. [Remind the children that no one will know which questionnaire is theirs, because of the secret number.] 4) Hand out mom questionnaires (collect later from teachers). 140
    • Proctor Script Research Assistants: Murakami, Shouko [Telephone: (059)231-4793] Fujii, Kazuyo [Telephone: (059)226-8707] Director of Research: Nishikawa, Kazuo [Telephone: (059)231-9327] (Script for Proctor to Read to Children) Hello. I am from Mie University. I am doing a research project on the problems that children have and how they learn to solve them. Problems can be mental, emotional, or physical. Everyone has some problem and everyone has to learn how to have a healthy life. Therefore, this research is very important. I would like you to fill out some questionnaires about your problems. The questions are not hard to answer and might be interesting to you. No one will know which questionnaire is yours because you will use a secret number. Also, this is not a test and there are no wrong or right answers. So please share your real feelings. If you do not, the research will fail. I will read the questionnaires to you. Then when everyone is finished I will collect them. If you have any questions, please ask. [after the children have completed their questionnaires and handed them in.] I would like your mothers to fill out questionnaires too. I will give you an envelope to bring home. Please do not open it; just give it to your mother. After your mother is finished, please bring the questionnaire materials back to your teacher. At that time, I would like to thank you with a small gift of appreciation. -------------------------------- Instructions to proctor: 1) Introduce yourself 2) Read proctor script 3) Hand out consent forms, then collect them. 4) Hand out child questionnaires, help children through and then collect the packets. [Remind the children that no one will know which questionnaire is theirs, because of the secret number.] 5) Hand out mom questionnaires (collect later from teachers). 141
    • Post-questionnaire questions Post-Questionnaire Questions for Teachers and Proctors 1) Which groups of children completed the questionnaires? (for example, 25/30 students from class #3 of the 5th grade; 15/20 members of the soccer team; etc.) 2) Were any children excluded from filling out the questionnaires? If so, why? (for example, one student was excluded because his father had recently passed away, etc.) 3) What was the general reaction of the children to the questionniares? (for example, they did not want to complete all the questions and were fooling around, etc.) 4) Did any problems arise? Do you have any comments? 142
    • Letter to Mothers Research Assistants: Murakami, Shouko [Telephone: (059)231-4793] Fujii, Kazuyo [Telephone: (059)226-8707] Director of Research: Nishikawa, Kazuo [Telephone: (059)231-9327] Letter to Mothers Hello. We are from Mie University. We are doing a research project on the problems that children have and how they learn to solve them. Problems can be mental, emotional, or physical. Everyone has some problem and everyone has to learn how to have a healthy life. Therefore, this research is very important. We have asked your child to fill out a questionnaire about his or her problems. We would like you to fill out a questionnaire too. The questions are not hard and might be interesting to you. No one will know which questionnaire is yours because you will use a secret number. So please share your real feelings. If you do not, the research will fail. The questionnaire is not very long, but please take your time filling it out. Also... 1) Please do not discuss it with your child or your husband. We want only your opinions. 2) When you are finished please put the questionnaire into the envelope and seal it with tape. 3) Do not write your name on it anywhere. 4) Then instruct your child to bring the envelope back to his or her teacher as soon as possible. 143
    • Parent Demographics Parent Demographics Please fill in the following blanks. So that no one will know which questionnaire is yours, please do not write your name anywhere. Circle your relationship to the child (if possible, the mother should fill out this questionnaire): mother father grandfather grandmother other __________ 1) Your Age: _______________ 2) Child’s school name (only for the child who brought the questionnaire): __________________________ 3) Your occupation: __________________________ 4) Your spouse’s occupation: ____________________ 5) Sexes and ages of all your children: (Circle Sex) (Write Age) M F ____________ M F ____________ M F ____________ M F ____________ M F ____________ 6) On average, how much time does your spouse spend with the child each week? (circle one) a. no time at all b. 1-5 hours c. 10-20 hours d. 20-30 hours e. more than 30 hours 7) On average, how much time do you spend with the child each week? (circle one) a. no time at all b. 1-5 hours c. 10-20 hours d. 20-30 hours e. more than 30 hours 144
    • Appendix C. Child Questionnaires 145
    • The New Everyday Life Events Scale Part 1 Instructions: Everyone has some problems in his or her life. A. Please write 3 kinds of problems you had in the past week (for example, you got sick, you lost something, etc.). B. Then circle how many times each problem happened to you in the past week. C. Then circle how much stress you usually felt when each problem happened. A. What kind B. How many C. How much stress of problems times in the past did you usually feel when did you have? week did this this happened? (Write three) happen? (Circle one) (Circle one) Example: __________________ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A Little Some A Lot __________________________ 1. ________________________ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A Little Some A Lot __________________________ 2. ________________________ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A Little Some A Lot __________________________ 3. ________________________ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A Little Some A Lot __________________________ Part 2 Instructions: Below are a list of things that can happen to anyone. A. For each thing, tell whether it happened to you in the past week. (Circle “yes” or “no”) B. If it did not happen to you in the past week, continue to the next thing. If it was a problem for you in the past week, tell how many times it happened. C. Then tell how much stress you usually felt when it happened. A. Did it B. How many C. How much stress happen times in the past did you usually feel to you in the week did it when it happened? past week? happen? (Circle one) (Circle one) (Circle one) 1. You and your sister or brother disagreed Yes No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A Little Some A Lot 2. You and your mom or dad disagreed Yes No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A Little Some A Lot 3. You thought too many people lived
    • in your house Yes No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A Little Some A Lot A. Did it B. How many C. How much stress happen times in the past did you usually feel to you in the week did it when it happened? past week? happen? (Circle one) (Circle one) (Circle one) 4. You thought too few people lived in your house Yes No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A Little Some A Lot 5. You saw a family member who drank a lot of alcohol Yes No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A Little Some A Lot 6. You used a bus or train to go to school Yes No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A Little Some A Lot 7. You could not talk to other people about your feelings Yes No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A Little Some A Lot 8. You could not find something you looked for Yes No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A Little Some A Lot 9. You thought about having school work to do Yes No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A Little Some A Lot 10. Someone in your family was ill Yes No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A Little Some A Lot 11. You did not have anything to do Yes No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A Little Some A Lot 12. You were disciplined by your mom or dad Yes No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A Little Some A Lot 13. People thought you did something foolish Yes No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A Little Some A Lot 14. You could not 147
    • watch TV or play video games Yes No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A Little Some A Lot 15. Your sister or brother did better than you at something Yes No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A Little Some A Lot 16. You were ill Yes No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A Little Some A Lot 17. Someone in your family was very angry or cried a lot Yes No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A Little Some A Lot A. Did it B. How many C. How much stress happen times in the past did you usually feel to you in the week did it when it happened? past week? happen? (Circle one) (Circle one) (Circle one) 18. You did a chore at home Yes No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A Little Some A Lot 19. You wanted money to buy something Yes No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A Little Some A Lot 20. You had after-school lessons or practice (e.g., math, piano, English, etc.) Yes No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A Little Some A Lot 21. Kids teased or avoided you Yes No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A Little Some A Lot 22. You got a grade that was less than you expected Yes No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A Little Some A Lot 23. You did not like someone but were nice to them anyway Yes No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A Little Some A Lot 24. You went to the doctor, dentist, or took medicine Yes No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A Little Some A Lot 25. Your mom and dad disagreed in 148
    • front of you Yes No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A Little Some A Lot 26. Your mom or dad talked about their problems or worries Yes No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A Little Some A Lot 27. You could not do something with grandparents or other relatives Yes No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A Little Some A Lot 28. You thought about the way you look Yes No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A Little Some A Lot 29. You thought about what your classmates thought of you Yes No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A Little Some A Lot 30. You were in bed early Yes No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A Little Some A Lot 31. You took care of younger children Yes No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A Little Some A Lot A. Did it B. How many C. How much stress happen times in the past did you usually feel to you in the week did it when it happened? past week? happen? (Circle one) (Circle one) (Circle one) 32. You and your mom could not be together Yes No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A Little Some A Lot 33. You disagreed with most of the people in a group but did what they wanted anyway Yes No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A Little Some A Lot 34. You and your dad could not be together Yes No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A Little Some A Lot 35. You did not want to follow your school's 149
    • dress code Yes No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A Little Some A Lot 36. You went to bed late Yes No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A Little Some A Lot 37. You had to do something because you're a boy/girl, but you did not want to do it Yes No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A Little Some A Lot 38. You could not play Yes No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A Little Some A Lot 39. You thought about your weight Yes No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A Little Some A Lot 40. You were alone Yes No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A Little Some A Lot 41. There was fighting or violence at your school or in your neighborhood Yes No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A Little Some A Lot 42. You thought about what your mom or dad thought of you Yes No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A Little Some A Lot 43. Someone stole something you own Yes No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A Little Some A Lot 150
    • School Performance and Well-being 1. How good is your attendance record for school? (Circle one) 0 1 2 3 4 | | | | | Very Bad So-so Good Very Bad Good 2. How good is your behavior record for school? (Circle one) 0 1 2 3 4 | | | | | Very Bad So-so Good Very Bad Good 3. How good are your marks/grades for school? (Circle one) 0 1 2 3 4 | | | | | Very Bad So-so Good Very Bad Good 4. How satisfied are you with how well you get along with other kids around your age? (Circle one) 0 1 2 3 4 | | | | | Very Unsatisfied Neither Satisfied Very Unsatisfied Satisfied nor Satisfied Unsatisfied 5. How satisfied are you about how you look (your face, your body, etc.)? (Circle one) 0 1 2 3 4 | | | | | Very Unsatisfied Neither Satisfied Very Unsatisfied Satisfied nor Satisfied Unsatisfied 6. How satisfied are you with how well you get along with your sisters and brothers? (Circle one) (If you have no sisters/brothers, how about your cousins?) 0 1 2 3 4 | | | | | Very Unsatisfied Neither Satisfied Very Unsatisfied Satisfied nor Satisfied Unsatisfied 7. How satisfied are you with your school marks/grades? (Circle one) 0 1 2 3 4 | | | | | Very Unsatisfied Neither Satisfied Very Unsatisfied Satisfied nor Satisfied 151
    • 8. How satisfied are you with how well you get along with your mother? (Circle one) 0 1 2 3 4 | | | | | Very Unsatisfied Neither Satisfied Very Unsatisfied Satisfied nor Satisfied Unsatisfied 9. How satisfied are you with how well you get along with your father? (Circle one) 0 1 2 3 4 | | | | | Very Unsatisfied Neither Satisfied Very Unsatisfied Satisfied nor Satisfied Unsatisfied 10. How satisfied are you with your life in general? 0 1 2 3 4 | | | | | Very Unsatisfied Neither Satisfied Very Unsatisfied Satisfied nor Satisfied Unsatisfied 152
    • The Children’s Inventory of Coping (CIC) - 2A Part. A Please think of the last time other KIDS (other people close to your age) WERE MEAN TO YOU. Maybe kids at school were mean to you. Maybe kids in your neighborhood were mean to you. Maybe they: teased you, or called you bad names, or pushed you around, or did something else to you that you did not like. Maybe this happened to you yesterday, last week, last month, or before. Think real hard to remember exactly what happened. Picture in your mind what was happening and then answer the following questions. (If you have never had this problem, just imagine you are having it right now). 1. Where were you? (for example, at a park, at school, etc.) _____________________________________________________________________ 2. Who was with you? (for example, your friend, your sister, etc.) _____________________________________________________________________ 3. What were you doing when the problem happened? (for example, playing, walking home, etc.) _____________________________________________________________________ 4.. How much stress did you feel when you had the problem? (Circle one) 0 1 2 3 4 | | | | | None A little A moderate Much Very at all amount much 5. Sometimes there is nothing people can do about their problems. Other times, people have the chance to solve or fix their problems if they try. How much of a chance did you have to solve or fix your problem? (Circle one) 0 1 2 3 4 | | | | | None A little A moderate Much Very at all amount much 6. When the problem happened, how much did you think it was your fault? (Circle one) 0 1 2 3 4 | | | | | None A little A moderate Much Very at all amount much 7. When the problem happened, how much did you think it was someone else’s fault? (Circle one) 0 1 2 3 4 | | | | | None A little A moderate Much Very at all amount much 8. About how many times did you ACTUALLY have this problem in the past week? (Circle one) 153
    • 0 1 2 3 4 5 6+ 9. When people have problems, sometimes they try very much to solve them and other times they do not try very much to solve them. In general, how much did you try to solve your problem? (Circle one) 0 1 2 3 4 | | | | | None A little A moderate Much Very at all amount much 10. When you had the problem, how much did you think about the feelings you were having about the problem? (Cirlce one) 0 1 2 3 4 | | | | | None A little A moderate Much Very at all amount much 11. When you had the problem, how much did you think about the feelings of other people involved in the problem? (Circle one) 0 1 2 3 4 | | | | | None A little A moderate Much Very at all amount much 12. When you had the problem, how much did you try to solve it your own way? (Circle one) 0 1 2 3 4 | | | | | None A little A moderate Much Very at all amount much 13. When you had the problem, how much did you try to solve it someone else’s way? In other words, how much did you compromise or cooperate with other people in solving your problem? (Circle one) 0 1 2 3 4 | | | | | None A little A moderate Much Very at all amount much 14. When you had the problem, what did you do to try to solve or fix it? (Please write at least three things you did.) ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ 154
    • 15. When you had the problem, what did you do to feel better? (Please write at least three things you did.) ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Part B. When people have problems they do many different things. When you had the problem we just asked you about (kids were mean to you), about how much did you do each of the following things? (Circle only one answer for each question) 0 1 2 3 4 | | | | | None A little A moderate Much Very at all amount much 1. I laughed or joked aloud - to help fix the problem. 0 1 2 3 4 2. I thought about why the problem happened. 0 1 2 3 4 3. I tried to hurt or do harm to someone’s body or someone’s stuff - without that person knowing I did it - so I would feel better. 0 1 2 3 4 4. I day-dreamed about something and forgot all about the problem - so I would feel better. 0 1 2 3 4 5. I tried to get someone to feel guilty or to feel sorry for me - so I would feel better. 0 1 2 3 4 6. I tried to annoy someone in a “light” or “indirect” way (for example: I made him/her wait for me; I purposely forgot to do something for him/her; I hid something he/she was looking for; I was sarcastically polite to him/her, etc.) - so I would feel better. 0 1 2 3 4 7. I ignored or tried to get away from the problem, by not thinking about it - so I would feel better. 0 1 2 3 4 8. I tried to think of the problem as a good challenge. 155
    • 0 1 2 3 4 9. I told someone the problem was my fault and/or I said I was sorry - so I would feel better. 0 1 2 3 4 10. I had something to eat or drink - so I would feel better. 0 1 2 3 4 When people have problems they do many different things. When you had the problem we just asked you about (kids were mean to you), about how much did you do each of the following things? (Circle only one answer for each question) 0 1 2 3 4 | | | | | None A little A moderate Much Very at all amount much 11. I thought about all the things I could possibly do to fix the problem. 0 1 2 3 4 12. In front of someone, I got angry and yelled and/or hit something - to help fix the problem. 0 1 2 3 4 13. I said mean things directly to someone’s face - so I would feel better. 0 1 2 3 4 14. I tried to get more information about the problem. 0 1 2 3 4 15. I told myself to divide the problem and take it “one step at a time.” 0 1 2 3 4 16. I sat down and did something fun like: watched TV, listened to music, or played a game - so I would feel better. 0 1 2 3 4 17. I imagined that I could easily solve the problem. 0 1 2 3 4 18. I talked to someone - so I would feel better. 0 1 2 3 4 19. I tried to directly hurt or do harm to someone’s body or someone’s stuff - so I would feel better. 156
    • 0 1 2 3 4 20. I tried to be cheerful or happy in front of someone, or do nice things for someone - so I would feel better. 0 1 2 3 4 21. I told someone a lie (good or bad) - to help fix the problem. 0 1 2 3 4 When people have problems they do many different things. When you had the problem we just asked you about (kids were mean to you), about how much did you do each of the following things? (Circle only one answer for each question) 0 1 2 3 4 | | | | | None A little A moderate Much Very at all amount much 22. I tried to hurt or do harm to someone’s feelings - without that person knowing I did it - to help fix the problem. 0 1 2 3 4 23. I went to be with someone - to help fix the problem. 0 1 2 3 4 24. I made a plan to solve the problem. 0 1 2 3 4 25. I talked to someone - to help fix the problem. 0 1 2 3 4 26. I told myself to keep trying as hard as I could. 0 1 2 3 4 27. I tried to directly hurt or do harm to someone’s body or someone’s stuff - to help fix the problem. 0 1 2 3 4 28. I cried and showed sad feelings in front of someone - so I would feel better. 0 1 2 3 4 29. I went to be with someone - so I would feel better. 157
    • 0 1 2 3 4 30. I told someone a lie (good or bad) - so I would feel better. 0 1 2 3 4 31. I tried to directly annoy someone by doing things like poking him/her, grabbing at his/her things, making faces at him/her - to help fix the problem. 0 1 2 3 4 32. I prayed to God, or to a relative who is no longer living, or to some other spirit - to help fix the problem. 0 1 2 3 4 When people have problems they do many different things. When you had the problem we just asked you about (kids were mean to you), about how much did you do each of the following things? (Circle only one answer for each question) 0 1 2 3 4 | | | | | None A little A moderate Much Very at all amount much 33. I tried to annoy someone in a “light” or “indirect” way (for example: I made him/her wait for me; I purposely forgot to do something for him/her; I hid something he/she was looking for; I was sarcastically polite to him/her, etc.) - to help fix the problem. 0 1 2 3 4 34. I tried to think what would work best to fix the problem. 0 1 2 3 4 35. I tried to get someone to feel guilty or to feel sorry for me - to help fix the problem. 0 1 2 3 4 36. I said mean things directly to someone’s face - to help fix the problem. 0 1 2 3 4 37. I tried to hurt or do harm to someone’s feelings - without that person knowing I did it - so I would feel better. 0 1 2 3 4 38. I told someone that the problem was his or her fault and/or told someone to say sorry - so I would feel better. 0 1 2 3 4 158
    • 39. I told someone the problem was my fault and/or I said I was sorry - to help fix the problem. 0 1 2 3 4 40. I held or played with my pet or stuffed animal - so I would feel better. 0 1 2 3 4 41. I tried to focus on my breathing and make it right. 0 1 2 3 4 42. I tried to be polite or humble, or to show respect or honor - so I would feel better. 0 1 2 3 4 43. I told someone that the problem was his or her fault and/or told someone to say sorry - to help fix the problem. 0 1 2 3 4 When people have problems they do many different things. When you had the problem we just asked you about (kids were mean to you), about how much did you do each of the following things? (Circle only one answer for each question) 0 1 2 3 4 | | | | | None A little A moderate Much Very at all amount much 44. I cried and showed sad feelings in front of someone - to help fix the problem. 0 1 2 3 4 45. I tried to hurt or do harm to someone’s body or someone’s stuff - without that person knowing I did it - to help fix the problem. 0 1 2 3 4 46. I told myself the problem would be over in a short time. 0 1 2 3 4 47. In front of someone, I got angry and yelled and/or hit something - so I would feel better. 0 1 2 3 4 48. I tried to remember what I did last time I had a similar problem. 0 1 2 3 4 49. I took a nap or went to bed early - so I would feel better. 0 1 2 3 4 159
    • 50. I tried to directly annoy someone by doing things like poking him/her, grabbing at his/her things, making faces at him/her, etc. - so I would feel better. 0 1 2 3 4 51. I tried to be cheerful or happy in front of someone, or do nice things for someone - to help fix the problem. 0 1 2 3 4 52. I did something physically active like: rode my bike, went for a walk, or played sports - so I would feel better. 0 1 2 3 4 53. I got angry and yelled and/or hit something (but no one saw me do this) - so I would feel better. 0 1 2 3 4 54. I told myself that the problem is not so bad; that it could be worse. 0 1 2 3 4 When people have problems they do many different things. When you had the problem we just asked you about (kids were mean to you), about how much did you do each of the following things? (Circle only one answer for each question) 0 1 2 3 4 | | | | | None A little A moderate Much Very at all amount much 55. I tried to calm down. 0 1 2 3 4 56. I imagined what someone else would do if they had the same problem. 0 1 2 3 4 57. I laughed or joked aloud - so I would feel better. 0 1 2 3 4 58. I tried to be patient and “put up” with things the way they were. 0 1 2 3 4 59. I smoked cigarettes, drank alcohol, took some pills, or took some kind of drug (not medicine) - so I would feel better. 0 1 2 3 4 60. I went off by myself to get away from other people - to help fix the problem. 160
    • 0 1 2 3 4 61. I pretended there was not a problem - so I would feel better. 0 1 2 3 4 62. I prayed to God, or to a relative who is no longer living, or to some other spirit - so I would feel better. 0 1 2 3 4 63. I tried to be polite or humble, or to show respect or honor - to help fix the problem. 0 1 2 3 4 64. I went off by myself to get away from other people - so I would feel better. 0 1 2 3 4 65. I cried (but no one saw me do this) - so I would feel better. 0 1 2 3 4 161
    • Additional 3 scenarios used in Part A of the Children’s Inventory of Coping (CIC) The Children’s Inventory of Coping (CIC) - 2B Please think of the last time YOU HAD AN ARGUMENT WITH YOUR SISTER OR BROTHER. (If you do not have any sisters or brothers, think of the last time you had an argument with one of your cousins). Maybe this argument happened yesterday, last week, last month, or before then. Think real hard to remember exactly what happened. Picture the argument in your mind and then answer the following questions. (If you have never had this problem, just imagine you are having it right now). The Children’s Inventory of Coping (CIC) - 2C Please think of the last time YOU GOT WORRIED ABOUT HAVING A LOT OF SCHOOL WORK TO DO. Maybe you had a large homework assignment to do or an important test to study for. Maybe this happened to you yesterday, last week, last month, or before then. Think real hard to remember exactly what happened. Picture in your mind what was happening and then answer the following questions. (If you have never had this problem, just imagine you are having it right now). The Children’s Inventory of Coping (CIC) - 2D Please think of the last time YOU WERE UPSET ABOUT YOUR APPEARANCE OR DID NOT LIKE HOW YOU LOOKED. Maybe you felt overweight or fat. Maybe you felt unattractive or ugly. Maybe you did not like something else about how you looked. Maybe this happened to you yesterday, last week, last month, or before. Think real hard to remember exactly what happened. Picture in your mind what was happening and then answer the following questions. (If you have never had this problem, just imagine are having it right now). 162
    • Appendix D. Mother Questionnaires 163
    • School Performance and Well-being 1. How good is your child’s attendance record for school? (Circle one) 0 1 2 3 4 | | | | | Very Bad So-so Good Very Bad Good 2. How good is your child’s behavior record for school? (Circle one) 0 1 2 3 4 | | | | | Very Bad So-so Good Very Bad Good 3. How good are your child’s marks/grades for school? (Circle one) 0 1 2 3 4 | | | | | Very Bad So-so Good Very Bad Good 4. How satisfied are you with how well your child gets along with other kids around his/her age? (Circle one) 0 1 2 3 4 | | | | | Very Unsatisfied Neither Satisfied Very Unsatisfied Satisfied nor Satisfied Unsatisfied 5. How satisfied are you with your child’s appearance (his/her face, his/her body, etc.)? (Circle one) 0 1 2 3 4 | | | | | Very Unsatisfied Neither Satisfied Very Unsatisfied Satisfied nor Satisfied Unsatisfied 6. How satisfied are you with how well your child gets along with his/her sisters and brothers? (Circle one) (If he/she has no sisters/brothers, how about his/her cousins?) 0 1 2 3 4 | | | | | Very Unsatisfied Neither Satisfied Very Unsatisfied Satisfied nor Satisfied Unsatisfied 164
    • 7. How satisfied are you with your child’s school marks/grades? (Circle one) 0 1 2 3 4 | | | | | Very Unsatisfied Neither Satisfied Very Unsatisfied Satisfied nor Satisfied Unsatisfied 8. How satisfied are you with how well you and your child get along? (Circle one) 0 1 2 3 4 | | | | | Very Unsatisfied Neither Satisfied Very Unsatisfied Satisfied nor Satisfied Unsatisfied 9. How satisfied are you with how well your child gets along with his/her father? (Circle one) 0 1 2 3 4 | | | | | Very Unsatisfied Neither Satisfied Very Unsatisfied Satisfied nor Satisfied Unsatisfied 10. How satisfied are you with your child’s life in general? (Circle one) 0 1 2 3 4 | | | | | Very Unsatisfied Neither Satisfied Very Unsatisfied Satisfied nor Satisfied Unsatisfied 165
    • The Socialization Inventory of Coping (SIC) - A Part A. Please think of the last time KIDS (other people close to your child’s age) WERE MEAN TO YOUR CHILD. Maybe kids at school were mean to him/her. Maybe kids in your neighborhood were mean to him/her. Maybe they: teased him/her, or called him/her bad names, or pushed him/her around, or did something else to him/her that he/she did not like. Maybe this happened to your child yesterday, last week, last month, or before. Think real hard to remember exactly what you knew about what happened. Picture in your mind what was happening when you found out and then answer the following questions. (If your child has never had this problem, just imagine he/she is having it right now). 1. Where was your child when the problem happened? (for example, at a park, at school, etc.) _____________________________________________________________________ 2. Who was with your child when the problem happened? (for example, his/her friend, you, etc.) _____________________________________________________________________ 3. What was your child doing when the problem happened? (for example, playing, walking home, etc.) _____________________________________________________________________ 4. How much stress did your child seem to feel when he/she had the problem? (Circle one) 0 1 2 3 4 | | | | | None A little A moderate Much Very at all amount much 5. Sometimes there is nothing people can do about their problems. Other times, people have the chance to solve or fix their problems if they try. How much of a chance did your child have to solve or fix his/her problem? (Circle one) 0 1 2 3 4 | | | | | None A little A moderate Much Very at all amount much 6. When the problem happened, how much did your child think it was his/her fault? (Circle one) 0 1 2 3 4 | | | | | None A little A moderate Much Very at all amount much 7. When the problem happened, how much did your child think it was someone else’s fault? (Circle one) 0 1 2 3 4 | | | | | None A little A moderate Much Very at all amount much 166
    • 8. About how many times did your child ACTUALLY have the problem in the past week? (Circle one) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6+ 9. When people have problems, sometimes they try very much to solve them and other times they do not try very much to solve them. In general, how much did your child try to solve his/her problem? (Circle one) 0 1 2 3 4 | | | | | None A little A moderate Much Very at all amount much 10. When your child had the problem, how much did he/she think about the feelings he/she was having about the problem? (Circle one) 0 1 2 3 4 | | | | | None A little A moderate Much Very at all amount much 11. When your child had the problem, how much did he/she think about the feelings of other people involved in the problem? (Circle one) 0 1 2 3 4 | | | | | None A little A moderate Much Very at all amount much 12. When your child had the problem, how much did he/she try to solve it his/her own way? (Circle one) 0 1 2 3 4 | | | | | None A little A moderate Much Very at all amount much 13. When your child had the problem, how much did he/she agree to solve it someone else’s way? In other words, how much did he/she compromise or cooperate with other people in solving his/her problem? (Circle one) 0 1 2 3 4 | | | | | None A little A moderate Much Very at all amount much 14. When your child had the problem, what did you DISCOURAGE him/her from doing to try to fix it? (Please write at least three things your child wanted to do to fix his/her problem, but you discouraged him/her from doing.) ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ 167
    • 15. When your child had the problem, what did you DISCOURAGE him/her from doing to feel better? (Please write at least three things your child wanted to do to feel better about his/her problem, but you discouraged him/her from doing.) ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ 16. When your child had the problem, what did you ENCOURAGE him/her to do to try to fix it? (Please write at least three things you encouraged your child to do to fix his/her problem.) ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ 17. When your child had the problem, what did you ENCOURAGE him/her to do to feel better? (Please write at least three things you encouraged your child to do to feel better about his/her problem.) ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Part B. When people have problems they can do many different things. When your child had the problem we just asked you about (kids were mean to him/her), how much did you discourage or encourage each of the following things? (Circle only one answer for each question) -2 -1 0 1 2 | | | | | I greatly I somewhat I NEITHER I somewhat I greatly DIScouraged DIScouraged discouraged nor ENcouraged Encouraged my child my child encouraged my my child my child child 1. to laugh or joke aloud - to help fix the problem. -2 -1 0 1 2 2. to think about why the problem happened. -2 -1 0 1 2 168
    • When people have problems they can do many different things. When your child had the problem we just asked you about (kids were mean to him/her), how much did you discourage or encourage each of the following things? (Circle only one answer for each question) -2 -1 0 1 2 | | | | | I greatly I somewhat I NEITHER I somewhat I greatly DIScouraged DIScouraged discouraged nor ENcouraged ENcouraged my child my child encouraged my my child my child child 3. to try to hurt or do harm to someone’s body or someone’s stuff - without that person knowing it - so he/she (my child) would feel better. -2 -1 0 1 2 4. to day-dream about something and forgot all about the problem - so he/she would feel better. -2 -1 0 1 2 5. to try to get someone to feel guilty or to feel sorry for him/her - so he/she (my child) would feel better. -2 -1 0 1 2 6. to try to annoy someone in a “light” or “indirect” way (for example: to make someone wait for him/her; to purposely forget to do something for someone; to hide something someone was looking for; to be sarcastically polite to someone, etc.) - so he/she (my child) would feel better. -2 -1 0 1 2 7. to ignore or try to get away from the problem, by not thinking about it - so he/she would feel better. -2 -1 0 1 2 8. to try to think of the problem as a good challenge. -2 -1 0 1 2 9. to take blame for the problem and/or to say sorry - so he/she (my child) would feel better. -2 -1 0 1 2 10. to have something to eat or drink - so he/she would feel better. -2 -1 0 1 2 11. to think about all the things he/she could possibly do to fix the problem. -2 -1 0 1 2 12. to get angry and yell and/or hit something (in front of someone) - to help fix the problem. -2 -1 0 1 2 169
    • When people have problems they can do many different things. When your child had the problem we just asked you about (kids were mean to him/her), how much did you discourage or encourage each of the following things? (Circle only one answer for each question) -2 -1 0 1 2 | | | | | I greatly I somewhat I NEITHER I somewhat I greatly DIScouraged DIScouraged discouraged nor ENcouraged ENcouraged my child my child encouraged my my child my child child 13. to say bad things directly to someone’s face - so he/she (my child) would feel better. -2 -1 0 1 2 14. to get more information about the problem. -2 -1 0 1 2 15. to tell him/herself to divide the problem and take it “one step at a time.” -2 -1 0 1 2 16. to sit down and do something fun like: watch TV, listen to music, or play a game - so he/she would feel better. -2 -1 0 1 2 17. to imagine that he/she could easily solve the problem. -2 -1 0 1 2 18. to talk to me or to someone else - so he/she (my child) would feel better. -2 -1 0 1 2 19. to try to directly hurt or do harm to someone’s body or someone’s stuff - so he/she (my child) would feel better. -2 -1 0 1 2 20. to try to be cheerful or happy in front of someone, or to do nice things for someone - so he/she (my child) would feel better. -2 -1 0 1 2 21. to tell someone a lie (good or bad) - to help fix the problem. -2 -1 0 1 2 22. to try to hurt or do harm to someone’s feelings - without that person knowing it - to help fix the problem. -2 -1 0 1 2 170
    • 23. to come to me or to go to be with someone - to help fix the problem. -2 -1 0 1 2 When people have problems they can do many different things. When your child had the problem we just asked you about (kids were mean to him/her), how much did you discourage or encourage each of the following things? (Circle only one answer for each question) -2 -1 0 1 2 | | | | | I greatly I somewhat I NEITHER I somewhat I greatly DIScouraged DIScouraged discouraged nor ENcouraged Encouraged my child my child encouraged my my child my child child 24. to make a plan to solve the problem. -2 -1 0 1 2 25. to talk to me or to someone else - to help fix the problem. -2 -1 0 1 2 26. to tell him/herself to keep trying as hard as he/she can. -2 -1 0 1 2 27. to try to directly hurt or do harm to someone’s body or someone’s stuff - to help fix the problem. -2 -1 0 1 2 28. to cry and show sad feelings in front of someone - so he/she (my child) would feel better. -2 -1 0 1 2 29. to come to me or to go to be with someone else - so he/she (my child) would feel better. -2 -1 0 1 2 30. to tell someone a lie (good or bad) - so he/she (my child) would feel better. -2 -1 0 1 2 31. to try to directly annoy someone by doing things like poking him/her, grabbing at his/her things, making faces at him/her - to help fix the problem. -2 -1 0 1 2 32. to pray to God, or to a relative who is no longer living, or to some other spirit - to help fix the problem. -2 -1 0 1 2 171
    • 33. to try to annoy someone in a “light” or “indirect” way (for example: to make someone wait for him/her; to purposely forget to do something for someone; to hide something someone was looking for; to be sarcastically polite to someone, etc.) - to help fix the problem. -2 -1 0 1 2 When people have problems they can do many different things. When your child had the problem we just asked you about (kids were mean to him/her), how much did you discourage or encourage each of the following things? (Circle only one answer for each question) -2 -1 0 1 2 | | | | | I greatly I somewhat I NEITHER I somewhat I greatly DIScouraged DIScouraged discouraged nor ENcouraged ENcouraged my child my child encouraged my my child my child child 34. to try to think what would work best to fix the problem. -2 -1 0 1 2 35. to try to get someone to feel guilty or to feel sorry for him/her - to help fix the problem. -2 -1 0 1 2 36. to say bad things directly to someone’s face - to help fix the problem. -2 -1 0 1 2 37. to try to hurt or do harm to someone’s feelings - without that person knowing it - so he/she (my child) would feel better. -2 -1 0 1 2 38. to tell someone that the problem was his or her fault and/or to tell someone to say sorry - so he/she (my child) would feel better. -2 -1 0 1 2 39. to take blame for the problem and and/or to say sorry - to help fix the problem. -2 -1 0 1 2 40. to hold or play with his/her pet or stuffed animal - so he/she would feel better. -2 -1 0 1 2 41. to try to focus on his/her breathing and make it right. -2 -1 0 1 2 172
    • 42. to try to be polite or humble, or to show respect or honor - so he/she (my child) would feel better. -2 -1 0 1 2 43. to tell someone that the problem was his or her fault and/or to tell someone to say sorry - to help fix the problem. -2 -1 0 1 2 44. to cry and show sad feelings in front of someone - to help fix the problem. -2 -1 0 1 2 When people have problems they can do many different things. When your child had the problem we just asked you about (kids were mean to him/her), how much did you discourage or encourage each of the following things? (Circle only one answer for each question) -2 -1 0 1 2 | | | | | I greatly I somewhat I NEITHER I somewhat I greatly DIScouraged DIScouraged discouraged nor ENcouraged ENcouraged my child my child encouraged my my child my child child 45. to try to hurt or do harm to someone’s body or someone’s stuff - without that person knowing it - to help fix the problem. -2 -1 0 1 2 46. to tell him/herself the problem would be over in a short time. -2 -1 0 1 2 47. to get angry and yell and/or hit something (in front of someone) - so he/she (my child) would feel better. -2 -1 0 1 2 48. to try to remember what he/she did last time he/she had a similar problem. -2 -1 0 1 2 49. to take a nap or go to bed early - so he/she would feel better. -2 -1 0 1 2 50. to try to directly annoy someone by doing things like poking him/her, grabbing at his/her things, making faces at him/her, etc. - so he/she (my child) would feel better. -2 -1 0 1 2 51. to try to be cheerful or happy in front of someone, or to do nice things for someone - to help fix the problem. 173
    • -2 -1 0 1 2 52. to do something physically active like: ride his/her bike, go for a walk, or play sports - so he/she would feel better. -2 -1 0 1 2 53. to get angry and yell and/or hit something (but alone or in privacy) - so he/she would feel better. -2 -1 0 1 2 54. to tell him/herself that the problem is not so bad; that it could be worse. -2 -1 0 1 2 When people have problems they can do many different things. When your child had the problem we just asked you about (kids were mean to him/her), how much did you discourage or encourage each of the following things? (Circle only one answer for each question) -2 -1 0 1 2 | | | | | I greatly I somewhat I NEITHER I somewhat I greatly DIScouraged DIScouraged discouraged nor ENcouraged ENcouraged my child my child encouraged my my child my child child 55. to try to calm down. -2 -1 0 1 2 56. to imagine what I or someone else would do if they had the same problem. -2 -1 0 1 2 57. to laugh or joke aloud - so he/she (my child) would feel better. -2 -1 0 1 2 58. to try to be patient and “put up” with things the way they are. -2 -1 0 1 2 59. to smoke cigarettes, drink alcohol, take some pills, or take some kind of drug (not medicine) - so he/she would feel better. -2 -1 0 1 2 60. to go off by him/herself to get away from other people - to help fix the problem. -2 -1 0 1 2 174
    • 61. to pretend there was not a problem - so he/she would feel better. -2 -1 0 1 2 62. to pray to God, or to a relative who is no longer living, or to some other spirit - so he/she would feel better. -2 -1 0 1 2 63. to try to be polite or humble, or to show respect or honor - to help fix the problem. -2 -1 0 1 2 64. to go off by him/herself to get away from other people - so he/she (my child) would feel better. -2 -1 0 1 2 65. to cry (but alone or in privacy) - so he/she would feel better. -2 -1 0 1 2 175
    • Additional 3 Scenarios Used in Part A of the Socialization Inventory of Coping The Socialization Inventory of Coping (SIC) - B Please think of the last time you knew YOUR CHILD HAD AN ARGUMENT WITH HIS/HER SISTER/BROTHER. (If he/she does not have any sisters or brothers, think of an argument your child had with one of his/her cousins). Maybe this argument happened yesterday, last week, last month, or before then. Think real hard to remember exactly what happened. Picture the argument in your mind and then answer the following questions. (If your child has never had this problem, just imagine he/she is having it right now). The Socialization Inventory of Coping (SIC) - C Please think of the last time you knew YOUR CHILD GOT WORRIED ABOUT HAVING A LOT OF SCHOOL WORK TO DO. Maybe he/she had a large homework assignment to do or an important test to study for. Maybe this happened to your child yesterday, last week, last month, or before. Think real hard to remember exactly what you knew about what happened. Picture in your mind what was happening when you found out and then answer the following questions. (If your child has never had this problem, just imagine he/she is having it right now). The Socialization Inventory of Coping (SIC) - D Please think of the last time YOU THOUGHT YOUR CHILD MIGHT BE UPSET ABOUT HIS OR HER APPEARANCE. Maybe he/she felt overweight. Maybe he/she felt unattractive or ugly. Maybe he/she did not like something else about how he/she looked. Maybe this happened to your child yesterday, last week, last month, or before. Think real hard to remember exactly what you knew about what happened. Picture in your mind what was happening when you found out and then answer the following questions. (If your child has never had this problem, just imagine he/she is having it right now). 176
    • Appendix E. Japanese Versions of Questionnaires For further information contact the author: dkilburg@condor.depaul.edu www.depaul.edu/~dkilburg 177