Discussion

GenderDifferencesinCopingStragies.pdf

Home >Psychology homework help >Discussion

Gender Differences in Coping Strategies in Children and Adolescents

Heike Eschenbeck1, Carl-Walter Kohlmann1, and Arnold Lohaus2

1University of Education Schwäbisch Gmünd, Germany, 2University of Bielefeld, Germany

Abstract. The present study focuses on gender effects and interactions between gender, type of stressful situation, and age-group in coping strategies in childhood and adolescence. The sample consisted of N = 1990 children and adolescents (957 boys, 1033 girls; grade levels 3–8). Participants responded to a coping questionnaire (Fragebogen zur Erhebung von Stress und Stressbewältigung im Kindes- und Jugendalter, SSKJ 3–8; Lohaus, Eschenbeck, Kohlmann, & Klein-Heßling, 2006) with the five subscales: seeking social support, problem solving, avoidant coping, palliative emotion regulation, and anger-related emotion regulation. Repeated measures ANOVAs with Gender and Grade Level as the between-subject factors and Situation (social, academic) as the within-subject factor were performed separately for each of the subscales. In general, girls scored higher in seeking social support and problem solving, whereas boys scored higher in avoidant coping. These three main effects were further modified by significant Gender x Situation interactions and for both seeking social support and avoidant coping by significant Gender x Situation x Grade Level interactions. Compared to the academic situation (homework), gender differences were more pronounced for the social situation (argument with a friend), especially in adoles- cence. The results are discussed with respect to a gender-specific development of coping strategies.

Keywords: coping, gender, stressor, children, adolescents

Introduction The way in which people cope with stressful situations is important for the impact of stress on adjustment and health (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984a). Although there is a need for increased consensus in conceptualization and operational- ization of coping strategies with regard to measurement (e.g., coping in specific stressful situations vs. coping style, for an example see Weyers, Ising, Reuter, & Janke, 2005; for a review see Folkman & Moskowitz, 2004) and dimen- sions of coping (for reviews see Compas, Connor-Smith, Saltzman, Harding Thomsen, & Wadsworth, 2001; Skin- ner, Edge, Altman, & Sherwood, 2003), two conceptual frameworks are widely used: problem- versus emotion-fo- cused coping (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984b) and approach versus avoidance coping (Krohne, 1993; Roth & Cohen, 1986). There is, however, substantial overlap between the two frameworks. Like problem-focused coping, approach coping involves direct strategies to alter the stressful situ- ation. The opposite is seen in emotion-focused coping and avoidance, which refer to more indirect efforts to adjust to the stressor by palliating feelings or avoiding the stressor.

In the literature on coping among children and adoles- cents studies often include coping strategies from both frameworks simultaneously (see for a review Compas et al., 2001). The coping strategies most often considered the- oretically and empirically as more central dimensions are: problem solving (including approach and problem-focused strategies), support seeking (including instrumental as well as emotional support from others), avoidance (including efforts to disengage from the stressor), distraction (includ-

ing a wide variety of alternative pleasurable activities), and emotion regulation (Compas et al., 2001; Skinner et al., 2003). For example, using confirmatory factor analysis in fourth- through sixth-grade children, Ayers, Sandler, West, and Roosa (1996) identified four factors that provided a good fit (CFI of .96): active strategies (e.g., problem solv- ing), distraction (distracting actions, physical release of emotions), avoidance (cognitive avoidance, avoidant ac- tion), and support-seeking (emotion-focused and problem- focused support). Similarly, in the present study coping in third- through eighth-grade children was operationalized by five dimensions (CFIs from .94 to .96; Eschenbeck, Kohlmann, Lohaus, & Klein-Heßling, 2006): seeking so- cial support, problem solving, avoidant coping, palliative emotion regulation (related to relaxation and distraction), and anger-related emotion regulation (related to external- izing feelings of anger and fury).

Research concerning gender differences that may influ- ence coping in children and adolescents revealed mixed results (Compas et al., 2001). In the adult literature, gender differences in coping strategies are well-documented (e.g., Kohlmann, Egloff, & Hock, 2001; for a review see Tamres, Janicki, & Helgeson, 2002). Furthermore, gender differ- ences in coping have been discussed with regard to their relevance for gender differences in health and health be- haviors (Kohlmann, Weidner, Dotzauer, & Burns, 1997; Weidner & Collins, 1993). However, developmental as- pects (e.g., cognitive, affective, social), lack of experience as well as aspects of environment (e.g., dependence on adults), and gender socialization may contribute to differ- ences in coping processes between children and adoles-

cents compared to adults (see Compas et al., 2001; Fields & Prinz, 1997).

Within adolescence, gender differences in coping have typically been found for seeking social support: female ado- lescents reported higher scores than male adolescents (Ebata & Moos, 1994; Frydenberg & Lewis, 1993; Hampel & Peter- mann, 2005; Patterson & McCubbin, 1987; Roecker, Dubow, & Donaldson, 1996; Seiffge-Krenke & Shulman, 1990; Stark, Spirito, Williams, & Guevremont, 1989). Findings for the other coping strategies are a bit less consistent. For exam- ple, females showed more active approach coping strategies than males (e.g., Frydenberg & Lewis, 1993; Griffith, Du- bow, & Ippolito, 2000; Herman-Stahl, Stemmler, & Petersen, 1995; Winkler Metzke & Steinhausen, 2002; for an excep- tion, see Hampel & Petermann, 2005). In contrast, male ad- olescents were more likely to use avoidant coping strategies (e.g., Hampel & Petermann, 2005 for cognitive avoidance; Roecker et al., 1996; Stark et al., 1989; Winkler Metzke & Steinhausen, 2002). However, other studies found that fe- males had higher scores in avoidant coping (Frydenberg & Lewis, 1993; Griffith et al., 2000). Regarding emotion regu- lation strategies, females, particularly in early adolescence, used less distraction/recreation and more aggression than their male counterparts (Hampel & Petermann, 2005). Com- pas, Malcarne, and Fondacaro (1988) reported greater usage of emotion-focused strategies by females compared to males in response to academic stressors.

Less is known on gender differences in childhood. Some studies (e.g., Altshuler & Ruble, 1989; Band & Weisz, 1988; Curry & Russ, 1985; Spirito, Stark, Grace, & Sta- moulis, 1991 for self-generated stressors) found no differ- ences in coping styles between girls and boys. However, other studies showed – comparable, in part, with research on adolescents – that girls used more social-support seek- ing and problem-solving coping than boys (Causey & Du- bow, 1992; Eschenbeck & Kohlmann, 2002; Spirito et al., 1991 for the standard stressor being grounded by parents), whereas boys used more distancing and externalizing cop- ing (Causey & Dubow, 1992).

To summarize, research has reported gender differences in the use of coping strategies among children and adoles- cents. However, the findings are mixed. It is difficult to compare different studies on stress and coping because of a variety of different definitions and measurements of cop- ing, different stressors, different age groups, as well as dif- ferent age ranges. As a consequence, factors that might in- fluence the inconsistencies with regard to gender differenc- es in coping strategies in children and adolescents should be addressed. Thereby, concerning coping strategies, the most consistent results were found for gender differences

within the three coping strategies: seeking social support (females > males), problem solving (females > males), and avoidant coping (tendency: males > females), respectively. Further, as documented above, in terms of age or develop- mental level gender differences seem to become more ev- ident in adolescence compared to childhood. Moreover, characteristics of the stressful situation may influence gen- der differences in coping strategies among children and ad- olescents.

Coping behavior has to be seen in relation to the demands of the stressful situation (for adults see Folkman & Mosko- witz, 2004; Krohne, 2003; Lazarus, 1983). Coping question- naires for children and adolescents (i.e., stimulus-response inventories) often include normative social stressors (e.g., conflict with a friend) and normative academic stressors (e.g., difficult exam or to much homework; Causey & Dubow, 1992; Hampel & Petermann, 2005; see for a review Compas et al., 2001) as ego-threatening situations (in contrast to phys- ically threatening situations; for adults see the review by Tamres et al., 2002, who examined the four stressor catego- ries relationship, achievement, personal health, and others’ health). Regarding gender differences in coping strategies in relation to the stressful situation, for example, Griffith et al. (2000) showed that – with the exception of avoidance coping for school stressors – female adolescents reported higher lev- els of both approach and avoidance coping strategies for the three stressor domains family, school, and peers compared to male adolescents. Likewise, a study in late childhood by Cau- sey and Dubow (1992) indicated situation-dependent gender differences1: Girls used more social-support seeking, prob- lem solving, and internalizing emotion regulation than boys, especially when coping with a peer argument compared to coping with a poor grade.

Studies on gender differences in coping strategies, which investigate gender and situation simultaneously in a large sample of children and adolescents and take interaction ef- fects into account (e.g., Hampel & Petermann, 2005), are rare. Thus, the main purpose of the present study was a de- tailed analysis of gender differences in five central coping strategies (i.e., support seeking, problem solving, avoidant coping, palliative emotion regulation, and anger-related emo- tion regulation) in childhood and adolescence. In line with the literature, we expected gender differences especially for support seeking (females > males), problem solving (females > males), and avoidant coping (males > females). Moreover, we evaluated interaction effects with age and type of stressful situation and expected stronger gender differences in adoles- cence compared to late childhood and stronger gender differ- ences (particularly for avoidant coping) for the social stressor compared to the academic stressor.

H. Eschenbeck et al.: Coping in Children and Adolescents 19

� Although not systematically analyzed the authors reported the following F-values (1, 480) for gender differences in coping strategies for the two situations “peer argument” and “poor grade” (p. 53): seeking social support, 23.64 (argument), 15.12 (poor grade); problem solving, 17.89 (argument), 6.59 (poor grade); distancing/avoidant coping, 4.85 (argument), 6.86 (poor grade); internalizing, 19.66 (argument), 0.24 (poor grade); externalizing, 10.70 (argument), 8.82 (poor grade). For the coping strategies seeking social support, problem solving, and internalizing F-values representing gender differences are more pronounced for the argument situation as compared to the poor grade situation.

Method

Participants and Procedure

Data were collected from 1990 children and adolescents (957 boys, 1033 girls) from primary and secondary schools in Germany. Children were from grades 3 to 8 with a mean age of 11.30 years (SD = 1.89, range 7–16 years). Follow- ing Hampel and Petermann (2005) participants were sub- divided into three age groups reflecting important academ- ic transitions: late childhood consisted of 644 third- and fourth-graders who attended primary schools (338 boys, 306 girls), early adolescence consisted of 672 fifth- and sixth-graders who attended secondary schools (first level; 304 boys, 368 girls), and middle adolescence consisted of 674 seventh- and eighth-graders who attended secondary schools (second level; 315 boys, 359 girls). Participants of secondary schools were from the following school types representing different education levels: grammar schools (35.4%), lower and intermediate secondary schools (49.9%), and comprehensive schools (14.7%).

Participants and their parents gave their informed con- sent prior to the start of the study. Children and adolescents completed a self-report coping questionnaire in their class- es. Measures were administered by trained students.

Measures

Coping strategies were assessed by a stimulus-response in- ventory, the revised German Stress and Coping Question- naire for Children and Adolescents (Fragebogen zur Erhe- bung von Stress und Stressbewältigung im Kindes- und Ju- gendalter, SSKJ 3–8; Lohaus et al., 2006). Participants indicated, on a 5-point rating scale ranging from never (1) to almost always (5), how often they used a variety of cop- ing strategies in response to the following two common stressful situations: (1) having an argument with a friend (a social stressor) and (2) having problems with doing home- work (an academic stressor). For each stress situation 30 coping items were provided representing five dimensions of coping (i.e., six items per dimension): seeking social support (e.g., “I ask someone for help,” α = .84 for the cross-situational coping subscale, α1 = .80 for the argument situation, α2 = .76 for the homework situation), problem solving (e.g., “I try to think of different ways to solve it,” α = .88, α1 = .83, α2 = .84), avoidant coping (e.g., “I tell myself it doesn’t matter,” α = .79, α1 = .68, α2 = .72), palliative emotion regulation (e.g., “I try to relax,” α = .87, α1 = .80, α2 = .84), and anger-related emotion regulation (e.g., “I get mad and break something,” α = .86, α1 = .80, α2 = .84). The factor analysis indicated five factors with eigenvalues > 1 (λ = 6.47, 5.53, 2.90, 1.78, 1.63, 0.95, 0.81,

. . .). The five-factor solution showed clear loadings of the items on the respective dimensions and could be confirmed by factor congruence analyses for the gender groups and for the included situations (argument with a friend, prob- lems with doing homework; Lohaus et al., 2006, see also Eschenbeck et al., 2006). The subscales seeking social sup- port, problem solving, and palliative emotion regulation were positively related to one another, as well as anger-re- lated emotion regulation and avoidant coping. Also, pallia- tive emotion regulation correlated positively with these two subscales (Lohaus et al., 2006).2

Results

To determine whether there were differential effects of gen- der on coping strategies taking grade level and type of stressful situation into account, for each coping strategy (seeking social support, problem solving, avoidant coping, palliative emotion regulation, and anger-related emotion regulation) we conducted 2 × 3 repeated measures ANO- VAs with Gender and Grade Level (grades 3 and 4, 5 and 6, 7 and 8) as the between-subject factors and Situation (social stressor, academic stressor) as the within-subject factor. With regard to the large sample size, only results with p < .01 were considered.

The analyses resulted in significant main effects for gen- der in three out of five coping strategies (see Tables 1 and 2). Girls scored higher in seeking social support and prob- lem solving, whereas boys scored higher in avoidant cop- ing. For palliative emotion regulation and anger-related emotion regulation, no gender differences were observed (see Figure 1 for a graphic display).

The main effect for grade level was significant for four coping strategies (see Tables 1 and 2): Primary school chil- dren scored lower than fifth and sixth graders in problem solving (Scheffé p < .01), fifth and sixth graders scored the lowest in avoidant coping (Scheffé p-values < .03), fifth and sixth graders scored lower than seventh and eighth graders in palliative emotion regulation (Scheffé p < .01), and seventh and eighth graders scored the highest in anger- related emotion regulation (Scheffé p-values < .001). For seeking social support, no significant effect for grade level was obtained.

Furthermore, four coping strategies (seeking social sup- port, problem solving, avoidant coping, and anger-related emotion regulation) varied as a function of situation (see Tables 1 and 2). In general, children and adolescents re- ported higher scores in the social situation (argument with a friend) than in the academic situation (problems with homework).

The three significant main effects for gender were mod-

20 H. Eschenbeck et al.: Coping in Children and Adolescents

� In addition, a brief measure of perceived stress for each stressor was applied (“How stressful will the situation – argument, homework – be?,” with 4-point scales ranging from not at all stressful to very stressful).

H. Eschenbeck et al.: Coping in Children and Adolescents 21

ified by significant interactions between gender and situa- tion. For all of these three coping strategies (seeking social support, problem solving, and avoidant coping), the gender differences were stronger for the social argument situation as compared to the academic homework situation (see Ta- bles 1 and 2).

The Gender × Grade level effect approached statistical significance only for seeking social support. The gender difference in seeking support was strongest for older par- ticipants. (There was also a significant three-way interac- tion of Gender × Grade level × Situation that will be de- scribed below.) In addition, the Grade level × Situation in- teractions were significant for problem solving and avoidant coping. Thus, problem-solving strategies were re- ported the most rarely by primary school children (i.e., grades 3 and 4) for the social situation (Scheffé p-values ≤ .001) and by primary school children (grades 3 and 4) as

well as adolescents (grades 7 and 8) for the academic homework situation (Scheffé p-values < .01). Avoidant coping was used the most often by primary school children (grades 3 and 4) for the social argument situation (Scheffé p-values ≤ .02). For the academic homework situation ad- olescents of grades 7 and 8 reported avoidant coping the most often followed by primary school children (i.e., grades 3 and 4) and early adolescence (i.e., grades 5 and 6, Scheffé p-values < .01; see Tables 1 and 2).

However, the two-way interactions for the two coping strategies seeking social support and avoidant coping were modified by a three-way interaction between gender, situ- ation, and grade level. As Figure 2 shows, the gender dif- ferences with girls reporting higher scores in seeking social support than boys, whereas boys scored higher in avoidant coping compared to girls were strongest for the social ar- gument situation in adolescents of grades 7 and 8.3

Seeking Social

Support

Problem Solving

Avoidant Coping

Palliative Emotion

Regulation

Anger- Related Emotion

Regulation

In te

ns ity

Boys Girls

Figure 1. Coping strategies (M and SD) as a function of gender (boys: n = 957, girls: n = 1033).

Table 2. Summary of ANOVA effects (F-values) and effect sizes (η2)

Coping strategies

Factor

Seeking social support

Problem solving Avoidant coping Palliative emotion regulation

Anger-related emo- tion regulation

F-value η2 F-value η2 F-value η2 F-value η2 F-value η2

Gender 276.13*** .122 76.49*** .037 46.18*** .023 1.90 .001 1.68 .001

Grade levels 2.73 .003 5.55** .006 6.51** .007 5.36** .005 17.44*** .017

Stressor 33.48*** .017 21.44*** .011 135.68*** .064 0.12 .000 194.98*** .089

Gender × Stressor 29.81*** .015 8.63** .004 13.07*** .007 3.48 .002 0.13 .000

Gender × Grade levels 5.13** .005 0.81 .001 3.74 .004 1.18 .001 1.67 .002

Grade levels × Stressor 4.16 .004 14.08*** .014 43.17*** .042 4.55 .005 0.31 .000

Gender × Stressor × Grade levels 8.51*** .009 1.20 .001 6.59*** .007 5.28** .005 2.30 .002

Note. N = 1990. **p < .01, ***p < .001.

22 H. Eschenbeck et al.: Coping in Children and Adolescents

� Additionally, we included level of perceived stress of each stressor as covariates in each analysis. With three exceptions (main effect for Situation and Gender × Situation interaction for problem solving; Gender × Grade level interaction for seeking social support) all main effects and interactions were confirmed by repeated measures ANCOVAs (p-values < .01). Females reported perceiving more stress by the two stressors than males, F(1, 1967) = 76.95, p < .001, η2 = .038, especially in the social argument situation, F(1, 1967) = 30.02, p < .001, η2 = .015. In general, the argument situation was perceived as more stressful than the homework situation, F(1, 1967) = 113.25, p < .001, η2 = .054, except for primary school children who reported no differences in situation-specific stress experience, F(2, 1967) = 19.70, p < .001, η2 = .020.

Discussion

The study revealed significant effects of gender, age, and stressful situation on coping in children and adolescents. First, situation and age effects will be discussed. The main focus, however, is on gender effects and interaction effects of gender with situation and age-group. Similar to the re- sults of other studies (e.g., Causey & Dubow, 1992; Ham- pel & Petermann, 2005), children and adolescents varied their coping strategies in response to the stressful situation. Thus, situational differences in coping have been found in four out of five coping strategies. In agreement with Ham- pel and Petermann (2005) – but (with the exception of emo- tion regulation) unlike Causey and Dubow (1992) – chil- dren and adolescents employed more problem solving, avoidant coping, and anger-related emotion regulation for the social stressor (argument with a friend) compared to the academic stressor (problems with doing homework). How- ever, in contrast to previous findings (Causey & Dubow, 1992; Hampel & Petermann, 2005), in the present study seeking support was also used more frequently for the so- cial stressor. Causey and Dubow (1992) argue that the ac- ademic stressor (poor grade) was perceived as more con- trollable than the interpersonal stressor (argument). Hence, approach or problem-focused coping strategies are more common, whereas indirect strategies may be more ade-

quate for uncontrollable stressors (e.g., Klein-Heßling & Lohaus, 2002). However, along with controllability, further characteristics of the stressful situation (as, for example, perceived significance or relevance of the stressor) might be important. Although data are lacking in the present study, it might be that children and adolescents perceive the social argument situation as more significant and engage in more coping efforts. For example, in a study by Stark et al. (1989) adolescents used twice the number of coping strategies when experiencing a problem with a boyfriend or girlfriend than a problem concerning school. In line with this, the intensity of stress experience in the argument sit- uation was perceived as more stressful than in the home- work situation, except for primary school children who re- ported no differences in situation-specific stress experi- ence. Moreover, the more public social-argument situation (compared to the private homework situation) might favor avoidant coping efforts.

In general, the present study revealed only small age differences in coping strategies. In line with some studies that found increases with age for approach or problem-fo- cused coping (e.g., Ebata & Moos, 1994; Griffith et al., 2000; for a review see Fields & Prinz, 1997), late primary school children scored lower in problem solving than ado- lescents, especially for the social stressor. In contrast, no clear age-related patterns (e.g., Causey & Dubow, 1992; Hampel & Petermann, 2005; Herman-Stahl et al., 1995;

Social Situation (Argument)

Grades 3+4 Grades 5+6 Grades 7+8

In te

ns ity

Boys Girls

Seeking Social Support

Social Situation (Argument)

Grades 3+4 Grades 5+6 Grades 7+8

In te

ns ity

Boys Girls

Avoidant Coping

Academic Situation (Homework)

Grades 3+4 Grades 5+6 Grades 7+8

In te

ns ity

Boys Girls

Seeking Social Support

Academic Situation (Homework)

Grades 3+4 Grades 5+6 Grades 7+8

In te

ns ity

Boys Girls

Avoidant Coping

Figure 2. Seeking social support and avoidant coping (M and SD) as a function of gender, situation and grade level. The cell sizes range between n = 304 and n = 368.

H. Eschenbeck et al.: Coping in Children and Adolescents 23

Winkler Metzke & Steinhausen, 2002) were shown for the academic stressor. With regard to avoidant coping, the low- est scores occurred for early adolescents implying devel- opmental decreases in avoidance (e.g., Sandler, Tein, & West, 1994; Spirito et al., 1991; Winkler Metzke & Stein- hausen, 2002) as well as increases in middle adolescence (Griffith et al., 2000). Unlike findings reported by Hampel and Petermann (2005) or Spirito et al. (1991) that emotion- focused coping (i.e., distraction, relaxation) decreased with age, in the present study adolescents of grades 7 and 8 scored higher in palliative emotion regulation compared to early adolescents (grades 5 and 6; e.g., Compas et al., 1988; Frydenberg & Lewis, 1993). Similarly, anger-related emo- tion regulation was highest in middle adolescence (Hampel & Petermann, 2005). In accordance with previous research (e.g., Causey & Dubow, 1992; Hampel & Petermann, 2005; Spirito et al., 1991) findings for social support seeking showed no simple age differences. However, gender differ- ences were central, especially for this coping strategy.

Thus, in the present study gender differences in coping strategies among children and adolescents were observed in three out of five strategies. The findings that girls report- ed higher seeking social support and problem solving whereas boys reported higher avoidant coping were in ac- cordance with prior research (e.g., Causey & Dubow, 1992; Winkler Metzke & Steinhausen, 2002). In contrast to Ham- pel and Petermann (2005) no gender differences occurred for palliative emotion regulation and anger-related emotion regulation.

Interestingly, all three of these gender differences were stronger for the social argument situation than for the aca- demic homework situation. For both seeking social support and problem solving this result is in line with Causey and Dubow (1992) even though the authors used a different academic situation (poor grade) and did not examine stress- ful situation as a within-subject factor. Contrary to our re- sults, the gender effect for avoidant coping was slightly stronger for coping with a poor grade (academic stressor) than for coping with a peer argument (social stressor). Hampel and Petermann (2005) did not find gender differ- ences that were qualified by significant Gender × Situation interactions. However, several studies that reported on self- selected problems (e.g., Herman-Stahl et al., 1995) or ag- gregated measures (e.g., Winkler Metzke & Steinhausen, 2002) did not allow for assessing the role of the stressful situation with regard to gender differences. For adult sam- ples, Tamres et al. (2002) showed in their review on gender differences in coping4 that woman were generally more likely than men to seek emotional support, to ruminate, to engage in positive self-talk, and to report active, problem- focused coping. Moreover, matching the findings of the

present study, the type of stressful situation influenced gen- der differences in avoidant coping: With relationship stressors (i.e., social stressors) men were more likely than women to use venting and avoidance. Thus, it appears that it would be valuable to take the contextual factor situation (including differences in perceived characteristics of the stressful situation; see section above) more seriously when studying gender differences in coping. Moreover, for the comparison of studies on coping in children and adoles- cents it is important to know which stressful situations are targeted in the assessment.

In the present study, findings on gender differences for seeking social support and avoidance when coping with a peer argument emerged particularly clear for middle ado- lescence compared to late childhood. In accordance with the literature reviewed above (e.g., Stark et al., 1989; Seiff- ge-Krenke & Shulman, 1990; see also Tamres et al., 2002) more consistent findings regarding gender differences might have been expected especially for adolescents as compared to children, potentially reflecting gender social- ization. Therefore, future studies should acknowledge po- tential developmental changes in gender differences from childhood to adolescence. Considering the amount of liter- ature regarding main effects of age and gender in coping strategies it is noteworthy that there are only a few studies dealing with interaction effects (i.e., the combined influ- ence of individual and contextual factors).

Several limitations of the present study are noteworthy. The findings were based on self-report data. Thus, it cannot be excluded that gender-specific response styles influence self-reported coping strategies. However, Causey and Du- bow (1992) reported virtually the same pattern of gender differences in coping strategies for self-reported coping compared to peer-rated coping. Correlations between re- ports of parents’ and adolescents’ self-reports on a measure of coping were very moderate (e.g., Connor-Smith, Com- pas, Wadsworth, Harding Thomsen, & Saltzman, 2000). Nevertheless, multiple informants’ ratings (e.g., child, peer, teacher, parents) on coping behavior could be taken into account in future studies. Also, information regarding situational parameters (e.g., perceived controllability, stressfulness, significance, social context) that may influ- ence gender differences in coping should be assessed in more detail. In addition, the cross-sectional data prevent investigating in more depth the role of development (i.e., change and/or stability) regarding gender differences in coping strategies among children and adolescents. Longi- tudinal designs are desirable for future research.

To summarize, this study provides evidence of gender differences in childhood and adolescence for the three most central coping strategies of seeking social support, problem

24 H. Eschenbeck et al.: Coping in Children and Adolescents

� In their meta-analytic review, Tamres et al. (2002) defined 17 specific coping strategies reflecting the five studied dimensions problem solving (e.g., active coping, planning), support seeking (e.g., seek social support instrumental or emotional), avoidant coping (e.g., avoidance, denial), palliative emotion regulation/distraction (e.g., exercise) and anger-related emotion regulation (venting) as well as more cognitive types of coping (e.g., positive reappraisal, rumination) that were not targeted in our study with children and adolescents from grades 3 to 8 (see Losoya, Eisenberg, & Fabes, 1998 for age-related changes in the types of coping assessed).

solving, and avoidant coping. However, both stressful sit- uation and age-group showed influences: gender differenc- es emerged especially for coping with a peer argument (so- cial stressor) in middle adolescence (i.e., grades 7 and 8). Future research on gender differences in childhood and ad- olescence should broaden the focus from individual differ- ences in coping strategies to specific associations between coping strategies and health behaviors and take develop- mental changes as well as situational differences into ac- count.

References

Altshuler, J.L., & Ruble, D.N. (1989). Developmental changes in children’s awareness of strategies for coping with uncontrol- lable stress. Child Development, 60, 1337–1349.

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.

Band, E.B., & Weisz, J.R. (1988). How to feel better when it feels bad: Children’s perspectives on coping with everyday stress. Developmental Psychology, 24, 247–253.

Causey, D.L., & Dubow, E.F. (1992). Development of a self-re- port coping measure for elementary school children. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 21, 47–59.

Compas, B.E., Connor-Smith, J.K., Saltzman, H., Thomsen, A., & Wadsworth, M.E. (2001). Coping with stress during child- hood and adolescence: Problems, progress, and potential in theory and research. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 87–127.

Compas, B.E., Malcarne, V.L., & Fondacaro, K.M. (1988). Coping with stressful events in older children and young adolescents. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56, 405–411.

Connor-Smith, J.K., Compas, B.E., Wadsworth, M.E., Harding Thomsen, A., & Saltzman, H. (2000). Responses to stress in adolescence: Measurement of coping and involuntary stress responses. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68, 976–992.

Curry, S.L., & Russ, S.W. (1985). Identifying coping strategies in children. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 14, 61–69.

Ebata, A.T., & Moos, R.H. (1994). Personal, situational, and con- textual correlates of coping in adolescents. Journal of Re- search on Adolescence, 4, 99–125.

Eschenbeck, H., & Kohlmann, C.-W. (2002). Geschlechtsunter- schiede in der Stressbewältigung von Grundschulkindern [Gender differences in coping strategies in childhood]. Zeit- schrift für Gesundheitspsychologie, 10, 1–7.

Eschenbeck, H., Kohlmann, C.-W., Lohaus, A., & Klein-Heßling, J. (2006). Die Diagnostik von Stressbewältigung mit dem “Fragebogen zur Erhebung von Stress und Stressbewältigung im Kindes- und Jugendalter” (SSKJ 3–8): Faktorielle und psy- chometrische Analysen [The assessment of coping with the “German Stress and Coping Questionnaire in Children and Adolescents” (SSKJ 3–8): Factorial and psychometric analy- ses]. Diagnostica, 52, 131–142.

Fields, L., & Prinz, R.J. (1997). Coping and adjustment during childhood and adolescence. Clinical Psychology Review, 17, 937–976.

Folkman, S., & Moskowitz, J.T. (2004). Coping: Pitfalls and promise. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 745–774.

Frydenberg, E., & Lewis, R. (1993). Boys play sport and girls turn to others: Age, gender, and ethnicity as determinants of coping. Journal of Adolescence, 16, 253–266.

Griffith, M.A., Dubow, E.F., & Ippolito, M.F. (2000). Develop- mental and cross-situational differences in adolescents’ coping strategies. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 29, 183–204.

Hampel, P., & Petermann, F. (2005). Age and gender effects on coping in children and adolescents. Journal of Youth and Ad- olescence, 34, 73–83.

Herman-Stahl, M.A., Stemmler, M., & Petersen, A.C. (1995). Ap- proach and avoidant coping: Implications for adolescent men- tal health. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 24, 649–665.

Klein-Heßling, J., & Lohaus, A. (2002). Zur situationalen Ange- messenheit der Bewältigung von Alltagsbelastungen im Kin- des- und Jugendalter [The situational adaptivity of coping with daily hassles in childhood and adolescence]. Kindheit und Ent- wicklung, 11, 29–37.

Kohlmann, C.-W., Egloff, B., & Hock, M. (2001). Gender differ- ences in coping strategies in students from Germany and the USA. In G. Weidner, M. Kopp, & M. Kristenson (Eds.), Heart disease: Environment, stress, and gender (pp. 275–283). Am- sterdam: IOS Press.

Kohlmann, C.-W., Weidner, G., Dotzauer, E., & Burns, L.R. (1997). Gender differences in health behaviors: The role of avoidant coping. European Review of Applied Psychology, 47, 115–120.

Krohne, H.W. (1993). Vigilance and cognitive avoidance as con- cepts in coping research. In H.W. Krohne (Ed.), Attention and avoidance: Strategies in coping with aversiveness (pp. 19–50). Seattle: Hogrefe & Huber.

Krohne, H.W. (2003). Individual differences in emotional reactions and coping. In R.J. Davidson, K.R. Scherer, & H.H. Goldsmith (Eds.), Handbook of affective sciences (pp. 698–725). New York: Oxford University Press.

Lazarus, R.S. (1983). The costs and benefits of denial. In S. Brez- nitz (Ed.), The denial of stress (pp. 1–30). New York: Interna- tional Universities Press.

Lazarus, R.S., & Folkman, S. (1984a). Coping and adaptation. In W.D. Gentry (Ed.), The handbook of behavioral medicine (pp. 282–325). New York: Guilford.

Lazarus, R.S., & Folkman, S. (1984b). Stress, appraisal, and cop- ing. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Lohaus, A., Eschenbeck, H., Kohlmann, C.-W., & Klein-Heßling, J. (2006). Fragebogen zur Erhebung von Stress und Stressbe- wältigung bei Kindern und Jugendlichen (SSKJ 3–8) [The German Stress and Coping Questionnaire for Children and Ad- olescents]. Göttingen: Hogrefe.

Losoya, S., Eisenberg, N., & Fabes, R.A. (1998). Developmental issues in the study of coping. International Journal of Behav- ioral Development, 22, 287–313.

Patterson, J.M., & McCubbin, H.I. (1987). Adolescent coping style and behaviors: Conceptualization and measurement. American Journal of Community Psychology, 18, 793–824.

Roecker, C.E., Dubow, E.F., & Donaldson, D. (1996). Cross-situa- tional patterns in children’s coping with observed interpersonal conflict. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 25, 288–299.

Roth, S., & Cohen, L.J. (1986). Approach, avoidance, and coping with stress. American Psychologist, 41, 813–819.

Sandler, I.N., Tein, J., & West, S.G. (1994). Coping, stress, and

H. Eschenbeck et al.: Coping in Children and Adolescents 25

the psychological symptoms of children of divorce: A cross- sectional and longitudinal study. Child Development, 65, 1744–1763.

Seiffge-Krenke, I., & Shulman, S. (1990). Coping style in ado- lescents. A cross-cultural study. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 21, 351–377.

Skinner, E.A., Edge, K., Altman, J., & Sherwood, H. (2003). Searching for the structure of coping: A review and critique of category systems for classifying ways of coping. Psychologi- cal Bulletin, 129, 216–269.

Spirito, A., Stark, L.J., Grace, N., & Stamoulis, D. (1991). Com- mon problems and coping strategies reported in childhood and early adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 20, 531–544.

Stark, L.J., Spirito, A., Williams, C.A., & Guevremont, D.C. (1989). Common problems and coping strategies I: Findings with normal adolescents. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychol- ogy, 17, 203–212.

Tamres, L.K., Janicki, D., & Helgeson, V.S. (2002). Sex differ- ences in coping behavior: A meta-analytic review and an ex- amination of relative coping. Personality and Social Psychol- ogy Review, 6, 2–30.

Weidner, G., & Collins, R.L. (1993). Gender, coping, and health.

In H.W. Krohne (Ed.), Attention and avoidance: Strategies in coping with aversiveness (pp. 241–265). Seattle: Hogrefe & Huber.

Weyers, P., Ising, M., Reuter, M., & Janke, W. (2005). Comparing two approaches for the assessment of coping. Part I. Psycho- metric properties and intercorrelations. Journal of Individual Differences, 26, 207–212.

Winkler Metzke, C., & Steinhausen, H.-C. (2002). Bewältigungs- strategien im Jugendalter [Coping strategies in adolescence]. Zeitschrift für Entwicklungspsychologie und Pädagogische Psychologie, 34, 216–226.

Heike Eschenbeck

Department of Psychology University of Education Schwäbisch Gmünd Oberbettringer Str. 200 D-73525 Schwäbisch Gmünd Germany E-mail eschenbeck@ph-gmuend.de

26 H. Eschenbeck et al.: Coping in Children and Adolescents