Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2024 Jun 1.
Published in final edited form as: Ment Health Prev. 2023 Mar 18;30:200270. doi: 10.1016/j.mhp.2023.200270

Adolescents’ Coping and Internalizing Symptoms: Role of Maternal Socialization of Coping and Depression Symptoms

Allegra S Anderson 1, Kelly H Watson 1, Michelle M Reising 1, Jennifer P Dunbar 1, Meredith A Gruhn 1, Bruce E Compas 1
PMCID: PMC10104443  NIHMSID: NIHMS1885683  PMID: 37064864

Abstract

Parental emotion socialization, including processes of the socialization of coping and emotion regulation, is a key factor in shaping children’s adjustment in response to acute and chronic stress. Given well-established links between parental depression and youth psychopathology, levels of parental depression symptoms are an important factor for understanding emotion socialization and regulation processes. The present study examined associations among maternal coping and depression symptoms with their adolescents’ coping and internalizing problems. A sample of 120 adolescents (45% female, M = 12.27, SD = 1.90) and their mothers participated in a cross-sectional, multi-informant study. Mothers’ depression symptoms and adolescents’ coping were significantly related to adolescents’ internalizing problems. Adolescents’ coping moderated the association between maternal depression symptoms and adolescents’ internalizing problems, where at low and moderate levels of primary control coping, maternal depression predicted greater internalizing symptoms in adolescents. Further, this study expanded on prior work, demonstrating that the relationship between adolescents’ coping and internalizing symptoms was associated with the degree to which mothers model coping. Taken together, results suggest that maternal coping and adolescent coping serve as salient risk and protective factors in the context of family stress. Findings emphasize a need for researchers to further clarify the role of emotion socialization processes in adolescents’ development of coping in the context of family stress.

Keywords: emotion socialization, parenting, depression, internalizing, adolescents

Parental emotion socialization, including the socialization processes of coping and emotion regulation (ER1), is a key factor in shaping children’s responses to stress and risk for psychopathology (Morris et al., 2007; Watson et al., 2022). Parents may buffer or exacerbate the effects of stress by communicating messages to their children about adaptive or maladaptive coping strategies, with prior research demonstrating that the relationship between adolescents’ coping strategies and their internalizing symptoms is associated with the extent to which parents socialize specific types of coping (Abaied & Rudolph, 2010; Anderson et al., 2021). Adolescents may depend more on external guidance and resources in response to acute and chronic stress, making parental coping socialization messages especially impactful (Anderson et al., 2021; Watson et al., 2022).

Parental depression is a prevalent source of stress in the lives of families that has shown strong associations with parental coping socialization and youths’ psychological adjustment (Gotlib et al., 2020; Watson et al., 2022). However, while some prior work has examined maternal depression as a moderator of the relationship between maternal coping socialization messages and youth adjustment, it is unclear how adolescents’ own coping may moderate the relation between maternal depression and adolescents’ internalizing problems. Further, existing studies testing the impact of parental coping socialization processes on youth coping and adjustment have yielded mixed findings, and few studies have tested parental coping socialization processes in the context of parental depression symptoms and family stress (Watson et al., 2022). Accordingly, we examined the associations of maternal coping and depression symptoms with adolescents’ coping and internalizing problems.

Parental Socialization of Coping

Seminal research on parental emotion socialization posits that parents’ reactions to children’s emotions, discussions about emotions, and modeling of emotion regulation play a fundamental role in shaping children’s regulatory abilities and psychological development (Eisenberg et al., 1998; Morris et al., 2007). Parental socialization of coping is a key component of the broader construct of parental emotion socialization that focuses explicitly on the messages that parents communicate to their children, either through coaching or modeling, about how to respond to acute and chronic stress (Abaied & Rudolph, 2010, 2011; Eisenberg et al., 1998; Kliewer et al., 2005; Morris et al., 2007). The current study was guided by a control-based model of coping (Compas et al., 2017; Connor-Smith et al., 2000; Rudolph et al., 1995; Weisz et al., 1994) that has been validated in youth from a wide range of cultural backgrounds and stressors using confirmatory factor analysis (e.g., Benson et al., 2011; Compas et al., 2006; Wadsworth & Compas, 2002). This model outlines three coping factors: primary control coping (PCC; i.e., active efforts to directly change the stressor or one’s emotions through problem-solving, emotional expression, and emotion modulation), secondary control coping (SCC; i.e., more cognitively complex strategies to adapt to the stressor including acceptance, positive thinking, distraction, and cognitive reappraisal), and disengagement coping (DC; i.e., efforts to orient away from the stressor or one’s emotions such as avoidance, denial, and wishful thinking). (Compas et al., 2017). PCC and SCC have shown consistent associations with fewer internalizing problems in youth, whereas DC is generally associated with higher levels of these symptoms (Compas et al., 2017).

This control-based model of coping has been applied to several studies examining the socialization of coping (e.g., Abaied & Rudolph, 2010, 2011; Anderson et al., 2021; Monti et al., 2014; Watson et al., 2022). This body of research has largely focused on the explicit coping messages parents communicate to their children about how to cope with a given situation (i.e., coaching). Findings from this research have been mixed. For instance, some prior research has shown that parents’ socialization of DC is associated with children’s maladaptive responses to stress (Abaied et al., 2022; Abaied & Rudolph, 2010, 2011; Abaied & Stanger, 2017; Peisch et al., 2020). In contrast, two recent studies of mothers’ coaching of coping found that mothers’ coping socialization messages were not associated with adolescents’ use of coping (Anderson et al., 2021; Watson et al., 2022).

In light of these mixed findings, parents’ modeling of coping may be a more salient predictor of adolescents’ coping relative to parental coaching of coping. As parents serve as emotional role models for their children, they may either nurture their children’s ability to adaptively cope with stress or model the use of ineffective and dysregulated coping (Buckholdt et al., 2014; Morris et al., 2007; Price & Kiel, 2022). A recent meta-analysis by Zimmer-Gembeck et al. (2022) found that parents’ use of adaptive coping strategies (e.g., SCC) was positively associated with their children’s use of adaptive coping. However, it is notable that the studies examined in the meta-analysis varied significantly in their measurement of coping, with most studies focusing on a single strategy within the SCC factor (i.e., cognitive reappraisal) and others measuring mood regulation more broadly. Taken together, it is likely that parents’ modeling of coping influences their adolescents’ coping, though research explicitly examining the role of parental modeling using comprehensive measures of coping is warranted.

Parental Socialization of Coping and Adolescents’ Psychological Adjustment

The socialization of coping may play a crucial role for not only the development of effective coping, but also for adolescents’ internalizing symptoms (Abaied & Rudolph, 2010). Prior research suggests that socialization of PCC and SCC is associated with fewer psychological problems in youth (Abaied & Rudolph, 2010; Abaied & Stanger, 2017). Further, parental socialization of coping has been shown to moderate the association between adolescents’ coping and internalizing problems, where parents either buffer or exacerbate the effects of stress by socializing adaptive or maladaptive coping (Anderson et al., 2021). Given the potential importance of the behaviors that parents model for their adolescents, the relationship between adolescents’ use of a particular type of coping strategy and their internalizing problems may be stronger when their parents use more of these strategies, and in turn, their adolescents use more of these strategies in response to stress. However, some research has shown that while parental socialization of coping is an important factor in shaping adolescents’ coping, the strategies that adolescents use remains the most robust predictor of psychological adjustment (Anderson et al., 2021). Clarifying if mothers’ modeling of coping moderates the association between adolescents’ coping and psychological adjustment has significant implications for identifying the most effective prevention and intervention targets.

Maternal Depression, Adolescent Coping, and Psychological Adjustment

Researchers have emphasized the importance of examining factors that may shape the influence of parental emotion socialization on child adjustment (Breaux et al., 2022). One such factor is parental depression symptoms, which show robust associations with children’s internalizing problems and impaired parental emotion socialization processes (Choi & Kang, 2021; Gotlib et al., 2020). Parental depression symptoms are characterized by diminished motivation, negative affect, fatigue, cognitive inflexibility, and emotion dysregulation, all of which impede effective parenting and may influence the coping strategies that parents model for their adolescents (Choi & Kang, 2021; Dix & Meunier, 2009). Specifically, parental depression symptoms may compromise parents’ ability to engage in more active and cognitively complex coping strategies (i.e., PCC and SCC), while increasing the modeling of DC strategies (e.g., avoidance of stressors) (Monti et al., 2014; Watson et al., 2022). Taken together, the effects of depression symptoms on parenting and coping socialization place adolescents at a significantly higher risk for the development of psychopathology (Monti et al., 2014; Watson et al., 2022).

Given these associations, it is important to understand what factors may modify the relation between parental depression symptoms and adolescents’ psychological adjustment. A large body of evidence suggests that the association between stress and psychopathology is mediated and moderated in part by the ways in which children regulate their emotions and cope with stress (Compas et al., 2017). Thus, it is possible that the ways in which adolescents cope with family-related stress can either buffer or exacerbate the effects of parental depression. Specifically, adolescents’ use of more traditionally adaptive forms of coping (e.g., PCC and SCC) may be protective against the adverse effects of parental depression symptoms, while the use of more maladaptive strategies (e.g., DC) may incur greater risk for internalizing problems (Compas et al., 2017). However, it is noteworthy that most studies that have examined these associations have either focused on coping with peer-related stress or a single strategy within the DC factor (i.e., behavioral avoidance) (e.g., Abaied & Rudolph, 2010, Monti et al., 2014; Watson et al., 2022). Focusing exclusively on peer stress and behavioral avoidance both neglects the salience of parental depression as a family stressor and may inadequately capture the impact of modeling other DC strategies (e.g., denial, wishful thinking).

The Present Study

The current study builds on existing work in several ways. Specifically, the present study (a) utilized a multi-informant approach (parent and child reports), (b) examined the role of maternal depression symptoms, (c) tested associations with mothers’ own coping within the family context, and (d) used a more comprehensive measure of DC instead of focusing on a single strategy (i.e., composite score of avoidance, denial, and wishful thinking).

First, we expected that mothers’ own use of PCC (Hypothesis 1a), SCC (Hypothesis 1b), and DC (Hypothesis 1c) would be positively correlated with adolescents’ use of the same types of coping. Second, we hypothesized that mothers’ coping would moderate the association between adolescents’ own coping and internalizing symptoms (Hypothesis 2). Specifically, we expected that when mothers reported higher levels of PCC (Hypothesis 2a) and SCC (Hypothesis 2b), adolescents would employ more of these strategies and experience fewer internalizing symptoms. In contrast, we expected that when mothers reported higher levels of DC (Hypothesis 2c), adolescents would use more DC and experience increased symptoms. Third, we hypothesized that maternal depression symptoms would be positively correlated with adolescents’ internalizing problems (Hypothesis 3). Fourth, we expected that adolescents’ coping would moderate the association between maternal depression symptoms and adolescents’ internalizing symptoms (Hypothesis 4), such that at lower levels of PCC (Hypothesis 4a) and SCC (Hypothesis 4b), maternal depression would be associated with increased symptoms in adolescents. We expected that at high levels of DC (Hypothesis 4c), maternal depression would be associated with greater symptoms in adolescents. All hypotheses were tested using multi-informant analyses.

Method

Participants

The sample included 120 mothers (M age = 41.62, SD = 6.00) and their adolescents (45% female) between the ages of 9 and 15 years old (M = 12.27, SD = 1.90). Adolescents identified as 66.7% White, 25% African American, 2.5% Asian, and 5.8% Latino or Hispanic. Mothers identified as 68.3% White, 25.8% African American, 2.5% Asian, and 3.4% Latino or Hispanic. Fifty percent of mothers had experienced at least one episode of Major Depressive Disorder in their child’s lifetime. Over half (60%) of mothers reported earning at least a college degree, 6.6% had a high school degree or less, and 33.3% reported completing some college or technical schooling. The majority of mothers were either married or cohabiting (64.2%). The range of annual income in the sample was < $10,000 to > $100,000, with a median income of $65,000. Descriptive statistics for key study variables are shown in Table 1.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics for Key Study Variables

Variable M SD Min Max
Adolescent Age 12.29 1.87 9 15
Adolescent Primary Control Copingb .17 .04 .09 .28
Adolescent Secondary Control Copingb .26 .05 .12 .37
Adolescent Disengagement Copingb .16 .03 .09 .23
Mother Primary Control Copingb .21 .04 .09 .30
Mother Secondary Control Copingb .25 .05 .14 .37
Mother Disengagement Copingb .13 .03 .09 .20
Adolescent Internalizing Symptomsa 52.17 10.22 30 74
Mother Depression Symptoms 10.40 10.30 0 51
Open in a new tab
a

Values presented are T scores (M = 50; SD = 10).

b

Values presented are proportion scores.

Procedure

Mothers and their adolescents were invited to participate in a study designed to better understand how mother-adolescent dyads communicate about stress and emotions. Participants were recruited through a range of sources, including a university-based study finder, mass emails distributed through the Family Care Partners Database, and fliers placed in waiting rooms at public and private mental health clinics in a large southeastern metropolitan area. To sample a broad range of risk for the development of psychopathology, recruitment efforts were designed to enroll mothers with (a) varied depression history (i.e., 50% mothers who had experienced at least one major depressive episode in their child’s life) and (b) to sample a broad range in severity of current maternal depression symptoms. Participants who expressed interest in the study were contacted and screened via telephone by trained doctoral students in clinical psychology to determine eligibility. Exclusion criteria included a maternal history of schizophrenia, bipolar I, bipolar II, a pervasive developmental disorder, or intellectual disability in the adolescent. During one concurrent laboratory visit, the oldest eligible adolescent and mother completed a battery of questionnaires. The University Institutional Review Board approved all procedures. Families were compensated for the assessment and received a packet of information about parenting, parent-child communication, and the impact of parental depression on parenting.

Measures

Maternal depression symptoms.

Mothers completed the 21-item Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II; Beck et al. 1996) to assess their current depressive symptoms within the prior two weeks, including sadness, guilt, indecisiveness, anhedonia, appetite, and suicidality. Symptoms were rated on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 0 to 3, where 0 indicates the absence of a symptom, and 3 indicates the severe presence of a symptom (e.g., Sadness; 0 = I do not feel sad, 1 = I feel sad much of the time, 2 = I am sad all of the time, 3 = I am so sad or unhappy that I can’t stand it). Internal consistency in the present sample was α = 0.93.

Internalizing symptoms.

The Youth Self-Report (YSR; Achenbach & Rescorla, 2001) was used to assess adolescents’ internalizing symptoms. The YSR is a self-report measure of child and adolescent emotions and behaviors on a 3-point Likert scale (0 = not at all true; 1 = somewhat true; 2 = very true). The Internalizing Problems scale was used and provides a measure of adolescents’ depression, anxiety, and withdrawal symptoms. Normalized T scores are presented in Table 1 for ease of comparison with norms. However, for all subsequent analyses, raw scores were used to maximize variance. The internal consistency of the Internalizing Problems scale of the YSR was α = 0.83. The YSR was administered to children under the standardized age of 11 years, and the internal consistency for the 9- and 10-year-olds in the sample was comparable to the older age group (α = 0.87).

Adolescents’ coping.

Adolescents completed the 57-item Responses to Stress Questionnaire – Family Stress, child self-report version (RSQ-FS-SRC; Connor-Smith et al., 2000) to assess their coping in response to family stress within the past six months. The RSQ-FS provides a domain-specific approach to sampling a variety of family stressors. Items include engaging in arguments with siblings and parents (e.g., “Arguing with your father”), witnessing arguments between family members (e.g., “Your parents arguing with each other”), and strained relationships with parents (e.g., “Having a hard time talking with your parents”) and siblings (e.g., “Not being as close to your siblings as you’d like”). Adolescents rate how much each of these experiences have been a problem for them within the past 6 months on a 4-point scale (1 = not at all, 2 = a little, 3 = somewhat, 4 = very). Adolescents then rate the extent to which they try to use different coping strategies (e.g., “I try to believe that it never happened”) in response to these problems. Analyses in the present study focus on all three coping factors: PCC, SCC, and DC. To control for response bias in item endorsement, proportion scales were calculated by dividing the total score of each coping factor by the total score received on the RSQ (e.g., Vitaliano et al., 1987). Internal consistencies were: PCC α = .74, SCC α = .77, and DC α = .76.

Mothers’ coping.

Mothers completed the parent self-report of the Responses to Stress Questionnaire – Family Stress version (RSQ-FS-SRM; Connor-Smith et al., 2000) to assess their coping responses to family stress within the past six months. Items include engaging in arguments with children and spouses (e.g., “Arguing with your child”), witnessing conflict between children (e.g., “Your children arguing or fighting with each other”), strained relationships with spouses (e.g., “Your spouse or significant other not understanding you”) and children (e.g., “Having a hard time talking with your child”). Mothers rate how much each of these experiences have been a problem for them within the past six months on a 4-point scale (1 = not at all, 2 = a little, 3 = somewhat, 4 = very), and rate the extent to which they try to use different coping strategies (e.g., “I try to think of different ways to change or fix the situation”) in response to these problems. Analyses focus on proportion scores of mothers’ use of PCC, SCC, and DC. Internal consistencies were: PCC α = .78, SCC α = .68, and DC α = .78.

Data Analytic Strategy

All analyses were conducted using SPSS (28th edition). Means, standard deviations, and ranges of all key study variables were calculated (Table 1). First, preliminary correlational analyses assessed the associations between mothers’ and adolescents’ use of PCC, SCC, and DC with maternal depression symptoms and adolescents’ internalizing symptoms (Table 2). Second, correlational analyses examined the associations between mothers’ coping in association with their adolescents’ coping (Hypothesis 1), and mothers’ depression symptoms and their adolescents’ internalizing symptoms (Hypothesis 3). Last, a series of multiple linear regression models predicted adolescents’ internalizing symptoms from interactions among (a) adolescents’ X mothers’ coping (Hypothesis 2), (b) and adolescents’ coping X maternal depression symptoms (Hypothesis 4). For models testing Hypothesis 2, adolescents' age and gender, maternal depression symptoms, and socioeconomic status (SES; i.e., maternal educational attainment) were included as covariates. For models testing Hypothesis 4, SES, adolescents’ age, and gender were included as covariates. To construct the regression models, all variables defining products to test interactions (i.e., mother and adolescent coping, maternal depression symptoms) were mean centered prior to computing interaction terms. Covariates, independent variables, and interaction terms were entered into models simultaneously. In the event of significant interaction terms, regression analyses were plotted using the PROCESS macro for SPSS to better understand the nature of associations at low (−1 SD below the mean), moderate (variable mean), and high (+1 SD above the mean) levels of each moderator.

Table 2.

Bivariate Correlation Matrix Among Key Study Variables

Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1. Adolescent Age --
2. RSQ Adolescent PCC −.05 --
3. RSQ Adolescent SCC −.04 .36*** --
4. RSQ Adolescent DC −.10 −.59*** −.29** --
5. RSQ Mother PCC .001 .04 .04 −.03 --
6. RSQ Mother SCC −.04 .04 .23* −.06 .51** --
7. RSQ Mother DC −.09 −.08 −.10 .08 −.58*** −.41*** --
8. Adolescent Int Sx .16 −.33*** −.58*** .26** −.14 −.28** .14 --
9. Mother Depression Sx .07 −.06 −.23* .09 −.51*** −.56*** .28** .37***
Open in a new tab

Note. RSQ = Responses to Stress Questionnaire; PCC = Primary Control Coping; SCC = Secondary Control Coping; DC = Disengagement Coping; Int = Internalizing; Sx = Symptoms.

*

p < .05

**

p < .01

***

p < .001

Of the 120 dyads in the full sample, one adolescent did not complete the YSR and one adolescent did not complete the RSQ. Little’s MCAR test showed that the data were missing completely at random (p = .98). Multiple imputation was used in all analyses using these variables to minimize potential bias (Schafer & Graham, 2002). Power analyses were conducted using G*Power 3.1 to determine detectable effect sizes for multiple linear regression analyses (Erdfelder et al., 1996). With α = .05 and power set to .80, we were able to detect small-to-medium effects (f2 = .09 or larger) when examining the main effects and interactions among mother/adolescent coping and maternal depression symptoms in association with adolescents’ internalizing symptoms.

Results

Descriptive Statistics

As shown in Table 1, adolescents’ internalizing symptoms approximated the normative mean (YSR T score = 52.17, SD = 10.22). There was variability in maternal depression symptoms on the BDI-II (Range = 0 to 51, M = 10.40, SD = 10.30). Mothers’ depression symptoms ranged from minimal (0-13; 70.8%), mild (14-19; 13.4%), moderate (20-28; 9.5%), to severe (29-63; 6.3%). On the RSQ, proportions of adolescents’ and mothers’ reported use of PCC, SCC, and DC were similar to those reported in prior studies (e.g., Jaser et al., 2007).

Preliminary Analyses

Preliminary analyses examined the associations between adolescents’ use of coping, their internalizing symptoms, and mothers’ depression symptoms. Adolescents’ use of PCC (r = −.33) and SCC (r = −.58) was negatively associated with their internalizing symptoms (ps <.001; Table 2), while their use of DC showed a positive association with symptoms (r = .26, p = .004). Similarly, mothers’ use of PCC (r = −.51) and SCC (r = −.56) was negatively associated with their own depression symptoms (ps < .001), and DC was positively associated with symptoms (r = .28, p = .002). Maternal depression symptoms was not significantly associated with adolescents’ use of any of the three coping factors (ps > .05).

Maternal Coping and Adolescent Coping

In support of Hypothesis 1b, mothers’ use of SCC was positively associated with adolescents’ use of SCC (r = .23, p = .012); i.e., mothers who used more SCC had adolescents who also used more SCC. However, mothers’ use of PCC and DC was unrelated to their adolescents’ use of those coping strategies (ps > .05; Hypotheses 1a/1c; Table 2).

Maternal Coping as a Moderator of Adolescent Coping and Internalizing Symptoms

In partial support for Hypothesis 2a, there was a significant interaction between mothers’ and adolescents’ use of PCC (β = .21, p = .011), where at low (b = −104.69, t(112) = −4.49, p < .001) and moderate levels (b = −59.79, t(112) = −3.46, p = .001) of mothers’ use of PCC, adolescents’ use of PCC predicted fewer internalizing symptoms (Table 3; Figure 1). In support of Hypothesis 2b, mothers’ use of SCC moderated the association between adolescents’ use of SCC and adolescents’ internalizing symptoms (β = .15, p = .034). At low (b = −99.75, t(112) = −1.08, p < .001), moderate (b = −78.55, t(114) = −6.97, p < .001), and high levels of mothers’ use of SCC (b = −57.35, t(112) = −3.62, p < .001), adolescents’ use of SCC predicted fewer internalizing symptoms (Figure 2). Consistent with Hypothesis 2c, there was a significant two-way interaction between mothers’ and adolescents’ use of DC (β = .20, p = .020), where at moderate (b = 75.24, t(112) = 3.21, p = .002) and high levels of mothers’ use of DC (b = 138.25, t(112) = 3.72, p < .001), adolescents’ use of DC predicted greater internalizing problems (Figure 3).

Table 3.

Regression Analyses Predicting Adolescents’ Internalizing Sx from Mothers’ and Adolescents’ ER Strategies

β t p
Model 1 F(7,112) = 7.10***; adjusted R2 = .31***
   Mother Depression Sx .42 4.35*** <.001
   Adolescent Age .14 1.73 .086
   Adolescent Gender −.07 −.76 .452
   SES .16 1.85 .067
   Adolescents’ Use of PCC −.28 −3.46*** <.001
   Mothers’ Use of PCC .01 .11 .91
   Adolescent x Mother PCC .21 2.58* .011
Model 2 F(7,112) = 13.84***; adjusted R2 = .43***
   Mother Depression Sx .28 3.12** .002
   Adolescent Age .12 1.78 .077
   Adolescent Gender −.10 −1.37 .172
   SES .15 1.95 .053
   Adolescents’ Use of SCC −.51 −6.97*** <.001
   Mothers’ Use of SCC −.07 −.83 .406
   Adolescent x Mother SCC .15 2.14* .034
Model 3 F(7,112) = 6.14***; adjusted R2 = .23***
   Mother Depression Sx .40 4.28*** <.001
   Adolescent Age .21 2.55* .012
   Adolescent Gender −.02 −.21 .834
   SES .15 1.75 .082
   Adolescents’ Use of DC .26 3.21** .002
   Mothers’ Use of DC .04 .50 .62
   Adolescent x Mother DC .20 2.36* .020
Open in a new tab

Note. Sx = Symptoms; PCC = Primary Control Coping; SCC = Secondary Control Coping; DC = Disengagement Coping; SES = Socioeconomic Status (i.e., maternal educational attainment)

*

p < .05

**

p < .01

***

p<.001

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

Interaction Between Adolescents’ and Mothers’ Primary Control Coping Predicting Adolescents’ Internalizing Symptoms

Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Open in a new tab

Interaction Between Adolescents’ and Mothers’ Secondary Control Coping Predicting Adolescents’ Internalizing Symptoms

Figure 3.

Figure 3.

Open in a new tab

Interaction Between Adolescents’ and Mothers’ Disengagement Coping Predicting Adolescents’ Internalizing Symptoms

Maternal Depression, Adolescent Coping, and Internalizing Symptoms

In support of Hypothesis 3, maternal depression symptoms were positively correlated with adolescents’ internalizing symptoms (r = .37, p < .001; Table 2). In support of Hypothesis 4a, there was a significant interaction between adolescents’ use of PCC and maternal depression symptoms (β = −.17, p = .037), where at low (b = .45, t(113) = 4.79, p < .001) and moderate levels of adolescents’ use of PCC (b = .30, t(113) = 4.33, p < .001), maternal depression symptoms predicted greater internalizing symptoms in adolescents (Table 4; Figure 4). There were no significant interactions between maternal depression symptoms and adolescents’ use of SCC (Hypothesis 4b) or DCC (Hypothesis 4c).

Table 4.

Regression Analyses Predicting Adolescents’ Internalizing Sx from Maternal Depression Sx and Adolescents’ ER Strategies

β t p
Model 1 F(6,113) = 7.81***; adjusted R2 = .26***
   Adolescent Age .12 1.45 .150
   Adolescent Gender −.07 −.78 .44
   SES .13 1.59 .115
   Mother Depression Sx .39 4.33*** <.000
   Adolescents’ Use of PCC −.32 −3.95*** <.001
   Adolescent PCC x Mother Depression Sx −.17 −2.11* .037
Model 2 F(6,113) = 25.56***; adjusted R2 = .42***
   Adolescent Age .12 1.72 .089
   Adolescent Gender −.09 −1.19 .237
   SES .16 2.15 .034
   Mother Depression Sx .31 3.92*** <.001
   Adolescents’ Use of SCC −.52 −7.23*** <.001
   Adolescent SCC x Mother Depression Sx −.11 −1.60 .113
Model 3 F(6,113) = 6.01***; adjusted R2 = .20***
   Adolescent Age .16 1.96 .053
   Adolescent Gender −.02 −.20 .840
   SES .17 2.00* .048
   Mother Depression Sx .40 4.29*** <.001
   Adolescents’ Use of DC .24 32.93** .004
   Adolescent DC x Mother Depression Sx −.06 −.71 .48
Open in a new tab

Note. Sx = Symptoms; PCC = Primary Control Coping; SCC = Secondary Control Coping; DC = Disengagement Coping; SES = Socioeconomic Status (i.e., maternal educational attainment)

*

p < .05

**

p < .01

***

p < .001

Figure 4.

Figure 4.

Open in a new tab

Interaction Between Adolescent PCC and Maternal Depression Symptoms Predicting Adolescents’ Internalizing Symptoms Note. PCC = Primary Control Coping

Discussion

To elucidate the role of key processes in adolescents’ emotion socialization, we utilized a multi-informant design to examine the associations among adolescents’ coping, mothers’ coping, maternal depression symptoms, and adolescents’ internalizing problems. Maternal depression symptoms and adolescents’ coping were significantly related to adolescents’ internalizing problems. Adolescents’ coping moderated the association between maternal depression symptoms and their internalizing symptoms, where at low and moderate levels of PCC, maternal depression predicted greater internalizing symptoms in adolescents. Further, this study expanded upon previous work, demonstrating that the relationship between adolescents’ coping and internalizing symptoms is associated with the degree to which mothers model different types of coping strategies.

Maternal Coping and Adolescent Coping

In support of Hypothesis 1b, mothers’ use of SCC showed a significant positive association with adolescents’ use of SCC. However, mothers’ use of PCC and DC was unrelated to adolescents’ use of these strategies. There are several potential interpretations of this pattern of findings. First, a strong body of evidence supports the efficacy of SCC in response to uncontrollable stressors, including family stress (Compas et al., 2017; Langrock et al., 2002; Monti et al., 2014). While explicitly examining the role of stress levels was beyond the scope of the present study, it is possible that mothers’ modeling of SCC may be more salient for adolescents exposed to higher levels of family stress (Watson et al., 2022). Second, social learning theory emphasizes the influential role that parental modeling plays in shaping children’s behavior (Bandura, 1977), and prior research has demonstrated positive associations between parent and youth coping (Kliewer et al., 1995, 2006; Zimmer-Gembeck et al., 2022). Given prior research showing null associations with mothers’ coaching of coping (Anderson et al., 2021; Watson et al., 2022), it is possible that mothers’ modeling of SCC may be a more influential emotion socialization process in the context of family stress. Last, it is possible that self-report of mothers’ coping captures covert processes that may not be directly observable to adolescents, thus limiting the explicit modeling of coping and subsequent influence on adolescents’ coping. Future research should seek to clarify the roles of family stress and specific emotion socialization processes in the intergenerational transmission of internalizing psychopathology.

Maternal Coping as a Moderator of Adolescent Coping and Internalizing Symptoms

Support was found for the second hypothesis that mothers’ coping would moderate the association between adolescents’ coping and internalizing problems. Findings suggest that while mothers’ modeling of PCC and SCC emerged as significant moderators of effects, adolescents’ use of these strategies appeared to be more robust protective factors in the context of family stress. In contrast, when mothers modeled more DC, adolescents’ use of DC was associated with elevated levels of internalizing problems, suggesting that mothers’ modeling of DC incurred greater risk for adolescents. These findings are consistent with prior studies of parental socialization of coping and build upon prior research by using a more comprehensive measure of coping (i.e., including measures of mothers’ avoidance, denial, and wishful thinking) to clarify the risks associated with modeling DC (Abaied & Rudolph, 2010; Anderson et al., 2021).

Maternal Depression, Adolescent Coping, and Internalizing Symptoms

Although it was unexpected that the effect of mothers’ PCC was significant only at low and moderate levels, these associations may be partially attributable to patterns of coping in mothers with more elevated levels of depression symptoms. In the present study, maternal depression symptoms were negatively associated with mothers’ own use of PCC and positively associated with adolescents’ internalizing symptoms (Hypothesis 3). Further, when adolescents’ use of PCC was low or moderate, maternal depression symptoms were positively associated with adolescents’ internalizing symptoms, but unrelated to adolescents’ symptoms when their use of PCC was high (Hypothesis 4a). Thus, it appears that in the context of greater risk, the types of coping strategies that adolescents use to cope with family stress may be even more impactful. Taken together, these findings replicate and extend upon prior work emphasizing the protective role of PCC and SCC and the harmful effects of using DC in response to family stress (Anderson et al., 2021; Compas et al., 2017). Further, the present study builds upon prior work on emotion socialization by demonstrating that the use of PCC is especially important in the context of maternal depression.

Intervention and Prevention Implications

The present findings motivate parental modeling of coping and adolescents’ use of PCC and SCC as modifiable protective factors that have significant implications for intervention and prevention efforts. Researchers have called for interventions that include a focus not only on enhancing parents’ ability to guide their children’s coping (i.e., through coaching coping behaviors or responding supportively to children’s expressed emotion), but also on supporting parents’ own coping (Hajal & Paley, 2020; Zachary et al., 2019). Tuning in to Kids (TIK; and the adapted Tuning in to Teens) is one such intervention that has demonstrated efficacy in decreasing adolescents’ psychological problems and family conflict (Havighurst et al., 2010, 2013, 2015). TIK’s efficacy may be partly due to its’ focus on enhancing parental coping, which may be particularly important for parents with elevated levels of depression symptoms. For these parents, interventions focusing explicitly on their coaching of effective coping strategies and reactions to children’s emotions without supporting parents’ own coping may be ineffective and even countertherapeutic (Hajal & Paley, 2020). Thus, our findings support the utility of enhancing parents’ own adaptive coping, not only because of the importance of parental modeling but also because it supports parents’ ability to more effectively engage in other forms of emotion socialization processes that collectively shape adolescents’ coping and psychological adjustment. Further, given our findings emphasizing the role of adolescents’ coping, interventions that focus on enhancing both parents’ and adolescents’ coping may be particularly impactful.

Limitations and Future Directions

The present study had several limitations that can be addressed in future research. First, because the study was cross-sectional, causal inferences cannot be made regarding the relations between mothers’ coping, adolescents’ coping, maternal depression symptoms, and adolescents’ adjustment. Future research utilizing longitudinal designs is necessary to allow for temporal precedence and sequence to test mediation models among these variables. Second, while the present study focused on mothers with a broad range of severity in depression symptoms, future research examining the broader role of maternal internalizing symptoms (i.e., including symptoms of anxiety in addition to depression) in association with adolescents’ psychological adjustment is warranted. Third, the present study utilized self-report measures of coping. While the instruments used to measure coping in the present study are widely used and empirically validated measures (e.g., Benson et al., 2011; Compas et al., 2006; Wadsworth & Compas, 2002), observational measures of coping would prevent against potential shared method variance. Previous work using observational measures of parental socialization of coping has demonstrated the influential effect that mothers’ coping messages may have on youth adjustment (Watson et al., 2022). However, it is noteworthy that the observational coding system used by Watson et al. (2022) warrants further validation in future studies. Further, given conflicting findings associated with parental coaching vs. modeling of coping, it is possible that the association between maternal coping and adolescents’ coping is partially attributable to the type of socialization process being examined. Additional work using multi-method measures of distinct emotion socialization processes and comprehensive measures of coping is needed to extend research on this topic. Fourth, given the sample size and limited racial/ethnic and socioeconomic diversity of families within our study, future research should prioritize the assessment of parental socialization of coping using larger and more diverse samples. Last, in efforts to include a homogenous sample of parental emotion socialization, the present study focused on mothers. However, an emerging body of evidence suggests that fathers also support their children’s coping development (e.g., Cassano et al., 2007; McElwain et al., 2007). However, to our knowledge, no studies have specifically examined the longitudinal contributions of fathers’ coping socialization processes. The field would benefit from future studies including measures of the socialization of paternal coping.

Conclusion

In sum, the present findings suggest that adolescents’ use of PCC and SCC may serve as robust protective factors in the context of family stress. Mothers’ modeling of DC appeared to be particularly harmful for adolescents, and adolescents’ use of PCC was especially important in the context of elevated levels of maternal depression symptoms. Findings highlight potentially modifiable intervention targets and emphasize a need for researchers to further clarify relevant emotion socialization processes in adolescents’ development of coping.

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by a gift from Patricia and Rodes Hart, a gift from an anonymous donor, and by Grant T32-MH018921 from the National Institute of Mental Health.

Footnotes

Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

1.

Coping and ER are overlapping terms involving regulatory processes that "initiate, delay, terminate, modify the form/content, or modulate the amount or intensity of a thought, emotion, behavior, or physiological reaction” (Compas et al., 2001). Coping occurs specifically in response to a stressor, while ER occurs in response to the presence of an emotion regardless of whether the emotion arises in response to a stressor (Compas et al., 2017; Troy et al., 2023). While these terms have significant overlap (e.g., cognitive reappraisal represents a core strategy of both coping and ER), the present study focuses on coping in response to stress and will refer to coping processes hereafter (see Compas et al., 2017).

Credit Author Statement

Allegra S. Anderson: Conceptualization, Writing-Original draft preparation, Writing-Review & editing, Formal analysis. Kelly H. Watson: Investigation, Data Curation, Writing-Review & editing. Michelle M. Reising: Investigation, Data Curation. Jennifer P. Dunbar: Investigation, Data Curation. Meredith A. Gruhn: Investigation, Data Curation. Bruce E. Compas: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing- Review & editing, Supervision, Project administration, Funding acquisition.

Conflict of Interest Declaration

We wish to confirm that there are no known conflicts of interest associated with this publication and there has been no significant financial support for this work that could have influenced its outcome.

We confirm that the manuscript has been read and approved by all named authors and that there are no other persons who satisfied the criteria for authorship but are not listed. We further confirm that the order of authors listed in the manuscript has been approved by all of us.

We confirm that we have given due consideration to the protection of intellectual property associated with this work and that there are no impediments to publication, including the timing of publication, with respect to intellectual property. In so doing we confirm that we have followed the regulations of our institutions concerning intellectual property.

We further confirm that any aspect of the work covered in this manuscript that has involved either experimental animals or human patients has been conducted with the ethical approval of all relevant bodies and that such approvals are acknowledged within the manuscript.

We understand that the Corresponding Author is the sole contact for the Editorial process (including Editorial Manager and direct communications with the office). She is responsible for communicating with the other authors about progress, submissions of revisions and final approval of proofs. We confirm that we have provided a current, correct email address which is accessible by the Corresponding Author and which has been configured to accept email from allegra.s.anderson@vanderbilt.edu.

References

  1. Abaied JL, & Rudolph KD (2010). Mothers as a resource in times of stress: Interactive contributions of socialization of coping and stress to youth psychopathology. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 38(2), 273–289. 10.1007/S10802-009-9364-7/FIGURES/3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Abaied JL, & Rudolph KD (2011). Maternal influences on youth responses to peer stress. Developmental Psychology, 47(6), 1776–1785. 10.1037/A0025439 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Abaied JL, & Stanger SB (2017). Socialization of coping in a predominantly female sample of caregivers: Contributions to children’s social adjustment in middle childhood. Journal of Family Psychology, 31(7), 958. 10.1037/fam0000342 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Abaied JL, Stanger SB, Cheaito A, & Ramirez V (2022). Latent profiles of parent socialization of coping in emerging adulthood. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 83, 101472. 10.1016/j.appdev.2022.101472 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  5. Achenbach TM, & Rescorla LA (2001). Manual for the ASEBA School-Age Forms & Profiles. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont, Research Center for Children, Youth, & Families. [Google Scholar]
  6. Anderson AS, Watson KH, Reising MM, Dunbar JP, Bettis AH, Gruhn MA, & Compas BE (2021). Relations Between Maternal Coping Socialization, Adolescents’ Coping, and Symptoms of Anxiety and Depression. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 30(3), 663–675. 10.1007/S10826-020-01879-Y/FIGURES/1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  7. Bandura A, & Walters RH (1977). Social learning theory (Vol. 1). Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs. [Google Scholar]
  8. Beck AT, Steer RA, & Brown G (1996). Beck Depression Inventory–II (BDI-II) [Database record]. APA PsycTests. 10.1037/t00742-000 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  9. Benson MA, Compas BE, Layne CM, Vandergrift N, Pašalić H, Katalinksi R, & Pynoos RS (2011). Measurement of post-war coping and stress responses: A study of Bosnian adolescents. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 32(6), 323–335. 10.1016/J.APPDEV.2011.07.001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  10. Breaux R, McQuade JD, & Musser ED (2022). Introduction to the special issue: Transdiagnostic implications of parental socialization of child and adolescent emotions. Research on Child and Adolescent Psychopathology, 50(1), 1–11. 10.1007/s10802-021-00864-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Buckholdt KE, Parra GR, & Jobe-Shields L (2014). Intergenerational transmission of emotion dysregulation through parental invalidation of emotions: Implications for adolescent internalizing and externalizing behaviors. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 23(2), 324–332. 10.1007/s10826-013-9768-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Cassano M, Perry-Parrish C, & Zeman J (2007). Influence of Gender on Parental Socialization of Children’s Sadness Regulation. Social Development, 16(2), 210–231. 10.1111/J.1467-9507.2007.00381.X [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  13. Choi JY, & Kang JH (2021). Heterogeneous patterns of maternal emotion socialization and their association with maternal depression and maltreatment history: a person-centered approach. Child Abuse & Neglect, 122, 105348. 10.1016/j.chiabu.2021.105348 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Compas BE, Boyer MC, Stanger C, Colletti RB, Thomsen AH, Dufton LM, & Cole DA (2006). Latent variable analysis of coping, anxiety/depression, and somatic symptoms in adolescents with chronic pain. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 74(6), 1132–1142. 10.1037/0022-006X.74.6.1132 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Compas BE, Connor-Smith JK, Saltzman H, Thomsen AH, & Wadsworth ME (2001). Coping with stress during childhood and adolescence: Problems, progress, and potential in theory and research. Psychological Bulletin, 127(1), 87–127. 10.1037/0033-2909.127.1.87 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Compas BE, Jaser SS, Bettis AH, Watson KH, Gruhn MA, Dunbar JP, Williams E, & Thigpen JC (2017). Coping, emotion regulation, and psychopathology in childhood and adolescence: A meta-analysis and narrative review. Psychological Bulletin, 143(9), 939–991. 10.1037/BUL0000110 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Connor-Smith JK, Compas BE, Wadsworth ME, Thomsen AH, & Saltzman H (2000). Responses to stress in adolescence: Measurement of coping and involuntary stress responses. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68(6), 976–992. 10.1037/0022-006X.68.6.976 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Dix T, & Meunier LN (2009). Depressive symptoms and parenting competence: An analysis of 13 regulatory processes. Developmental Review, 29(1), 45–68. 10.1016/j.dr.2008.11.002 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  19. Eisenberg N, Cumberland A, & Spinrad TL (1998). Parental socialization of emotion. Psychological Inquiry, 9(4), 241–273. 10.1207/s15327965pli0904_1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Erdfelder E, Faul F, & Buchner A (1996). GPOWER: A general power analysis program. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers 1996 28:1, 28(1), 1–11. 10.3758/BF03203630 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  21. Gotlib IH, Goodman SH, & Humphreys KL (2020). Studying the Intergenerational Transmission of Risk for Depression: Current Status and Future Directions. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 29(2), 174–179. 10.1177/0963721420901590 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Hajal NJ, & Paley B (2020). Parental emotion and emotion regulation: A critical target of study for research and intervention to promote child emotion socialization. Developmental Psychology, 56(3), 403. 10.1037/dev0000864 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Havighurst SS, Wilson KR, Harley AE, Prior MR, & Kehoe C (2010). Tuning in to Kids: improving emotion socialization practices in parents of preschool children–findings from a community trial. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 51(12), 1342–1350. 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2010.02303.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Havighurst SS, Wilson KR, Harley AE, Kehoe C, Efron D, & Prior MR (2013). “Tuning into kids”: Reducing young children’s behavior problems using an emotion coaching parenting program. Child Psychiatry & Human Development, 44(2), 247–264. 10.1007/s10578-012-0322-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Havighurst SS, Kehoe CE, & Harley AE (2015). Tuning in to teens: Improving parental responses to anger and reducing youth externalizing behavior problems. Journal of adolescence, 42, 148–158. 10.1016/j.adolescence.2015.04.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Jaser SS, Champion JE, Reeslund KL, Keller G, Merchant MJ, Benson M, & Compas BE (2007). Cross-situational coping with peer and family stressors in adolescent offspring of depressed parents. Journal of Adolescence, 30(6), 917–932. 10.1016/J.ADOLESCENCE.2006.11.010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Kliewer W, & Lewis H (1995). Family Influences on Coping Processes in Children and Adolescents with Sickle Cell Disease. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 20(4), 511–525. 10.1093/JPEPSY/20.4.511 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Kliewer W, Parrish KA, Taylor KW, Jackson K, Walker JM, & Shivy VA (2006). Socialization of Coping With Community Violence: Influences of Caregiver Coaching, Modeling, and Family Context. Child Development, 77(3), 605–623. 10.1111/J.1467-8624.2006.00893.X [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Langrock AM, Compas BE, Keller G, Merchant MJ, & Copeland ME (2002). Coping with the stress of parental depression: Parents' reports of children's coping, emotional, and behavioral problems. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 31(3), 312–324. 10.1207/S15374424JCCP3103_03 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Lewis HA, & Kliewer W (1996). Hope, Coping, and Adjustment Among Children with Sickle Cell Disease: Tests of Mediator and Moderator Models. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 21(1), 25–41. 10.1093/JPEPSY/21.1.25 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. McDowell DJ, & Parke RD (2005). Parental Control and Affect as Predictors of Children’s Display Rule Use and Social Competence with Peers. Social Development, 14(3), 440–457. 10.1111/J.1467-9507.2005.00310.X [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  32. McElwain NL, Halberstadt AG, & Volling BL (2007). Mother- and Father-Reported Reactions to Children’s Negative Emotions: Relations to Young Children’s Emotional Understanding and Friendship Quality. Child Development, 78(5), 1407–1425. 10.1111/J.1467-8624.2007.01074.X [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Monti JD, Rudolph KD, & Abaied JL (2014). Contributions of maternal emotional functioning to socialization of coping. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 31(2), 247–269. 10.1177/0265407513492304 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Morris AS, Silk JS, Steinberg L, Myers SS, & Robinson LR (2007). The Role of the Family Context in the Development of Emotion Regulation. Social Development, 16(2), 361–388. 10.1111/J.1467-9507.2007.00389.X [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Peisch V, Dale C, Parent J, & Burt K (2020). Parent socialization of coping and child emotion regulation abilities: A longitudinal examination. Family process, 59(4), 1722–1736. 10.1111/famp.12516 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Price NN, & Kiel EJ (2022). Longitudinal links among mother and child emotion regulation, maternal emotion socialization, and child anxiety. Research on Child and Adolescent Psychopathology, 50(2), 241–254. 10.1007/s10802-021-00804-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Rudolph KD, Dennig MD, & Weisz JR (1995). Determinants and Consequences of Children’s Coping in the Medical Setting: Conceptualization, Review, and Critique. Psychological Bulletin, 118(3), 328–357. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Schafer JL, & Graham JW (2002). Missing data: Our view of the state of the art. Psychological Methods, 7(2), 147–177. 10.1037/1082-989X.7.2.147 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Troy AS, Willroth EC, Shallcross AJ, Giuliani NR, Gross JJ, & Mauss IB (2023). Psychological resilience: An affect-regulation framework. Annual Review of Psychology, 74. 10.1146/annurev-psych-020122-041854 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Vitaliano PP, Maiuro RD, Russo J, & Becker J (1987). Raw versus relative scores in the assessment of coping strategies. Journal of Behavioral Medicine 1987 10:1, 10(1), 1–18. 10.1007/BF00845124 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Wadsworth ME, & Compas BE (2002). Coping with Family Conflict and Economic Strain: The Adolescent Perspective. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 12(2), 243–274. 10.1111/1532-7795.00033 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  42. Wadsworth ME, Rieckmann T, Benson MA, & Compas BE (2004). Coping and responses to stress in Navajo adolescents: Psychometric properties of the Responses to Stress Questionnaire. Journal of Community Psychology, 32(4), 391–411. 10.1002/JCOP.20008 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  43. Watson KH, Anderson AS, Savin K, Penner F, Williams E, Reising MM, Dunbar JP, Bettis AH, Gruhn M, & Compas B (2022). Observed Maternal Coping Socialization and Child Internalizing Symptoms: The Roles of Maternal Depressive Symptoms and Peer Stress. Research on Child and Adolescent Psychopathology, 50(1), 37–49. 10.1007/S10802-021-00796-Y/FIGURES/1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Weisz JR, McCabe MA, & Dennig MD (1994). Primary and Secondary Control Among Children Undergoing Medical Procedures: Adjustment as a Function of Coping Style. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62(2), 324–332. 10.1037/0022-006X.62.2.324 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Zachary C, Jones DJ, McKee LG, Baucom DH, & Forehand RL (2019). The role of emotion regulation and socialization in behavioral parent training: A proof-of-concept study. Behavior Modification, 43(1), 3–25. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Zimmer-Gembeck MJ, Rudolph J, Kerin J, & Bohadana-Brown G (2022). Parentemotional regulation: A meta-analytic review of its association with parenting and child adjustment. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 46(1), 63–82. 10.1177/01650254211051086 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES