How to do this Annotated Bibliography on Multi-generational Families

Psychology and Aging 1997, Vol. 12, No. 1 , 1 1 5 - 1 2 4

Copyright 1997 by the Am i Psychological Association, Inc. 0882-7974/97/S3.00

Coping Strategies of People Living in Multigenerational Households: Effects on Well-Being

Rachel A. Pruchno Philadelphia Geriatric Center

Christopher J. Burant Myers Research Institute of Menorah Park

Center for the Aging

Norah D. Peters Philadelphia Geriatric Center

Analyses examined whether information about the coping strategies used by family memberc adds

to an understanding about the psychological well-being of individuals. Data from 140 women and

their husbands and children who were living in multigenerational households that included a disabled

older relative indicated that for the women and children, the best predictors of depression, positive

affect, and mastery were their own coping strategies; the coping strategies used by other family

members did not add significantly to the predictive equation. For husbands, however, depression was

predicted by both their own coping strategies and the coping strategies of their wives. Husbands'

positive affect was predicted only by the coping strategies of their wives and children, and their

mastery was predicted by their own coping strategies and those of their wives and children.

Coping strategies and their relationship to outcomes such as

psychological well-being typically have been approached from

the perspective of the individual, with little consideration given

to the interpersonal contexts in which people cope (Coyne,

Aldwin, & Lazarus, 1981; Folkman & Lazarus, 1986; Mitchell,

Cronkite, & Moos, 1983; Pearlin, Lieberman, Menaghan, &

Mullan, 1981; Pearlin & Schooler, 1978). Yet, because most

individuals who cope with stressful situations do so within the

context of interpersonal relationships, it is important to under-

stand the ways in which coping strategies used by family mem-

bers can affect the relationship between an individual's coping

strategies and his or her psychological well-being. In this study,

we focused on three family members—women, their husbands,

and a child—and investigated the ways in which coping strate-

gies used by family members affected the psychological well-

being of the involved individuals.

Coping Strategies and Outcomes Among

Caregiving Families

A rich tradition of studies focusing on coping strategies

within the arena of caregiving suggests trends that may be

useful for understanding coping within these families. First,

greater use of emotion-focused coping strategies (strategies

Rachel A. Pruchno and Norah D. Peters, Philadelphia Geriatric Center,

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Christopher J. Burant, Myers Research Insti-

tute of Menorah Park Center for the Aging, Beachwood, Ohio. Norah

D. Peters is now at the Department of Sociology and Anthropology,

Beaver College.

This research was supported by Grant PO1 MH43371 from the Na-

tional Institute of Mental Health.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Rachel

A. Pruchno, who is now at the Center on Aging, Bradley University,

141 Jobst Hall, Peoria, Illinois 61625.

directed toward regulating the individual's emotional re-

sponse to the problem) has been found to be significantly

related to increased psychological symptoms (Quayhagen &

Quayhagen, 1988; Stephens, Norris, Kinney, Ritchie, &

Grotz, 1988; Wright, Lund, Pratt, & Caserta, 1987). Second,

strategies in which the individual accepts the situation or

reframes the situation have been associated with decreased

levels of psychological symptoms (Pratt, Schmall, Wright, &

Cleland, 1985; Stephens et al., 1988). Finally, planful prob-

lem solving, instrumental action, or approach coping, an ac-

tive problem-solving approach, has been shown to have nega-

tive relationships with psychological symptoms (Aldwin &

Revenson, 1987; Billings & Moos, 1981; Haley, Levine,

Brown, & Bartolucci, 1987).

Multigenerational households that include a dependent older

adult provide an important context in which to study the rela-

tionship between coping strategies and well-being, because re-

search has shown that it is in these households that the highest

level of caregiver strain exists (Brody, Hoffman, Kleban, &

Schoonover, 1989; Brubaker & Brubaker, 1981; Cantor, 1980;

Noelker & Poulshock, 1982). Households shared by disabled

older people and their younger family members are associated

with "heavier care" (Horowitz, 1982; Lang & Brody, 1983;

Reece, Waltz, & Hageboeck, 1983), greater likelihood of de-

terred labor-force participation for the caregiver (Brody et al.,

1989; Soldo & Myllyluoma, 1983), poorer health on the part of

the older person (Lawton, Moss, & Kleban, 1984), and greater

likelihood of intergeneradonal conflict (Shanas, 1979). There

is also evidence suggesting that caregiving situations can be

disruptive to the husbands of primary caregivers living in multi-

generational households (Kleban, Brody, Schoonover, & Hoff-

man, 1989; Pruchno, Peters, & Burant, 1995). These high levels

of strain make the multigenerational household an optimal envi-

ronment for testing the relationship between coping strategies

and psychological well-being.

115

116 PRUCHNO, BURANT, AND PETERS

Coping Strategies and Families

Examining the relationship between coping strategies and

outcomes within the context of the family is based on sugges-

tions made by interpersonal and systems theorists who contend

that depression derives from, or can be maintained by, maladap-

tive patterns of interaction between the depressed person and

others in the social environment (Hautzinger, Linden, & Hoff-

man, 1982; Hinchliffe, Hooper, Roberts, & Vaughan, 1975;

Kahn, Coyne, & Margolin, 1985). Feldman (1976), for exam-

ple, viewed depressive symptoms as part of a nialadaptive nega-

tive feedback system between spouses, while Coyne (1976)

described a "downward depressive spiral" that develops be-

tween the depressed person and others in the social environment.

Similarly, Kahn et al. (1985) proposed that depression derives

from disturbed patterns of emotion and coping between hus-

bands and wives.

Empirical studies of the relationship between depression and

the interpersonal context generally indicate that the responses

of spouses in couples with a depressed member are similar to

one another and different from those in couples without a de-

pressed partner. Kahnetal.(1985) found that spouses in couples with a depressed member withdrew more frequently; used more

aggressive coping strategies; and responded to stress with higher

levels of emotional responsivity, negative tension, and control-

ling behavior. Hautzinger et al. (1982) found that couples having

a depressed member expressed more negative feelings about their psychological and physical conditions and both demanded

and offered more help than did spouses in couples in which

neither member was depressed.

Although limited research has addressed the relationship be-

tween interpersonal processes studied at the dyadic or family

level and individual outcomes such as psychological well-being

or physical health, a study by Eaker, Haines, and Feinleib (1983)

focused on the personality characteristics of husbands and wives

and the progression of coronary heart disease in the husbands.

When couples were grouped into typologies based on whether

each person was Type A or Type B personality, results indicated

that Type A men married to Type B women were significantly

more likely to develop coronary disease over a 10-year period

than were husbands in any of the other groups.

Gruen, Folkman, and Lazarus (1987) examined whether in-

formation about the couple as a dyad added to the understanding

of depressive symptoms beyond that obtained by focusing on

the individual. Using data from 30 married couples, they identi-

fied three dyadic patterns based on emotions evoked in response

to recent events. Wives who were members of couples in which

they, but not their husbands, were characterized as feeling "dis-

gusted and worried" had lower self-esteem and mastery than

did wives in either the group in which only the husbands felt

disgusted or the group in which both spouses felt disgusted.

They also experienced significantly more depression during the

past week as well as significantly more long-term depression

than did wives in the other two groups. Furthermore, a series

of hierarchical regression analyses controlling for wives' initial

emotion demonstrated that the dyadic emotion patterns ac-

counted for an additional 24% of the variance on weekly depres-

sion and an additional 13% of the variance on long-term depres-

sion. Gruen et al., drawing conclusions based on work by Von

Bertalanffy (1968), suggested that dyadic emotion patterns rep-

resent an important level of analysis that cannot be understood

by looking at the component parts in isolation.

One of the first empirical studies to examine coping strategies

from a dyadic perspective was reported by Cronkite and Moos

(1984). Using data from 267 married couples, they were sur-

prised to find that after controlling for factors such as social

status, stressors, social resources, and own coping, the more the

husband used avoidance coping strategies, the less depressed

was his wife. These investigators also examined interaction ef-

fects based on combinations of the partners' personal coping

strategies. They found that when both husbands and their wives used avoidance coping strategies, the depression experienced

by husbands, but not by wives, increased.

Finally, in a more recent study Giunta and Compas (1993)

used data from 153 married couples to determine the association

between couples' coping and psychological symptoms in each

spouse and found that a pattern of dyadic coping marked by

strong reliance on escape-avoidance coping by both husband

and wife was associated with high levels of symptoms in both

spouses. Hierarchical regression analyses using each spouse's

psychological symptoms as the criterion variable revealed that

wives' symptoms were predicted by their own use of escape-

avoidance coping. Husbands' symptoms were predicted by both

their own use of escape-avoidance coping and their wives' use of this coping strategy. Dyadic patterns of coping did not add

unique variance to either husband or wife outcomes. The central question addressed by the present analyses was

whether information about the coping strategies used by family members adds to our understanding of psychological well-being

above and beyond that provided by information about an indi-

vidual's coping strategies. More specifically, the hypotheses tested were as follows:

1. People who use emotion-focused coping strategies more

frequently will be more depressed, have less mastery, and enjoy

less positive affect than people who use these strategies less frequently.

2. People who use acceptance coping strategies more fre-

quently will be less depressed, have greater mastery, and have

more positive affect than people who use acceptance strategies less frequently.

3. People who use instrumental coping strategies more fre-

quently will be less depressed, have greater mastery, and enjoy more positive affect than people who use these strategies less frequently.

4. People whose family members use emotion-focused cop- ing strategies more frequently will be more depressed, have less

mastery, and enjoy less positive affect than people whose family

members use these strategies less frequently.

5. People whose family members use acceptance coping strategies more frequently will be less depressed, have greater

mastery, and have more positive affect than people whose family members use acceptance strategies less frequently.

6. People whose family members use instrumental coping strategies more frequently will be less depressed, have greater

mastery, and enjoy more positive affect than people whose fam-

ily members use these strategies less frequently.

Method

Respondents

As part of a larger investigation, data were collected between 1988

and 1991 from families residing within 50 miles of Philadelphia, Penn-

PATTERNS OF FAMILY COPING 117

sylvania. One focus of the investigation was to examine the effects that

caregiving has on the lives of members of coresident multigenerational

family members. Criteria for inclusion in these analyses are as follows:

(a) The older relative was 65 years of age or older and not married, (b)

the middle generation was a married daughter or daughter-in-law, with

her husband living in the household, (c) the third generation was a child

of the marriage, (d) the older relative required assistance with at least

one activity of daily living, and (e) the three generations had lived

together for at least 1 month at the time of the interview with the first

family member. When there were multiple children in the household who

fulfilled study eligibility requirements, the middle-generation daughter/

daughter-in-law was asked to select the child whose life was "most

affected" by the older relative's presence in the household.

The present analyses were based on data collected from 140 multigen-

erational families. For each family, personal interviews were conducted

with the daughter or daughter-in-law, her husband, and one of their

children. Respondents were identified through a range of community

outreach techniques, including announcements in newspapers; talks to

community groups; and outreach through schools, religious organiza-

tions, and workplaces. Attempts were made to include older persons

with both physical and cognitive impairments. Preliminary analyses re-

vealed no significant differences between daughters (n = 102) and

daughters-in-law (n = 38), and therefore daughters and daughter-in-law

were treated as a single group and are referred to as "wives" throughout

this article.

The sample was primarily White (92.1%), with 9 families identifying

themselves as African American and 2 as Hispanic. Wives ranged in age

from 33 to 67 (M = 49.39 years). The majority (55.7%) were Catholic,

whereas 35.0% were Protestant, and 6.4% were Jewish. The women

were highly educated, with 59.3% having more than a high school

education. The majority (64.3%) were working for pay. The husbands

of these women ranged in age from 32 to 75 (M = 52.16). Most (87.3%)

were currently working. The mean age for the older relatives living in

these multigenerational households was 81.97 (range = 65-100). The

third-generation members who participated in the study ranged in age

from 11 to 33 (M = 19.72), with 58.7% being female. Preliminary

analyses examining the role of age of the child revealed no significant

differences on any variable between children under 18 and those 18 or

older, and therefore in the present analyses age of the child was not

controlled. Family income ranged from less than $10,000 to more than

$75,000 (M * $50,000). The three generations had been living together

for a mean of 7.53 years (range = 1 month to 59 years). Most (82.9%)

of the older people had moved in with their younger family members,

although 10.7% had had their younger family members move in with

them, 5.0% had always lived with their younger family members, and

1.4% had moved with the younger generation into a new home. The

primary reason cited for the older adult's joining the household was a

decline in his or her physical or mental health (67.5%). Other reasons

included the illness or death of the older adult's spouse (13.2%), the

lack of a place for the older adult to live for reasons that included

financial considerations and the quality of the neighborhood in which

the older person lived (11.7%), and a family preference to live together

(3.9%).

Measures

Selection of a measure of the behaviors characterizing the older rela-

tive was guided by the work of Zarit, Reever, and Bach-Peterson (1980);

Lawton, Rajagopal, Brody, and Kleban (1992); and Lieberman and

Fisher (1995). Because the goal was to represent overall behaviors, the

composite developed included physical problems (e.g., having trouble

breathing and experiencing pain or discomfort), cognitive problems

(e.g., hearing or seeing things that were not there, being unable to

recognize others, and not knowing the day of the week), and disruptive

problems (e.g., yelling, swearing, cursing, or threatening; doing harmful

things; and losing his or her temper). More specifically, a variable repre-

senting the extent to which the person's behavior was characterized as

stressful was created on the basis of family members' responses to a

question asking them to indicate the frequency with which 19 negative

behaviors characterized their older relative. Each family member inde-

pendently rated each behavior on a 5-point scale from never (1) to

almost everyday (5). Scores reported by wives ranged from 21.0 to

81.0 (M = 45.64), those reported by husbands ranged from 20.0 to

73.0 (M = 42.62), and those reported by children ranged from 21.0 to

73.0 (M = 45.52).

In order to assess the extent to which each family member was in-

volved in helping activities with the older relative, each respondent was

asked the following question: "On the average, about how many hours

a week did you actually help with the tasks we have been talking about?''

Tasks included seven activities of daily living and eight instrumental

activities of daily living. Wives reported spending a mean of 27.89 hr

(range = 0-168.0), husbands a mean of 9.4 hr (range = 0-60.0), and

children a mean of 9.62 hr (range = 0-50.0) on such tasks.

Although Lazarus and Folkman (1984) made a theoretical distinction

between coping efforts and adaptational outcomes, many items on tradi-

tional coping scales confound coping efforts with emotional outcome

(Stanton, Danoff-Burg, Cameron, & Ellis, 1994). It is possible that this

redundancy in measurement may account at least in part for obtained

relations of dysfunctional cognitions and catastrophizing coping with

depressive symptoms (Coyne & Gotlib, 1983; Sullivan & D'Eon, 1990).

For the present analyses, coping strategies were assessed using the 16-

item index developed by Pruchno and Resch (1989). Items selected for

inclusion in the index were based on earlier work by Kiyak, Montgomery,

Borson, and Teri (1985). Items were those that had been both theoreti-

cally described and empirically identified (Kahana, Kahana, & Young,

1987; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Pearlin & Schooler, 1978) and included

coping strategies that are not inherently confounded with distress. This

scale, rather than one of the better known indices, was used to assess

coping strategies because of its brevity and usefulness in related studies

(Pruchno & Kleban, 1993; Pruchno & Resch, 1989) and because of the

applicability of the coping strategies to the demands of caregiving

(Stone, Greenberg, Kennedy-Moore, & Newman, 1991). Respondents

were asked to indicate how often during the past month they had used

each strategy in dealing with the stresses of caregiving. A Likert scale

was used to record responses of never ( 1 ) , rarely*/seldom (2), some-

times (3), often (4), or most of the time (5). Scores are interpreted

with higher values being associated with more frequent use of each

coping strategy. No information about the effectiveness of the coping

strategies is included in the score value.

The items as responded to by the sample of women, men, and children

were subjected to separate confirmatory factor analytic procedures using

Amos (Arbuckle, 1995), which provides a maximum-likelihood solu-

tion. Although previous analyses by Pruchno and Resch (1989) and

Pruchno and Kleban (1993) identified a four-factor model, including

intrapsychic, wishfulness, acceptance, and instrumental coping strate-

gies, a three-factor model, including Emotion-Focused Coping, Accep-

tance, and Instrumental Coping, was posited here for the following rea-

sons. First, the findings from previous studies indicated that although

intrapsychic and wishfulness coping strategies were distinct from one

another in factor analysis, they behaved similarly to one another when

examined in terms of various outcome variables. Second, the relatively

small sample size required that no more than 10 independent variables

be included. Results suggested that a three-factor solution provided a

good fit for these data. As in Pruchno and Kleban's study, all items,

with the exception of "You knew what had to be done, so you tried

harder to make things work," loaded on predicted factors. This item

was deleted from further analyses. Results from the wives yielded a

goodness of fit (GFI) of .84, x2(87, N = 134) = 193.34, p < .001.

Results from the husbands yielded a GFI of .86, X2(87, N = 127) =

157.57, p < .001. Results from the children yielded a GFI of .86, x2(87,

N = 133) = 162.35, p < .001.

In order to assess more carefully the stability of the latent paths across

118 PRUCHNO, BURANT, AND PETERS

Table 1

Coping Strategies: Maximum-Likelihood Estimates, Scale Means, and Factor Reliabilities

Factor loadings Wives Husbands Children

Acceptance

1 . Made the best of it. 2. Accepted the situation. 3. Refused to let it get to you. M Reliability

0.45 0.81 0.32

12.50 0.47

0.31 0.82 0.23

12.88 0.43

0.64 0.65 0.39

11.72 0.56

Emotion-Focused Coping

1. Wished you could change the way you felt. 0.52 0.64 0.58 2. Daydreamed or imagined a better time or place than the one you were in. 0.86 0.57 0.73 3. Wished you could change what had happened. 0.70 0.69 0.62 4. Hoped a miracle would happen. 0.58 0.52 0.57 5. Wished you were a stronger person to deal with it better. 0.66 0.68 0.64 6. Told yourself things to help you feel belter. 0.26 0.66 0.59 7. Had fantasies about how things might turn out. 0.62 0.58 0.63 M 20.75 18.78 20.58 Reliability 0.79 0.81 0.81

Instrumental Coping

1. Did something totally new to solve the problem. 0.77 0.86 0.75 2. Felt inspired to be creative in solving the problem. 0.61 0.48 0.61 3. Came up with a couple of different solutions to the problem. 0.67 0.59 0.64 4. Made a plan of action and followed it. 0.41 0.40 0.50 5. Changed something about yourself so you could deal with the situation

better. • 0.48 0.57 0.49 M 13.56 11.86 13.46 Reliability 0.73 0.70 0.72

the groups of caregivers, husbands, and children, the hypothesized three- factor model was simultaneously tested on the caregivers, husbands, and children. Multisample Amos analysis (Arbuckle, 1995) was first used to test a model in which the same parameter pattern was freely estimated within each group. This chi-square value of 513.25 (df = 261, N - 140, Root Mean Square Residual = .130) was the starting point for each nested sequential analysis. The magnitudes of the regression weights across samples were compared by equating their parameters across the three groups one at a time. These analyses indicated that the factor loadings for Acceptance, ^2(95, N = 140) = 514.88, GFI = .85, RMR = .131, and Instrumental Coping, x2(91, N - 140) = 517.50, GFI = .85,RMR= .131, were identical across groups. Minor differences were found between loadings for wives and those for husbands and children on the Emotion-Focused Coping Factor, x2(87, N = 140) = 545.55, GFI - .85, RMR = .150, with the variable "Told yourself things to help you feel better" having a loading with a smaller valence for wives and the variable "daydreamed or imagined a better time or place than the one you were in" having a higher valence for wives than for husbands and children. These findings suggest that the value of the parameters was similar across the groups of women, husbands, and children. Factor loadings, scale means, and factor reliabilities are pre-

sented in Table 1. The 20-item Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression scale

(CES-D; Radloff, 1977) was used to measure the overall level of de- pression experienced by each family member during the past week. Item responses ranging from rarely (0) to most of the time (3) were scored according to procedures described by Radloff (1977). Scores ranged from 0 to 60, with higher scores indicating greater depression. Wives had a mean of 12.76 (SD = 11.33), husbands had a mean score of 7.72 (SD = 7.62), and children had a mean score of 12.76 (SD = 9.36). Coefficient alphas for the scale were .93 for wives, .86 for husbands, and .89 for children.

The five-item Bradburn Affect Scale (Positive Affect) derived from the Affect Balance Scale (Bradbum, 1969) was used in accordance with Jahoda's (1958) concern with the need to focus on positive mental health- Positive Affect scores ranged from 0 to 5, with higher scores indicating more positive affect. For wives, M = 3.67, SD = 1.41; for husbands, M = 3.52, SD = 1.53: and for children, M = 4.20, SD = 1.05. Coefficient alphas for the scale were .73 for wives, .63 for husbands, and .45 for children.

Mastery represents the extent to which an individual regards his or her life chances as being under his or her control in contrast to being ruled by fate. Mastery was measured using the seven-item Personal Mastery Scale devised by Pearlin and Schooler (1978). Items include "I have little control over the things that happen to me," "There is

really no way I can solve some of the problems I have," "What happens to me in the future mostly depends on me," "There is little I can do to change many of the important things in my life," "I often feel helpless in dealing with the problems of life." "Sometimes I feel that I'm being pushed around in life," and "I can do just about anything I really set my mind to do." Each item is rated on a 5-poinr Likert scale, with responses ranging from agree a lot (5) to disagree a (of ( 1 ) . Scores ranged from 7 to 35, with higher scores indicating a diminished sense of personal mastery. The mean score for wives was 17.05 (SD = 6.37); the mean for husbands, 14.02 (SD = 5.33); and the mean for children, 14.09 (SD = 4.63). Coefficient alphas for the scale were .78 for wives, .74 for husbands, and .69 for children.

Results

Bivariate correlations among the coping and outcome mea-

sures for wives, husbands, and children are presented in Table

2. (Not shown in this table are the relationships between family

PATTERNS OF FAMILY COPING 119

coping strategies, outcomes, and elder characteristics.) The cor-

relations between the older relative's behaviors and depression

as reported by the wives, husbands, and children were signifi-

cant. In addition, for the wives, the correlation between the

number of hours per week spent helping the older relative and

depression was significant. For the children, the correlation be-

tween the number of hours of help and mastery was significant.

The remaining correlations of older relative behaviors and help

hours with the outcome variables were not significant.

Separate hierarchical regression analyses using each family

member's outcomes as the criterion variable were conducted to

identify the relative contributions of stressor, own coping, and

other family members' coping. In predicting the wives' out-

comes, for example, older relative stressors were entered first,

the wives' scores on the three individual coping scales were

entered next, and the six coping strategies of the husbands and

children were entered last.

The results of these analyses are presented in Table 3. Wives'

depression was predicted by more use of emotion-focused cop-

ing strategies and less use of acceptance strategies (adjusted R2

= .29). Positive affect was predicted by less use of emotion-

focused strategies and more use of instrumental strategies (ad-

justed/?2 = .12). Mastery was predicted by less use of emotion-

focused strategies and more use of acceptance strategies (ad-

justed R2 = .29). The coping strategies used by either their

husbands or children did not affect any of the outcome equations

for the caregiving wives.

For husbands, depression was predicted by greater use of

emotion-focused coping strategies on their own part and less

use of emotion-focused coping strategies and acceptance strate-

gies on the part of their wives (adjusted R2 - .24). Positive

affect was predicted by greater use of acceptance coping on

the part of their wives and less use of emotion-focused coping

strategies and greater use of instrumental coping strategies on

the part of their children (adjusted R2 = .08). Mastery was

predicted by less use of emotion-focused coping strategies and

greater use of acceptance strategies on their own part, greater

use of emotion-focused coping on the part of their wives, and

greater use of instrumental coping strategies on the part of their

children (adjusted R2 = .19).

Finally, children's depression was predicted by their greater

use of emotion-focused coping and less use of acceptance cop-

ing (adjusted R 2 = .30).Children'spositiveaffectwaspredicted

by their greater use of instrumental coping and their mother's

less use of instrumental coping (adjusted A2 = .10). Children's

mastery was predicted by their less use of emotion-focused

coping strategies and greater use of acceptance (adjusted

R1 = .24).

In order to evaluate whether the strength of the predictors

was significantly different for the women, their husbands, and

their children, the model was tested simultaneously on the three

groups. For each dependent variable (depression, positive affect,

and mastery) multisample Amos analysis was used to test a

model that posited that the regression weights were equal across

the three groups. This omnibus test was followed by examina-

tion of the equivalency of each regression path individually.

Testing the omnibus model for depression yielded a chi-

square of 78.60 (df = 212, N = 140, p < .01, RMR = 2.81),

suggesting that for the women, their husbands, and their chil-

dren, there were differences in the strength of the regression

paths. Specifically, significant differences were found for the

paths from wives' emotion-focused coping, x2(2, N = 140) =

30.75, p < .01, RMR = 1.42; husbands' emotion-focused cop-

ing, x !(2, N = 140) = 17.38, p < .01, RMR = .90; children's

Table 2

Bivariate Correlations

Wives' coping

Wives' coping A. Acceptance B. Emotion focused C. Problem focused

Wives' outcome D. Depression E. Positive affect F. Mastery

Husbands' coping G. Acceptance H. Emotion focused I. Problem focused

Husbands' outcome J. Depression

K. Positive affect L. Mastery

Children's coping M. Acceptance N. Emotion focused O. Problem focused

Children's outcome P. Depression Q. Positive affect R. Mastery

A

— -.27*

.26'

-.35* .26*

-.33*

.09 -.04

.01

-.22* .16 .01

.02 -.08

.02

-.10 -.01

.02

B

— .10

.50** -.30**

.51**

-.01 .41** .15

-.04 .03

-.03

.01

.14 -.14

.12 -.09

.05

C

_

.03

.20* -.13

-.09 .09 .17

-.12 .09

-.02

.17

-.06 .07

-.14 -.15 -.15

Wives' outcome

D

— -.46**

.61**

-.03 .19*

-.01

.02 -.19* -.02

-.08 .23**

-.05

.30** -.20*

.11

E

— -.41**

.09 -.12 -.09

.06

.19*

.07

.10 -.12

.05

-.14 .01

-.03

F

—

.05

.19*

.01

-.01 -.16 -.01

-.08 .18*

-.16

.18* -.10

.18*

Husbands' coping

G

— -.02 -.02

-.16 .16

-.27**

-.02 .01 .04

.08

.10

.02

H

— .36**

.37**

.01

.29**

.06

.22* -.02

.07 -.06

.02

I

—

.05

.17 -.08

.18*

.04

.17

-.05 .05

-.12

Children's Husbands' outcome Children's coping outcome

J K L M N O P Q R

— -.34** —

.47** -.26** —

-.01 .19* -.01 — .23** -.16 .01 -.09 — .02 .17 -.21* .06 .31** —

.20* -.22* -.03 -.36** .48** .03 — .03 .06 -.07 .05 -.06 .29** -.29" — .09 -.06 .09 -.40** .38* .01 .57** -.15 —

*p < .05. **p < .01.

120 PRUCHNO, BURANT, AND PETERS

Table 3

Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting the Well-Being of Wives, Husbands, and Children

Variable

Wives' depression Step 1

Older adult's behavior Help hours

Step 2 Wives' acceptance Wives' emotion-focused coping Wives' instrumental coping

Step 3 Husbands' acceptance Husbands' emotion-focused coping Husbands' instrumental coping Children's acceptance Children's emotion-focused coping Children's instrumental coping

Wives' positive affect Step 1

Older adult's behavior Help hours

Step 2 Wives' acceptance Wives' emotion-focused coping Wives' instrumental coping

Step 3 Husbands' acceptance Husband's emotion-focused coping Husbands' instrumental coping Children's acceptance Children's emotion-focused coping Children's instrumental coping

Wives' mastery Step 1

Older adult's behavior Help hours

Step 2 Wives' acceptance Wives' emotional-focused coping Wives' instrumental coping

Step3 Husbands' acceptance Husbands' emotion-focused coping Husbands' instrumental coping Children's acceptance Children's emotion-focused coping Children's instrumental coping

Husbands' depression Step 1

Older adult's behavior Help hours

Step 2 Husbands' acceptance Husbands' emotion-focused coping Husbands' instrumental coping

Step 3 Wives' acceptance Wives' emotion-focused coping Wives' instrumental coping Children's acceptance Children's emotion-focused coping Children's instrumental coping

Husbands' positive affect Step 1

Older adult's behavior Help hours

Step 2 Husbands' acceptance Husbands' emotion-focused coping Husbands' instrumental coping

B

0.13 0.04

-1.33 0.66 0.16

0.06 -0.10 -0.16 -0.37

0.23 -0.22

0.00 0.00

0.09 -0.06

0.07

0.07 0.01

-0.04 0.05

-0.01 0.01

-0.01 0.01

-0.58 0.45

-0.14

0.19 -0.01 -0.03 -0.12

0.14 -0.23

0.05 -0.05

-0.51 0.58

-0.14

-0.91 -0.38 -0.11

0.00 .20

-0.09

0.00 0.01

-0.01 -0.02

0.03

SE

.07

.03

.47

.16

.23

.42

.17

.26

.41

.15

.24

.01

.00

.07

.02

.03

.06

.02

.04

.06

.02

.03

.04

.02

.27

.09

.13

.24

.10

.15

.23

.09

.14

.05

.06

.30

.12

.18

.33

.11

.15

.29

.11

.17

.01

.01

.05

.02

.03

ft

.15

.09

-.23** .37** .06

.01 -.05 -.05 -.07

.13 -.07

.01 -.09

.12 -.27**

.20*

.10

.04 -.09

.08 -.06

.03

-.01 .03

-.18 .44

-.09

.06 -.01 -.02 -.04

.14 -.14

.10 -.07

-.13 .46**

-.06

-.23" -.32** -.06

.00

.16 -.04

.04

.12

-.01 -.08

.09

R1 R2 change

.10**

.33** .22**

.35** .03

.01

.17** .15**

.19** .02

.02

.32** .30**

.35** .03

.04

.17** .13**

.31** .13**

.02

.05 .03

PATTERNS OF FAMILY COPING 121

TVible 3 (continued)

Variable

Husbands' positive affect (continued) Step 3

Wives' acceptance Wives' emotion-focused coping Wives' instrumental coping Children's acceptance Children's emotion-focused coping Children's instrumental coping

Husbands' mastery Step 1

Older adult's behavior Help hours

Step 2 Husbands' acceptance Husbands' emotion-focused coping Husbands' instrumental coping

Step3 Wives' acceptance Wives' emotion-focused coping Wives' instrumental coping Children's acceptance Children's emotion-focused coping Children's instrumental coping

Children's depression Step 1

Older adult's behavior Help hours

Step 2 Children's acceptance Children's emotion-focused coping Children's instrumental coping

Step3 Wives' acceptance Wives' emotion-focused coping Wives' instrumental coping Husbands' acceptance Husbands' emotion-focused coping Husbands' instrumental coping

Children's positive affect Step 2

Olders adult's behavior Help hours

Step 2 Children's acceptance Children's emotion-focused coping Children's instrumental coping

Step3 Wives' acceptance Wives' emotion-focused coping Wives' instrumental coping Husbands' acceptance Husbands' emotion-focused coping Husbands' instrumental coping

Children's mastery Step 1

Older adult's behavior Help hours

Step 2 Children's acceptance Children's emotion-focused coping Children's instrumental coping

StepS Wives' acceptance Wives' emotion-focused coping Wives' instrumental coping Husbands' acceptance Husbands' emotion-focused coping Husbands' instrumental coping

B

0.12 0.03

-0.01 0.09

-0.04 0.08

0.01 0.01

-0.64 0.36

-0.23

0.01 -0.16 -0.02

0.05 -0.01 -0.29

0.04 -0.04

-1.34 0.72

-0.25

-0.12 0.08

-0.10 0.37

-0.08 0.05

-0.01 0.01

0.01 -0.02

0.09

-0.01 0.00

-0.05 0.02 0.00 0.00

0.01 0.02

-0.73 0.27

-0.10

0.18 0.02

-0.09 0.02

-0.02 -0.07

SE

.06

.02

.03

.05

.02

.03

.03

.04

.21

.09

.13

.23

.08

.11

.21

.07

.12

.06

.07

.34

.13

.20

.41

.13

.18

.35

.14

.21

.01

.01

.04

.01

.02

.05

.01

.02

.04

.02

.02

.03

.03

.17

.07

.10

.21

.07

.09

.18

.07

.11

ft

.19*

.15 -.04

.15 -.21*

.23*

.03

.03

-.25** .41**

-.15

.00 -.19* -.01

.02 -.01 -.21

.05 -.05

-.30** .48**

-.10

-.03 .06

-.04 .08

-.05 .02

-.08 .11

.03 -.15

.37**

-.02 .00

-.20* .05 .01 .01

.03

.06

-.33" .36**

-.08

.08

.03 -.08

.01 -.03 -.05

R* K2 change

.16* .12*

.03

.19** .16**

.26** .07

.03

.35** .32**

.36** .01

.02

.13** .12**

.18»» .04

.03

.30** .26**

.31** .01

Note. * p < . 0 5 . * * p < . 0 1 .

122 PRUCHNO, BURANT, AND PETERS

emotion-focused coping, X 2 (2, N = 140) = 11.66, p < .01,

RMR = 1.00; children's acceptance, x2(2, N = 140) = 9.89,

p < .01, RMR = .389; and depression. Wives' emotion-focused

coping was significantly related to their own depression and

their husbands' depression and was not significantly associated

with their children's depression. Husbands' emotion-focused

coping was significantly associated with their own depression

but was not significantly associated with either their wives' or

children's depression. Finally, children's emotion-focused cop-

ing and acceptance coping were significantly associated with

their own level of depression but not with that of either the

wives or husbands. The remaining paths (between behaviors,

hours of help, wives' problem-focused coping, wives' accep-

tance coping, husbands' problem-focused coping, husbands' ac-

ceptance coping, and children's problem-focused coping) had

similar relationships to individual depression across the three

groups of people.

Examination of the paths for positive affect across the three

groups indicated that there were differences at the omnibus level,

X'(2U, N = 140) = 42.83,p < .01, RMR = .387. Significant

differences were found for the paths between wives' emotion-

focused coping, x 2 ( 2 , N = 140) = 10.15, p < .01, RMR =

.12, and problem-focused coping, *2(2, N = 140) = 9.89, p

< .01, RMR = .08, and positive affect. Wives' emolion-focused

coping was associated with their own positive affect but not

with that of their husbands or children. Wives' use of problem-

focused coping was significantly associated with both their own

positive affect and that of their children but was unrelated to

husbands' positive affect. The remaining paths were similar

across the samples of women, their husbands, and their children.

Results for mastery indicated that several of the paths were

significantly different across the three groups. The omnibus test

yielded a chi-square of 84.97 (df = 212, N = p < .01, RMR

— 1.53). Differences were found for the paths from wives'

emotion-focused coping, x 2 (2, N = 140) = 27.68, p < .01,

RMR = .84; husbands' emotion-focused coping, X 2 ( 2 , N =

140) = 13.25, p < .01, RMR = .46; children's use of acceptance

coping, x2(2, N = 140) = 10.04, p < .01, RMR = .19; and

mastery. Wives' emotion-focused coping was associated with

both their own mastery and that of husbands' but was unrelated

to children's mastery. Husbands' emotion-focused coping was

associated with their own mastery but not with that of either

their wives or children. Children's use of acceptance coping was

associated with their mastery but not with that of either the

wives or husbands.

Discussion

The present data support the findings reported by others re-

garding the relationship between individual coping strategies

and psychological well-being (e.g., Haley, Levine, Brown,

Berry, & Hughes, 1987; Pratt et al., 1985; Quayhagen & Quay-

hagen, 1988). Supporting Hypothesis 1,greater use of emotion-

focused coping was associated with more depression and less

mastery. For the wives only, greater use of emotion-focused

coping was associated with less positive affect. Supporting Hy-

pothesis 2, greater use of acceptance strategies was associated

with greater mastery for the wives, husbands, and children and

less depression for the wives and children. Use of acceptance

was not related to positive affect for the wives, husbands, or

children. Hypothesis 3 was partially supported by data from

both the wives and children, with those who used instrumental

coping strategies more frequently having greater positive affect.

Use of instrumental coping strategies, however, was not related

to either depression or mastery for the wives, husbands, or

children.

The data yield mixed results regarding the usefulness that

studying the coping strategies used by family members has for

understanding individual psychological well-being. For the

women and children in this study, information about the coping

strategies used by other family members did not add significant

information to the predictive equations focusing on depression,

positive affect, and mastery above and beyond that provided by

the individual's own coping strategies.

For the husbands, however, a very different picture emerged.

Whereas Hypothesis 4 predicted that people whose family mem-

bers used emotion-focused coping strategies would be more

depressed, the data indicate that less use of emotion-focused

coping on the part of wives was associated with increases in

depression and decreases in mastery on the part of their hus-

bands. On the other hand, in partial support of Hypothesis 4,

less use of emotion-focused coping on the part of the children

was associated with greater positive affect on the part of the

husbands. The data provide partial support for Hypothesis 5,

with greater use of acceptance coping on the part of wives being

associated with less depression among the husbands. Finally,

Hypothesis 6 was also partially supported, with husbands whose

children used greater instrumental coping strategies experienc-

ing higher levels of positive affect and greater mastery.

The findings regarding the relationships between emotion-

focused coping strategies used by wives and depression and

mastery experienced by their husbands are especially surprising,

because emotion-focused coping, when studied at the level of

individuals, generally has a positive association with depression.

Although this relationship requires further study in order lo

understand [he dynamics involved, it is interesting to speculate

about what these relationships might mean. First, it is possible

that the statistical relationship between wives' emotion-focused

coping strategies and husbands' depression and mastery was

influenced by a third variable and the negative relationship is

spurious. It is also possible that husbands whose wives are

using emotion-focused coping strategies less frequently become

depressed and experience less mastery because they give some

positive value to the use of emotion-focused coping strategies.

For example, in the context of living with a dependent older

person, failure to wish you could change the way you felt,

failure to hope for a miracle, and failure to have fantasies about

how things might turn out might be associated with greater

depression because they represent a lack of hopefulness on the

part of the individual. These data may also be interpreted as

indicating that the husbands' overall sense of depression in-

creases when their wives have more realistic interpretations of

the situation, that is, when they are less likely to be hoping for

a miracle and less likely to have fantasies and positive hopes

about how the situation with the older adult might turn out.

The finding that husbands' positive affect was not signifi-

cantly predicted by their own coping strategies but was pre-

dicted by their wives' greater use of acceptance coping and their

children's greater use of instrumental coping and less use of

emotion-focused coping is a significant departure from the rela-

PATTERNS OF FAMILY COPING 123

tionships that were predicted. It was expected that the coping

strategies used by family members would enhance the predictive

capacity of the coping strategies used by individuals, not replace

them. That individual coping strategies did not predict positive

affect in the husbands, however, is consistent with a general

inability to predict the psychological well-being of men, as com-

pared with that of women (e.g., Brody, Dempsey, & Pruchno,

1990), and suggests that in order to understand men's positive

affect, information about their family members may be useful.

It is interesting to speculate about why the psychological well-

being of the wives and children was not related to the coping

strategies used by family members. It is possible that the chil-

dren were so involved in their own lives that the coping strate-

gies used by their parents had little effect on them. On the other

hand, the wives participating in the study were the primary

caregivers of the dependent, frail older people with whom they

were living. It is likely that the coping strategies used by the

other family members did not influence their psychological well-

being because they viewed the caregiving responsibility as pri-

marily theirs and the coping strategies used by other family

members were unimportant.

Interpretation of the present findings must acknowledge the

methodological problems of the low reliability for the measures

of acceptance coping strategies (all family members) and posi-

tive affect (children) used. Future research in this area would be

strengthened by development of a better indicator of acceptance

coping. Within the realm of indicators of psychological well-

being, attention should be given to why the Positive Affect scale

had such low reliability among the sample of children and was

a better indicator of positive emotional health developed. In

addition, given the relatively small sample size and the White,

middle-class nature of the sample, the generalizability of the

findings is limited to White, middle-class families in which

three generations share a household. While the sample is small

compared with those of studies focusing on individuals, it is

large compared with those of other studies that have examined

the perspectives of multiple family members.

Despite these limitations, the findings from this research raise

some important issues. First, the direction of causality between

coping strategies used by family members and well-being re-

mains unclear. It is possible, for example, that emotion-focused

coping strategies contributed to the lowered sense of well-being

experienced by family members. On the other hand, people who

are depressed and burdened by the demands of caregiving could

turn to emotion-focused coping as a way of expressing their

frustration. It is most likely that the relationship between coping

strategies and outcomes involves both scenarios; that is, that

the relationship is reciprocal. The issue of causality is complex

and requires longitudinal study. Second, although this study fo-

cused on the coping strategies used by three members of each

family, it would be intriguing to add to these equations the ways

in which other family members cope with the stresses associated

with caregiving. Finally, this study demonstrates a method of

analysis that is useful for studying coping strategies at the dyadic

level. Designs involving data collected from multiple family

members have the potential to yield rich new information above

and beyond that provided by individuals. These data support

the view that it is informative to study coping strategies using

data provided not only by individuals but also by family mem-

bers, because both contribute to our understanding of psycholog-

ical well-being.

References

Aldwin, C. M., & Revenson, T. A. ( 1987). Does coping help? A reexam-

ination of the relation between coping and mental health. Journal of Personality ami Social Psychology, 53, 337-348.

Arbuckle, J. L. (1995). Amos users'guide. Chicago: SmallWaters.

Billings, A. G., & Moos, R. H. (1981). The role of coping responses in alternating the impact of stressful lire events. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 4, 139-157.

Bradburn, N. (1969). The structure of psychological well-being. Chi-

cago: Aldine. Brody, E. M., Dempsey, N. P., & Pruchno, R. A. (1990). Mental health

of sons and daughters of the institutionalized aged. The Gerontologist,

30, 212-219. Brody, E. M., Hoffman, C., Kleban, M. H., & Schoonover, C. B. (1989).

Caregiving daughters and their local siblings: Perceptions, strains, and interactions. The Gerontologist, 29, 529-538.

Brubaker, T. H., & Brubaker, E. (1981). Adult children and elder parent households: Issues in stress for theory and practice. Alternative Life- styles, 4, 242-256.

Cantor, M. (1980, November). Caring for the frail elderly: Impact on

family, friends, and neighbors. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Geromological Society of America, San Diego, CA.

Coyne, J. C. (1976). Toward an interactional description of depression. Psychiatry, 39, 28-40.

Coyne, J. C., Aldwin, C., & Lazarus, R. S. (1981). Depression and coping in stressful episodes. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 90, 439-447.

Coyne, J. C., & Gotlib, 1. H. (1983). The role of cognition in depression:

A critical appraisal. Psychological Bulletin, 99, 36-51. Cronkite, R. C., & Moos, R. H. (1984). The role of predisposing and

moderating factors in the stress-illness relationship. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 25, 372-393.

Eaker, E. D., Haines, S.G., & Feinleib, M. (1983). Spouse behavior and CHD in men: Prospective results from Framingham Heart Study: 11. Modification of risk in Type A husbands according to social and psychological status of their wives. American Journal of Epidemiol- ogy, 118, 23-41.

Feldman, L. B. (1976). Depression and marital interaction. Family Pro- cess, 15, 389-395.

Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1986). Stress processes and depressive symptomatology. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 95, 107-113.

Giunta, C. T., & Compas, B. E. (1993). Coping in marital dyads: Pat- terns and associations with psychological symptoms. Journal of Mar- riage and the Family, 55, 1011-1017.

Gruen, R. J., Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1987). Dyadic response patterns in married couples, depressive symptoms, and somatic dys- function. Journal of Family Psychology, I, 168-186.

Haley, W. E., Levine, E.G., Brown, S.L., & Bartolucci, A. A. (1987). Stress, appraisal, coping, and social support as predictors of adapta- tional outcome among dementia caregivers. Psychology and Aging, 2, 323-330.

Haley, W. E., Levine, E. G., Brown, S. L., Berry, J. W., & Hughes, G. H. (1987). Psychological, social, and health consequences of caring for a relative with senile dementia. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 35, 405-411.

Hautzinger, M., Linden, M., & Hoffman, N. (1982). Distressed couples with and without a depressed partner: An analysis of their verbal interaction. Journal of Behavioral Therapy and Experimental Psychi- atry, 13, 307-314.

Hinchliffe, M., Hooper, D., Roberts, F. J., & Vaughan, P. W. (1975). A study of the interaction between depressed patients and their spouses. British Journal of Psychiatry, 126, 164-172.

124 PRUCHNO, BURANT, AND PETERS

Horowitz, A. (1982). The role of families in providing long-term care

to ike frail elderly living in the community. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services, Health Care Financing

Administration.

Jahoda, M. (1958). Current concepts of positive mental health. New

York: Basic Books.

Kahana, E., Kahana, B., & \bung. R. (1987). Strategies of coping and

postinstitutional outcomes. Research on Aging, 9, 182-199.

Kahn, J., Coyne, J. C., & Margolin, G. (1985). Depression and marital

disagreement: The social construction of despair. Journal of Social

and Personal Relationships, 2, 447-461.

Kiyak, H. A., Montgomery, R., Borson, S., & Teri, L. (1985, Novem-

ber). Coping patterns among patients with Alzheimer's disease and

non-demented elderly. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the

Gerontological Society of America, New Orleans, LA.

Kleban, M. H., Brody, E. M., Schoonover, C. B., & Hoffman, C. (1989).

Family help to the elderly: Perceptions of sons-in-law regarding parent

care. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 51, 303-312.

Lang, A. M., & Brody, E. M. (1983). Characteristics of middle-aged

daughters and help to their elderly mothers. Journal of Marriage and

the Family, 45, 193-202.

Lawton, M. P., Moss, M., & Kleban, M. H. (1984). Marital status, living

arrangements, and the well-being of older people. Research on Aging,

6, 323-345.

Lawton, M. P., Rajagopal, D., Brody, E., & Kleban, M. H. (1992). The

dynamics of caregiving for a demented elder among Black and White

families. Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences, 47, S156-S164.

Lazarus, R. S., & Fnlkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping.

New York: Springer.

Lieberman, M. A., & Fisher, L. (1995). The impact of chronic illness

on the health and well-being of family members. The Gerontologist,

35, 94-102.

Mitchell. R. E., Cronkite, R. C., & Moos, R. H. (1983). Stress, coping,

and depression among married couples. Journal of Abnormal Psychol-

ogy. 92, 433-448.

Noelker, L. S., & Poulshock, S. W. (1982). The effects on families of

caring for impaired elderly in residence. Washington, DC: Adminis-

tration on Aging.

Pearlin, L. L, Lieberman, M. A., Menaghan, E. G., & Mullan, J. T

(1981). The stress process. Journal of Health and Social Behavior,

22, 337-356.

Pearlin, L. I., & Schooler, C. (1978). The structure of coping. Journal

of Health and Social Behavior, 19, 2-21.

Pratt, C., Schmall, V., Wright, S., & Cleland, M. (1985). Burden and

coping strategies of caregivers to Alzheimer's patients. Family Rela-

tions, 34, 27-33.

Pruchno, R. A., & Kleban, M. H. (1993). Caring for an institutionalized

parent: The role of coping strategies. Psychology and Aging, 8, 18-

25.

Pruchno, R, A., Peters, N. D., & Burant, C. J. (1995). Mental health of

co-resident family caregivers: Examination of a two-factor model.

Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, SOS, P247-P256.

Pruchno, R. A., & Resch, N. L. (1989). Mental health of caregiving

spouses: Coping as mediator, moderator, or main effect? Psychology

and Aging, 4, 454-463.

Quayhagen, M. P., &Quayhagen, M. (1988). Alzheimer's stress: Coping

with the caregiving role. The Gerontologist, 28, 391-396.

Radloff. L. (1977). The CES-D Scale: A self-report depression scale

for research in the general population. Applied Psychological Mea-

surement, 1, 385-401.

Reece, D., Waltz, T, & Hageboeck, H. (1983). Intergenerational care

providers of non-institutionalized frail elderly: Characteristics and

consequences. Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 5, 21—34.

Shanas, E. (1979). The family as a social support system in old age.

The Gerontologist, 9, 169-174.

Soldo, B., & Myllyluoma, J. (1983). Caregivers who live with dependent

elderly. The Gerontologist, 23, 605-611.

Stanton, A. L,, Danoff-Burg, S., Cameron, C. L., & Ellis, A. P. (1994).

Coping through emotional approach: Problems of conceptualization

and confounding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66,

350-362.

Stephens, M. A. P., Morris, V. K., Kinney, J. M., Ritchie, S. W., & Grotz,

R.C. (1988). Stressful situations in caregiving: Relations between

caregiver coping and well-being. Psychology and Aging, 3, 208-209.

Stone, A. A., Greenberg, M. A., Kennedy-Moore, E., & Newman, M. G.

(1991). Self-report, situation-specific coping questionnaires: What

are they measuring? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

61, 648-658.

Sullivan, M. S., & D'Eon, J. L. (1990). Relation between catastrophiz-

ing and depression in chronic pain patients. Journal of Abnormal

Psychology, 99, 260-263.

Von Bertalanffy, L. (1968). General systems theory. New Ifork: Braziller.

Wright, S. D., Lund, D. A., Pratt, C., & Caserta, M. S. (1987, Novem-

ber). Coping and caregiver well-being: The impact of maladaptive

strategies or how not to make a situation worse. Paper presented at

the annual meeting of the Gerontological Society of America, Wash-

ington, DC.

Zarit, S. H., Reever, K. E., & Bach-Peterson, J. (1980). Relatives of the

impaired aged: Correlates of feelings of burden. The Gerontologist,

20, 649-655.

Received February 21, 1996

Revision received June 25, 1996

Accepted June 25, 1996 •