2001 Socialization Of Stress, Coping, & Adjustment In Japan

SOCIALIZATION OF STRESS, COPING, AND ADJUSTMENT IN JAPAN

A Dissertation

Presented to

The Department of Psychology

DePaul University

BY

DONALD FRANCIS KILBURG III

JUNE, 2001

2

DISSERTATION COMMITTEE

Kathryn E. Grant, Ph.D.

Chairperson

Ralph Erber, Ph.D. (Psychology)

Fred Heilizer, Ph.D. (Psychology)

Nobuko Chikamatsu, Ph.D. (Modern Languages)

Roger Graves, Ph.D. (English)

3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I express deep gratitude to Dr. Kathryn E. Grant (DePaul University) for sharing her ideas,

expertise and guidance throughout this research project, and to Dr. Linda A. Camras (DePaul

University) for her crucial help in the early stages of this research. I am also grateful to Dr. Paul E.

Jose (Victoria University, New Zealand) for providing the original measures of this research, as well

as invaluable direction and guidance. Sincere thanks go to Dr. Kazuo Nishikawa (Mie University,

Japan) for his careful assistance with theoretical considerations, translation, and administration. I am

also thankful to Shouko Murakami, Kazuyo Fujii, Makiko Hamamoto, and Yuusuke Matsuura (Mie

University, Japan) for help in data collection and entry. Furthermore, I express great appreciation to

the administrators of the schools of Japan where data were collected: Fuzoku Elementary, Fuzoku

Junior High, Kyohoku Junior High, and Tsu Higashi High. For providing useful commentary and

advice, many thanks go to my dissertation committee members as well: Dr. Ralph Erber (Psychology

Department), Dr. Fred Heilizer (Psychology Department), Dr. Nobuko Chikamatsu (Modern

Languages Department), Dr. Roger Graves (English Department) [DePaul University]. Additionally, I

thank the Japanese children and parents who participated in this study. Without them, this research

would not have been possible. Lastly, I would like to thank my parents, Donald and Patricia, for all

their love and support throughout graduate school.

4

VITA

Donald Francis Kilburg III was born in Oak Lawn, Illinois on January 15th, 1970. He was

graduated from Homewood-Flossmoor High School in Flossmoor, Illinois in 1988. In 1993, he

received his Bachelor of Science degree in Psychology from the University of Illinois at Champaign-

Urbana in Champaign, Illinois. In 1997, he received his Master of Arts degree in Experimental

Psychology from DePaul University in Chicago, Illinois. In that same year, he was awarded the

Japanese Ministry of Education (Monbusho) Fellowship for Predoctoral Study in Psychology. In June

2001, Mr. Kilburg will receive his Doctorate in Experimental Psychology from DePaul University. In

the Fall of 2001, he hopes to begin postdoctoral study to expand his dissertation work at the

professional level.

Kilburg, Donald F., III & Nishikawa, Kazuo (2001). Stress and Coping in Japanese Middle

Childhood. The Bulletin of the Faculty of Education, Mie University (Educational Science), Vol. 52 (in Japanese).

Kilburg, D.F. III (1997). Stress and Coping in Japanese Middle Childhood. M.A. Thesis.

Tracy, R. J., Pabis, M., & Kilburg, D. (1997-98). The effect of schematic context on mental imagery. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 17(3), pp. 191-214.

For further information contact the author at: [email protected] http://www.depaul.edu/~dkilburg

5

CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES.......................................................................................................................................... 7

LIST OF FIGURES........................................................................................................................................ 9

CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 10

THE TOPIC: SOCIALIZATION OF STRESS, COPING, AND ADJUSTMENT IN JAPAN................................. 10 THE MODEL: THE COGNITIVE-MOTIVATIONAL-RELATIONAL THEORY .............................................. 11

Stress, Appraisal, and Coping: Definitions ........................................................................................ 11 Problem-focused and Emotion-focused Coping................................................................................. 12

RESEARCH ON AMERICAN CHILDREN’S STRESS AND COPING.............................................................. 13 Stress ..................................................................................................................................................... 14 Coping................................................................................................................................................... 15 Adjustment ............................................................................................................................................ 17

RESEARCH ON JAPANESE CHILDREN’S STRESS AND COPING ............................................................... 18 Stress ..................................................................................................................................................... 18 Coping................................................................................................................................................... 21 Adjustment ............................................................................................................................................ 26

THE LINK BETWEEN MATERNAL SOCIALIZATION AND CHILDREN’S STRESS AND COPING: U.S. AND JAPAN ........................................................................................................................................................ 28 RATIONALE............................................................................................................................................... 31 RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES............................................................................................. 35

Stress ..................................................................................................................................................... 35 Coping................................................................................................................................................... 35 Adjustment: School Performance and Life Satisfaction .................................................................... 36 Maternal Socialization: Discouragement/Encouragement of Coping.............................................. 36

CHAPTER II. METHOD ........................................................................................................................ 37

RESEARCH PARTICIPANTS........................................................................................................................ 37 MATERIALS............................................................................................................................................... 38

Age, Sex, Grade .................................................................................................................................... 39 Stress ..................................................................................................................................................... 39 Coping................................................................................................................................................... 41 School Performance ............................................................................................................................. 44 Life Satisfaction .................................................................................................................................... 45 Maternal Socialization: Discouragement/Encouragement of Coping.............................................. 45

DESIGN...................................................................................................................................................... 46 PROCEDURE .............................................................................................................................................. 46

CHAPTER III. RESULTS ...................................................................................................................... 49

STRESS ...................................................................................................................................................... 49 COPING...................................................................................................................................................... 57 ADJUSTMENT: SCHOOL PERFORMANCE AND LIFE SATISFACTION ....................................................... 65 MATERNAL SOCIALIZATION: DISCOURAGEMENT/ENCOURAGEMENT OF COPING .............................. 67 EXPLORATORY COPING FACTORS........................................................................................................... 75 ANALYSES OF THE EXPLORATORY COPING FACTORS........................................................................... 78

CHAPTER IV. DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................ 96

OVERVIEW OF HYPOTHESIS TEST OUTCOMES ....................................................................................... 97

6

STRESS ...................................................................................................................................................... 98 COPING.................................................................................................................................................... 100 ADJUSTMENT .......................................................................................................................................... 104 MATERNAL SOCIALIZATION: DISCOURAGEMENT/ENCOURAGEMENT OF COPING ............................ 105 EXPLORATORY COPING FACTORS......................................................................................................... 109 ANALYSES OF THE EXPLORATORY COPING FACTORS......................................................................... 111 LIMITATIONS OF THIS RESEARCH.......................................................................................................... 115 GENERAL IMPLICATIONS AND DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE STUDY....................................................... 117

CHAPTER V. SUMMARY ................................................................................................................... 122

REFERENCES......................................................................................................................................... 123

APPENDIX A. CODING KEYS................................................................................................................ 131

APPENDIX B. FORMS ............................................................................................................................. 136

APPENDIX C. CHILD QUESTIONNAIRES........................................................................................... 145

APPENDIX D. MOTHER QUESTIONNAIRES...................................................................................... 163

APPENDIX E. JAPANESE VERSIONS OF QUESTIONNAIRES ......................................................... 177

7

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1: Between-Subjects Factors (Analysis 1)

50

TABLE 2: Descriptive Statistics (Analysis 1)

51

TABLE 3: Multivariate Tests (Analysis 1)

52

TABLE 4: Tests of Between-Subjects Effects (Analysis 1)

53

TABLE 5: Multiple Comparisons (Analysis 1)

54


58


59

TABLE 8: Tests of Between-Subjects Effects (Analysis 2)

59


60

TABLE 10: Group Statistics (Analysis 3)

63

TABLE 11: Independent Samples Test (Analysis 3)

64


65

TABLE 13: Correlations (Analysis 4)

66

TABLE 14: Between-Subjects Factors (Analysis 5)

68


69


70


70


73


74

TABLE 20: Preliminary Factor Analysis of Maternal Discouragement/Encouragement Coping (Analysis 7)

76

TABLE 21: Total Variance Explained (Analysis 7)

76


80


81


83


85


86


86

8


88


89

TABLE 30: Total Variance Explained (Analysis 12)

91

TABLE 31: Items with factor loadings of at least .60, from the preceding 3-Factor solution (Analysis 12)

92


95


95

9

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1: Stress Intensity within Context as a Function of Sex of Child (Analysis 1)

55

FIGURE 2: Stress Intensity by Context as a Function of Grade of Child (Analysis 1)

56

FIGURE 3: Coping Type as a Function of Sex of Child (Analysis 2)

61

FIGURE 4: Coping Type as a Function of Grade of Child (Analysis 2)

62

FIGURE 5: Social Support Seeking (EF & PF) as a Function of Sex (Analysis 3)

64

FIGURE 6: Maternal Discouragement and Encouragement of Coping as a Function of Grade of Child (Analysis 5)

71

FIGURE 7: Coping Type (Exploratory) as a Function of Sex of Child (Analysis 8)

81

FIGURE 8: Maternal Discouragement and Encouragement of Coping (Exploratory) as a Function of Grade of Child (Analysis 10)

87

10

CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION

The Topic: Socialization of Stress, Coping, and Adjustment in Japan

American folk psychological notions of emotional adaptation have long held that what

constitutes a stressful event depends upon whether one “looks at the bright side.” In the past several

decades, experimental psychology has indeed found that stress can have major health and adjustment

consequences for some people and yet minor ones for others (Kessler, 1997; Lazarus, 1990, 1991; La

Greca, Siegal, Wallander, & Walker, 1992). What is crucial is not only how one looks at one’s stress,

but how one copes with it. Researchers have found that coping behavior can ameliorate the experience

of stress consequences. In doing so it can modify the mere relationship one has with one’s

surroundings, as well as the actual surroundings themselves – not to mention, one’s body and one’s

very sense of self (Aldwin, 1994; Lazarus, 1991). American researchers of emotional adaptation are

now engaged in taking the stress-coping-adjustment socialization patterns they have found in America

and transporting and testing them in other cultures – to see how well they generalize.

Research involving Japanese participants who have never lived outside of Japan is a uniquely

exciting prospect. The Japanese say kaikatsu wa kenkou ni saku hana da (roughly, “cheerfulness is

the very flower of health”). This would indicate that they have their own folk psychological notions

about emotional adaptation, and “looking at the bright side”. With a 2,000-year-plus history, one

might expect as much. What is remarkable is that most of this history was spent in isolation from

other peoples. As a result, the Japanese are one of the most genealogically distinct and culturally

homogenous populations in the world. The Japanese population of 125 million people constitutes the

only non-Western nation that has attained economic development on par with that of the United States.

In fact, Japan has the second largest economy in the world. Interestingly, economic development in

Japan has taken place without compromising much of the country’s original traditions and values

(Hendry, 1998; McCargo, 2000; Beasley, 1990). American psychologists are therefore becoming

increasingly interested in understanding potentially unique patterns of Japanese emotional adaptation,

which presumably underlie Japan’s unique cultural and historical path.

11

The Model: The Cognitive-Motivational-Relational Theory

The dominant American model of stress and coping is the Cognitive-motivational-relational

theory, by Richard S. Lazarus (Lazarus and Folkman, 1984; Lazarus, 1991). This transactionist model

states that the stress-coping relationship is one of process. Its emphasis is on the interdependence of

variables changing through time. In this formulation, cognitive interpretation and personal motivation

play a major role – hence the name, Cognitive-motivational-relational theory. Inclusion of the term

“relational” serves to underscore the importance of a new level of theoretical analysis, called

“relational meaning.” Relational meaning refers to that which incorporates an individual’s unique

experience within a given stress-coping encounter, taking into account the individual’s beliefs and

goals about that encounter. In other words, the stress-coping process must not only be considered in

terms of context (e.g. “school” or “peer relations”), but also in terms of the individual’s experience and

interpretation of the particulars of the given encounter within the given context.

Stress, Appraisal, and Coping: Definitions

According to Lazarus (1991), stress cannot be clearly defined without reference to one’s

perception. He explains: “the analogy to load, stress, and strain in engineering, like the activation or

drive model in psychophysiology, failed, because psychological stress and emotion cannot be

adequately defined without reference to an individual's motivation and the way that individual defines

and evaluates relationships with the environment” (1991, p. 10). Lazarus’ Cognitive-motivational-

relational theory therefore addresses the definition of stress by way of “appraisal.” Appraisal is

essentially cognitive evaluation or interpretation of one’s experience. According to Lazarus and

Folkman (1984), “Psychological stress involves a particular relationship between the person and the

environment that is appraised by the person as taxing or exceeding his or her resources and

endangering his or her well being” (p. 19).

“Primary appraisal” and “secondary appraisal” govern the experience of stress (Lazarus,

12

1991). Primary appraisal involves the determination that an encounter is relevant to one's well being,

based on one’s beliefs and goals. Secondary appraisal involves the determination of coping options –

that is, “whether any given action might prevent harm, ameliorate it, or produce additional harm or

benefit” (Lazarus, 1991, p. 133). Coping itself is defined by Lazarus (1991) as consisting of

“cognitive and behavioral efforts to manage specific external or internal demands (and conflicts

between them) that are appraised as taxing or exceeding the resources of the person” (p. 112).

Appraisal is involved in a feedback process with coping. Appraisal initiates coping, which in

turn initiates reappraisal. Appraisal and coping are therefore sometimes difficult to distinguish. For

simplicity, the appraisal-coping process can be conceptualized as a serial one (e.g., an employee may

appraise an upcoming performance evaluation as consequential to his/her well-being, leading him/her

to employ a problem-solving strategy). However, it is actually a parallel, transactional one – because

appraisal and coping reflect joint involvement of ongoing interaction between person and environment

variables (e.g., in the preceding case, the boss may meanwhile notice the employee taking the

upcoming evaluation seriously and therefore decide to reduce the stringency of the evaluation – as a

result of this joint involvement, the employee may ultimately begin to see him/herself as the kind of

person who need not fear evaluations). Coping itself is further delineated in Lazarus’ framework, as

discussed in the following section.

Problem-focused and Emotion-focused Coping

Lazarus and Folkman (1984) have identified “problem-focused coping” and “emotion-focused

coping” as conceptually distinct kinds of coping. The former is action-centered and aimed at changing

the objective reality of the person-environment relationship. The latter is cognition-centered and

aimed at changing one’s subjective experience of the person-environment relationship.

To illustrate the problem/emotion-focused coping distinction, Lazarus provides the example of

facing off with an enemy. In the context of the child’s world, the “enemy” might be a bully on the

playground. Problem-focused coping would include display of aggression to ward off the enemy. It

13

aims to change the actual relationship between the individual and the enemy. Emotion-focused coping

would include “thinking positive” in the face of the enemy. It aims to change one’s subjective

experience of the enemy.

In practice, any coping that changes one’s objective reality, by way of problem-focused

coping, likely results in some degree of change in one’s subjective experience. Conversely, any

coping that changes one’s subjective experience, by way of emotion-focused coping, likely results in

some degree of change in one’s objective reality. Moreover, coping may have the appearance of being

emotion-focused when it is actually problem-focused, or vice versa. Consider a crying child. He or

she may be crying simply as a means of “releasing” emotion – in order to feel better. Conversely, he

or she may be crying as a means of attracting the attention of others – in order to fix his or her

problem, and subsequently feel better.

Additionally, sometimes one coping strategy is intended to simultaneously serve both problem

and emotion-focused purposes. For example, one may choose to ignore a problem and by not thinking

about it feel better (emotion-focused coping). At the same time, one may choose to ignore the

problem in order to convey to others that one is not concerned with it, such that others’ confidence

will either increase or decrease, depending on the goal (problem-focused coping). In regards to

gaining self-confidence and increasing the confidence of others, consider a military commander who

denies the intensity of a mission in order to increase his own morale and that of his troops, in the face

of an impending threat that would otherwise be psychologically insurmountable. In regards to gaining

self-confidence and decreasing the confidence of others, consider a victim of bullying who ignores

derision in order to increase his self-esteem and to demonstrate to the bullies that he or she is

unaffected.

Research on American Children’s Stress and Coping

Developmental studies of stress and coping provide a means of understanding stress and

coping as a process. They have blossomed in the past 10 years. Psychologists have learned that early

14

in development, children try to change their internal and external environments. Over time, children's

coping repertoires increase and shift from problem-focused to emotion-focused in nature. The review

here will include basic findings in the middle childhood literature. Numerous studies have looked at

other periods of development. For extensive reviews see Ayers, Sandler, & Twohey (1998), La Greca,

Siegal, Wallander, & Walker (1992), and Aldwin (1994). The purpose of this section is to provide a

context with which to consider Japanese stress and coping in the next section.

Stress

Everyday life events are particularly important. One of the first attempts to investigate

children's stress produced a widely used stress-measuring instrument for children by modifying adult

scales (Coddington, 1972). This instrument advanced the field, but neglected to sufficiently consider

the child's unique perspective. Since then, many studies have correlated children's major life events

with illness or maladaptation (e.g., Hudgens, 1974; Boyce, Jensen, Cassell, Collier, Smith, & Ramey,

1977). Masten (1985) noted, however, that these correlations were quite low. Sorenson (1993) added

that it was often unclear to what extent such major life events were the antecedents or the

consequences of the correlated illness and maladjustment. This led researchers to focus more on

everyday life events.

Everyday life events have been shown to be much more strongly associated with children's

mental and physical health than major life events have been (Sorenson, 1993, p. 52). For example,

Kanner, Coyne, Schaefer, and Lazarus (1981) demonstrated that hassles such as quibbles with peers

and getting poor school marks were generally associated with poor outcomes such as depression, low

social competence, and low self-worth. Measurement of these kinds of mundane stressors is therefore

paramount in stress research with children. Once the task of fully delineating everyday life event

stress has been more clearly accomplished, everyday and major life event measures might be better

integrated by researchers (Sorenson, 1993, p. 54).

15

Understanding children’s own perspectives is important. Many researchers have measured

children's stress by examining their ranked appraisal of events – i.e., their perceptions of the

stressfulness of events relative to other events (e.g., Yamamoto & Davis, 1979; Brown and Cowen,

1988; Ryan, 1988). These rankings have tended to stray somewhat from adult preconceptions

(Sorenson, 1993, p. 54). The importance of ascertaining the unique perspectives of children has

therefore become evident. Of course the usefulness of this approach will depend in part upon whether

children are truly able to retrospectively compare degrees of multiple stressors.

Coping

Emotion-focused coping tends to increase across age. Band and Weisz (1988) pioneered the

application of Lazarus’ problem and emotion-focused categories (Folkman & Lazarus, 1984, 1988) to

well children of middle childhood. Their research demonstrated that in the face of a variety of

everyday stressors, children would seldom relinquish control, preferring instead to employ at least

some type of coping. However, as age increased, self-reports of problem-focused coping did not

necessarily increase, whereas self-reports of emotion-focused coping typically did increase. The main

interpretation of this data was that emotion-focused coping may develop more slowly than problem-

focused coping, “in part because it is hidden from view and thus more difficult to learn from

observation” (Band and Weisz, 1988). Similar conclusions were reached by Altshuler and Ruble

(1989) and Compas, Worsham, and Ey (1992), who pointed out that younger children may not be able

to generate as many secondary appraisal options as older children. Younger children may not be as

aware that internal states can be manipulated. Furthermore, they may simply be less autonomous.

Social support seeking tends to increase across age. Other age differences have been found in

use of social support as a coping strategy. Older children tend to seek more social support outside

their immediate family than do younger children (Bryant, 1985). Interestingly, this is also tied to sex

differences. Girls begin to seek social support earlier than do boys. They then utilize such support

more than do boys, throughout middle childhood. This trend has been demonstrated to continue into

16

adulthood (Wertlieb, Weigel, & Feldstein, 1987; Frydenberg and Lewis, 1990).

Coping tends to be depend on context. Since the early studies above, context-dependence of

coping has come to the forefront of the research on children’s stress and coping. It has been found that

with school problems, children tend to use “cognitive restructuring” and “self-criticism.” Conversely,

with sibling and peer relations problems, children tend to prefer coping that involves blaming others

(Spirito, Stark, Grace, & Stamoulis, 1991). However, due to lack of information about subjects’

cognitive interpretation and motivation within specific scenarios of the problem contexts, it is not

always easy to tell which coping strategies are mostly emotion-focused and which are mostly problem-

focused. For this reason, these kinds of context effects will likely be scrutinized and conditioned on

other factors (e.g., the details of the given scenario, the child’s perception of his or her options, the

child’s intent, and so on) as researchers strive to flesh out the specific relational meanings necessitated

by transactionist models of coping (e.g., Lazarus, 1991).

To illustrate, consider a child facing a bully on the playground. The scenario could be

considered a “peer relations” context. The researcher might go about drawing conclusions about the

kinds of coping children tend to use in this context. However, unless such conclusions consider the

details of the coping context (e.g., the unique issues of the given scenario, the child’s perception of his

or her options, the child’s intent, and so on), they will likely over-generalize at the risk of excluding

more important considerations. For instance, when children are said to tend to use “blaming” in peer

relations problems, it may be the case that they do not use “blaming” in those problems per se – rather

they may use blaming whenever they feel the problem is not their fault, they see no other option, they

think it will fix the problem, etcetera. At the least, statements about coping tendencies in given

contexts should attempt to consider whether children employed certain coping strategies in order to fix

the problem or simply to feel better. In short, relational meanings such as these might be much more

important than simply characterizing children’s coping behaviors across a given context. The

dynamics of problems in contexts can very greatly, in spite of the superficial features that allow

researchers to lump them into given contexts.

17

Adjustment

Social and problem-solving coping tends to be adaptive. As an ultimate goal, it is hoped that

stress and coping processes can be better linked with cognitive, emotional, and behavioral outcomes or

indicators of adaptation. Accordingly, various attempts at measuring adjustment have been made. For

example, Causey and Dubow (1992) examined schoolwork and peer relations, in a study of 4th to 6th

graders. They found that “social support seeking” and “problem solving” were positively correlated

with favorable characteristics, such as high “self-worth” and “behavioral esteem.” In contrast,

“distancing” and “externalizing” were negatively correlated with these characteristics, as well as with

grade point averages.

Active, flexible coping tends to be adaptive. In a related study, Ayers, Sandler, West, and

Roosa, (1996) examined what children 9 to 13 years old do to solve problems or to feel better about

them. They found that coping which avoids problems tends to be associated with depression and poor

conduct. They also found that “active” coping (similar to “approach” coping) negatively relates to

depression and positively relates to self-esteem. “Active” coping included both problem-focused and

emotion-focused strategies, so long as the child focused on the stressful event, either to change the

situation or to think about it in a positive way. Hence, the skillful use of problem-focused and

emotion-focused coping strategies in dealing with a problem is perhaps most at issue and not the mere

use of strategies that qualify as such per se.

Lastly, Kurtz (1994) attempted to integrate caregiver reports of coping and adjustment.

Examining 8 to 12 year-old children, coping was divided into three dimensions: “productive,”

“active,” and “flexible.” Productive coping was characterized by goal-orientation. Active coping was

characterized by focusing on the particular problem. Flexible coping was characterized by a

willingness to change one’s behavior. Not surprisingly, Kurtz found that children who used less

productive and less active coping tended to be from disrupted homes. Disrupted homes were those

with problems such as parental separation, divorce, alcoholism, and so forth. Further, high coping

rigidity (i.e. low flexibility) was noted as being a contributor to maladjustment. In sum, adjustment-

18

related findings have been generally consistent with what a layperson might predict. That is, children

who are actively engaged in their environments and diligent about this engagement tend not to have

deficits in measures of well being (Ayers, Sandler, & Twohey, 1998).

Research on Japanese Children’s Stress and Coping

Stress

Research on everyday life events in Japan has begun. Yamamoto and Davis (1979) carried

out one of the earliest systematic studies of Japanese children’s stress. They studied the stressful

experiences of over 600 Japanese and American children from grade 4 through 6. A 20-event rating

scale was employed that included everyday life events and major life events. Events were rated in

terms of how unpleasant they might be on a scale of 1 (“least upsetting”) to 7 (“most upsetting”).

Children also indicated whether they had actually experienced the events.

Japanese have been found to be similar to Americans in many ways, but sufficient data is

lacking. In both the Japanese and American samples of Yamamoto and Davis (1979), children in

higher grades reported significantly more stress. Significant sex differences were only detected for the

Japanese children. Boys reported more stress than girls did. Yamamoto and Davis concluded that the

similarity between the two cultures' perceptions were considerable. They speculated that school

children in metropolitan areas in industrialized nations may have much in common, in spite of distinct

cultural backgrounds. Sex differences in the Japanese participants were theorized to be the result of

long-standing cultural enthusiasm for boys’ education in particular. Yamamoto and Davis also argued

that differing expectations about the sexes may carry into youth and contribute to the

disproportionately high percentage of males in institutions of higher education.

Unfortunately, there is some inconsistency in the literature. Nagane (1991) developed an

everyday life event, school stress scale for 239 Japanese elementary school students of 4th, 5th, and

6th grade. Factor analysis revealed four domains: peer relations, class presentations, school

19

achievement, and school failure. Significant differences were found between sexes, but not between

grades. Girls actually reported more stress in school achievement than boys did. It is not clear why,

but perhaps they become conscientious about schoolwork earlier than do boys. Additional work needs

to be done to clarify this issue.

Contemporary findings show age differences depend on context. Building a foundation for

the present proposal, Kilburg (1997) analyzed Japanese, upper-grade elementary school children’s

stress in four contexts (education, health/fitness, family/home life, and peer relations) as a function of

sex and age. For major life events, older children reported significantly more education stress than

younger children did. Stress items related to this finding included: “you got in trouble for doing

something bad at school,” “you failed to make an athletic team or play in a game,” and “you got a bad

grade on your report card.” The Kilburg study thereby extended the Yamamoto and Davis (1979)

finding that older children reported experiencing more stress than younger children did for education-

related items. However, considering that the Kilburg measure was much more comprehensive (80

items versus 20 in Yamamoto and Davis), it would seem that younger Japanese children are not under

less stress in all domains relative to their older counterparts – because for health/fitness, family/home

life, and peer relations, age differences were not significant.

Contemporary findings show that sex differences appear to depend on context. In terms of sex

differences, Kilburg (1997) reported that girls had experienced just as many stressful events as boys, at

a mean intensity of no significant difference. The main stress analyses actually demonstrated girls to

report significantly greater stress for the contexts of health/fitness and peer relations. The

health/fitness context included many physical wellness and body image items such as: “you thought

about the way you look,” “you thought about your weight,” and “you were ill.” As is generally found

in American girls (Attie and Brooks-Gunn, 1989; Adler, Kless, Adler, 1992), it seems that Japanese

girls may be under a considerable amount of pressure to meet perceived standards of physical

appearance, relative to their male counterparts. In terms of peer relations, items included: “you

thought about what your classmates thought of you,” “kids teased or avoided you,” and “people

20

thought you did something foolish.” Evidently, Japanese girls – like American girls (Miller, Danaher,

& Forbes, 1986) – are relatively more preoccupied with avoiding falling into ill regard with their peers

than are boys. Possibly girls report greater concern with pleasing their peers due to a greater reliance

on social support. This interpretation would appear to be consistent with the reliable finding that girls

are much more engaged in maintaining a multitude of harmonious social relations than are boys

(Wertlieb, Weigel, & Feldstein, 1987; Frydenberg and Lewis, 1990; Jose & Hunsinger, 1997).

In summary of Kilburg (1997), there was no evidence of any kind that boys experienced more

stress than girls did. It is possible that the education of girls may have become a higher priority in

Japan than it was when Yamamoto and Davis (1979) conducted their study. The overriding opinion in

Japan does still seem to be that men should receive four-year university degrees to prepare them for

professions, whereas women should attend junior colleges and vocational schools to prepare them for

motherhood (White, 1996). However, one might speculate that a well-educated wife has become more

desirable in post-industrial Japan, increasing the value Japanese society places on girls’ education. In

any case, the Kilburg (1997) findings underscore the importance of considering multiple stressors

within various contexts.

By junior high school, age and sex differences tend to increase. Japanese researchers

Okayasu, Shimada, Niwa, Mori, & Yatomi (1992) also developed an everyday life event, school stress

scale – for 552 Japanese junior high students to measure stressors and stress responses. Factor

analysis yielded six school domains: peer, club, study, teacher, rule, and “official activity.” Multiple

regression analyses showed a strong relationship between stress in the peer domain and “depression-

anxiety,” as well as between stress in the study domain and “cognitive helplessness.” In most cases,

stress tended to increase across age, especially for study-related items. In terms of gender differences,

girls reported more stress for study-related items, as well as for teacher-related items. These findings

would appear to corroborate other findings that girls are under at least as much education stress as

boys in Japan. Yet the literature clearly needs to be updated as a lot can change in a society in a

decade.

21

Coping

Research on coping in Japan has begun. Japanese researcher Ohsako (1994) studied coping

effectiveness in 151 Japanese high school students (10th grade) using a translated version of the Ways

of Coping Checklist (Folkman & Lazarus, 1980) and an original Japanese state-trait anxiety inventory.

This study appears to be the first Japanese attempt at linking Japanese children’s coping research to

the wider American coping literature. Appraisal and stress were also examined. No attempt to

analyze sex or age differences was reported. Further, no attempt to consider socialization and coping

was made – a connection surprisingly lacking in the Japanese coping literature and one the current

study aims to address.

Subjects were first asked to appraise how “hard” (from -3 to 0) or how “easy” (from 0 to +3)

each of five domains of life are (“schoolwork,” “friends/sweet-hearts,” “teachers/school environment,”

“personality/body,” and “home.”) They were then asked how much they generally use particular

coping strategies within the 5 domains. For the coping strategies they used in each of these domains,

subjects gave their opinions about whether such strategies are the “right” way to cope with such kinds

of events. Finally, they completed the state-trait anxiety inventory as a measure of their stress

response (an adjustment measure).

Appraisal and stress response tend to be linked. Appraisal scores were shown to be correlated

with stress response. That is, subjects who indicated a domain was very “hard,” tended to also

indicate experiencing high stress response, as measured by the state-trait anxiety inventory. This

would indicate that separating appraisal from stress response is a difficult research endeavor (indeed,

the transactionalist approach espoused in this paper argues that appraisal is part and parcel of the very

definition of stress and by extension adjustment). Surprisingly, however, appraisal scores for the

“teacher/school environment” domain were not correlated with stress response. A possible reason for

this exception is discussed below, where Ohsako’s speculations are reported.

Coping tends to depend on context. In terms of coping, Ohsako’s results indicated that the

students used a wide variety of strategies across the five domains (schoolwork, friends/lovers,

22

teachers/school environment, personality/body, and home). Moreover, their choice of coping

strategies was shown to be highly dependent upon domain. For schoolwork stressors, students tended

to use problem-focused strategies of “information-seeking” and “resource-seeking.” They also tended

to use “social support” strategies of “asking for help” and “seeking sympathy.” For friend/lover

stressors, they tended to use “information-seeking” and “resource-seeking.” With teachers/school

environment stressors, they tended to shift to emotion-focused strategies. These included “patience,”

“avoidance,” “not thinking,” “trying to change my mood,” and “giving up.” For personality/body

stressors, no clear preference of coping strategies was detected. For family stressors, a distinct

preference for “emotion-focused” strategies emerged.

American study of Japanese coping has begun. The previously mentioned Kilburg (1997)

study explored Japanese, upper-grade elementary school children’s coping by transporting several

existing instruments from American research (Jose, 1994, 1997). This was the first attempt by an

American researcher to examine Japanese children’s coping. It considered coping in four categories

outlined by Jose (1994, 1997): approach/emotion-focused, approach/problem-focused,

avoidance/emotion-focused, and avoidance/problem-focused. Coping items in these categories were

all assessed by subjects exclusively in response to the peer relations scenario of: “kids teased or

avoided you.”

Age differences in emotion-focused coping have not been found. In reviewing previous

literature, this proposal has noted that in studies of American subjects, older children have been found

to utilize a wider variety of coping strategies than younger children have been (e.g., Band and Weisz,

1988; Altshuler and Ruble, 1989). In particular, older children have been found to utilize more

emotion-focused coping. However, surprisingly no significant age differences were detected by

Kilburg (1997) with either of the two types of emotion-focused coping strategies measured (approach

and avoidance). Possible reasons for this discrepancy are discussed below.

Large increases in problem-focused coping have been found across age. In terms of problem-

focused coping, as was noted previously, modest increases have typically been found across age, in

23

American subjects. In contrast, Kilburg (1997) found large increases in problem-focused coping

across age, in Japanese children. This included both approach and avoidance kinds of problem-

focused coping. Avoidance/problem-focused coping items include (according to Jose, 1994, 1997): “I

did something like watched TV, listened to music, or played sports or a game so that I didn’t have to

think about the problem for awhile,” “I didn’t do anything about the problem,” and “I blamed someone

else, lied, gave excuses, or cheated.” Approach/problem-focused coping items include (again,

according to Jose 1994, 1997): “I tried to get more information about the problem,” “I thought about

all the things I could do to make the situation better,” and “I tried to solve the problem.”

The sharpest increase in problem-focused coping was observed for the approach/problem-

focused strategies. These involve information seeking, problem solving, and option generating.

Kilburg noted that such techniques would seem to be effective in dealing with being teased/avoided.

Kilburg concluded that it is therefore not surprising that approach/problem-focused coping increased

with age while emotion-focused coping did not. Presumably this means that older children are more

proficient than their younger counterparts at resolving the “teased/avoided” event. That this finding

contrasts somewhat with American findings may simply be a function of the specificity of the coping

scenario in Kilburg (1997).

Findings of sex differences have persisted. Independent of age, the Kilburg (1997) data

suggest there are significant sex differences in Japanese children’s reports of coping strategy use that

are roughly consistent with findings for American children. In main analyses, girls were found to

report significantly greater use of approach/problem-focused coping than boys were. In ancillary

item-specific analyses, girls were also found to report significantly greater use of three selected coping

strategies: emotional social support, instrumental social support, and self-blame.

American girls have been found to seek more social support than American boys do, in the

face of stress (Wertlieb, Weigel, & Feldstein, 1987; Frydenberg & Lewis, 1990; Jose & Hunsinger,

1997). Kilburg noted general agreement between this finding and those of his social-support-related

coping items. Girls were observed to report seeking help from others to improve their subjective and

24

objective plights more than boys were. They were also found to report higher levels of self-critical,

responsibility-taking coping than boys were.

Kilburg argued that there are several possible reasons why girls appeared to be more prone to

self-blame than boys in the tease/avoid scenario. As previously argued, girls and boys are held to

different sets of social norms for politeness. Thus girls may be more inclined than boys to apologize

when there is peer discord. In addition, if self-blame is a mature means of conflict resolution in

Japanese culture (Minami, 1987), girls may simply develop faster than boys do with respect to this

strategy.

Girls tend to use more approach strategies than boys. Overall, girls in Kilburg (1997) used

more approach strategies than did boys. As previously stated, girls were found to report significantly

greater use of approach/problem-focused coping than boys. Further, girls’ use of approach/emotion-

focused coping exceeded that of boys (approaching significance at p=.08). Whether this is due to

chance alone would need to be further examined. In any case, instrumental social support is included

in the approach/problem-focused category and emotional social support is included in the

approach/emotion-focused category. The results for these two social support categories were highly

significant. This may partly account for the observed trend for boys and girls to differ in their scores

for the approach strategies. It is also consistent with previous literature (Wertlieb, Weigel, &

Feldstein, 1987; Frydenberg & Lewis, 1990; Jose & Hunsinger, 1997).

Boys have not been found to be more aggressive than girls. Based loosely on Jose &

Hunsinger (1997), boys were predicted to report significantly greater use of avoidance/problem-

focused coping than girls were. This hypothesis was rejected by Kilburg (1997). Failure to replicate

Jose’s finding may be due to an important methodological difference between the two studies. Jose et

al. did not ask their participants to complete their coping measure in response to any particular

stressor. Hence, the Jose et al. coping measure evaluated general coping tendencies. In contrast,

Kilburg (1997) asked children to complete the Jose-based “CISCS” measure exclusively in response to

the specific situation of “kids teased or avoided you.” Possibly boys use avoidance/problem-focused

25

coping strategies more than girls do in only other types of stressful situations. Boys did report using

aggression (an avoidance/problem-focused item according to Jose, 1994, 1997) slightly more than

girls did in the Kilburg study. However, surprisingly, this difference was not significant. It is possible

that such a presumed difference develops subsequent to the upper-elementary school age bracket that

Kilburg (1997) sampled.

It is also very likely that the CISCS failed to measure aggression adequately for Japanese

children. The aggression item was worded: “I got into a fight.” It is unclear whether this implies use

of verbal or physical assault, especially in the Japanese language version of the item. Perhaps this

item was interpreted by the Japanese boys as simply representing a more vivid description of the

tease/avoid scenario, as opposed to a physically aggressive coping response. A clearer example of a

distinct coping strategy using aggression might be: “I hit the person who was teasing me.” It would

certainly be judicious to better detail aggression in future research, especially when participants are

asked to respond to a tease/avoid scenario.

Past measures have had major limitations. A crucial reason why Kilburg (1997) presented

mixed conclusions overall with respect to previous American findings probably stems from two

measurement issues. Firstly, the original Jose (1994, 1997) coping categorizations of

problem/emotion-focused and approach/avoidance are not wholly consistent with those in Band and

Weisz (1988), Altshuler and Ruble (1989), and other studies sited in this proposal. This is

understandable because the original Jose measures evolved out of a separate line of research. Yet the

discrepancy is an extremely important reminder that conceptually driven category labels may not be

entirely consistent throughout the various branches of the coping literature. Secondly, and perhaps

equally important, many of the American findings are not at all based on relational meaning, as

outlined by Lazarus (1991). Often they are based on procedures that ask subjects to report how they

cope generally. Lazarus’ work argues that to truly understand coping, researchers must do the best

they can to focus on cognitive interpretations and convictions in particular stress-coping encounters

that have actually happened. This arguably includes providing subjects with a means of identifying

26

their own intent with respect to the definitions of “emotion/problem focused,” “approach/avoidance,”

or any other coping categories that necessitate contextual understanding.

Adjustment

The buffering effects of coping tend to be context-dependent. In terms of the stress-coping

link and inferred buffering effects of coping, use of social support strategies with personality/body

stressors (i.e. perceptions of dissatisfaction with various components of one’s perceived personality

and body image) was positively correlated with stress (as an outcome variable) in Ohsako (1994). Use

of problem-focused strategies was positively correlated with stress when used with teacher/school

environment stressors, but negatively correlated with stress when used with friend/lover stressors. Use

of emotion-focused strategies was positively correlated with stress when used with teacher/school

environment stressors, but negatively correlated with stress when used with family stressors.

Ohsako speculated on several issues. He considered that social support strategies may serve to

heighten stress associated with personality/body stressors. Additionally, it was considered that such

strategies may not necessarily decrease stress when used with schoolwork problems, in spite of

students’ preference for such use. Perhaps procrastination is at issue. This is an important reminder

that a strategy’s effectiveness depends on whether it is skillfully employed. Surprisingly, it is unclear

from Ohsako’s data which strategies are effective with schoolwork problems, however. In terms of

teacher/school environment stressors, Ohsako remarked that nothing seems to alleviate stress, in spite

of the evidenced preference for emotion-focused strategies. Problem-focused strategies were argued

to be effectively applied to friend/lover stressors, however. Finally, the preferred use of emotion-

focused strategies with family stressors was argued to be an effective way to alleviate such stress. Yet

whether this finding is valid for children’s relationships with parents and siblings alike is unclear.

The Ohsako (1994) study is, in sum, laudable for having broken new ground in the rigorous

analysis of high school students’ stress and coping. Perhaps most importantly, it showed that

measures derived from American research could reasonably differentiate patterns of Japanese stress

27

and coping. Certainly the general finding of this study could be of use in hypothesis-formation for

future studies. That is, coping efficacy appears to depend largely on the match between coping

strategy type and context.

A summary of the research shows specific needs. In summarizing the literature on Japanese

children’s stress and coping [Yamamoto & Davis (1979), Kilburg (1997), Nagane (1991), Okayasu et

al. (1992), Ohsako (1994)], several patterns have emerged, but many questions remain. It seems clear

that Japanese children of upper-elementary school and junior high school ages face an increasing

amount of stress as they age, particularly education-related stress. There does not seem to be a reliable

sex difference regarding education-related stress. However, there is indication that girls experience

more stress than boys when it comes to their bodies and their peers. In coping with their stress (at

least peer conflict stress), upper-grade elementary school Japanese children use a variety of strategies.

Older ones use more kinds of coping that include: information seeking, social support seeking, and

rejuvenation.

Unfortunately, previous measures have not been clear regarding the distinctions between the

presumed kinds of coping represented by these strategies – especially regarding the problem/emotion-

focused coping distinction. It is therefore difficult to make broad conclusions about developmental

changes in Japanese coping. Sex differences presented in past research are much clearer. Japanese

girls tend to (again, at least with peer conflict stress) use more social support seeking and self-blame

than do Japanese boys. In terms of context effects of coping choice, there is not enough evidence to

draw a firm conclusion regarding the upper-grade elementary school period in Japan.

There is significant evidence that high school age Japanese children tend to choose strategies

based on the stress domain and situation. For education-related stress that is specifically schoolwork-

related, they tend to use problem-focused strategies that include information and resource seeking, as

well as problem-related social support seeking. They also tend to use the emotion-focused strategy of

sympathy-related social support seeking. For education-related and family-related stress that involves

issues with teachers, parents, and siblings, Japanese children tend to use emotion-focused strategies

28

that include “patience,” “avoidance,” and “trying to change my mood.”

In terms of coping as a buffer of stress, there is basic evidence (at least at the 10th grade level)

that: (1) social support strategies exacerbate personality/body-related stress, perhaps by heightening

awareness of it, (2) social support strategies do not necessarily alleviate schoolwork stress – perhaps

because procrastination is at issue, (3) problem-focused strategies exacerbate teacher/school

environment-related stress, but alleviate friend/lover stress – perhaps because the former is perceived

as uncontrollable whereas the latter is not, (4) emotion-focused strategies exacerbate teacher/school

environment-related stress, but alleviate family-related stress – perhaps because the former

overwhelms students and the latter does not. [Referring to Yamamoto & Davis (1979), Kilburg

(1997), Nagane (1991), Okayasu et al. (1992), Ohsako (1994)].

Unfortunately, the above pieces of evidence are based on research inventory items that are

broad-based and few, defined without reference to relational meaning (Lazarus, 1991). Further, they

do not lend themselves to consistent categorizations within subject-defined, emotion-focused and

problem-focused groupings. What is needed at this stage of the research is a more comprehensive

coping measure – one sensitive enough to capture a fuller range of coping types. It must allow for

easy categorization of coping strategies in terms of the well-established emotion/problem-focused

distinction. It must do so in a manner conducive to linkage with Japanese children’s adjustment, as no

study to date has initiated this important piece. It should also allow for easy categorization of coping

strategies in terms that might be vital for capturing potential U.S.-Japan differences in future research.

Finally, a coping measure that could link to maternal socialization of coping would further break new

ground.

The Link between Maternal Socialization and Children’s Stress and Coping: U.S. and Japan

Mothers have a profound, if not the most profound, influence on the socialization of their

children into their respective societies. This assertion has its roots in the earliest expressions of

developmental psychology as a discipline (e.g. Freud, 1924; Harlow, 1959; Bowlby, 1951; Erikson,

29

1963). To be sure, father, sibling, peer, teacher, and other agents of socialization must be studied for a

full account of the development of emotional adaptation in general. Nevertheless, due to the natural

connection between mother and child in the human species, maternal socialization represents the most

logical starting point in research attempts to understand the development of children’s stress and

coping.

Unfortunately, the literature on Japanese maternal socialization in stress and coping published

in English is scant (see Shwalb & Shwalb, 1996). Conversely, the literature on U.S. maternal

socialization in stress and coping is extensive and unwieldy (see: Kuhn & Sieger, 1998; Aldwin, 1994;

Kliewer, Fearnow, & Miller, 1996; Maccoby & Martin, 1983; Menhaghan, Kowaleski-Jones, & Mott,

1997). As a reasonable starting point, selected highlights from overlapping, U.S.-Japan comparisons

of socialization of emotional adaptation will be discussed.

A noteworthy comparison study was done by Crystal, Chen, Fuligni, Stevenson, Hsu, Ko, and

Kitamura (1994). Crystal et al. considered parental expectations and satisfactions, psychological

maladjustment, and academic achievement in a large-scale study of over 4000 Japanese, Chinese, and

American eleventh-grade students. Inventories were used as well as a mathematics test of

achievement.

Japanese, Asian children tend to report high parental, academic expectations. In Crystal et al.

(1994), Asian students reported higher levels of parental expectation and lower levels of parental

satisfaction concerning academic achievement. In spite of this, both the Japanese and the Chinese

students reported less stress than the American students. Crystal et al. (1994) argued that American

youths have greater expectations of leisure time allowance. The higher levels of stress reported by

American students were therefore explained as resulting from taxed resources.

Zahn-Waxler, Friedman, Cole, Mizuta, & Hiruma (1996) examined the influence of culture,

gender, and maternal child-rearing values on 60 Japanese and American preschool children’s

responses to hypothetical interpersonal dilemmas. The children responded to hypothetical conflict or

distress situations by choosing one of several pictures that best showed how they would feel. They

30

then chose one of several pictures of behavioral solutions to the conflicts. Lastly, the children listened

to short conflict stories with props and then chose how the stories would end. The children’s mothers

participated by completing a questionnaire on child rearing that inquired about attitudes, behaviors,

values, and goals.

Japanese children tend to be non-aggressive; Japanese mothers tend to use induction. Overall,

Zahn-Waxler et al. (1996) demonstrated Japanese children to express less anger and less aggressive

behavior and language than their U.S. counterparts. This was correlated with maternal encouragement

of emotional expressivity. Japanese mothers were more likely than U.S. mothers to utilize

“psychological discipline” (reasoning, guilt, and anxiety induction). In terms of sex differences, both

the Japanese and the American girls communicated more pro-social themes and at times more anger

than did the boys of the two cultures.

Parenting style appears to impact on coping and adjustment. Kilburg (1997) examined

Japanese children’s perceptions of both their mothers and fathers, in terms of warmth and control.

Analyses pointed to possible coping socialization links that are consistent with the above findings.

Firstly, children low in perceived parental warmth reported significantly greater use of

avoidance/problem-focused coping than those high in perceived parental warmth.

In the Jose (1994, 1997) groupings that Kilburg used, avoidance/problem-focused coping

items included: “I didn’t do anything about the problem” and “I blamed someone else, lied, gave

excuses, or cheated.” Such coping would seem to be at odds with effective peer conflict resolution. In

addition to this coping finding, many more children low in perceived parental warmth reported having

experienced the event of getting a poor grade on their report card than did children high in perceived

parental warmth. This difference was rather striking. Only a third of the high warmth participants

reported a poor grade, whereas roughly two thirds of the low warmth participants reported this

experience.

A summary of the research suggests patterns, further questions to be addressed. In concluding

this section, it is noted that the above studies have revealed several broad patterns in Japanese maternal

31

socialization of emotional adaptation. Firstly, it seems Japanese children are raised to have relatively

high expectations for academic achievement. Secondly, Japanese mothers may be focused on using

induction as a means of influencing their children, perhaps in order to minimize aggressive responses

in particular. Thirdly, Japanese parents who have relatively warm parenting styles may be more likely

to have well-adjusted children, at least academically. Research directly measuring Japanese maternal

encouragement and discouragement of various kinds of coping might shed greater light on these

patterns.

Rationale

At the beginning of this proposal, a statement was made that American researchers of

emotional adaptation are now engaged in taking the stress-coping-adjustment socialization patterns

they have found in America and transporting and testing them in Japan – to see how well they

generalize. After a review of the literature, it is apparent that the evidence is generally not yet well

established. Further data collection is necessary. A study that is more comprehensive and refined than

previous studies, particularly in terms of coping strategies, would do much to address inadequacies in

the literature.

Stress. Evidence to date regarding stress in Japanese children is not entirely clear.

Researchers of Japanese children’s stress have found participants to report experiencing a variety of

daily life event stressors, from various contexts including education, health/fitness, family/home life,

and peer relations (e.g., Kilburg, 1997; Nagane, 1991; Okayasu, Shimada, Niwa, Mori, & Yatomi,

1992). In most cases they have found stress to increase across age, especially for education-related

items. However, sex/gender differences have been less clear with education-related items. Early

studies indicated that boys experience more education-related stress than girls do and later studies

indicated few such differences. In a later study, girls did report, however, greater health/fitness and

peer relations stress than boys did (Kilburg, 1997). Which of any of these findings are robust would

be determined by the present research.

32

Coping. In terms of coping, there is great need in the literature to build a wider and deeper

base of understanding of Japanese reports and interpretations. The present project proceeded with

analyses that could evaluate subject-defined, emotion-focused (EF) and problem-focused (PF)

groupings. This categorization is vital if future, direct U.S.-Japan comparisons are to surmount

standardization issues, which could hinder cross-cultural interpretation of findings. As a reasonable

means of overcoming past difficulties with the approach/avoidance distinction, EF and PF strategies

were further cast in terms of whether they are primarily cognitive or behavioral. It was then the task

of factor analysis to reveal underlying factor structures.

Adjustment. Research must begin to consider the issue of children’s adjustment, well being,

or life-satisfaction. American research has shown that older children are more able to generate coping

options than younger children (Band & Weisz, 1988; Altshuler & Ruble, 1989; Compas, Worsham, &

Ey, 1992). This is a hallmark of maturity and adaptation. It has further been found that coping such

as “social support seeking” and “problem solving” correlate positively with self-esteem (Causey &

Dubow, 1992). Other studies by Ayers, Sandler, West, and Roosa (1996) and Kurtz (1994) have

found that children who use “avoidance” and have less productive, less flexible coping tend to be

depressed and/or disruptive.

There is very little research addressing these issues in Japanese participants. Ohsako (1994)

and Kilburg (1997) have found patterns that are not inconsistent with the above American findings.

Yet these findings are conditioned on the domain in question. Social support seeking strategies do not

appear to result in greater well being in personality/body-related stress, nor in schoolwork stress

(Ohsako, 1994). Further, problem-focused and emotion-focused strategies generally both seem to

exacerbate teacher/school environment-related stress (Ohsako, 1994). Perhaps perceptions of control

are at issue (Ohsako, 1994). Limited to one coping context (bullying), Kilburg (1997) could not

clarify this issue. Again, to date, no study has measured Japanese children’s adjustment as linked to

coping behavior. The initial steps into this research area would be taken in the present study so that

conclusions could be drawn about wider patterns of Japanese emotional adaptation.

33

Maternal Socialization. Finally, a review of the stress and coping literature has also shown a

need for developmental research utilizing Japanese children and their mothers. There is very little

research documenting maternal socialization of Japanese children’s coping behavior itself. Most of

the work done in this area consists of broad queries into parenting attitudes, values, and goals and their

impacts on children’s emotional expressiveness and academic performance (e.g., Lahnam & Garrick,

1996; Machida, Hess, & Azuma, 1996; Zahn-Waxler, Friedman, Cole, Mizuta, & Hiruma, 1996). To

date, there is no research investigating the specific links between maternal

encouragement/discouragement of particular coping strategies and the impact of that

encouragement/discouragement on children’s reports of their own coping. Research into this

connection would be highly illuminating as to the transmission of hypothesized, unique cultural

patterns of emotional adaptation in Japan.

The basic project. As a means of meeting the specific exploratory research needs discussed

above, measurement of the following was put forth: everyday life event stress, coping strategies,

maternal encouragement/discouragement of coping, and child adjustment. Several existing

instruments (Kilburg, 1997) were modified where necessary and used to test Japanese children and

their mothers to yield a database that would enable systematic analysis. The Everyday Life Event

Scale (Kilburg, 1997) was utilized to measure children’s stress. A coping scale from Kilburg (1997)

was greatly expanded yielding two forms, one for children and one for mothers. A newly created

School Performance and Life Satisfaction Scale was utilized to measure adjustment, or coping

outcomes. These measures are outlined in detail in the subsequent chapter and appear in full in the

appendices.

Relational meaning. A final word should be stated with respect to relational meaning as

defined by Lazarus (1991). Throughout the introduction of the present paper, the case was made that

past stress-coping studies have often failed to consider the unique relational meaning that is invariably

part of any “real life” situation in which individuals encounter stress and employ coping strategies.

While people may indeed have dispositional traits and while people may indeed be induced to behave

34

in certain ways as a function of situation, every coping act occurs within a unique moment-to-moment

context that underscores its relational meaning, as defined in Lazarus’ Cognitive-motivational-

relational theory (1991). That is, cognitive interpretation and motivation are assumed to invariably be

part and parcel of what drives coping. It is therefore important to recognize these components in a

progressive stress-coping research methodology.

In the above regard, the following specifications were to stand as unique assurances that the

measures of the current study have been designed not only to compensate for many of the

inadequacies of the previous studies, but also to conform to the dictates of the well-established work

of Lazarus (1991). The reader will note that the coping measures of the present study [the Children’s

Inventory of Coping (CIC) and its maternal analog, the Socialization Inventory of Coping (SIC)], are

designed such that subjects rate coping use intensity in response to the recall of a particular event they

define as actually having happened, within a given stress domain (education, health/fitness, peer

relations, or family/home life), within the past week. The measures are also designed to account for

the basic elements of cognitive interpretation and motivation (e.g., control/opportunity, fault, effort,

emotional sensitivity, individual/collective initiative, etceteras) as defined by Lazarus (1991). This is

the stuff of relational meaning and thereby appraisal – upon which Lazarus’ Cognitive-motivational-

relational theory rests.

In the event of ambiguities in the interpretation of various results of the coping analyses of this

proposed study, the option to engage in further controls based on indications of appraisal (Lazarus,

1991) was to be available. That is, the coping measures provide indications of cognitive interpretation

and motivation (i.e., control/opportunity, fault, effort, emotional sensitivity, individual/collective

initiative) in the items of its opening section. These items were to be referred to if questions arose

regarding the details of the coping episodes. In any event, subject selection of coping items was to go

about under highly contextual recall circumstances and according to research participants’ own

indications of whether coping was done in order to “fix the problem” or to “feel better.” In sum, the

above steps represented the foundation building that is needed in this area of research.

35

A two-fold purpose. Lastly, the ultimate purpose of this research as a whole was two-fold: 1)

to increase American understanding of Japanese interpretations of the stress-coping-adjustment

process and 2) to develop a set of measures that could be used for a direct U.S.-Japan comparison in a

future study, such that potential cultural differences in emotional adaptation could be understood in the

absence of serious concern about cultural bias.

Research Questions and Hypotheses

Stress

1. Will boys or girls report greater stress for family/home life, health/fitness, education, and/or peer

relations contexts? HYPOTHESIS 1: Girls will report greater stress for health/fitness and peer relations contexts than boys will (based on Kilburg, 1997).

2. Will younger children or older children report greater stress for family/home life, health/fitness,

education, and/or peer relations contexts? HYPOTHESIS 2: Older children will report greater stress for the education context than younger children will (based on Kilburg, 1997).

3. Will there be any interactions between sex and age regarding stress for family/home life,

health/fitness, education, and/or peer relations contexts?

Coping

4. Will boys or girls report greater use of problem-focused coping (cognitive & behavioral) and/or

emotion-focused coping (cognitive & behavioral)? HYPOTHESIS 3: Girls will report greater use of cognitive, problem-focused coping than boys will (Based on Band & Weisz, 1988; Folkman & Lazarus, 1988; Altshuler & Ruble, 1989; Compas, Worsham, & Ey, 1992). HYPOTHESIS 4: Girls will report greater use of cognitive, emotion-focused coping than boys will (Based on Band & Weisz, 1988; Folkman & Lazarus, 1988; Altshuler & Ruble, 1989; Compas, Worsham, & Ey, 1992).

5. Will younger or older children report greater use of problem-focused coping (cognitive &

behavioral) and/or emotion-focused coping (cognitive & behavioral)? HYPOTHESIS 5: Older children will report greater use of cognitive, problem-focused coping than younger children will (Based on Kilburg, 1997; Band & Weisz, 1988; Folkman & Lazarus, 1988; Altshuler & Ruble, 1989; Compas, Worsham, & Ey, 1992). HYPOTHESIS 6: Older children will report greater use of cognitive, emotion-focused coping than younger children will (Based on Kilburg, 1997; Band & Weisz, 1988; Folkman & Lazarus, 1988; Altshuler & Ruble, 1989; Compas, Worsham, & Ey, 1992).

6. Will there be any context effects for problem-focused coping (cognitive & behavioral) and/or

emotion-focused coping (cognitive & behavioral)?

36

7. Will there be any interactions between sex and age, sex and context, age and context, and/or between sex, age, and context for use of problem-focused coping (cognitive & behavioral) and/or emotion-focused coping (cognitive & behavioral)?

Adjustment: School Performance and Life Satisfaction

8. Will there be a positive or negative correlation between school performance and/or life satisfaction

and use of problem-focused coping (cognitive & behavioral) and/or emotion-focused coping (cognitive & behavioral)?

Maternal Socialization: Discouragement/Encouragement of Coping

9. Will mothers of boys or mothers of girls report greater discouragement/encouragement of

problem-focused coping (cognitive & behavioral) and/or emotion-focused coping (cognitive & behavioral)?

10. Will mothers of younger children or mothers of older children report greater

discouragement/encouragement of problem-focused coping (cognitive & behavioral) and/or emotion-focused coping (cognitive & behavioral)?

11. Will there be any context effects for discouragement/encouragement of problem-focused coping

(cognitive & behavioral) and/or emotion-focused coping (cognitive & behavioral)? 12. Will there be any interactions between child sex and child grade, child sex and context, child age

and context, and/or between child sex, child age, and context for discouragement/encouragement of problem-focused coping (cognitive & behavioral) and/or emotion-focused coping (cognitive & behavioral)?

13. Will there be a positive or negative correlation between child use of problem-focused coping

(cognitive & behavioral) and/or emotion-focused coping (cognitive & behavioral) and maternal discouragement/encouragement of problem-focused coping (cognitive & behavioral) and/or emotion-focused coping (cognitive & behavioral)?

37

CHAPTER II. METHOD

Research participants

Participants were all native Japanese who have never lived outside of Japan. They were

sampled from four separate schools near Tsu City in Mie prefecture, Japan: Fuzoku Elementary,

Fuzoku Junior High, Kyohoku Junior High, and Tsu Higashi High. Tsu City is essentially a suburb of

Nagoya, Aichi Prefecture. Additionally, all four schools can be classified as being primarily middle-

class in terms of both income and education level.

Based on student classes to which the researcher was granted access, a total of 1610

questionnaires were distributed to 805 mother-child pairs (805 child questionnaires to 805 children,

805 mother questionnaires to 805 mothers). For Fuzoku Elementary School, 226 questionnaires were

distributed to 113 mother-child pairs. One-hundred-twelve child questionnaires were returned for a

99% response rate. One-hundred-seven mother questionnaires were returned for a 95% response rate.

For Fuzoku Junior High School, 314 questionnaires were distributed to 157 mother-child pairs.

Thirty-nine child questionnaires were returned for a 25% response rate. Thirty-eight mother

questionnaires were returned for a 24% response rate. For Kyohoku Junior High School, 294

questionnaires were distributed to 147 mother-child pairs. One-hundred-forty-seven child

questionnaires were returned for a 100% response rate. One-hundred-thirty-five child questionnaires

were returned for a 92% response rate. For Tsu Higashi High School, 776 questionnaires were

distributed to 388 mother-child pairs. Two-hundred-ninety-nine child questionnaires were returned for

a 77% response rate. One-hundred-fifty-seven mother questionnaires were returned for a 40%

response rate. Overall, out of 805 child questionnaires distributed, 597 were returned, for a 74%

response rate. Out of 805 mother questionnaires distributed, 437 were returned, for a 54% response

rate. See “Procedure” section below for further explanation of these response rates.

After an additional counting of the questionnaires, it became apparent that some (43) of those

intended for the mothers were actually completed by the fathers. Those questionnaires were

subtracted from the analyses, so the study could focus on maternal influences. That left a total of 394

38

mother questionnaires to be used for the analyses. Further, some of those 394 questionnaires and

some of the 597 child questionnaires were unusable, due to being incomplete in places. Some were

discarded, depending on the analysis. The exact subject numbers included in each analysis are

reported in the results section, with respect to the given analysis.

In sum, a total of approximately 400 mothers and 600 children participated in the study (for a

total of 400, matched mother-child pairs). This allowed for assignment of approximately 100 mother-

child pairs for each of four stress-coping domains (education, family/home-life, peer relations, and

health/fitness) and approximately 133 mother-child pairs for each of three school grades: 5, 8, and 10

(ages 10-11, 13-14, 15-16, respectively). For analyses related only to the children, approximately 150

children could be assigned to each of the four stress-coping domains, with approximately 200 at each

of the three school grades. These numbers are approximate because response rates varied for each

stress-coping context and for each grade at each school. The exact subject numbers are reported with

each analysis in the results section below.

Materials

Materials consisted entirely of questionnaires. The questionnaires contain measures that were

independently translated into Japanese by two Japanese-American, female bilinguals in the twenties

age range (Rikako Takatsu and Mikako Nakajima). One of the bilinguals was born and raised in

Japan, the other was born and raised in the United States, but spoke only Japanese in the house and

spent several years studying in Japan. The measures were subsequently exchanged, back-translated,

checked, and modified as necessary to ensure meaning was consistent between the English and

Japanese versions. A third bilingual was enlisted independent of the original two. He is a Japanese

professor (Kazuo Nishikawa, Mie University, Japan), in the fifties age range, born and raised in Japan.

This third bilingual ensured that the Japanese measures were natural and fluid to the reader. This

researcher was present for the entire process and is confident that the integrity of the original meanings

was maximally preserved.

39

Each child and each mother completed one child and mother questionnaire packet,

respectively. These packets consisted of the following measures (in order of presentation to the

participants):

Age, Sex, Grade

A demographic inquiry provided personal data. This data yielded the variables of AGE, SEX,

and GRADE (5, 8, and 10), as well as some other items for peripheral research. In all the analyses

GRADE was used, instead of AGE, because of the presumed developmental implications of the

institutionalized markers of maturity that grade levels provide.

Stress

The New Everyday Life Events Scale for Children (New ELESC) - This measure was derived

from Jose (1994) and Kilburg (1997). Jose’s original (1994) scale was presented to the children to

assess the actual occurrence of everyday events that have been annoying or anxiety evoking. Jose

(1998) reported the original Jose (1994) scale to have demonstrated a Cronbach's alpha of .99 for an

American sample. Kilburg (1997) made a first attempt at translation of Jose (1994) into Japanese. In

Jose (1994), after the children were asked to state whether particular items were actually a problem for

them or not (occurrence of problem), they were asked to state the perceived degree of the stress

(intensity). For example, “you were picked last for a team” – “if it was a problem, how much stress

did it cause? (a little, some, or a lot).” [Because causality is relatively diffuse in the Japanese

language, the Japanese version of this question actually reads more like “if it was a problem, how

much stress was involved?”]. There were also blanks provided for write-in events. There were 43

items in total.

Modifications of the original scale were undertaken to present events more objectively; that is,

free of implied stress value. For example, “not liking the way you looked” (from the original scale)

was changed to “you thought about the way you look.” The reasoning was that the measurement of

event occurrence should be distinct from stress intensity where possible, to prevent biased responses

40

where participants might be inadvertently primed to indicate stressfulness when it did not actually

exist.

In order to increase cultural relevance, several additional items were added to the original

measure. They are: “you had after-school lessons or practice (e.g., juku, piano, English, etc.),” “you

had to do something because you're a boy/girl, but you did not want to do it,” “you disagreed with

most of the people in a group but did what they wanted anyway,” “you did not want to follow your

school’s dress code.” Due to translation issues, not all of these additional items are maximally free of

implied stress value. Nevertheless, they suffice as pilot items. All of them were composed based on

cultural considerations put forward by two native born Japanese who translated and consulted for an

earlier project (Kilburg, 1997).

In addition to the above modifications, a question about the frequency of problems was placed

after each item. So rather than simply indicating whether a given event occurred or not, children were

asked to indicate how many times the given event occurred in the past week (maximum: 7 times; i.e.,

to account for as much as one occurrence a day). It was considered that this is a more accurate way to

measure the relative stress of, for example, “you were ill” and “kids teased or avoided you” - in the

case that the latter is a daily event for a child.

Items from the stress measure were grouped into categories logically predetermined by this

researcher on the basis of conceptual similarity, representing the following stress contexts:

family/home-life, health/fitness, education, and peer relations. Event stress intensity values (for each

stress context: family/home life, health/fitness, education, and peer relations), were calculated into

averages. So too were event stress frequency values.

Reliability analyses (Cronbach’s Alphas) were conducted to test the association between the

event frequency data and the event stress intensity data. Prior to the analyses it was decided that if the

analyses yielded alphas of .70 or better, the event frequency data would be deemed redundant and

subsequent stress analyses would be conducted exclusively on the event stress intensity data, without

the event occurrence data. In any event, collecting both sorts of data would not have been done in

41

vain, because presumably asking the children about both frequency and intensity dimensions would

facilitate memory recall and thus accuracy of the data. As it turned out, the Cronbach’s Alphas were

higher than .70 in all cases (in total stress intensity scores and total stress frequency scores, as well as

in stress intensity and frequency scores by stress-coping domain – i.e., education, peer, home/family

life, and health/fitness). Hence the event stress intensity data alone were used in all subsequent stress

analyses.

Thus, since the event frequency data were deemed redundant by the previously discussed

Cronbach’s Alpha analyses, the stress intensity values reported were simply summed and averaged

with respect to the stress context to which they belong (i.e., the stress intensity values of a given stress

context were summed and divided by the number of items in that stress context). This resulted in 4

overall stress scores for each participant (please see coding key and measures in Appendices). Hence,

four dependent variables were created: FAMILY/HOME LIFE STRESS, HEALTH/FITNESS

STRESS, EDUCATION STRESS, AND PEER RELATIONS STRESS.

Coping

The Children’s Inventory of Coping (CIC) - This measure was created by the present

researcher in an attempt to expand previous measures. Data obtained from it were grouped into two

coping strategy categories: PROBLEM-FOCUSED (PF) and EMOTION-FOCUSED (EF). Both of

these were subdivided into COGNITIVE PF, BEHAVIORAL PF, COGNITIVE EF, and

BEHAVIORAL EF (please see coding key and measures in Appendices).

There were four versions of this measure, wherein COPING CONTEXT was varied between

subjects. The four coping contexts correspond to the previously mentioned four stress contexts:

family/home life, education, peer relations, and health/fitness. They were represented as levels of

COPING CONTEXT. Respective to these levels, the following events were used (one per measure

version): having an argument with a sibling (family/home life event), having a lot of school work to do

(education event), and being bullied/teased by another child (peer relations event), and having negative

42

thoughts about personal appearance (health/fitness event).

Reliability analysis (Cronbach’s Alpha) was conducted to test the association between the

items across COPING CONTEXT. Prior to the analysis it was decided that if the analysis yielded an

alpha at .70 or better, the COPING CONTEXT distinctions would be deemed superfluous and would

be ignored for the subsequent coping analyses. The analysis yielded a Cronbach’s Alpha of .95 from

the children’s data. A subsequent analysis of the mothers’ data yielded a Cronbach’s Alpha of .88.

Hence, the COPING CONTEXT distinctions were deemed superfluous and ignored for all subsequent

coping analyses. Further, the research questions related to context were dropped. The context

distinctions were not noted in vain, however. They presumably added much to the realism of

children’s responses to the coping questionnaire.

The PROBLEM-FOCUSED and EMOTION-FOCUSED coping categories discussed above

were derived from a coping measure used by Kilburg (1997). This measure was originally designed

by Jose (1994, 1997). The original coping categories used by Jose are abandoned in this new model.

However, the basic Jose items remain. Jose (1998) reported the original Jose (1994 & 1998) items to

have demonstrated Cronbach's Alphas of between .65 and .83 (for subscales), for an American sample.

Jose et al. (1994) showed the item subscales to demonstrate validity by mediating and moderating the

influence of stress on outcome measures.

What differentiates the new system of this study from the old one of Jose (1994, 1998) is that

all the items were essentially expanded three-fold; so they might elicit more detailed responding on the

part of subjects. The Jose (1994 & 1998) and Kilburg (1997) coping measures contained between 22

and 32 items. The present Kilburg coping measure contains 65 items, representing 65 coping

strategies. For each item, participants made use of a 5 point scale to convey how much they engaged

in the given coping strategy: “None at all” (0), “A little” (1), “A moderate amount” (2), “Much” (3),

and “Very much” (4).

The expanded items of the CIC were assigned to the PROBLEM-FOCUSED and EMOTION-

FOCUSED categories based on a focus group meeting between research team members, including two

43

Americans and three Japanese. The categorization of these items into PROBLEM-FOCUSED and

EMOTION-FOCUSED is in most cases evident by the wording of the item. That is, most

PROBLEM-FOCUSED items contain the phrase “…to help fix the problem” and most EMOTION-

FOCUSED items contain the phrase “… so I would feel better.” In cases where these phrases are not

included, the underlying meaning is assumed in the main parts of the item. The COGNITIVE PF/EF

and BEHAVIORAL PF/EF subdivisions represent a logical distinction between subjective (cognitive)

and objective (behavioral). These subdivisions served as the basis for the primary coping analyses.

The new coding scheme of this research represents a departure from the “approach” and

“avoidance” categories of Jose (1997). The supposition is that given relational meaning (Lazarus,

1991), the questionnaire researcher cannot easily define what constitutes approach or avoidance in a

given encounter. For instance, social withdrawal, which is considered by many to be a way of

avoiding a problem, could actually be an effective means of approaching the problem – e.g., when

giving the “silent treatment” works to improve one’s lot (similarly, social seeking may simply be a

means of avoiding the “real” issue, e.g., by means of procrastination with friends). As another

example, “self-blame”, which is also considered by many to be a way of avoiding a problem, could

actually be an effective means of approaching the problem – e.g., when “taking the fall” works to

improve one’s lot. Aggression is another example. Many consider it a classic way of avoiding a

problem – yet there is no denying that in many cases it is not only directly effective, but also societally

acceptable.

In sum, “approach” and “avoidance” are much more elusive as concepts than researchers

generally acknowledge (Aldwin, 1991). It is certainly possible to conduct interviews with subjects

regarding their coping intent, but that is very laborious. As a starting point, it was arguably better to

construct coping questionnaire items such that problem-focused or emotion-focused indicators in those

items would force subjects to respond as to why they used a given strategy. In any event, the current

state of the literature dictates that researchers should first establish clearly how Japanese children rate

with regard to the problem/emotion-focused distinction.

44

To this end, coping data collected using the CIC were sorted into PROBLEM-

FOCUSED/BEHAVIORAL, PROBLEM-FOCUSED/COGNITIVE, EMOTION-

FOCUSED/BEHAVIORAL, AND EMOTION-FOCUSED/COGNITIVE scores, such that each

participant (i.e., each child) had a score for each of these categories. These are average scores (i.e.,

scores resulting from the summed values of responses divided by the number of coping strategies

within the respective classification). Thus, each participant had 4 coping scores (see coding key and

measures in Appendices).

In addition to the analysis of the above scores, exploratory factor analysis was conducted on

the maternal coping discouragement/encouragement data (see below). Prior to the analysis, it was

decided that if the resultant factor structure merited further analysis, by virtue factor loadings above

.60, it would form the basis for a new set of scores for the child data. Then further analyses would be

conducted on these scores (see Results section). That factor structure did in fact merit further analysis

and will be discussed further in the Results section.

Of additional note, for the Fuzoku Elementary School and the Fuzoku Junior High School

child questionnaires, item #59 (related to tobacco use as a coping strategy) had to be exchanged for a

substitute item (related to singing and “karaoke” as a coping strategy). This substitution was made for

these two schools, because the Fuzoku administrators did not consent to the use of the tobacco use

item, giving the reason that it might be injurious to the children. Care was taken to insure that this

substituted item was withheld in the appropriate analyses. No item substitutions were made on the

mother questionnaires.

School Performance

As a measure of adjustment, school performance items were drawn from a 10-item

questionnaire entitled “School Performance and Well-Being.” School performance items included

numbers 1-3 (please see coding key and measures in Appendices). These items inquire about school

grades, attendance, and behavior. All three of these forms of school performance data are on the same

45

scale. They were averaged and analyzed as one score, henceforth referred to as SCHOOL

PERFORMANCE. There is also a maternal analog to this measure. Data from it are in the same form

as the child data. As an expedient attempt to “triangulate” on the objective reality of the child’s

adjustment, the maternal analog data were included in this averaging of SCHOOL PERFORMANCE.

Life Satisfaction

As a measure of adjustment, life satisfaction items were drawn from the aforementioned

questionnaire entitled “School Performance and Well-Being.” Life Satisfaction items include numbers

4-10. They consist of four domains established in the New ELESC: Family/Home Life,

Health/Fitness, Education, and Peer Relations (please see coding key and measures in Appendices).

Item numbers 6, 8, and 9 belong to family/home life satisfaction. Item number 5 belongs to

health/fitness satisfaction, 7 to education satisfaction, and 4 to peer relations satisfaction. Item number

10 belongs to general satisfaction. All of these forms of life satisfaction are on the same scale. They

were averaged and analyzed as one score, henceforth referred to as LIFE SATISFACTION. There is

also a maternal analog to this measure. Data from it are in the same form as the child data. As an

expedient attempt to “triangulate” on the objective reality of the child’s adjustment, the maternal

analog data were included in this averaging of LIFE SATISFACTION.


The Socialization Inventory of Coping (SIC) - This measure was created by the present

researcher in an attempt to expand previous measures. It is essentially an analog of the CIC.

Questions are phrased to elicit answers about the extent to which mothers encourage or discourage the

coping strategies their children may use. Data obtained from it were grouped in the same fashion as

those from the CIC (please see previous section). That is, coping data collected using the SIC were

sorted into PROBLEM-FOCUSED/BEHAVIORAL, PROBLEM-FOCUSED/COGNITIVE,

EMOTION-FOCUSED/BEHAVIORAL, AND EMOTION-FOCUSED/COGNITIVE scores, such

that each participant (i.e. each mother) had a score for each of these categories. These are average

46

scores (i.e., scores resulting from the summed values of responses divided by the number of coping

strategies within the respective classification). Thus, each participant had 4 coping

encouragement/discouragement scores (see coding key and measures in Appendices). In terms of

COPING CONTEXT, a mother was assigned to the same group as her child.

As previously mentioned, in addition to the analysis of the above scores, exploratory factor

analysis was conducted on the maternal coping discouragement/encouragement data (see below).

Prior to the analysis, it was decided that if the resultant factor structure merited further analysis, by

virtue of factor loadings above .60, it would form the basis for a new set of scores for the child data.

Then further analyses would be conducted on those scores (see Results section). That is, the factor

structure yielded from the maternal coping discouragement/encouragement data would be utilized to

form corresponding factor scores in the child coping data (recall that the SIC is an analog of the CIC,

permitting such linkage). Subsequently, further analyses would be conducted on these scores. The

factor structure resulting from the exploratory factor analysis did in fact merit further analysis and will

be discussed further in the Results section.

Design

The study generally utilized a 2 (SEX: male vs. female) X 3 (GRADE: 5 vs. 8 vs. 10) design.

Variations in the design according to whether the children or the mothers were the focus will be

addressed in the subsequent sections covering results. Furthermore, to accommodate to the standard

formula for MANOVA subject minimums (#IV levels X #DVs X 20), several analyses were broken

down into component analyses (see Chapter III: Results).

Procedure

Participants were asked to complete questionnaire packets during their regular class time,

scheduled at the convenience of the schools involved. Several Japanese undergraduate assistants

supervised in conjunction with the teachers of the respective classrooms. They announced that they

47

were conducting a research project on the problems that children have and how they learn to solve

them. They explained that problems can be mental, emotional, or physical. They explained that

“everyone has some problems” and “everyone has to learn how to have a healthy life”. They further

explained that “the research is very important for understanding health”.

The assistants then told the children that the questions would not be hard to answer and might

be interesting to them. The children were further reassured that no one would know whose

questionnaire is whose because “secret” numbers would be used. They were also informed that the

questionnaire is not a test and that there are no wrong or right answers. This was to provide a basis for

asking the children to share their real feelings.

In order that the children would complete the questionnaires carefully and within a reasonable

time frame, research assistants were asked to read each item aloud. The children were instructed to

listen carefully, in silence. A short and regular pause allowed them to answer each question in a paced

fashion. In this way, all the children finished at about the same time. If the children had any

questions, they were encouraged to ask. Due to limitations placed on the research by the school

administrators, the procedure of having research assistants read each item aloud was possible at

Kyohoku Junior High School and Fuzoku Elementary School, but not Fuzoku Junior High School and

Tsu Higashi High School. For Fuzoku Junior High School and Tsu Higashi High School, the children

were not required to complete the questionnaires in class and instead were asked to take them home to

complete them. Consequently, the response rates for these latter two schools were not as high as the

former two (see Research Participants section, above).

The mothers of the children were asked to fill out questionnaires as well. After the children

had finished theirs, the assistants gave them envelopes to bring home. The children were instructed

that the envelopes should not be opened by anyone but the mothers.

The mothers were to read that after they had finished their questionnaires, they were to seal

the envelopes and have their children return them to the teacher. All materials were coded to

correspond to the mothers’ respective children so mother-child pairs could be formed for data analysis.

48

Finally, the children and the teachers were thanked with a small gift of appreciation (i.e., a food item).

49

CHAPTER III. RESULTS

Testing the Hypotheses and Answering the Research Questions

Stress

Child Stress Scores as a Function of Sex and Grade

Based on the analyses below, it was possible to address the hypotheses and research questions

regarding stress as a function of sex and age. Utilizing MANOVA procedures and Wilks’ criterion,

significant main effects were detected for both SEX and GRADE. Both effects were highly significant

at p<.0001 (SEX: F=10.22{4, 385}, GRADE: F=5.54{8, 770}). The tests of between-subjects effects

revealed that the main effect for SEX referred to the dependent variables of Health/Fitness Stress

(F=25.61, p<.0001, Male M=.55, Male SD=.55, Female M=.90, Female SD=.59) and Peer Relations

Stress (F=7.88, p=.005, Male M=.67, Male SD=.59, Female M=.87, Female SD=.65).

Considering the mean stress intensity for males versus females with regard to these dependent

variables, it became evident that Hypothesis 1 was strongly supported. The mean stress intensity for

the Health/Fitness context for males was .55 and for females it was .90. The mean stress intensity for

the Peer Relations context for males was .67 and for females it was .87. Therefore, it seems clear that

females reported significantly more stress than males did for Health/Fitness stress and for Peer

Relations stress. No other significant SEX differences regarding stress intensity were detected.

Lastly, it should be noted that a diagnostic test of Box’s M was conducted to test the null hypothesis

that the observed covariance matrices of the dependent variables are equal across groups. The test

result was not significant. Hence a measure of confidence in the findings of significant main effects is

assured. Graphic representation of the above SEX differences follows.

In one MANOVA, SEX, and GRADE constituted between-subjects, independent variables

and FAMILY/HOME-LIFE STRESS, HEALTH/FITNESS STRESS, EDUCATION STRESS, and

PEER RELATIONS STRESS constituted four dependent variables.

50

Analysis 1 - Multivariate Analysis of Variance: Stress as a Function of Sex and Grade

TABLE 1: Between-Subjects Factors

Between-Subjects Factors

male 167

female 227

Fifth Grade 92

EighthGrade

158

Tenth 144

1

2

Child'sSex

5

8

10

Child'sGrade

Value Label N

51

TABLE 2: Descriptive Statistics

Descriptive Statistics

.5617 .3811 48

.6574 .3497 68

.4829 .4018 51

.5766 .3802 167

.5278 .3983 44

.7267 .3610 90

.5082 .3067 93

.5986 .3615 227

.5455 .3876 92

.6969 .3567 158

.4992 .3422 144

.5893 .3692 394

.5729 .6013 48

.5662 .5853 68

.4902 .4554 51

.5449 .5518 167

.6080 .5941 44

.9750 .5180 90

.9543 .6244 93

.8954 .5929 227

.5897 .5948 92

.7991 .5827 158

.7899 .6107 144

.7468 .6007 394

.7625 .6279 48

.8588 .5604 68

.9176 .6002 51

.8491 .5921 167

.7636 .6918 44

.9244 .5492 90

.8473 .5937 93

.8617 .5974 227

.7630 .6556 92

.8962 .5533 158

.8722 .5949 144

.8563 .5944 394

.7619 .6418 48

.6954 .5595 68

.5490 .5837 51

.6698 .5940 167

.7857 .6288 44

.9810 .6684 90

.7942 .6401 93

.8666 .6531 227

.7733 .6322 92

.8580 .6380 158

.7073 .6297 144

.7832 .6355 394

Child's GradeFifth Grade

Eighth Grade

Tenth

Total

Fifth Grade

Eighth Grade

Tenth

Total

Fifth Grade

Eighth Grade

Tenth

Total

Fifth Grade

Eighth Grade

Tenth

Total

Fifth Grade

Eighth Grade

Tenth

Total

Fifth Grade

Eighth Grade

Tenth

Total

Fifth Grade

Eighth Grade

Tenth

Total

Fifth Grade

Eighth Grade

Tenth

Total

Fifth Grade

Eighth Grade

Tenth

Total

Fifth Grade

Eighth Grade

Tenth

Total

Fifth Grade

Eighth Grade

Tenth

Total

Fifth Grade

Eighth Grade

Tenth

Total

Child's Sexmale

female

Total

male

female

Total

male

female

Total

male

female

Total

Family/Home Life StressIntensity

Health/Fitness StressIntensity

Education Stress Intensity

Peer Relations StressIntensity

Mean Std. Deviation N

52

TABLE 3: Multivariate Tests

Multivariate Tests

.265 266.469 4.000 385.000 .000

.904 10.223 4.000 385.000 .000

.894 5.542 8.000 770.000 .000

.965 1.735 8.000 770.000 .087

Wilks' LambdaWilks' Lambda

Wilks' Lambda

Wilks' Lambda

EffectInterceptSEX

GRADE

SEX * GRADE

Value F Hypothesis df Error df Sig.

53

TABLE 4: Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

1 .285 .594

1 25.607 .000

1 .000 .985

1 7.879 .005

2 11.509 .000

2 2.945 .054

2 1.527 .219

2 2.538 .080

2 .597 .551

2 4.376 .013

2 .464 .629

2 1.351 .260

Dependent VariableFamily/Home Life StressIntensity












SourceSEX

GRADE

SEX * GRADE

df F Sig.

54

TABLE 5: Multiple Comparisons

Multiple Comparisons

Tukey HSD

-.1514* 4.716E-02 .004

4.626E-02 4.799E-02 .600

.1514* 4.716E-02 .004

.1977* 4.143E-02 .000

-4.6263E-02 4.799E-02 .600

-.1977* 4.143E-02 .000

-.2094* 7.451E-02 .014

-.2003* 7.583E-02 .023

.2094* 7.451E-02 .014

9.120E-03 6.546E-02 .989

.2003* 7.583E-02 .023

-9.1201E-03 6.546E-02 .989

-.1332 7.806E-02 .203

-.1092 7.944E-02 .354

.1332 7.806E-02 .203

2.398E-02 6.857E-02 .935

.1092 7.944E-02 .354

-2.3980E-02 6.857E-02 .935

-8.4755E-02 8.204E-02 .556

6.595E-02 8.349E-02 .709

8.476E-02 8.204E-02 .556

.1507 7.207E-02 .092

-6.5951E-02 8.349E-02 .709

-.1507 7.207E-02 .092

(J) Child's GradeEighth Grade

Tenth

Fifth Grade

Tenth

Fifth Grade

Eighth Grade

Eighth Grade

Tenth

Fifth Grade

Tenth

Fifth Grade

Eighth Grade

Eighth Grade

Tenth

Fifth Grade

Tenth

Fifth Grade

Eighth Grade

Eighth Grade

Tenth

Fifth Grade

Tenth

Fifth Grade

Eighth Grade

(I) Child's GradeFifth Grade

Eighth Grade

Tenth

Fifth Grade

Eighth Grade

Tenth

Fifth Grade

Eighth Grade

Tenth

Fifth Grade

Eighth Grade

Tenth

Dependent VariableFamily/Home Life StressIntensity




MeanDifference

(I-J) Std. Error Sig.

Based on observed means.

The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.*.

55

FIGURE 1: Stress Intensity within Context as a Function of Sex of Child

Sex of Child

femalemale

Mea

n

1.0

.9

.8

.7

.6

.5

Stress Context

Health/Fitness

Stress Intensity

Peer Relations

Stress Intensity

Stress Intensity within Context as a Function of Sex of Child. Females reported significantly more stress than males did for Health/Fitness stress and for Peer Relations stress, supporting Hypothesis 1. Health/Fitness Stress (p<.0001, Male M=.55, Male SD=.55, Female M=.90, Female SD=.59) and Peer Relations Stress (p=.005, Male M=.67, Male SD=.59, Female M=.87, Female SD=.65).

Regarding the main effect for GRADE, Tukey Post Hoc analysis was performed in order to

detect which level(s) of the independent variable were significantly different from each other. For the

Family/Home Life context, the test revealed a highly significant difference between 5th grade and 8th

grade at (F=11.51, p=.004, 5th grade M=.55, 8th grade M=.70, 5th grade SD=.39, 8th grade SD=.36). It

also revealed a highly significant difference between 8th grade and 10th grade at (F=11.51, p<.0001,

10th grade M=.50, 10th grade SD=.34). However, no difference between 5th and 10th grade was

detected. For the Health/Fitness context, the test revealed a significant difference between 5th and 8th

grade (F=2.95, p=.014, 5th grade M=.59, 5th grade SD=.59, 8th grade M=.80, 8th grade SD=.58). It also

revealed a significant difference between 5th and 10th grade at (p=.023, 10th grade M=.79, 10th grade

SD=.61). However, no difference between 8th and 10th grade was detected. Because no difference was

detected for Education stress, it is apparent that Hypothesis 2 was rejected. [Note: Box’s M diagnostic

test, again, provided assurance of homogeneity of variance.]

56

FIGURE 2: Stress Intensity by Context as a Function of Grade of Child

Grade of Child

TenthEighth GradeFifth Grade

Mea

n

.9

.8

.7

.6

.5

.4

Stress Context

Family/Home Life

Stress Intensity

Health/Fitness

Stress Intensity

Stress Intensity by Context as a Function of Grade of Child. Eighth graders reported significantly more Family/Home Life Stress than both 5th graders and 10th graders (p=.004, p<.0001, respectively). Fifth graders reported significantly less Health/Fitness Stress than both 8th graders and 10th graders (p=.014, p=.023, respectively).

57

Coping

Child Coping Strategy Scores as a Function of Sex and Grade

Based on the analysis below, it was possible to address the hypotheses and research questions

regarding coping as a function of sex and age. Utilizing MANOVA procedures and Wilks’ criterion,

significant main effects were detected for both SEX and GRADE. The main effect for SEX was

highly significant at p<.001 (F=4.61, {4, 385}). The main effect for GRADE was marginally

significant at p=.042 (F=2.01, {8, 770}). The tests of between-subjects effects revealed that the main

effect for SEX referred to the dependent variables of Cognitive Problem-Focused Coping (F=4.15,

p=.042, Male M=.91, Female M=1.11, Male SD=.82, Female SD=.87) and Cognitive Emotion-

Focused Coping (F=6.0, p=.015, Male M=.88, Female M=1.09, Male SD=.70, Female SD=.65).

Considering the mean stress intensity for males versus females with regard to these dependent

variables, it became evident that Hypothesis 3 and 4 were supported. The mean use of Cognitive

Problem-Focused Coping for males was .91, whereas for females it was 1.11. The mean use of

Cognitive Emotion-Focused Coping for males was .88, whereas for females it was 1.09. Therefore, it

is clear that females reported significantly more coping use than males did for both Cognitive

Problem-Focused and Cognitive Emotion-Focused Coping. No other significant SEX differences

regarding coping use were detected.

A diagnostic test of Box’s M was conducted to test the null hypothesis that the observed

covariance matrices of the dependent variables are equal across groups. The test result was significant

(p<.001). Hence a measure of confidence in the findings of significant main effects was undermined.

Levine’s Test of Equality of Error Variances was employed to clarify the source of the violation of

homogeneity of variance. Results were significant for all four of the coping types (p<.05), except for

Cognitive Problem-Focused Coping (p=.21). Hence, although complete confidence in the significance

of the main effect for Cognitive Emotion-Focused Coping is not assured, confidence in the

significance of the main effect for Cognitive Problem-Focused Coping is assured. Most importantly,

normal Q-Q plots were generated for each type of coping data, and each revealed observed values that

were well in line with the expected normal values. Hence the Q-Q plots provide justification for

proceeding.

A MANOVA was performed wherein SEX and GRADE constituted between-subjects,

independent variables and COGNITIVE PF, COGNITIVE EF, BEHAVIORAL PF, &

BEHAVIORAL PF coping strategies constituted 4 dependent variables.

58

Analysis 2 - Multivariate Analysis of Variance: Coping as a Function of Sex and Grade



.8698 .6773 48

.8897 .8374 68

.9828 .9243 51

.9124 .8201 167

1.0313 .8602 44

1.1208 .8891 90

1.1384 .8610 93

1.1107 .8692 227

.9470 .7702 92

1.0214 .8721 158

1.0833 .8839 144

1.0266 .8533 394

.5110 .4840 48

.6138 .6532 68

.6161 .5977 51

.5849 .5902 167

.4641 .4098 44

.6316 .4872 90

.5490 .5098 93

.5653 .4848 227

.4886 .4482 92

.6239 .5628 158

.5727 .5414 144

.5736 .5314 394

.7557 .5357 48

.9278 .7591 68

.9483 .7600 51

.8846 .7033 167

.8636 .6242 44

1.1051 .7061 90

1.1818 .5940 93

1.0897 .6540 227

.8073 .5790 92

1.0288 .7323 158

1.0991 .6645 144

1.0028 .6820 394

.5994 .4377 48

.7076 .6122 68

.7006 .6013 51

.6743 .5628 167

.5874 .4335 44

.8453 .5495 90

.7494 .5400 93

.7560 .5311 227

.5936 .4334 92

.7860 .5795 158

.7321 .5609 144

.7214 .5456 394


Eighth Grade

Tenth

Total

Fifth Grade

Eighth Grade

Tenth

Total

Fifth Grade

Eighth Grade

Tenth

Total

Fifth Grade

Eighth Grade

Tenth

Total

Fifth Grade

Eighth Grade

Tenth

Total

Fifth Grade

Eighth Grade

Tenth

Total

Fifth Grade

Eighth Grade

Tenth

Total

Fifth Grade

Eighth Grade

Tenth

Total

Fifth Grade

Eighth Grade

Tenth

Total

Fifth Grade

Eighth Grade

Tenth

Total

Fifth Grade

Eighth Grade

Tenth

Total

Fifth Grade

Eighth Grade

Tenth

Total

Child's Sexmale

female

Total

male

female

Total

male

female

Total

male

female

Total

CognitiveProblem-Focused Coping

BehavioralProblem-Focused Coping

CognitiveEmotion-Focused Coping

BehavioralEmotion-Focused Coping


59


Multivariate Tests

.318 206.330 4.000 385.000 .000

.954 4.606 4.000 385.000 .001

.959 2.013 8.000 770.000 .042

.988 .586 8.000 770.000 .790


Wilks' Lambda

Wilks' Lambda

EffectInterceptSEX

GRADE

SEX * GRADE


TABLE 8: Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

1 4.151 .042

1 .328 .567

1 5.996 .015

1 1.040 .308

2 .458 .633

2 1.877 .154

2 4.245 .015

2 3.329 .037

2 .085 .919

2 .247 .781

2 .238 .789

2 .590 .555

Dependent VariableCognitiveProblem-Focused Coping












SourceSEX

GRADE

SEX * GRADE

df F Sig.

60



Tukey HSD

-7.4350E-02 .1117 .784

-.1363 .1137 .454

7.435E-02 .1117 .784

-6.1973E-02 9.816E-02 .803

.1363 .1137 .454

6.197E-02 9.816E-02 .803

-.1354 6.974E-02 .127

-8.4176E-02 7.097E-02 .461

.1354 6.974E-02 .127

5.118E-02 6.126E-02 .681

8.418E-02 7.097E-02 .461

-5.1183E-02 6.126E-02 .681

-.2215* 8.797E-02 .032

-.2918* 8.953E-02 .003

.2215* 8.797E-02 .032

-7.0347E-02 7.728E-02 .634

.2918* 8.953E-02 .003

7.035E-02 7.728E-02 .634

-.1924* 7.108E-02 .019

-.1385 7.234E-02 .135

.1924* 7.108E-02 .019

5.392E-02 6.244E-02 .663

.1385 7.234E-02 .135

-5.3923E-02 6.244E-02 .663

(J) Child's GradeEighth Grade

Tenth

Fifth Grade

Tenth

Fifth Grade

Eighth Grade

Eighth Grade

Tenth

Fifth Grade

Tenth

Fifth Grade

Eighth Grade

Eighth Grade

Tenth

Fifth Grade

Tenth

Fifth Grade

Eighth Grade

Eighth Grade

Tenth

Fifth Grade

Tenth

Fifth Grade

Eighth Grade


Eighth Grade

Tenth

Fifth Grade

Eighth Grade

Tenth

Fifth Grade

Eighth Grade

Tenth

Fifth Grade

Eighth Grade

Tenth

Dependent VariableCognitiveProblem-Focused Coping




MeanDifference




61

FIGURE 3: Coping Type as a Function of Sex of Child

Sex of Child

femalemale

Mea

n1.2

1.1

1.0

.9

.8

Coping Type

Cognitive PF

Cognitive EF

Coping Type as a Function of Sex of Child. Females reported significantly greater use of both Cognitive Problem-Focused Coping and Cognitive Emotion-Focused Coping, supporting both Hypothesis 3 and Hypothesis 4. The main effect for SEX was highly significant at p<.001 (F{4, 385}); Cognitive Problem-Focused Coping (p=.042, Male M=.91, Female M=1.11, Male SD=.82, Female SD=.87); Cognitive Emotion-Focused Coping (p=.015, Male M=.88, Female M=1.09, Male SD=.70, Female SD=.65).

Regarding the main effect for GRADE, Tukey Post Hoc analysis was performed in order to

detect which level(s) of the independent variable were significantly different from each other. It was

revealed that for Cognitive Emotion-Focused Coping, 5th graders significantly differed from both 8th

graders (p=.032) and 10th graders (p=.003). Fifth graders had a mean of .81 (SD=.58), 8th graders a

mean of 1.03 (SD=.73), and 10th graders a mean of 1.1 (SD=.66). Hence, Hypothesis 6 was supported.

No significant GRADE differences were detected for Cognitive Problem-Focused Coping. Hence,

Hypothesis 5 was rejected. Further, for Behavioral Emotion-Focused Coping, 5th graders (M=.59,

SD=.43) differed significantly from 8th graders (M=.79, SD=.58), at p=.019. No other significant

grade differences were detected in this analysis. Graphic representation of the above significant

differences follows.

62

FIGURE 4: Coping Type as a Function of Grade of Child.

Grade of Child

Tenth GradeEighth GradeFifth Grade

Mea

n

1.2

1.1

1.0

.9

.8

.7

.6

.5

Coping Type

Cognitive EF

Behavioral EF

Coping Type as a Function of Grade of Child. Eighth and 10th graders reported significantly greater use of Cognitive Emotion-Focused Coping than 5th graders, supporting Hypothesis 6. Further, 8th graders reported significantly greater use of Behavioral Emotion-Focused Coping than 5th graders. For Cognitive Emotion-Focused Coping , 5th graders significantly differed from both 8th graders (p=.032) and 10th graders (p=.003). For Behavioral Emotion-Focused Coping, 5th graders differed significantly from 8th graders at p=.019.

63

Analysis 3 - T-test of Social Seeking Items

In addition to the above MANOVA, a t-test was performed on the four social-seeking coping

items, in order to assess social-seeking coping as a function of SEX (a specific question from the

literature review). In that analysis (described in tables below), a significant SEX difference was

detected for item #18, “I talked to someone – so I would feel better”, but for no other item. For item

#18, girls reported significantly greater use of social-seeking for the sake of emotion-focused coping,

at a mean of 1.24 (SD=1.32). Boys had a mean of .95 (SD=1.17).

TABLE 10: Group Statistics

Group Statistics

167 .95 1.17 9.06E-02

227 1.24 1.32 8.74E-02

167 .56 .90 6.93E-02

227 .57 .85 5.61E-02

167 .75 1.06 8.21E-02

227 .99 1.21 8.04E-02

167 .37 .72 5.54E-02

227 .42 .84 5.57E-02

Child's Sexmale

female

male

female

male

female

male

female

18. I talked to someone- so I would feel better.

23. I went to be withsomeone - to help fixthe problem.

25. I talked to someone- to help fix the problem.

29. I went to be withsomeone - so I wouldfeel better.

N Mean Std. DeviationStd. Error

Mean

64

TABLE 11: Independent Samples Test

Independent Samples Test

-2.265 392 .024 -.29

-.129 392 .898 -1.14E-02

-2.018 392 .044 -.24

-.587 392 .557 -4.72E-02

Equal variancesassumed




18. I talked to someone(EF)

23. I went to be withsomeone (PF)

25. I talked to someone(PF)

29. I went to be withsomeone (EF)

t df Sig. (2-tailed)Mean

Difference

t-test for Equality of Means

FIGURE 5: Social Support Seeking (EF & PF) as a Function of Sex.

Sex of Child

femalemale

Mea

n

1.3

1.2

1.1

1.0

.9

.8

.7

.6

Talked to Somone...

to feel better

(#18)

to fix the problem

(#25)

Social Support Seeking (EF & PF) as a Function of Sex. To address the specific issue of sex differences in social support, a t-test was conducted. Girls reported significantly more use than boys did for the social-seeking/emotion-focused coping item of “I talked to someone – so I would feel better” (#18). Girls had a mean of 1.24 (SD=1.32) and boys a mean of .95 (SD=1.17).

65

Adjustment: School Performance and Life Satisfaction

School Performance & Life Satisfaction and Child Coping Strategy Scores

Based on the analysis below, it was possible to measure the correlation between adjustment

and coping. Several significant correlations emerged. All four of the coping types were strongly,

positively correlated with each other (at p=.01, see correlation matrix below). However, surprisingly,

only Behavioral Problem-Focused coping was significantly correlated with either of the two

adjustment measures, School Performance and Life Satisfaction. Further, Behavioral Problem-

Focused coping was significantly, negatively correlated with both of those adjustment measures, at

p=.05. That is, children with high Behavioral Problem-Focused coping scores had lower School

Performance (r=-.108) and Life Satisfaction (r=-.106). To rule out issues of non-normal distribution

of the School Performance and Life Satisfaction data, Q-Q plots were generated. They revealed

observed values that were well in line with expected normal values.

Analysis 4 - Correlation Analysis: School Performance/Life Satisfaction and Coping

Pearson product-moment correlation analysis was performed wherein the relationship between

School Performance & Life Satisfaction and Child Coping Strategy Scores was considered. This

proceeded according to the COGNITIVE PF, COGNITIVE EF, BEHAVIORAL PF, &

BEHAVIORAL PF classifications.



1.0266 .8533 394

.5736 .5314 394

1.0028 .6820 394

.7214 .5456 394

2.8025 .5243 394

2.3900 .4741 394

CognitiveProblem-Focused CopingBehavioralProblem-Focused Coping

CognitiveEmotion-Focused CopingBehavioralEmotion-Focused CopingSchool Performance(Child's+Mom's)

Life Satisfaction(Child's+Mom's)


66

TABLE 13: Correlations

Correlations

1.000 .523** .736** .552** .083 .037

. .000 .000 .000 .098 .462

394 394 394 394 394 394

.523** 1.000 .624** .884** -.108* -.106*

.000 . .000 .000 .032 .036

394 394 394 394 394 394

.736** .624** 1.000 .697** .050 -.068

.000 .000 . .000 .320 .176

394 394 394 394 394 394

.552** .884** .697** 1.000 -.096 -.079

.000 .000 .000 . .058 .117

394 394 394 394 394 394

.083 -.108* .050 -.096 1.000 .501**

.098 .032 .320 .058 . .000

394 394 394 394 394 394

.037 -.106* -.068 -.079 .501** 1.000

.462 .036 .176 .117 .000 .

394 394 394 394 394 394

PearsonCorrelation

Sig.(2-tailed)

N

PearsonCorrelation

Sig.(2-tailed)

N

PearsonCorrelation

Sig.(2-tailed)

N

PearsonCorrelation

Sig.(2-tailed)

N

PearsonCorrelation

Sig.(2-tailed)

N

PearsonCorrelation

Sig.(2-tailed)

N

CognitiveProblem-FocusedCoping

BehavioralProblem-FocusedCoping

CognitiveEmotion-FocusedCoping

BehavioralEmotion-FocusedCoping

SchoolPerformance(Child's+Mom's)

LifeSatisfaction(Child's+Mom's)

CognitiveProblem-FocusedCoping

Behavioral

Problem-FocusedCoping

CognitiveEmotion-FocusedCoping

BehavioralEmotion-F

ocusedCoping

SchoolPerformance(Child's+Mo

m's)

LifeSatisfaction(Child's+Mo

m's)

Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).**.

Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).*.

67


Mother’s Coping Discouragement/Encouragement as a Function of Child’s Sex and Grade

The analyses below made it possible to examine research questions 9-12. They revealed a

significant main effect for GRADE, at p=.007 (F{8, 770}), as indicated by Wilks’ Lambda. No other

significant main or interaction effects were detected. Subsequent Tukey’s Post Hoc analysis revealed

that the main effect for GRADE emerged based entirely on significant differences between 5th and 10th

graders in terms of three out of four of the types of coping that mothers could report encouraging or

discouraging. Stated differently, whether a child was a 5th grader or a 10th grader significantly affected

the chances that his or her mother would report encouraging/discouraging the following three coping

types: Behavioral Problem-Focused Coping (p<.001), Cognitive Emotion-Focused Coping (p<.05),

and Behavioral Emotion-Focused Coping (p<.05). In particular, mothers tended to discourage

Behavioral Problem-Focused Coping in 5th graders (M= -.28, SD=.42) more so than in 10th graders

(M= -.12, SD=.32), nevertheless discouraging it in both, as evidenced by negative means (the scale ran

from –2 to +2, for discourage and encourage, respectively). Mothers tended to encourage Cognitive

Emotion-Focused Coping in 5th graders (M=.26, SD=.29) more so than in 10th graders (M=.17,

SD=.27), nevertheless encouraging it in both (as evidenced by positive means). Lastly, mothers

tended to discourage Behavioral Emotion-Focused Coping in 5th graders (M= -.14, SD=.33) more so

than in 10th graders (M= -.005, SD=.27), nevertheless discouraging it in both (again, as evidenced by

negative means). It should be noted that these figures reflect over-arching coping categories (for

instance, Behavioral Problem-Focused Coping includes some pro-social and some anti-social items).

Also, it is apparent that in all three coping types, the means, although different by GRADE, are quite

low, considering the scale ran from –2 to +2.

Unfortunately, diagnostic tests of homogeneity of variance revealed significant probability

values. Box’s test of equality of covariance matrices yielded a significance value of p=.004. A

subsequent Levene’s test of equality of error variances yielded another p=.004 significance value for

discouragement/encouragement of Behavioral Problem-Focused Coping. However, Q-Q plots were

generated for each of the coping encouragement/discouragement variables and each revealed observed

values that were essentially well in line with the expected normal values. Hence there was good

reason to proceed.


independent variables and discouragement/encouragement COGNITIVE PF, COGNITIVE EF,

BEHAVIORAL PF, & BEHAVIORAL PF coping strategies constituted 4 dependent variables.

68

Analysis 5 - Multivariate Analysis of Variance: Maternal Coping

Discouragement/Encouragement as a Function of Child Sex and Grade

TABLE 14: Between-Subjects Factors

Between-Subjects Factors

male 167

female 227

Fifth Grade 92

EighthGrade

158

Tenth 144

1

2

Child'sSex

5

8

10

Child'sGrade

Value Label N

69



.4375 .3701 48

.4375 .4875 68

.3554 .4454 51

.4124 .4426 167

.6165 .4727 44

.4472 .4426 90

.4382 .3921 93

.4763 .4324 227

.5231 .4294 92

.4430 .4610 158

.4089 .4121 144

.4492 .4374 394

-.2544 .4172 48

-.1734 .3394 68

-.1373 .3018 51

-.1856 .3540 167

-.3158 .4249 44

-.1865 .3216 90

-.1047 .3312 93

-.1780 .3545 227

-.2838 .4197 92

-.1808 .3284 158

-.1162 .3204 144

-.1813 .3539 394

.2178 .2873 48

.2019 .3264 68

.1604 .3147 51

.1938 .3110 167

.3037 .2967 44

.1768 .2817 90

.1711 .2434 93

.1990 .2735 227

.2589 .2934 92

.1876 .3010 158

.1673 .2698 144

.1968 .2896 394

-.1130 .3239 48

-8.54E-02 .2738 68

-7.16E-02 .2960 51

-8.91E-02 .2943 167

-.1774 .3447 44

-.1107 .2567 90

-3.76E-02 .2515 93

-9.37E-02 .2776 227

-.1438 .3337 92

-9.98E-02 .2636 158

-4.97E-02 .2676 144

-9.18E-02 .2845 394


Eighth Grade

Tenth

Total

Fifth Grade

Eighth Grade

Tenth

Total

Fifth Grade

Eighth Grade

Tenth

Total

Fifth Grade

Eighth Grade

Tenth

Total

Fifth Grade

Eighth Grade

Tenth

Total

Fifth Grade

Eighth Grade

Tenth

Total

Fifth Grade

Eighth Grade

Tenth

Total

Fifth Grade

Eighth Grade

Tenth

Total

Fifth Grade

Eighth Grade

Tenth

Total

Fifth Grade

Eighth Grade

Tenth

Total

Fifth Grade

Eighth Grade

Tenth

Total

Fifth Grade

Eighth Grade

Tenth

Total

Child's Sexmale

female

Total

male

female

Total

male

female

Total

male

female

Total

Maternal CognitiveProblem-Focused Coping

Maternal BehavioralProblem-Focused Coping

Maternal CognitiveEmotion-Focused Coping

Maternal BehavioralEmotion-Focused Coping


70


Multivariate Tests

.446 119.751 4.000 385.000 .000

.988 1.211 4.000 385.000 .305

.947 2.661 8.000 770.000 .007

.984 .777 8.000 770.000 .623


Wilks' Lambda

Wilks' Lambda

EffectInterceptSEX

GRADE

SEX * GRADE




Tukey HSD

8.006E-02 5.707E-02 .339.1142 5.808E-02 .120

-8.0060E-02 5.707E-02 .339

3.418E-02 5.013E-02 .774-.1142 5.808E-02 .120

-3.4184E-02 5.013E-02 .774

-.1029 4.589E-02 .064-.1675* 4.671E-02 .001.1029 4.589E-02 .064

-6.4618E-02 4.032E-02 .244.1675* 4.671E-02 .001

6.462E-02 4.032E-02 .244

7.132E-02 3.782E-02 .1439.160E-02* 3.849E-02 .046

-7.1321E-02 3.782E-02 .143

2.027E-02 3.323E-02 .815-9.1595E-02* 3.849E-02 .046-2.0274E-02 3.323E-02 .815

-4.4007E-02 3.715E-02 .462-9.4133E-02* 3.780E-02 .034

4.401E-02 3.715E-02 .462

-5.0126E-02 3.263E-02 .2749.413E-02* 3.780E-02 .0345.013E-02 3.263E-02 .274

(J) Child's GradeEighth GradeTenthFifth Grade

TenthFifth GradeEighth Grade

Eighth GradeTenthFifth Grade







Eighth Grade

Tenth

Fifth Grade

Eighth Grade

Tenth

Fifth Grade

Eighth Grade

Tenth

Fifth Grade

Eighth Grade

Tenth

Dependent VariableMaternal CognitiveProblem-Focused Coping




MeanDifference




71

FIGURE 6: Maternal Discouragement and Encouragement of Coping as a Function of Grade of Child

Grade of Child

10th Grade8th Grade5th Grade

Mea

n.6

.4

.2

0.0

-.2

-.4

Coping Type

Cognitive PF

Behavioral PF

Cognitive EF

Behavioral EF

Maternal Discouragement and Encouragement of Coping as a Function of Grade of Child. Whether a child was a 5th grader or a 10th grader significantly affected the chances that his or her mother would report encouraging/discouraging the following three coping types: Behavioral Problem-Focused Coping (p<.001), Cognitive Emotion-Focused Coping (p<.05), and Behavioral Emotion-Focused Coping (p<.05).

Child Coping and Maternal Discouragement/Encouragement of Coping

The analysis below addressed Research Question 13. It attempted to address the issue of

whether children’s coping use scores were correlated with their mother’s coping

discouragement/encouragement scores. The results of the analysis revealed a number of correlations

significant at the p<.01 level, for the different types of maternal discouragement and encouragement.

Just as with the children’s coping data, the mother’s coping discouragement/encouragement scores

were all highly correlated. The main issue, however, was whether child scores would be correlated

with mother scores, demonstrating a socialization impact, or at least a cross-generational connection.

Evidence of a mother-child coping connection was found in only one pair of coping types,

child Cognitive Problem-Focused Coping and maternal encouragement of Cognitive Problem-Focused

72

Coping. That correlation was .11, significant at the p=.05 level. Stated more clearly, children who

reported higher levels of Cognitive Problem-Focused Coping tended to have mothers who reported

higher levels of encouragement of Cognitive Problem-Focused coping, relative to their counterparts.

Again, there was concern that homogeneity of variance assumptions were violated with both the child

Cognitive Problem-Focused Coping scores and the mother discouragement and encouragement of

Cognitive Problem-Focused Coping scores, as evidenced by significant p-values for Box’s M

diagnostic test. However, subsequent Levine’s diagnostic tests did reveal non-significant p-values for

this type of coping for both the child scores and the mother scores. Further, as previously stated, Q-Q

plots revealed observed values that were well in line with the normal expected values.

Analysis 6 - Correlation Analysis: Child Coping and Maternal

Discouragement/Encouragement of Coping


Child Coping Strategy Scores and Maternal Encouragement and Discouragement of Coping Strategy

Scores was considered. This proceeded according to the COGNITIVE PF, COGNITIVE EF,

BEHAVIORAL PF, & BEHAVIORAL PF classifications.

73



1.0266 .8533 394

.5736 .5314 394

1.0028 .6820 394

.7214 .5456 394

.4492 .4374 394

-.1813 .3539 394

.1968 .2896 394

-9.18E-02 .2845 394





Maternal CognitiveProblem-Focused Coping





74


Correlations

1.000 .523** .736** .552** .106* .022 .072 .014

. .000 .000 .000 .036 .667 .153 .784

.523** 1.000 .624** .884** .058 -.013 .034 -.007

.000 . .000 .000 .249 .800 .507 .890

.736** .624** 1.000 .697** .076 .046 .044 .041

.000 .000 . .000 .133 .365 .383 .415

.552** .884** .697** 1.000 .087 -.022 .062 -.014

.000 .000 .000 . .083 .659 .219 .786

.106* .058 .076 .087 1.000 -.213** .511** -.100*

.036 .249 .133 .083 . .000 .000 .047

.022 -.013 .046 -.022 -.213** 1.000 .125* .878**

.667 .800 .365 .659 .000 . .013 .000

.072 .034 .044 .062 .511** .125* 1.000 .309**

.153 .507 .383 .219 .000 .013 . .000

.014 -.007 .041 -.014 -.100* .878** .309** 1.000

.784 .890 .415 .786 .047 .000 .000 .

Pear.Corr.

Sig.2-tailPear.Corr.

Sig.2-tail

Pear.Corr.

Sig.2-tail

Pear.Corr.



Sig.2-tail

Pear.Corr.

Sig.2-tail

Pear.Corr.

Sig.2-tail

CogPF

BehPF

CogEF

BehEF

MatCogPF

MatBehPF

MatCogEF

MatBehEF

CogPF

CopingBeh PFCoping

CogEF

CopingBeh EFCoping

MaternalCog PFCoping

MaternalBeh PFCoping

MaternalCog EFCoping

MaternalBeh EFCoping


Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). N = 394 throughout.*.

75

Exploratory Coping Factors

Analysis 7 - Exploratory Factor Analysis on Maternal Coping

Encouragement/Discouragement

In addition to the above analyses of the predetermined coping categories, exploratory factor

analysis was conducted on the maternal coping discouragement and encouragement data. First, a

preliminary factor analysis was conducted on the maternal coping discouragement/encouragement data

(using Principal Component Analysis and Varimax rotation). This data comes from the 65-item

measure, referred to as “The Socialization Inventory of Coping”). There were 394 participants

included in the analysis, a figure nearly 25% higher than what Tabachnick and Fidell assert to be

adequate in their reference book, “Using Multivariate Statistics” (1996, p. 640).

From the scree plot of that output, there appeared to be either a three-factor or two-factor

structure. To clarify, two additional factor analyses were performed – one specified three factors and

the other specified two factors. After Varimax rotation, all items that loaded at least .40 on these

solutions were selected (at the advice of Jose, 1998 and personal correspondence). Then Cronbach’s

Alphas were calculated on all five factors. The results of these analyses led to the conclusion that a

three-factor solution was most reasonable (Factor 1 Alpha = .9627, Factor 2 Alpha = .9055, Factor 3

Alpha = .7950). Subsequently, questionnaire items (within each factor) with Alphas of at least .60

were used to create new variables (again, at the advice of Jose, 1998 and personal correspondence).

These new variables were in turn utilized in MANOVAs and correlations along the lines of the

preceding analyses of the a priori categories (i.e., the COGNITIVE PF, COGNITIVE EF,

BEHAVIORAL PF, & BEHAVIORAL PF classifications). The emergent factor structures were also

imposed on the child data. Therefore, each child and each mother have a score for each of the three

new variables (detailed tables follow).

The decision to impose the maternal data on the child data was made for two important

reasons. Firstly, the focus of the study was socialization of the child by the mother—the emphasis was

therefore on understanding how children’s coping is a reflection of maternal coping encouragement

and discouragement. Secondly, the imposition of the maternal factors on the child data would allow

for better symmetry in the data analysis—because the maternal factors would have child counterparts

(just as the maternal measures had child counterparts).

76

TABLE 20: Preliminary Factor Analysis of Maternal Discouragement/Encouragement Coping.

Total Variance Explained

18.591 28.602 28.602 18.591 28.602 28.602 15.083 23.204 23.2047.018 10.797 39.398 7.018 10.797 39.398 6.145 9.455 32.659

2.633 4.051 43.449 2.633 4.051 43.449 3.189 4.906 37.565

2.525 3.884 47.334 2.525 3.884 47.334 3.030 4.662 42.2271.853 2.851 50.184 1.853 2.851 50.184 2.104 3.237 45.464

1.692 2.604 52.788 1.692 2.604 52.788 2.062 3.172 48.636

1.619 2.490 55.278 1.619 2.490 55.278 1.893 2.912 51.5481.458 2.243 57.522 1.458 2.243 57.522 1.767 2.719 54.267

1.406 2.162 59.684 1.406 2.162 59.684 1.724 2.653 56.920

1.360 2.093 61.776 1.360 2.093 61.776 1.705 2.624 59.5441.271 1.955 63.731 1.271 1.955 63.731 1.660 2.553 62.097

1.216 1.871 65.602 1.216 1.871 65.602 1.550 2.384 64.481

1.106 1.702 67.304 1.106 1.702 67.304 1.468 2.259 66.7401.053 1.620 68.924 1.053 1.620 68.924 1.419 2.184 68.924

.997 1.534 70.458

Component12

3

45

6

78

9

1011

12

1314

15

Total% of

VarianceCumulative % Total

% ofVariance

Cumulative % Total

% ofVariance

Cumulative %

Initial EigenvaluesExtraction Sums of Squared

LoadingsRotation Sums of Squared

Loadings

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Three-Factor Solution of the maternal coping discouragement/encouragement data. TABLE 21: Total Variance Explained


18.591 28.602 28.602 15.678 24.121 24.121

7.018 10.797 39.398 6.792 10.449 34.569

2.633 4.051 43.449 5.772 8.880 43.449

2.525 3.884 47.334

Component1

2

3

4

Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative %

Initial Eigenvalues Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings


77

Items with Factor Loadings of at least .60, from the preceding 3-Factor solution.

Rotated Component Matrix Component

1 2 33. to try to hurt or do harm to someone’s body or someone’s stuff - without that person knowing it - so he/she (my ch…

.658

5. to try to get someone to feel guilty or to feel sorry for him/her - so he/she (my child) would feel better.

.629

6. to try to annoy someone in a “light” or “indirect” way (for example: to make someone wait for him/her; to purposely

.743

11. to think about all the things he/she could possibly do to fix the problem.

.659

12. to get angry and yell and/or hit something (in front of someone) - to help fix the problem.

.713

13. to say bad things directly to someone’s face - so he/she (my child) would feel better.

.750

14. to get more information about the problem. .63815. to tell him/herself to divide the problem and take it “one step at a time.”

.662

19. to try to directly hurt or do harm to someone’s body or someone’s stuff - so he/she (my child) would feel better.

.820

21. to tell someone a lie (good or bad) - to help fix the problem. .69522. to try to hurt or do harm to someone’s feelings - without that person knowing it – to help fix the problem.

.843

24. to make a plan to solve the problem. .72525. to talk to me or to someone else - to help fix the problem. .73626. to tell him/herself to keep trying as hard as he/she can. .69027. to try to directly hurt or do harm to someone’s body or someone’s stuff - to help fix the problem.

.844

30. to tell someone a lie (good or bad) - so he/she (my child) .77331. to try to directly annoy someone by doing things like poking him/her, grabbing at his/her things, making faces at…

.851

33. to try to annoy someone in a “light” or “indirect” way (for example: to make someone wait for him/her; to purposely…

.862

34. to try to think what would work best to fix the problem. .66535. to try to get someone to feel guilty or to feel sorry for him/her - to help fix the problem.

.724

36. to say bad things directly to someone’s face – to help fix the problem.

.826

37. to try to hurt or do harm to someone’s feelings - without that person knowing it - so he/she (my child) would feel…

.867

38. to tell someone that the problem was his or her fault and/or to tell someone to say sorry - so he/she (my child)…

.760

42. to try to be polite or humble, or to show respect or honor - so he/she (my child) would feel better.

*.584

43. to tell someone that the problem was his or her fault and/or to tell someone to say sorry - to help fix the problem…

.778

45. to try to hurt or do harm to someone’s body or someone’s stuff - without that person knowing it - to help fix the…

.866

47. to get angry and yell and/or hit something (in front of someone) - so he/she (my child) would feel better.

.818

50. to try to directly annoy someone by doing things like poking him/her, grabbing at his/her things, making faces at…

.854

78

51. to try to be cheerful or happy in front of someone, or to do nice things for someone - to help fix the problem.

.623

57. to laugh or joke aloud - so he/she (my child) would feel better. *.56959. to smoke cigarettes, drink alcohol, take some pills, or take some kind of drug (not medicine) - so he/she would feel…

.790

*Value taken to be .60 when rounded up.

After theoretical consideration of the exploratory 3-Factor Solution, subjective labels were

applied to each of the factors, representing the overall themes. Item #59 was dropped from subsequent

analyses because it had previously been excluded from a significant portion of the children’s

questionnaires. The new variables are ANTAGONISM, PROBLEM-SOLVING, and CHEERFUL

DEFERENCE (factors 1-3, respectively). They were formed by averages (i.e., by summing the item

scores and dividing by the total number of items accepted from the given factor).

Not only are these variables rooted in relatively high Alpha scores, they are also comprised of

items with considerable theoretical cohesion. ANTAGONISM is clearly a variable that encompasses

anti-social, aggressive items. PROBLEM-SOLVING is clearly a variable that includes the classic

hallmarks of the planful, “working out” of issues. Lastly, CHEERFUL DEFERENCE, appears to

embody coping that strives to present a joyful and respectful tone to others, perhaps to remedy an

issue. *Note: this variable was comprised exclusively of one item, according to the .60 cut-off.

However, the items with the next two highest factor loadings in this category, which nearly made the

.60 cutoff, were conceptually similar enough to merit inclusion {i.e., “to try to be polite or humble”

(#42, loading=.584) and “to laugh or joke aloud” (#57, loading=.569)}. It could be argued that a

factor with so few items is not a true factor, and is instead simply a “trail” behind the preceding factor.

Yet the content of PROBLEM-SOLVING and CHEERFUL DEFERENCE would seem to be

sufficiently theoretically distinct to merit two separate variables of analysis. The connection between

the two factors will be further considered in subsequent correlational analyses.

Analyses of the Exploratory Coping Factors

Child Coping Strategy Scores (Exploratory) as a Function of Sex and Grade

The analysis below made it possible to examine the exploratory factor structures in the same

manner as the preceding coping analyses, but with different coping types. Coping was considered

here as a function of SEX and GRADE. A highly significant main effect was revealed for SEX, at

p=.009 (F{3, 386}). Tests of between-subjects effects indicated a significant difference between

males and females with respect to Problem-Solving, at p=.017. The mean use of Problem-Solving

Coping for boys was .95, whereas for girls it was 1.19.

Diagnostic tests were performed to test the assumptions of the above analysis. Unfortunately,

79

Box’s M indicated a highly significant p-value at .0001. Levine’s Test of Equality of Error Variances

was subsequently employed – to assess the source of the violation. Its result was significant for

Antagonism, but not for Problem-Solving or Cheerful Deference. Thus, there is limited assurance to

proceed with tentative interpretation of the above significant finding regarding the sex difference with

Problem-Solving use. Further, Q-Q plots were generated for the three exploratory coping types. All

plots did approximate normal distributions, with partial exceptions. That of Problem-Solving

demonstrated the closest observed-expected fit. Graphic representation follows.


independent variables and the following exploratory coping strategy scores constituted 3 dependent

variables: ANTAGONISM, PROBLEM-SOLVING, and CHEERFUL DEFERENCE.

80

Analysis 8 - Multivariate Analysis of Variance: Coping (Exploratory) as a Function of Sex

and Grade



.5139 .6475 48

.5476 .7810 68

.5154 .6850 51

.5281 .7117 167

.3106 .4325 44

.4979 .5712 90

.3881 .5872 93

.4166 .5564 227

.4167 .5616 92

.5193 .6677 158

.4332 .6242 144

.4639 .6285 394

.9286 .7951 48

.9265 .9134 68

1.0168 .8740 51

.9547 .8646 167

1.1981 1.0293 44

1.2349 1.0041 90

1.1306 .8364 93

1.1850 .9411 227

1.0575 .9195 92

1.1022 .9752 158

1.0903 .8486 144

1.0874 .9154 394

.4375 .6456 48

.6176 .8331 68

.6078 .7766 51

.5629 .7656 167

.6061 .7818 44

.6704 .8354 90

.6093 .8321 93

.6329 .8209 227

.5181 .7150 92

.6477 .8322 158

.6088 .8101 144

.6032 .7977 394


Eighth Grade

Tenth

Total

Fifth Grade

Eighth Grade

Tenth

Total

Fifth Grade

Eighth Grade

Tenth

Total

Fifth Grade

Eighth Grade

Tenth

Total

Fifth Grade

Eighth Grade

Tenth

Total

Fifth Grade

Eighth Grade

Tenth

Total

Fifth Grade

Eighth Grade

Tenth

Total

Fifth Grade

Eighth Grade

Tenth

Total

Fifth Grade

Eighth Grade

Tenth

Total

Child's Sexmale

female

Total

male

female

Total

male

female

Total

Antagonism

Problem-Solving

Cheerful Deference


81


Multivariate Tests

.392 199.769 3.000 386.000 .000

.971 3.893 3.000 386.000 .009

.993 .475 6.000 772.000 .827

.993 .446 6.000 772.000 .848

Wilks' Lambda

Wilks' Lambda

Wilks' Lambda

Wilks' Lambda

EffectIntercept

Sex

Grade

Sex * Gra

Value FHypothesis

df Error df Sig.

FIGURE 7: Coping Type (Exploratory) as a Function of Sex of Child.

Sex of Child

femalemale

Mea

n

1.4

1.2

1.0

.8

.6

.4

.2

Coping Type

Antagonism

Problem-Solving

Cheerful Deference

Coping Type (Exploratory) as a Function of Sex of Child. A highly significant main effect was revealed for SEX, at p=.009 (F{3, 386}). The difference between males and females for Problem-Solving is significant at p=.017.

82

School Performance and Life Satisfaction and Coping (Exploratory)

The analysis below attempted to consider whether the exploratory coping factors were

correlated with child adjustment in the form of School Performance and Life Satisfaction. The

correlation matrix revealed that all three of the coping types (Antagonism, Problem-Solving, and

Cheerful Deference) were positively correlated at the p=.01 level. Most importantly, out of the three

coping types, only Antagonism was correlated with adjustment. Namely, Antagonism was negatively

correlated with both School Performance (-.15) and Life Satisfaction (-.13), at the p=.01 significance

level.

Analysis 9 - Correlation Analysis: School Performance/Life Satisfaction and Child Coping

(Exploratory)


School Performance & Life Satisfaction and Child Coping Strategy Scores (Exploratory) was

considered. This proceeded according to the ANTAGONISM, PROBLEM-SOLVING, and

CHEERFUL DEFERENCE classifications.

83


Correlations

1.000 .172** .318** -.154** -.132**

. .001 .000 .002 .009

394 394 394 394 394

.172** 1.000 .449** .095 .095

.001 . .000 .060 .061394 394 394 394 394

.318** .449** 1.000 -.035 -.050

.000 .000 . .483 .326

394 394 394 394 394

-.154** .095 -.035 1.000 .501**

.002 .060 .483 . .000

394 394 394 394 394

-.132** .095 -.050 .501** 1.000

.009 .061 .326 .000 .

394 394 394 394 394

PearsonCorrelation

Sig. (2-tailed)N

PearsonCorrelation

Sig. (2-tailed)

NPearsonCorrelation

Sig. (2-tailed)N

PearsonCorrelation

Sig. (2-tailed)

N

PearsonCorrelation

Sig. (2-tailed)N

Antagonism

Problem-Solving

CheerfulDeference

SchoolPerformance(Child's+Mom's)

Life Satisfaction(Child's+Mom's)

Antagonism

Problem-Solving

CheerfulDeference

SchoolPerformance(Child's+Mo

m's)

LifeSatisfaction(Child's+Mo

m's)


84

Mother’s Coping Discouragement/Encouragement (Exploratory) as a Function of child’s Sex and

Grade

The analysis below made it possible to examine maternal coping discouragement and

encouragement as a function of child SEX and GRADE. It revealed no significant main or interaction

effects, as evidenced by the Wilks’ Lambda criterion. However, the main effect for GRADE

approached significance, at p=.07. Therefore post hoc analyses were performed. One significant

GRADE difference was found vis-à-vis Antagonism. Fifth grade (M=-.69, SD=.06) differed from 10th

grade (M=-.40, SD=.06) at a p-value of .001.

In terms of diagnostics, Box’s M diagnostic test revealed a highly significant result of p=.007.

Additionally, Levene’s diagnostic test revealed significant results for both Antagonism (p=.03) and

Cheerful Deference (p=.01). In both tests, significant findings indicate violations of the homogeneity

of variance assumption of the MANOVA procedure.


independent variables and discouragement/encouragement of ANTAGONISM, PROBLEM-

SOLVING, and CHEERFUL DEFERENCE coping strategies constituted 3 dependent variables.

85

Analysis 10 - Multivariate Analysis of Variance: Coping Discouragement/Encouragement

(Exploratory) as a Function of Child Sex and Age



-.6270 .6833 48-.5287 .6322 68-.4435 .5973 51-.5309 .6372 167

-.7543 .7197 44-.5698 .6239 90-.3610 .5894 93-.5200 .6445 227

-.6879 .7000 92-.5521 .6258 158-.3902 .5915 144-.5246 .6406 394.5863 .5029 48

.5420 .6144 68

.4930 .5899 51

.5398 .5745 167

.7532 .6195 44

.5952 .5783 90

.4977 .5158 93

.5859 .5672 227

.6661 .5648 92

.5723 .5928 158

.4960 .5411 144

.5664 .5700 394

.2778 .5252 48

.2010 .4118 68

.1765 .4539 51

.2156 .4586 167

.2197 .5131 44

.2037 .4653 90

.1756 .3053 93

.1953 .4166 227

.2500 .5174 92

.2025 .4417 158

.1759 .3633 144

.2039 .4344 394

Child'sGradeFifth GradeEighth GradeTenth

TotalFifth GradeEighth GradeTenth

TotalFifth GradeEighth GradeTenthTotal

Fifth GradeEighth GradeTenthTotal

Fifth GradeEighth GradeTenthTotal

Fifth GradeEighth GradeTenthTotalFifth Grade

Eighth GradeTenthTotalFifth Grade

Eighth GradeTenthTotalFifth Grade

Eighth GradeTenthTotal

Child'sSexmale

female

Total

male

female

Total

male

female

Total

MomAntagonism

MomProblem-Solving

Mom CheerfulDeference

MeanStd.

Deviation N

86


Multivariate Tests

.474 142.506 3.000 386.000 .000

.994 .807 3.000 386.000 .491

.970 1.959 6.000 772.000 .069

.992 .488 6.000 772.000 .818

Wilks' Lambda

Wilks' Lambda

Wilks' Lambda

Wilks' Lambda

EffectIntercept

Sex

Grade

Sex * Gra

Value FHypothesis

df Error df Sig.



Tukey HSD

-.1358 8.301E-02 .231

-.2977* 8.448E-02 .001

.1358 8.301E-02 .231

-.1619 7.292E-02 .068

.2977* 8.448E-02 .001

.1619 7.292E-02 .068

9.382E-02 7.453E-02 .419.1701 7.585E-02 .064

-9.3816E-02 7.453E-02 .419

7.630E-02 6.548E-02 .474

-.1701 7.585E-02 .064

-7.6301E-02 6.548E-02 .474

4.747E-02 5.719E-02 .684

7.407E-02 5.821E-02 .411

-4.7468E-02 5.719E-02 .684

2.661E-02 5.024E-02 .857

-7.4074E-02 5.821E-02 .411

-2.6606E-02 5.024E-02 .857

(J) Child'sGradeEighth Grade

Tenth

Fifth Grade

Tenth

Fifth Grade

Eighth Grade

Eighth Grade

TenthFifth Grade

Tenth

Fifth Grade

Eighth Grade

Eighth Grade

Tenth

Fifth Grade

Tenth

Fifth Grade

Eighth Grade

(I) Child'sGradeFifth Grade

Eighth Grade

Tenth

Fifth Grade

Eighth Grade

Tenth

Fifth Grade

Eighth Grade

Tenth

DependentVariableMomAntagonism

MomProblem-Solving


MeanDifference




87

FIGURE 8: Maternal Discouragement and Encouragement of Coping (Exploratory) as a Function of Grade of Child.

Grade of Child

10th Grade8th Grade5th Grade

Mea

n

.8

.6

.4

.2

0.0

-.2

-.4

-.6

-.8

Coping Type

Antagonism

Problem-Solving

Cheerful Deference

Maternal Discouragement and Encouragement of Coping (Exploratory) as a Function of Grade of Child. In contrast, to the previous analysis of Maternal Discouragement and Encouragement of Coping as a Function of Grade of Child, there were no initial significant differences between the grades in the above chart. However, one univariate effect for Grade was detected between 5th and 10th for Antagonism (p=.001). Further, the overall trend of reduced encouragement and discouragement across age appears clearly in the graphic representation of the data.

Children’s Coping (Exploratory) and Maternal Discouragement/Encouragement of Coping

(Exploratory)

The analysis below attempted to consider whether the exploratory factors for maternal

discouragement/encouragement of coping were correlated with the exploratory factors for child

coping. As the reader will recall, the exploratory child coping scores were derived using the items

analogous to those that comprised the exploratory maternal discouragement/encouragement variables

(i.e., Antagonism, Problem-Solving, and Cheerful Deference). The above analysis revealed that in

terms of child coping, all three of the exploratory factors where positively correlated, at the p<.01

level. As for the maternal scores, Cheerful Deference and Problem-Solving were positively correlated

at p<.01 (r=.45). However, Antagonism was negatively correlated with both Problem-Solving (r=.17)

88

and Cheerful Deference (r=.32), at p<.01. Surprisingly, there were no significant correlations between

any of the maternal variables and the child variables.

Analysis 11 - Correlation Analysis: Children’s Coping (Exploratory) and Maternal

Discouragement/Encouragement of Coping (Exploratory)


the Child Coping Strategy Scores and the Maternal Socialization of Coping Strategy Scores was

considered. This proceeded according to the 3 exploratory coping strategy classifications of:

ANTAGONISM, PROBLEM-SOLVING, and CHEERFUL DEFERENCE.



-.5246 .6406 394.5664 .5700 394

.2039 .4344 394

.4639 .6285 394

1.0874 .9154 394.6032 .7977 394

Mom Antagonism

Mom Problem-SolvingMom Cheerful Deference

AntagonismProblem-SolvingCheerful Deference


89


Correlations

1.000 -.545** -.238** -.090 -.011 -.047

. .000 .000 .075 .822 .353

394 394 394 394 394 394

-.545** 1.000 .349** .031 .076 .070

.000 . .000 .543 .132 .168

394 394 394 394 394 394

-.238** .349** 1.000 -.009 .070 .071

.000 .000 . .864 .166 .160

394 394 394 394 394 394

-.090 .031 -.009 1.000 .172** .318**

.075 .543 .864 . .001 .000

394 394 394 394 394 394

-.011 .076 .070 .172** 1.000 .449**

.822 .132 .166 .001 . .000

394 394 394 394 394 394

-.047 .070 .071 .318** .449** 1.000

.353 .168 .160 .000 .000 .

394 394 394 394 394 394

PearsonCorrelation

Sig. (2-tailed)

N

PearsonCorrelation

Sig. (2-tailed)

N

PearsonCorrelation

Sig. (2-tailed)

N

PearsonCorrelation

Sig. (2-tailed)

N

PearsonCorrelation

Sig. (2-tailed)

N

PearsonCorrelation

Sig. (2-tailed)

N

MomAntagonism

MomProblem-Solving

MomCheerfulDeference

Antagonism

Problem-Solving

CheerfulDeference

MomAntagonism

MomProblem-Solving

MomCheerful

DeferenceAntagonism

Problem-Solving

CheerfulDeference


90

Analysis 12 - Exploratory Factor Analysis on Children’s Coping

Because of the surprising absence of significant correlations between maternal coping

discouragement/encouragement and child coping that resulted from the imposition of the maternal

exploratory factors on the child coping data, an additional exploratory factor analysis was performed

on the child coping data. This would enable the formation of a new set of child coping variables that

could be analyzed in an additional correlational analysis with the factor analytical maternal scores.

Hence both the maternal scores and the child scores for coping would be transformed into data-driven

factors. The hope was that the new variables would show greater correlation, by virtue of reduced

noise in the data.

After conducting a preliminary factor analysis on the child coping data (using Principal

Component Analysis and Varimax Rotation), a scree plot was constructed. It revealed what appeared

to be either a three-factor or two-factor solution. To clarify, two additional factor analyses were

performed—one specified three factors and the other specified two factors. After Varimax rotation, all

items that loaded at least .40 on these solutions were selected (at the advice of Jose, 2001, personal

correspondence). Then Cronbach’s Alphas were calculated on all five factors. The results of these

analyses led to the conclusion that a three factor solution was most reasonable (Factor 1 Alpha = .93,

Factor 2 Alpha = .94, Factor 3 Alpha = .81). Subsequently, factors with Alphas of at least .60 were

used to create new variables (again, at the advice of Jose, 1998 & personal correspondence). These

new variables were in turn utilized in a correlational analysis with the previously derived maternal

coping encouragement/discouragement variables (i.e. ANTAGONISM, PROBLEM-SOLVING, AND

CHEERFUL DEFERENCE).

91

Three-Factor Solution of the child coping data.

TABLE 30: Total Variance Explained


15.455 23.778 23.778 10.199 15.691 15.6917.358 11.319 35.097 9.831 15.125 30.8152.736 4.210 39.307 5.519 8.491 39.3072.182 3.357 42.664

Component1234

Initial Eigenvalues Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings


92

TABLE 31: Items with factor loadings of at least .60, from the preceding 3-Factor solution.

Rotated Component Matrix Component

1 2 32. I thought about why the problem happened. .6773. I tried to hurt or do harm to someone’s body or someone’s stuff - without that person knowing I did it - so I would

.659

5. I tried to get someone to feel guilty or to feel sorry for me - so I would feel better.

.628

6. I tried to annoy someone in a “light” or “indirect” way (for example: I made him/her wait for me; I purposely forgo

.694

11. I thought about all the things I could possibly do to fix the problem.

.718

12. In front of someone, I got angry and yelled and/or hit something - to help fix the problem.

.607

13. I said mean things directly to someone’s face - so I would feel better.

.639

14. I tried to get more information about the problem. .68415. I told myself to divide the problem and take it “one step at a time.”

.744

19. I tried to directly hurt or do harm to someone’s body or someone’s stuff - so I would feel better.

.705

22. I tried to hurt or do harm to someone’s feelings - without that person knowing I did it - to help fix the problem.

.740

24. I made a plan to solve the problem. .65226. I told myself to keep trying as hard as I could. .69827. I tried to directly hurt or do harm to someone’s body or someone’s stuff - to help fix the problem.

.767

28. I cried and showed sad feelings in front of someone - so I would feel better.

.665

31. I tried to directly annoy someone by doing things like poking him/her, grabbing at his/her things, making faces at

.753

33. I tried to annoy someone in a “light” or “indirect” way (for example: I made him/her wait for me; I purposely forg

.714

34. I tried to think what would work best to fix the problem.

.764

35. I tried to get someone to feel guilty or to feel sorry for me - to help fix the problem.

.647

36. I said mean things directly to someone’s face - to help fix the problem.

.677

37. I tried to hurt or do harm to someone’s feelings - without that person knowing I did it - so I would feel better.

.736

38. I told someone that the problem was his or her fault and/or told someone to say sorry – so I would feel better.

.669

43. I told someone that the problem was his or her fault and/or told someone to say sorry – to help fix the problem.

.669

44. I cried and showed sad feelings in front of someone - to help fix the problem.

.631

45. I tried to hurt or do harm to someone’s body or someone’s stuff - without that person knowing I did it - to help f

.741

93

48. I tried to remember what I did last time I had a similar problem.

.630

56. I imagined what someone else would do if they had the same problem.

.651

60. I went off by myself to get away from other people - to help fix the problem.

*.567

64. I went off by myself to get away from other people - so I would feel better.

.614

65. I cried (but no one saw me do this) - so I would feel better.

.614

*Value taken to be .60 when rounded up.

94

After theoretical consideration of the exploratory 3-Factor Solution, subjective labels were

applied to each of the factors, representing overall themes. The new variables are KID PROBLEM-

SOLVING, KID ANTAGONISM, and KID SADNESS/ISOLATION. They were formed by averages

(i.e., by summing the item scores and dividing by the total number of items accepted from the given

factor). Not only are these variables rooted in relatively high Alpha scores, they are also comprised of

items with considerable theoretical cohesion. KID PROBLEM-SOLVING is clearly a variable that

includes the classic hallmarks of the planful, “working out” of issues, just as the previously reported

PROBLEM-SOLVING variable, derived from the maternal data. KID ANTAGONISM is clearly a

variable that encompasses anti-social, aggressive items, just as the previously reported

ANTAGONISM variable, derived from the maternal data. Lastly, KID SADNESS/ISOLATION

appears to represent a construct not yet considered as a variable. It seems to embody a type of coping

that involves expression of sadness or suffering, coupled with social withdrawal. *Note: this variable

was comprised of four items, according to the .60 cut-off. However, the next highest item was also

included in the variable, because it rounded to .60 and had close theoretical relation to the variable

theme (#60, “I went off by myself to get away from other people – to help fix the problem”).

Analysis 13 - Correlational Analysis: Children’s Coping and Maternal

Encouragement/Discouragement of Coping

In the same manner as the previous analysis of children’s coping and maternal

encouragement/discouragement of coping, the newly derived children’s coping variables were

correlated with the previous ones of the mothers. That is, maternal encouragement of

ANTAGONISM, PROBLEM-SOLVING, and CHEERFUL DEFERENCE were correlated with KID

PROBLEM-SOLVING, KID ANTAGONISM, and KID SADNESS/ISOLATION. The analysis

revealed highly significant correlations between variables stemming from the same measure, at the

p<.01 level, as could be expected. However, between mother and child measures, only maternal

encouragement/discouragement of PROBLEM-SOLVING and KID PROBLEM-SOLVING had a

significant correlation. These two variables were positively correlated at the p<.05 level, with a

Pearson’s r of .10.

95



-.5246 .6406 394

.5664 .5700 394

.2039 .4344 394

1.0638 .9037 394

.4603 .6704 394

.6056 .7661 394

Mom Antagonism

Mom Problem-Solving

Mom Cheerful Deference

kid problem solving

kid antagonism

kid sadness/isolation



Correlations

1.000 -.545** -.238** -.024 -.088 .008

. .000 .000 .642 .080 .878

394 394 394 394 394 394

-.545** 1.000 .349** .102* .029 .011

.000 . .000 .043 .563 .827

394 394 394 394 394 394

-.238** .349** 1.000 .072 -.011 .037

.000 .000 . .152 .824 .466

394 394 394 394 394 394

-.024 .102* .072 1.000 .182** .296**

.642 .043 .152 . .000 .000

394 394 394 394 394 394

-.088 .029 -.011 .182** 1.000 .330**

.080 .563 .824 .000 . .000

394 394 394 394 394 394

.008 .011 .037 .296** .330** 1.000

.878 .827 .466 .000 .000 .

394 394 394 394 394 394

PearsonCorrelation

Sig.(2-tailed)

N

PearsonCorrelation

Sig.(2-tailed)

N

PearsonCorrelation

Sig.(2-tailed)

N

PearsonCorrelation

Sig.(2-tailed)

N

PearsonCorrelation

Sig.(2-tailed)

N

PearsonCorrelation

Sig.(2-tailed)

N

MomAntagonism

MomProblem-Solving


kid problemsolving

kid antagonism

kidsadness/isolation

MomAntagon

ism

MomProblem-Solving

MomCheerful

Deference

kidproblemsolving

kidantagonism

kidsadness/isolation


Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).*.

96

CHAPTER IV. DISCUSSION

The purpose of this research was two-fold: 1) to increase American understanding of Japanese

interpretations of the stress-coping-adjustment process and 2) to develop a set of measures that could

be used for a direct U.S.-Japan comparison in a future study, such that potential cultural differences in

emotional adaptation could be understood in the absence of serious concern about cultural bias.

This study was an attempt to take stress-coping-adjustment socialization patterns found in

America and transport and test them in Japan – to see how well they generalize. A review of the

literature had indicated a specific need for a study more comprehensive and refined than previous

studies. In terms of stress, the goal of the present study was to address inconsistencies in the literature

regarding which sex and age differences are robust. Those differences would be evaluated in the

contexts of education, health/fitness, family/home life, and peer relations.

In terms of coping, the goal of the present study was to build a wider and deeper base of

understanding of Japanese reports and interpretations. After reviewing inconsistencies and

inadequacies in the literature regarding potentially unique cultural interpretations of Japanese coping,

it was determined that comprehensive measurement of coping on the basis of subject-defined

categories would be most useful. To this end, measurement took place along the lines of coping

categories with a history in the literature – namely, Emotion-Focused versus Problem-Focused and

Cognitive versus Behavioral. Further, because data often fail to confirm speculation, exploratory

factor analysis was undertaken to drive additional examination of the data.

In terms of children’s adjustment, the present study hoped to gain a better understanding of

how coping is related to life satisfaction and school performance among children as they develop.

Very little American research has addressed these issues in Japanese participants, so it was important

to take the initial steps into the area. By measuring children’s adjustment, it was hoped that ultimately

a better understanding of Japanese emotional adaptation would follow.

Finally, the present research sought to forge original work in linking maternal encouragement

97

and discouragement of coping with children’s reports of their own coping. Most of the work in this

area has had to do with broad queries into parental attitudes, values, and goals. The present study had

hoped to focus more precisely on the cross-generational transmission of particular coping strategies.

Not only is this important for better understanding socialization of emotional adaptation in Japan, but

also it would provide a basis for future cross-cultural comparisons aimed at delineating culturally

differential rates of development of particular kinds of coping.

In sum, the present study was undertaken as a means of meeting specific exploratory research

needs in the research on the socialization of Japanese stress, coping, and adjustment. Sampling nearly

400 mother-child pairs, the present research measured: everyday life event stress, coping strategies,

adjustment in the form of life satisfaction and school performance, and maternal

encouragement/discouragement of coping. The results this study produced are varied and far-

reaching. Their implications are discussed below, in the order of the original hypotheses and research

questions.

Overview of Hypothesis Test Outcomes

Hypothesis # Hypothesis Test Outcome (4/6 Supported)

1 Girls will report greater stress for health/fitness and peer relations contexts than boys will.

Supported

2 Older children will report greater stress for the education context than younger children will.

Rejected

3 Girls will report greater use of cognitive, problem-focused coping than boys will.

Supported

4 Girls will report greater use of cognitive, emotion-focused coping than boys will.

Supported

5 Older children will report greater use of cognitive, problem-focused coping than younger children will.

Rejected

6 Older children will report greater use of cognitive, emotion-focused coping than younger children will.

Supported

98

Stress

Research on sex differences in children’s experience of stress has generated several reliable

findings. Firstly, numerous studies have shown the importance of everyday life events as opposed to

major life events, on grounds that everyday life events are a better reflection of how stressed children

actually are, in terms of measurable consequences (Hudgens, 1974, Boyce et al., 1985, Sorenson,

1993). Further, the literature is solid in its argument that understanding children’s own perspectives

on stress is important, as opposed to superimposed parental perspectives (Brown & Cowen, 1988,

Ryan, 1988, Sorenson, 1993). The present study was therefore structured to measure everyday life

events and to do so in a manner wherein the children themselves would indicate the stress intensity of

events, as free of implied stress value as possible.

Sex Differences. (Hypothesis 1 and Research Question 1 & 2)

The approach of the present study did in fact prove to be fruitful in discerning sex-differential

reports of stress experience, enabling a sense as to whether findings to date could be extended or

whether they would require reinterpretation. Yamamoto & Davis (1979) had shown in their cross-

cultural study that, in terms of stress, sex differences were more evident in Japanese than Americans.

Japanese boys were found to report more education-related stress, which was theorized to be the result

of a Japanese emphasis on boys’ education. In contrast, Nagane (1991) found that girls actually

reported more stress on school achievement items than did boys. Further, Kilburg (1997) found no sex

differences in education-related stress, yet a sizeable sex difference in health/fitness and peer relations

forms of stress, with girls evidencing greater stress intensity. Considering Kilburg (1997) was based

on a more comprehensive measure than its predecessors and posted them, its findings were given

precedence.

The open question had to do with the robustness of the Kilburg (1997) findings. Perhaps the

findings represent a shift in sex differences in Japanese society in the twenty years since Yamamoto

and Davis (1979). The results of the present study appear to lend support to this interpretation. That

is, once again, no significant sex difference was detected for education-related stress items. Moreover,

99

females reported significantly more stress than males did for health/fitness stress and for peer relations

stress, thereby extending the findings of Kilburg (1997) with a sample four times the size. Indeed, it is

clear that stress context is of paramount importance when attempting to understand sex differences in

stress experience. Of course, whether or not girls actually lead more stressful emotional lives than

boys, subjectively, remains open to interpretation. However, these particular findings suggest that

girls are relatively more preoccupied with peer discord than are boys. Moreover, girls would seem to

be much more concerned with physical wellness and body image items than boys. In terms of

family/home life stress, there appears to be no discernable sex difference. Either the domestic life of

boys and girls is not vastly different, or at least boys and girls are similarly contented with their unique

versions of that domestic life.

Developmental Differences. (Hypothesis 2 and Research Question 2 & 3)

The primary question with age differences in stress reports was whether older children would

exhibit more education-related stress than their younger counterparts. Yamamoto & Davis (1979) and

Kilburg (1997) had both found older children to report more stress for education-related events (e.g.

homework, exams, marks and the like). Hence, Hypothesis 2 took the position that the present results

would extend the previous finding. That hypothesis was rejected, as no age difference was found on

education-related items. This was surprising given that the Japanese junior high school in particular is

seen as a place of intense study and preparation for exams that dictate subsequent high school entrance

decisions (the Japanese junior high school has been likened to an enculturative “boot camp”). It is

possible that the grades and/or schools sampled by the present study did not coincide with those

alleged changes in academic demands. Yamamoto & Davis (1979) and Kilburg (1997) were studies of

upper-elementary school children. The present study, having 5th, 8th, and 10th graders would have

missed such upper-elementary school changes.

However, there is still strong indication that junior high is a time of unique stress in Japan.

Eighth graders reported significantly more Family/Home Life Stress than both 5th graders and 10th

graders (p=.004, p<.0001, respectively). Additionally, 5th graders reported significantly less

100

Health/Fitness Stress than both 8th graders and 10th graders (p=.014, p=.023, respectively). Graphed

out in the Results section, these changes are rather dramatic. Health and fitness stress intensity

appears to jump up as children pass from elementary school to junior high, and then to level off as

children pass to early high school. Furthermore, there appears to be a spike in family/home life stress

in junior high, with both 5th graders and 10th graders reporting significantly less of that type of stress

than 8th graders. This might very well reflect physiological and social-psychological changes

classically associated with puberty in any culture (a future, direct cross-cultural comparison would be

instructive). Such changes would not have been evident in Yamamoto & Davis (1979) nor Kilburg

(1997) because they did not sample junior high school children.

There were no interaction effects of stress for sex and age. This is not surprising given that

Kilburg (1997) found no such interaction using essentially the same measure of everyday life event

stress as the present study. It is surprising, however, considering again that junior high school age

would seem to be a time when sex-roles shift relative to their elementary school positions. It is

possible that the Everyday Life Event Stress Scale was simply not sensitive enough to capture

developmental changes in sex-based stress reports. It may also simply be that the stress effects of sex

and age are relatively independent across the sampled developmental period (5th, 8th, & 10th grade).

Perhaps sex and age interaction effects are confined to spurts or changes that occur in the early to

middle elementary school years and/or in the late high school to college years. Additional samples of

data would be needed to rule out these possibilities.

Coping

Sex Differences. (Hypothesis 3 & 4 and Research Question 4) Based loosely on American

findings (Band & Weisz, 1988; Folkman & Lazarus, 1988; Altshuler & Ruble, 1989; and Compas et

al., 1992), girls were hypothesized to report greater use of cognitive, problem-focused coping than

boys would. Girls were further hypothesized to report greater use of cognitive, emotion-focused

coping than boys would. The underlying reasoning was that girls gain awareness of subjective coping

101

tools earlier than do boys, during adolescence, perhaps as a function of girls maturing faster (socio-

emotionally) than boys. At the least, it was expected that girls would be more prone to report on such

cognitive strategies, by virtue of greater introspection and willingness to self-disclose. Indeed,

Kilburg (1997) found Japanese girls to report greater use of approach/problem-focused coping and

approach/emotion-focused strategies, which included: “problem-solving”, “metacognitive skills”,

“acceptance”, “”control feelings”, and “endurance”.

In fact, Hypotheses 3 & 4 were supported in the present study. Females reported significantly

more coping use than males did for both Cognitive Problem-Focused and Cognitive Emotion-Focused

Coping. No sex differences were detected, however, regarding the behavioral versions of problem-

focused and emotion-focused coping. Considering the behavioral categories were much more varied

in the types of coping they included, sex differences may have been obscured. That is, there could

have been sizeable sex differences in the use of qualitatively different coping types within the broad

behavioral groupings. For instance, were behaviorally aggressive items to be analyzed separate from

behavioral items of sadness-expression, marked sex differences might become emerge.

Developmental Differences. (Hypothesis 5 & 6 and Research Question 5, 6 & 7) As

demonstrated by Band & Weisz (1988) and Folkman & Lazarus (1984, 1988), American children, as

they age, use increasing amounts of emotion-focused coping, in conjunction with a steady level of

problem-focused coping. As demonstrated by Bryant (1985), American children use increasing

amounts of social support coping as they age. Further, American children become more aware that

coping can differ in effectiveness depending on context (Spirito et al., 1991).

Japanese children have evidenced increasing use of a wider variety of coping across age

(Kilburg, 1997). They have also shown a developmental increase in context-dependent use of coping

strategies (Ohsako, 1994). However, in contrast to their American counterparts, they have not

evidenced increasing use of emotion-focused coping across age. Instead, they have shown large

increases in problem-focused coping. As discussed in Chapter 1 of the present paper, this lack of

evidence for the robust American finding of a developmental increase in emotion-focused coping is

102

likely an artifact of the measuring instrument of Kilburg (1997), exaggerated by an absence of work on

the topic by other researchers. Further lack of clarity would seem to stem from a lack of uniformity of

coping item categorizations in literature. One goal of the present research was to ascertain whether or

not a developmental increase in emotion-focused coping would be demonstrated in a Japanese sample,

given refinements in measurement.

Indeed, in the present study, 8th and 10th graders reported significantly greater use of Cognitive

Emotion-Focused Coping than did 5th graders, supporting Hypothesis 6. Further, 8th graders reported

significantly greater use of Behavioral Emotion-Focused Coping than did 5th graders. No significant

difference in Behavioral Emotion-Focused Coping was detected between 8th and 10th graders, however

– indicating a plateau. Additionally, in line with American findings, no significant developmental

increases in either Cognitive Problem-Focused or Behavioral Problem-Focused Coping were detected

(hence, rejection of Hypothesis 5). In sum, the present study of Japanese children would seem to

extend the overarching developmental findings of emotion-focused and problem-focused coping in

American children.

In terms of context effects, surprisingly, there was remarkable consistency in coping choice

across coping scenarios (education, family/home life, peer, health/fitness). As the reader will recall,

this consistency was noted early in the paper, in the Methods section. Cronbach’s Alpha analyses

resulted in high inter-item consistency, therefore context was deemed superfluous as a variable (and

Research Question 6 became mute). Most likely, this is not a function of any true absence of context-

dependent coping, rather it is an artifact of the measuring instruments.

The coping questionnaire (along with the others as a packet) might have been too long for the

children to maintain motivation. Perhaps overwhelmed by the size of the task, the children chose to

respond in a general fashion to the coping questions, as opposed to responding in a manner that would

be consistently mindful of the given coping scenario/context. In short, in spite of the importance of

context effects throughout the literature, context did not emerge as a major factor in this data set. This

is surprising, since context is reported to have great significance in the literature and in transactionist

103

theories. This issue will be discussed further in “General Implications and Directions for Future

Study”.

If it is assumed that the results herein are entirely valid with respect to context, it might be

argued that children in the given age bracket cope with stress in a fairly consistent way, regardless of

variations in the problem scenario or location. Perhaps children do not diversify and tailor their

coping efforts to fit unique situations until later in development. Indeed, one hallmark of maturity is

presumably the practice of flexibility in dealing with wider and wider varieties of stressful situations

as one navigates through changing demands across the life span (Erikson, 1963). Yet perhaps such

flexibility does not fully emerge until adulthood. This explanation and that of measurement error are

not mutually exclusive, of course.

In terms of Research Question 6 (which asked about interaction effects), surprisingly, no

evidence of sex differences in developmental change in coping was found. As noted above, a variety

of sex differences were detected. However, none of these was found to interact with age. This

extended the results of Kilburg (1997) which also did not find any sex/age interactions in coping.

However, American girls have been found to use social support seeking more than do boys

(Bryant, 1985, Wertlieb et al., 1987, Frydenberg & Lewis, 1990). The factors analyzed in the present

study were broad enough so as to obscure findings related to the specific question of sex differences in

social support seeking. This begged the question of whether individual item analyses would elucidate

the matter.

Individual item analysis was therefore performed on the social-seeking coping items. The

findings were mixed. A sex difference was detected for an emotion-focused, social support seeking

individual coping item: “I talked to someone – so I would feel better”. Girls were found to report

significantly greater use of this type of coping than boys. However, no significant difference was

found for the problem-focused version of the question: “I talked to someone – to help fix the

problem”. Therefore, it seems that a sex difference in social support use may be confined to that

which is emotion-focused in nature. That is, when it comes to trying to feel better, girls appear to use

104

more social support than boys do. Yet when it comes to trying to solve problems, boys appear to use

social support as much as girls do. The strength of this finding will depend on future studies.

Adjustment

School Performance. (Research Question 8) and Life Satisfaction. (Research Question 8)

Research on the relationship between children’s coping and adjustment has generated several

intuitively sound findings, in terms of what folk psychology might speculate. American researchers

have found that “social support seeking” and “problem-solving” positively correlate with self-esteem

(Causey & Dubow, 1992) and that “avoidance” positively correlates with depression and behavior

problems (Ayers, et al., 1996, Kurtz, 1994). Ohsako (1994) and Kilburg (1997) have found patterns in

Japanese children not inconsistent with those found in American children. Yet prior to the present

study, no one had attempted to correlate coping strategy use with adjustment in terms of life

satisfaction and school performance, especially with regard to the over-arching problem/emotion-

focused, cognitive/behavioral categories.

As it turns out, all four types of the broad coping categories were strongly, positively

correlated with each other (with Pearson’s rs of .52 to .74). But surprisingly, only Behavioral

Problem-Focused coping was significantly correlated with either of the two adjustment measures,

School Performance and Life Satisfaction (with a Pearson’s r of only -.11). Further, Behavioral

Problem-Focused coping was significantly, negatively correlated with both of those adjustment

measures. Stated another way, children with high Behavioral Problem-Focused coping scores tended

to have lower School Performance and Life Satisfaction scores.

Considering that the Behavioral Problem-Focused coping category included active-aggressive

strategies, the above finding is perhaps not surprising. There is good reason to think the correlation is

actually an artifact of the broad categorizations of disparate types of coping. Glancing at the

categorization of the various items, it seems that the breadth of the items may have obscured important

connections between coping and adjustment. As explained in the Methods section, coping had been

105

categorized into the broad rubrics of emotion/problem and behavioral/cognitive mainly as an issue of

theoretical purity. The disadvantage of course is that categories like behavioral-cognitive must

encompass presumably disparate (adjustment-wise) coping strategies, such as “information seeking”

and “telling a lie”. In sum, it is difficult to say what the implications of a negative correlation between

adjustment and behavioral-cognitive coping are, given the inclusion of markedly different strategies.

The correlational analysis of the exploratory coping factors was designed to address the above

limitation. School Performance and Life Satisfaction were analyzed with Antagonism, Problem-

Solving, and Cheerful Deference. Interestingly, Antagonism was shown to be negatively correlated

with both School Performance and with Life Satisfaction. Hence, it appears that the above negative

correlation between adjustment and behavioral-cognitive coping was driven largely by antagonistic

items. Indeed, it stands to reason that individuals high in Antagonism would be less likely to perform

well in school in terms of coursework and attendance. Further, if antagonism is associated with low

performance in children’s primary occupation (i.e. school), one would expect an associated, reduced

experience of life satisfaction or well being. Indeed, particularly if Japanese culture places

considerable value on non-aggression (Zahn-Waxler et al., 1996), children high in Antagonism are

presumably on the margins of their respective peer groups, and thereby among those who incur

reduced well being, by virtue of alienation.

Ultimately, the measurement of adjustment in this study was simply an expedient method of

getting an initial sense of what valid coping outcome measurement would require. The life

satisfaction and school performance items did not have an established validity or reliability in the

literature. They were simply a short list of questions aimed at directly asking the children and their

parents about their levels of adjustment. Considerations about the future of this approach will be

discussed in “Directions for Future Study”.


A review of the socialization of coping literature has revealed a dearth of articles. Noteworthy

106

U.S.-Japan comparisons have yielded several trends however. Relative to their American

counterparts, Japanese children tend to report high parental expectations placed upon them,

particularly of an academic nature (Crystal et al., 1994). Zahn-Waxler et al. (1996) found that

Japanese mothers were particularly oriented towards instilling non-aggressive attitudes in their

children. Japanese mothers were further more likely to make use of a kind of “psychological

discipline” (reasoning, guilt, and anxiety induction) in dealing with their children’s behavior problems,

as opposed to direct proscription and punishment. Kilburg (1997) carried out pilot work suggesting

coping socialization links between the Japanese child and parent. Children who perceived their

parents as low in warmth were more likely to report use of avoidance/problem-focused coping than

their “high warmth” counterparts. Further, such children tended to report having relatively lower

grades.

In spite of the absence of research on maternal influences on children’s coping, the present

study proceeded on the basis of the above findings. In fact, it stands as the first study to investigate

specific links between maternal encouragement and discouragement of particular coping strategies and

the impact of that on children’s reports of their own coping. Research questions were generated

around possible differences in the way mothers might treat their children as a function of their sex and

age, as well as along the lines of whether cognitive/behavioral and emotion-focused/problem-focused

coping would be encouraged/discouraged. This seemed like the logical place to start, given the trends

in the coping literature.

Maternal Discouragement/Encouragement of Coping on the Basis of Sex and Grade of Child

Sex Differences. (Research Question 9) Perhaps surprisingly, there were no significant

differences found in the way mothers encouraged or discouraged coping on the basis of their child’s

sex. The common and anecdotal wisdom surrounding Japan is that strict sex-role stereotyping and

socialization prevail. One could imagine that would play out in terms of how mothers

encourage/discourage coping behavior in their sons and daughters. The sex difference result,

107

however, did not even approach significance.

There are many conceivable explanations. It is possible that in modern Japan there are few

differences in how mothers treat their children along the lines of the coping strategies studied.

Perhaps the mothers have similar goals for their children’s emotional adaptiveness, regardless of sex.

Mothers may treat their children fairly equally in terms of conveying preferred methods of coping.

One could imagine a potential difference in how mothers and fathers socialize children on the

basis of sex. For instance, fathers might stereotypically be less inclined to reinforce boys’ emotional

expressiveness (e.g., crying) to the same extent as that of girls. Without data from fathers, it is

difficult to clarify this matter. Another possibility is that the mothers answered the questionnaires in

terms of whether particular items appealed to them, losing sight of the task request to envision one’s

son or daughter in a scenario.

It is also likely that the coping categories, on the basis of their breadth, precluded sex

differences from emerging. The coping categories examined here are overarching categories designed

for their logical/conceptual coherence and consequently include many disparate strategies in terms of

what mothers would likely encourage or discourage. This presents an interpretation problem, to be

sure. It is one that is partly resolved in the subsequent discussion of the exploratory factor analysis.

Developmental Differences. (Research Question 10-12) Interestingly, mothers were found to

treat their children differently on the basis of their age (grade). Whether a child was a 5th grader or a

10th grader significantly affected the chances that his or her mother would report

encouraging/discouraging the following three coping types: Behavioral Problem-Focused Coping,

Cognitive Emotion-Focused Coping, and Behavioral Emotion-Focused Coping. After viewing the

data graphed out, it was quite clear that overall mothers tended to report much greater encouragement

and discouragement of the various strategies with younger children than older. Specifically, mothers

tended to discourage Behavioral Problem-Focused Coping mostly in 5th graders, with that

discouragement lessening across age. The same held true for Behavioral Emotion-Focused Coping.

In terms of Cognitive Emotion-Focused Coping, mothers tended to encourage such strategies mostly

108

in 5th graders, with that encouragement lessoning across age. For Cognitive Problem-Focused coping,

an age/grade affect was not found, indicating this type of coping may be consistently encouraged (the

values were positive, indicating encouragement) across grade 5 to 10.

It is difficult to integrate these findings with previous studies, because of the novelty of the

present study. However, considering Japanese parents have been shown to particularly value

achievement, reasoning, and non-aggression, the present results should hardly be surprising. Both of

the encouraged coping types include many problem-solving types of strategies. Further, both of the

discouraged types include many aggressive or antagonistic types of strategies. Again, some

reservation in interpreting these results is in order, however. As previously stated, the coping

categories examined here include many disparate strategies in terms of what mothers would likely

encourage or discourage. This is addressed in the subsequent discussion of the exploratory factor

analysis.

Child Coping and Maternal Discouragement/Encouragement of Coping (Research Question 13)

The main issue here was whether child scores would be correlated with mother scores,

demonstrating a socialization impact, or at least a cross-generational connection. Interestingly,

evidence of a mother-child coping connection was found in one pair of coping types: child Cognitive

Problem-Focused Coping and maternal Encouragement of Cognitive Problem-Focused Coping. That

is, children who reported higher levels of Cognitive Problem-Focused Coping tended to have mothers

who reported higher levels of encouragement of Cognitive Problem-Focused coping, relative to their

counterparts (significance was p<.05, however, the Pearson’s r was only .11). Unfortunately, one

significant correlation out of over a dozen is close to what one would expect by chance. No other such

mother-child correlation was found, indicating a general disconnect between how mothers

encourage/discourage and how their children cope, or at least between how mothers say they

encourage/discourage and how their children say they cope. A second possibility is that there is

measurement error in the two different assessments that is not correlated; and thereby the chance is

109

reduced of seeing what the real correlation might be. A third possibility is that the problem of logical,

but perhaps over-inclusive coping categories intrudes on interpretation yet again. That is, the use of

broad, a priori coping categories may have precluded the emergence of effects on the basis of finer

grained coping categories within the a priori categories. A discussion of the exploratory coping

factors is particularly instructive here, because they are data-driven. Of course, the three above

explanations are not mutually exclusive.

Exploratory Coping Factors

It was planned from the outset that coping categories generated by exploratory factor analysis

would be the ultimate authority on the specific relationships between the child coping items and the

socialization piece of the research in particular. The a priori coping categories were purposefully

crafted such that the issue over accurate characterization of emotion-focused and problem-focused

coping (and cognitive/behavioral coping) could be resolved, through analysis of conceptually “pure”

divisions of the individual coping items. However, many of the original research questions and those

that emerged in the above discussion could not be resolved by consideration of the a priori coping

categorizations. Hence exploratory factor analysis was undertaken to let patterns emerge from the data

themselves.

As reported in the Results section, a 3-factor solution emerged based on analysis of the

maternal coping encouragement/discouragement data. The decision to perform the factor analysis on

that data was based on the conception that the primary interest of the research was to investigate the

impact mothers had on their children’s coping. Hence, the groupings of the maternal data would drive

the groupings of the child data. Fortunately, the analysis produced 3 clear categories of coping that

were quite easy to subjectively label on the basis of theoretical similarity: Antagonism, Problem-

Solving, and Cheerful Deference.

Antagonism. Antagonism is clearly a variable that encompasses anti-social, aggressive items.

As a factor it explained 24% of the variance, which is considerable. Further, twenty-one items loaded

110

quite well onto this factor. They tended to have a strong theoretical relationship to one another on

grounds of expression of anger, annoyance, and blaming. They included variations of: “saying bad

things to someone”, “hurting or harming someone’s feelings”, “getting angry and harming someone’s

body or things”, and “telling lies”. It seems obvious that this factor emerged as the strongest and

tightest cluster of the lot, mainly because it is easy to envision mothers in unequivocal union against

such actions, on grounds that they are anti-social. This would seem especially true given such strong

prohibitions against expression of anger and negativity in Japanese culture. Indeed, subsequent

analyses showed that mothers were quite unified in their discouragement of this category of coping.

Problem-Solving. Problem-Solving is clearly a variable that includes the classic hallmarks of

the planful, “working out” of issues. As a factor, it explained 10% of the variance, which is fair –

given the diversity of the coping items and the exploratory nature of the measure (Tabachnick and

Fidell, 1996). All the items representing the problem-solving factor loaded at high values and

evidently share the themes of: planning, information-seeking, metacognition, analysis, option-

generating, and endurance. In short, this is a factor that represents resolving stress with cognitive

tools. Again, it is not difficult to see that these items cluster well together because of a presumed

unequivocal stance among mothers that such coping strategies are useful in the strict sense of the

word. Given evidence that Japanese mothers in particular may be oriented towards instilling

understanding and tangible achievement in their children, the appearance of this factor comes as no

surprise. Indeed, subsequent analyses showed that mothers were quite unified in their encouragement

of this category of coping.

Cheerful Deference. Cheerful Deference is a variable that appears to embody coping which

strives to present a joyful and respectful tone to others, perhaps to remedy an issue. As a factor, it

explained roughly 9% of the variance. By itself, this is not extraordinary, but in conjunction with the

preceding two factors, there is accounting for nearly half the total variance – a considerable amount for

an exploratory measure (Tabachnick and Fidell, 1996). The items representing this factor included:

“being polite”, “being cheerful or happy in front of someone”, and “laughing or joking aloud”. Given

111

not only an intuitive understanding of the potential relationship between these items in a social

context, but also one of the Japanese social milieu, this factor is not surprising. It has been labeled

“Cheerful Deference” in order to summarize both the expression of positive emotionality or affect as

well as that of respect and humility, two social stances common in Confucian heritage cultures such as

that of Japan. The relationship between this factor and the others would become apparent in

subsequent analyses.

Analyses of the Exploratory Coping Factors

It was possible to examine the exploratory factor structures in the same manner as the

preceding coping analyses, but with different coping types. In one analysis coping was considered as

a function of sex and grade. In another, the correlation between coping and adjustment was examined.

In a third, maternal differences in encouragement/discouragement of coping were investigated on the

basis of sex and grade of child. In a fourth and final analysis, socialization of coping was investigated

by correlating maternal encouragement/discouragement of coping with child coping scores. The goal

was to obtain an overall picture of how the exploratory factors would fare in the same analyses

performed on the a prior coping categories, for a data-driven perspective. The results of these analyses

were somewhat unexpected and require a tempered interpretation.

Sex Differences. In contrast to common stereotyping about female intuition and male logic

and reasoning, a difference between males and females in Problem-Solving coping was detected, with

females reporting significantly greater use. This is well in line with the previous discussion of

Hypothesis 3, that girls would report greater use of cognitive, problem-focused coping than boys

would – a hypothesis that was supported. Again, it could be that girls have richer inner lives than

boys, that they mature faster, or that they are at least more introspective and willing to self-disclose

about metacognitive activities. It may also be that a different set of stressor scenarios would yield

different coping findings. It is difficult to form definitive conclusions on these issues without

additional, qualitative background data. Yet the sex difference found here appears to be quite robust,

112

given that there is general evidence for it in Band & Weisz (1988), Folkman & Lazarus (1988),

Altshuler & Ruble, 1989, and Compas et al. (1992) and specific evidence for it in Kilburg (1997).

Developmental Differences. Quite surprisingly, no significant grade differences were detected

in children’s reports of coping on the basis of the exploratory factors. Considering the highly

significant grade differences in Cognitive Emotion-Focused and Behavioral Emotion-Focused coping

previously detected with the previous coping analyses this was largely unexpected. Further, given that

highly significant grade differences had been detected in terms of how mothers encouraged and

discouraged coping in the a priori categories, it made sense to assume that some aspect of that

phenomenon would manifest in the exploratory factors. That no developmental differences and no

sex/grade interactions were detected here would seem to strongly suggest that the a priori coping

categories and the exploratory categories are tapping into two sets of rather distinct phenomena.

Of course, with such a wide array of coping types measured, there would likely be a complex

set of dynamics at work. For instance, t-tests of individual items could easily produce a high number

of sex and age differences that would be difficult to interpret in conjunction with the over-arching

categories. As a whole, these results would appear to suggest that dividing coping items into

categories on the basis of logical similarity can be quite distinct from dividing them on the basis of the

actual actions of participants as reported by such participants. Nevertheless, both methods of analysis

have useful implications. The a priori categories provide a structural understanding of the coping

items, whereas the factor analytical categories provide a functional understanding of them. In

comparing the two understandings, it becomes evident that structure and function need not overlap in

practice.

Adjustment: School Performance & Life Satisfaction. Correlational analysis of the

exploratory coping factors and the adjustment variables of School Performance and Life Satisfaction

revealed a number of significant correlations. Firstly, all three of the coping factors were significantly

correlated with each other, as would be expected of factors derived from the same measure.

Surprisingly, however, only Antagonism was significantly correlated with either adjustment measure.

113

Graphed out, the correlations did not appear to be very pronounced. However, Antagonism was

significantly, negatively correlated with both School Performance and Life Satisfaction (yet the

Pearson’s rs were only -.15 and -.13, respectively).

A glance at the nature of the twenty some items that loaded well onto the Antagonism factor

reveals that few if any of the items would seem to be adaptive for school performance or life

satisfaction, particularly in the Japanese cultural milieu. Indeed, as previously reported, researchers of

both American and Japanese children have found evidence that coping which is antithetical to social

support seeking and problem-solving (e.g., “distancing” and “externalizing”) is typically negatively

correlated with favorable characteristics such as “self-worth” and “behavioral esteem”, as well as with

grade point averages – and positively correlated with depression and poor conduct (Causey & Dubow,

1992; Ayers et al., 1996; Ohsako, 1994; Kilburg, 1997).

Maternal Discouragement/Encouragement of Coping. One of the most surprising findings of

the present study was that there were no significant main or interaction effects regarding the impact of

sex and grade of child on maternal encouragement and discouragement of coping. Especially given

that significant grade differences were detected in terms of three out of four of the a priori coping

types, it would have been reasonable to speculate that a grade difference would be detected with the

exploratory coping types as well. Again, evidently the a priori and exploratory coping categories are

phenomenally distinct from each other. Yet there was one univariate effect detected, upon probing of

a main effect that approached significance. That is, for grade, maternal

encouragement/discouragement was found to significantly differ between 5th graders and 10th graders.

Mothers evidently reported significantly more discouragement of Antagonism with regard to 5th

graders in comparison to 10th graders. The interpretation of this finding is no different than that of the

a priori coping categories. Likely, mothers must provide more overt dissuading of antagonism among

their younger children than their older ones. This seems reasonable, given younger children’s

presumed greater need for guidance.

Further, in viewing the graphic representation of the data, the overall trend of reduced

114

encouragement/discouragement across age appears clearly, just as it did with the significant results of

the corresponding analysis of the a priori coping categories. Hence, it is clear that regardless of the

coping type, mothers tended to report less and less encouragement and discouragement with older

children, presumably based on their increased independence.

Child Coping and Maternal Discouragement/Encouragement of Coping. As with the

previously discussed correlational analysis of child coping and maternal

discouragement/encouragement of coping, the main issue here was whether a socialization impact

could be demonstrated, or at least a cross-generational connection. Unfortunately, there was a

complete disconnect between the maternal scores and the child scores. In terms of the maternal

scores, all three of the exploratory factors were correlated with each other (yet the sizes of the effects

ranged from only -.55 to .35). Cheerful Deference and Problem-Solving were positively correlated

with each other, yet negatively correlated with Antagonism. In terms of the child scores, again, all

three of the exploratory factors were correlated with each other. However, in contrast to the maternal

correlations, the child correlations were all positive. That is, Antagonism was positively correlated

with Cheerful Deference and Problem-Solving. Overall, it seems that the connection between the

maternal coping encouragement/discouragement measure and the child coping measure is limited. It

may be that asking mothers what how they influence their children’s coping simply produces

responding based on social desirability. A less direct and invasive instrument may be required to

assess how mothers actually perform in terms of encouraging and discouraging their children’s coping.

In any event, the absence of significant correlations between child coping and parental coping is

common in this line of research (Jose, 2001, personal correspondence). The measurement issues are

complex and will likely require revision before substantive socialization connections can be

delineated.

As a final attempt to demonstrate a correlation between maternal coping

discouragement/encouragement and child coping, an additional factor analysis of the child coping data

was undertaken for the purpose of a subsequent correlational analysis of the resultant variables with

115

the pre-existing maternal coping variables. The factor analysis yielded three child coping variables:

Problem-Solving, Antagonism, and Sadness/Isolation. Interestingly, Problem-Solving and

Antagonism appeared to be counterparts to two of the factors from the maternal coping factor analysis.

The third, Sadness/Isolation bore little relation.

One of newly derived variable did yield a connection to the maternal data. That variable was

Problem-Solving. It was positively correlated with the maternal version of Problem-Solving, at the

p<.05 level. However, the Pearson’s r was small at .10. Likely, the act of performing factor analysis

on the child data resulted in a reduction of data noise such that the relationship between maternal

Problem-Solving and child Problem-Solving could be observed. Yet the Pearson’s r indicates that in

spite of the p-value, the variables do not share much of their variance in common. Hence, the basic

conclusion that the child coping and maternal coping measures are generally disconnected remains.

Again, there may be response set bias and/or measurement error to blame.

Limitations of this Research

There were at least three general limitations in the present study. Firstly, the measures might

have been too long and taxing to hold the interest of the participants. As discussed in the Methods

section, at the time the study was designed it seemed prudent to expand the coping measure in

particular, so it would encompass finer grained responses than those of previous studies. It may have

been expanded excessively, however. There was evidence from the reports of the proctors, as well as

from the data, that some participants might have reached a measure of apathy in responding and

subsequently reverted to selecting middle values on the scales, to expend less effort.

The second limitation was that it might have been unreasonable to ask participants to respond

in a fashion so quantitative regarding their experience of stress, coping, and

encouragement/discouragement of coping. This is perhaps a criticism of stress and coping inventories

in general. With coping in particular, participants may not have the level of introspection required to

report on precisely what types of strategies they employed in recalled encounters. This is a difficult

116

challenge to surmount. It would probably be very difficult to collect adequate data through naturalistic

observation methods, which would likely be non-standardized and/or contrived anyway. However, an

experimental component to the research might prove useful in complementing survey methods. At the

very least, the measures of the present study need to be tested for reliability.

The third limitation was that the participants might have been predisposed to avoid extreme

ends of the scales of the measures used. Japanese participants in particular may be disinclined to

disclose unequivocally. Japanese culture is surely not known for its emphasis on forthright and blunt

communication. It is probably safe to assume that some degree of Japanese reservedness manifested

itself in the range of responding to scaled options. Such a response set bias might be controlled for, in

a subsequent study, perhaps by utilizing a measure of social desirability and/or social reservedness.

With the above general limitations in mind, there is further question as to whether the various

independent variables (e.g. sex, age, coping type, etc.) can be said to have causal status. It is important

to remember that no element of the present study involved manipulation of a variable. Further,

controls were limited. To fashion certain variables as independent in the present study was purely

conceptual. Therefore, interpretation of the findings should proceed with a measure of caution. For

example, sex and age differences found here are not necessarily caused by anything intrinsic to sex

and age. There are likely confounding variables that remained outside of observation, for instance,

degree of gender identification and maturity level within age/grade – which are actually the more

interesting constructs.

In terms of external validity, there is question as to whether the participants sampled can stand

as representative of Japanese youngsters in general. There is considerable variety within the Japanese

population. Children living in the suburbs of Tokyo, for instance, are likely to be much more

cosmopolitan and much less provincial than their counterparts in rural Japan, and perhaps even in

suburban Nagoya. Not only is Western influence, for example, more profound in Tokyo and the

surrounding areas, but also traditional Japanese ways are more robust the further away from Tokyo

one gets. The present study sampled from suburbs of Nagoya, in Mie Prefecture. Sampling from

117

other regions of the country might produce markedly different responding.

Finally, it should be stated that any absences of significant findings in the present study do not

necessarily confirm the null hypotheses. In many cases, predicted relationships in the present study

were not found. Especially in light of the above limitations, it is possible that a follow-up study might

find results that contrast with those of the present study. Any firm conclusions about the relationships

between the variables under study should come after a steady accumulation of findings from a variety

of complementary research paradigms.

General Implications and Directions for Future Study

The implications of the present findings are manifold and provide important directions for

future study. Firstly, there is question about the extent to which the transactionist perspective is

appropriate for developmental research. Secondly, there is considerable evidence in support of the

universality of the problem-focused/emotion-focused distinction in coping. Thirdly, there is reason to

speculate that Japanese coping is unique in certain respects. Fourthly, there is compelling evidence

that a different tack should be taken in drawing connections between maternal socialization of coping

and child coping itself. Taken as a whole, these four implications cast new light on the direction

future research should take. The next step should be to collect an American sample matched with the

present Japanese sample on as many variables as possible. A direct cross-cultural comparison of this

sort would clarify the relative differences between Japanese and American culture with regard to the

established distinctions in stress, coping, and adjustment.

The first general implication calls into question the usefulness of transactional models of stress

and coping, like Lazarus’ Cognitive-motivational-relational theory. In the Introduction section of the

present paper, the transactional definition/model of stress and coping was espoused. It posits that

stress and coping are dependent on the extent to which individuals perceive environmental demands as

threatening, challenging, or harmful. No doubt, this makes a certain amount of sense and logic when

one considers that stress necessarily involves appraisal. However, there may be a disconnect between

118

theory and data, especially in terms of the importance of relational meaning, which is a concept

created to incorporate appraisal – beliefs and goals about an encounter, within a given context. That

is, perhaps interpretation of stress is less important as a factor than previously thought.

The present study began with speculation that coping context would be particularly important

in governing the types of coping children employ. This much is predicted by transactional models like

that of Lazarus’ Cognitive-motivational-relational theory. In spite of this theoretical orientation,

context was surprisingly quite inconsequential in the present study. As stated in the Methods section,

reliability analysis (Cronbach’s Alpha) showed that the coping context distinctions were superfluous

vis-à-vis the coping data. That is, the children tended to report coping strategy use similarly across

contexts. This suggests that context, relational meaning, and appraisal may not be as important as

predicted by transactional models. To be sure, it is very possible that the strong association of coping

responses across contexts had more to do with how participants complete questionnaires than how

they actually behave. Transactional predictions may prove to be accurate given a better understanding

of how children actually cope in “real life” settings. Yet the fact that context was not important in the

present study indicates at the least that even if transactional models are more accurate than their

counterparts, they may not be more practical or useful.

The second general implication is that the broad theoretical distinction of problem- versus

emotion-focused coping, discussed at length in the Introduction section, appears to have cross-cultural

relevance between American and Japanese samples. The present study found significant

developmental increases in emotion-focused coping, but not in problem-focused coping. That this is

fully consistent with pervasive American findings (Band & Weisz, 1988; Folkman & Lazarus, 1988;

Altshuler & Ruble, 1989) suggests the problem/emotion-focused distinction is a useful one beyond

American borders. Likely, emotion-focused strategies develop later than problem-focused strategies

by virtue of the fact that “they are hidden and therefore more difficult to learn from observation”, as

posited by Band and Weisz (1988). There is no unique reason why such an explanation would not

hold true for non-American populations.

119

At the same time, it would be prudent to withhold firm judgment on the cross-cultural

applicability of the problem/emotion-focused distinction until a matched sample of American data

have been collected with the same measures used in the present study. A direct comparison of this

type would enable an understanding of exactly how Japanese and Americans may or may not differ

with regard to the coping categories. Presumably results from an American sample would yield

similar developmental findings with respect to the problem/emotion-focused distinction, especially

because the present measures were largely derived from American research. Yet there could be some

interesting Japan-U.S. differences with, for instance, the age of onset for an emotion-focused coping

increase.

The third general implication of the present findings is that grounds exist for speculation that

Japanese coping is unique in certain respects. This indication comes mainly from the results and

interpretation of the exploratory factor analysis that was performed on the coping data, which yielded

data-driven coping types: Antagonism, Problem-Solving, and Cheerful Deference. Antagonism was

the most cohesive factor of the three. It also explained the most variance. Antagonistic items

included: “saying bad things to someone”, “hurting or harming someone’s feelings”, “getting angry”,

etcetera. These items were highly discouraged by Japanese mothers. Problem-Solving was the second

important factor and included: “getting more information about the problem”, “thinking about why the

problem happened”, “thinking about all the things that could be done to fix the problem”, etcetera.

These items were highly encouraged by Japanese mothers. Lastly, Cheerful Deference was the third

important factor and included: “being polite or humble, to show respect or honor”, “being cheerful or

happy in front of someone”, and “laughing or joking aloud”. These items were highly encouraged by

Japanese mothers. Interestingly, they each involve display components: “to show”, “in front”, and

“aloud”. Taken as a whole with the other items, it is as if the message for preferred coping in Japan is

this: “Keep your anger to yourself, stay on task with the problem, and remain cheerful and courteous

throughout.”

To be sure, the above interpretation is liberal and will be conditioned upon further study and

120

direct cross-cultural comparison. Yet given mainstream understandings of Japanese values and

communication styles, the present findings are not surprising. They are well in line with what one

might expect of a culture reputed to emphasize “face-saving” in particular. To substantiate the extent

to which this is unique, an American sample could be collected. One would predict that overt

expression and use of anger and “negativity” would be less discouraged and perhaps more useful in

American culture. Indeed, for anyone who has spent significant amounts of time in both Japan and the

U.S., this is glaringly obvious. In America, which has been referred to as the “zenith of

individualism” by Triandis (1988, 1994), often “nice guys finish last”, and therefore overt expression

of anger and the like can be adaptive. One might further predict that U.S.-Japan differences could

emerge for Problem-Solving and Cheerful Deference as well. Cheerful Deference in particular might

be predicted to exhibit a cross-cultural difference in line with the individualism-collectivism

dimension. Collectivistic cultures with Confucian heritage in particular tend to value the maintenance

of a cheerful countenance and at the least an adherence to respect for position and status – at least

relative to Western cultures (Triandis, 1988, 1994).

The fourth general implication of the present findings is that a different tack should be taken

in drawing connections between maternal socialization of coping and child coping itself.

Unfortunately, the results of the present study regarding the main correlational analyses of maternal

coping encouragement/discouragement and child coping showed a general disconnect between the

mother and child coping measures, with only one significant finding. This is not unlike what has been

found in other such studies of this sort. So it is not entirely disheartening. However, other types of

research methods should probably be considered for future studies. Perhaps a more projective

measure (e.g., see Zahn-Waxler et al., 1996), for instance, might be more conclusive, as it may be

difficult for subjects to introspect and disclose on the precise nature of their coping strategies. Further,

an actual experiment that places children in some sort of predicament and requires mothers to

encourage or discourage some course of action could be illuminating, at the very least as a

supplementary measure.

121

In sum, the two-fold purpose of this research has been successfully met. Firstly, the results

herein have allowed for a deeper American understanding of Japanese interpretations of the stress-

coping-adjustment process. Patterns from the American literature have been transported and tested.

In particular, the over-arching problem- and emotion-focused categories have been demonstrated to be

useful in a Japanese sample. Further, potentially unique patterns of Japanese coping have been fleshed

out and given grounding for future investigation. Secondly, a set of measures have been developed for

use in a direct U.S.-Japan comparison in a future study. That the measures employed herein were able

to differentiate a considerable amount of significant findings on the basis of the independent variables

stands as reasonable indication that they could legitimately differentiate cross-cultural phenomena.

The next logical step would be to collect data on a matched sample of Americans, enabling a direct

cross-cultural comparison. Only then will the relative standings of Japanese and Americans’ stress

and coping be ascertainable.

122

CHAPTER V. SUMMARY

American psychologists would like to know the extent to which their understanding of stress,

coping, and adjustment in youth applies beyond the U.S., to Japan. The present study explored this

question according to the outline of the dominant American coping theorist, Richard S. Lazarus.

Using inventories of everyday life event stress and coping strategies, it addressed the elementary

issues of stress experience and coping-type preferences in Japanese youth. It further addressed the

elementary issues of maternal socialization of coping. The purpose of this research was two-fold: 1)

to increase American understanding of Japanese interpretations of the stress-coping-adjustment

process and 2) to develop a set of measures that can be used for a direct U.S.-Japan comparison in a

future study, such that potential cultural differences in emotional adaptation can be understood in the

absence of serious concern about cultural bias. The analyses utilized a 2 (SEX: male vs. female) X 3

(GRADE: 5 vs. 8 vs. 10) design.

With a sample of roughly 400 mother-child pairs, a number of significant findings emerged.

As predicted: 1) girls reported greater stress for health/fitness and peer relations contexts than did

boys, 2) girls reported greater use of cognitive, problem-focused and emotion-focused coping than did

boys, 3) older children reported greater use of cognitive, emotion-focused coping than did younger

children. In contrast to prediction: 1) older children did not report greater stress than younger children

did for the education context, 2) older children did not report greater use of cognitive, problem-

focused coping than younger children did. Additionally, correlations between mother-child coping in

terms of the a priori categories showed a positive relationship between maternal encouragement of and

child use of cognitive, problem-focused coping. Lastly, exploratory factor analysis yielded three

important variables: Antagonism, Problem-Solving, and Cheerful Deference. Antagonism was

negatively correlated with school performance and life satisfaction in children. The findings were

discussed in the context of cross-cultural validity. The implication is that a sample of American data

should be collected for a direct cross-cultural comparison with the existing Japanese data. Only then

will the relative standings of Japanese and Americans’ stress and coping be ascertainable.

123

References

Adler, P. A., Kless, S. J., Adler, P. (1992). Socialization to gender roles: Popularity among

elementary school boys and girls. Sociology of Education, 65, 169-187.

Aldwin, C. M. (1994). Stress, coping, and development: An integrative perspective. New

York: Guilford Press.

Altshuler, J., & Ruble, D. (1989). Developmental changes in children's awareness of strategies

for coping with uncontrollable stress. Child Development, 60, 1337-1349.

Attie, I., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (1989). Development of eating problems in adolescent girls: A

longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 25, 70-79.

Ayers, T.S., Sandler, I.N., & Twohey, J.L. (1998). Conceptualization and measurement of

coping in children and adolescents. In Ollendick, T.H. & Prinz, R.J. (Eds.), Advances in Clinical

Child Psychology (pp. 243-301), Volume 20. New York: Plenum Press.

Ayers, T.S., Sandler, I.N., West, S.G., & Roosa, M.W. (1996). A dispositional and situational

assessment of children’s coping: Testing alternative models of coping. Journal of Personality, 64,

923-958.

Azuma, H. (1984). Secondary control as a heterogeneous category. American Psychologist,

39, 970-971.

Band, E., and Weisz, J.R. (1988). How to feel better when it feels bad: children's perspectives

on coping with everyday stress. Developmental Psychology, 24, 2, 247-253.

Beasley, W. G. (1989, 1990). The Rise of Modern Japan. St. Martin's.

Berry, J. W., Poortinga, Y. H., Segall, M. H., & Dasen, P. R. (1992). Cross-cultural

psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Bowlby, J. (1951). Maternal Care and Mental Health. World Health Organization Monograph

2. Geneva: World Health Organization.

124

Boyce, T. W., Jensen, E. W., Cassell, J. C., Collier, A. M., Smith, A. H., & Ramey, C. T.

(1977). Influence of life events and family routines on childhood respiratory tract illness. Pediatrics,

60, 609-615.

Brown, L. & Cowen, E. (1988). Children's judgments of event upsettingness and personal

experiencing of stressful events. American Journal of Community Psychology, 16, 123-135.

Bryant, B. K. (1985). The neighborhood walk: Sources of support in middle childhood.

Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 50 (3, Serial No. 210).

Byrne, D. (1964). Repression-sensitization as a dimension of personality. In B.A. Maher

(Ed.), Progress in experimental personality research (Vol. 1, pp. 169-220). New York: Academic

Press.

Causey, D.L., & Dubow, E.G. (1992). Development of a self-report coping measure for

elementary school children. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 21, 47-59.

Coddington, R. (1972). The significance of life events as etiologic factors in disease of

children. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 16, 7-18.

Compas, B. E., Worsham, N. L., & Ey, S. (1992). Conceptual and developmental issues in

children's coping with stress. In A. M. La Greca, L. J. Siegal, J. L. Wallander, & C. E. Walker (Eds.),

Stress and coping in child health (pp. 7-24). New York: Guilford Press.

Erikson, E. H. (1963). Childhood and Society (2nd ed.). New York: Norton.

Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1980). An analysis of coping in a middle-aged community

sample. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 21, 219-239.

Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1985). If it changes it must be a process: Study of emotion and

coping during three stages of a college examination. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48,

150-170.

Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1988). Coping as a Mediator of Emotion. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 3, 466-475.

Freud, S. (1900). The interpretation of dreams. In J. Strachey (Ed.), The standard edition of

125

the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud: Vol. 8. London: Hogarth Press.

Freud, A. (1966). The ego and the mechanisms of defense (rev. ed.). New York: International

Universities Press.

Frydenberg, E., & Lewis, R. (1990). How adolescents cope with different concerns: The

development of the Adolescent Coping Checklist (ACC). Psychological Test Bulletin, 3, 63-73.

Grant, K., Compas, B., Thurm, A., and McMahon, S. (2001). Stress and Developmental

Psychopathology: Moving from Markers to Mechanisms of Risk.

Guthrie, G.M. (1979). A cross-cultural odyssey: Some personal reflections. In A.J. Marsella,

R.G. Tharp, & T.J. Ciborowski (Eds.), Perspectives on cross-cultural psychology (pp. 349-368). New

York: Academic Press.

Harlow, H. F. (1959, June). Love in infant monkeys. Scientific American, 68-74.

Hendry, Joy. (1998). Understanding Japanese Society, 2nd Edition. London: Routledge.

Huang, K. (1977). Campus mental health: The foreigner at your desk. Journal of the

American College Health Association, 25, 216-219.

Huntsinger, C.S., Jose, P.E., & Larson, S.L. (1988). Do parent practices to encourage

academic competence influence the social adjustment of young European American and Chinese

American Children? Developmental Psychology, 34, 747-756.

Iwao, S. (1997). Consistency orientation and models of social behavior: Is it not time for

West to meet East? Japanese Journal of Psychological Research, 39, 323-332.

Jose, P. (1991a). The Children's Integrated Stress and Coping Scale. Unpublished manuscript,

Loyola University Chicago, Chicago, Illinois.

Jose, P. (1991b). The Everyday Life Events Scale for Children. Unpublished manuscript,

Loyola University Chicago, Chicago, Illinois.

Jose, P. (1991c). The Major Life Events Scale for Children. Unpublished manuscript, Loyola

University Chicago, Chicago, Illinois.

Jose, P. (1995). Children's Perception of Parenting Style Questionnaire. Unpublished

126

manuscript, Loyola University Chicago, Chicago, Illinois.

Jose, P., Cafasso, L., & D’Anna, C. (1997). Gender differences in stressors and coping

strategies among early adolescents. Manuscript in preparation.

Jose, P., Cafasso, L., & D'Anna, C. (1994). Ethnic Group Differences in Children's Coping

Strategies. Sociological Studies of Children, 6, 23-53.

Jose, P. & Hunsinger, C. (1997). Stress and psycho-social adjustment of Chinese-American

and European American Adolescents. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Jose, P.E., D’Anna, C.A., Cafasso, L.L., Bryant, F.B., Chiker, V., Gein, N., & Zhezmer, N.

(1998). Stress and coping among Russian and American Early Adolescents, Developmental

Psychology 34, 757-769.

Kanner, A., Coyne, J., Schaefer, C., & Lazarus, R. (1981). Comparison of two modes of

stress measurement: Daily hassles and uplifts versus major life events. Journal of Behavioral

Medicine, 4, 1-39.

Kawanishi, Y. (1995a). The relationship between self-esteem and psychological stress

process. The Japanese Journal of Health Psychology, 8, 22-30. In Japanese.

Kawanishi, Y. (1995b). The Effects of Culture On Beliefs About Stress and Coping: Causal

Attribution of Anglo-American and Japanese Persons. Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy, 25, 1,

1995.

Kessler, R.C. (1997). The effects of stressful life events on depression. Annual Review of

Psychology, 48, 191-214.

Kilburg, D.F. III (1997). Stress and Coping in Middle Childhood. Unpublished Master’s

thesis. Chicago: DePaul University (482.259).

Kliewer, W., Fearnow, M.D., & Miller, P.A. (1996). Coping socialization in middle

childhood: tests of maternal and paternal influences. Child Development, 67, 2339-2357.

Kojima, H. (1984). A significant stride toward comparative study of control. American

Psychologist, 39, 972-973.

127

Kuhn, D. & Sieger, K. (Eds.) (1998). Handbook of child psychology, Vol. 2, Cognition,

perception, and language. New York: Wiley.

Kurtz, L. (1994). Psychosocial coping resources in elementary school-age children of divorce.

American Journal of Orthopscychiatry, 64, 554-563.

La Greca, A. M., Siegal, L. J., Wallander, J. L., & Walker, C. E. (Eds.). (1992). Stress and

Coping in Child Health. New York: Guilford Press.

Lanham, B.B. & Garrick, R.J. (1996). Adult to child in Japan: interaction and relations. In

Shwalb, D. W., & Shwalb, B. J. (eds.), Japanese childrearing: Two generations of scholarship. (pp.

97-124) New York: The Guilford Press.

Lazarus, R. S. (1990). Theory-based stress measurement. Psychological Inquiry, 1, 3-13.

Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotion and Adaptation. New York: Oxford University Press.

Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer.

Lazarus, R. S., Speisman, J. C., Markoff, A. M., & Davison, L. A. (1962). A lab study of

psychological stress produced by a motion picture film. Psychological Monographs, 76 (34, Whole

No. 553).

Maccoby, E. & Martin, J. (1983). Socialization in the context of the family: parent-child

interaction. In E. M. Hetherington (Ed.), P. H. Mussen (Series Ed.), Handbook of child psychology:

Vol. 4. Socialization, personality, and social development (pp. 1-101). New York: Wiley.

MacCoby, E. & Martin, J. (1983). Socialization in the context of the family: Parent-child

interaction. In E. M. Hetherington (Ed.; P. H. Mussen, General Ed.), Handbook of child psychology:

Vol. 4: Socialization, personality, and social development (4th ed.). New York: Wiley.

Machida, S., Hess, R. & Azuma, H. (1996). Maternal and cultural socialization for schooling:

lessons learned and prospects ahead. In Shwalb, D. W., & Shwalb, B. J. (eds.), Japanese childrearing:

Two generations of scholarship. (pp. 241-259) New York: The Guilford Press.

Masten, A., (1985). Stress, coping, and children's health. Pediatric Annals, 14, 543-547.

McCargo, D. (2000). Contemporary Japan. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

128

Menhaghan, E.G., Kowaleski-Jones, L., & Mott, F.L. (1997). The intergenerational costs of

parental social stressors: Academic and social difficulties in early adolescence for children of young

mothers. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 38, 72-86.

Miele, F. (1979). Cultural bias in the WISC-R. Intelligence, 3, 149-164.

Miller, P., Danaher, D., & Forbes, D. (1986). Sex-related strategies for coping with

interpersonal conflict in children ages five and seven. Developmental Psychology, 22, 543-548.

Minami, O. (1987). Nihontekijiga (Japanese Self) Tokyo: Iwanami Shinsho Publishing.

Nagane, M. (1991). Analysis of psychological stress in school life. Japanese Journal of

Educational Psychology, 39, 182-185. In Japanese.

Ohsako, H. (1994). Diversity and effectiveness of high school students’ stress-coping

depending on situations. The Japanese Journal of Health Psychology, 7, 26-34. In Japanese.

Okayasu, T., Shimada, H., Niwa, Y., Mori, T., & Yatomi, N. (1992). The relationship

between evaluation of school stressors and stress responses in junior high school students. The

Japanese Journal of Psychology, 63, 310-318. In Japanese.

Ryan, N. (1988). The stress-coping process in school-age children: Gaps in the knowledge

needed for health promotion. Advances in Nursing Science, 11, 1-12.

Sandoval, J. (1979). The WISC-R and internal evidence of test bias with minority groups.

Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 47, 919-927.

Segall, M.H., Lonner, W.J., & Berry, J.W. (1998). Cross-cultural psychology as a scholarly

discipline: On the flowering of culture in behavioral research. American Psychologist, 53, 1101-1110.

Shwalb, D. W., & Shwalb, B. J. (1996). Japanese childrearing: Two generations of

scholarship. New York: The Guilford Press.

Sorenson, E. (1993). Children's stress and coping: A family perspective. New York: The

Guilford Press.

Spirito, A., Stark, L. J., Grace, N., & Stamoulis, D. (1991). Common problems and coping

strategies reported in childhood and early adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 20, 531-

129

544.

Stening, B.W. (1979). Problems in cross-cultural contact: A literature review. International

Journal of Intercultural Relations, 3, 269-313.

Tabachnick, B. & Fidell, L. (1996). Using Multivariate Statistics, 3rd Edition. New York:

Harper Collins College Publishers.

Triandis, H. (1988). Collectivism Vs individualism: A reconceptualization of a basic concept

in cross-cultural social psychology. In C. Bagley & G. Verma (Eds.). Personality, cognition and

values (pp. 60-95). London: Macmillan.

Triandis, H.C. (1994). Culture and social behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Vaughn, C.A. (1996). Socialization and school adaptation: on the life work of George De

Vos. In Shwalb, D. W., & Shwalb, B. J. (eds.), Japanese childrearing: Two generations of

scholarship. (pp. 85-96) New York: The Guilford Press.

Vogel, S. (1996). Urban middle-class Japanese family life, 1958-1996: a personal and

evolving perspective. In Shwalb, D. W., & Shwalb, B. J. (eds.), Japanese childrearing: Two

generations of scholarship. (pp. 177-200) New York: The Guilford Press.

Weisz, J., Rothbaum, F., & Blackburn, T. (1984). Standing out and standing in: the

psychology of control in America and Japan. American Psychologist, 39, 955-969.

Weisz, J., Rothbaum, F., & Blackburn, T. (1984). Swapping recipes for control. American

Psychologist, 39, 974-975.

Wertlieb, D., Weigel, C., & Feldstein, M. (1987). Measuring children's coping. Journal of

Orthopsychiatry, 57, 548-560.

White, M. (1996). Renewing the new middle class: Japan’s next families. In Shwalb, D. W.,

& Shwalb, B. J. (eds.), Japanese childrearing: Two generations of scholarship. (pp. 208-219) New

York: The Guilford Press.

Yamamoto, K. & Davis (1979). Children's ratings of the stressfulness of experiences.

Developmental Psychology, 15, 581-582.

130

Zahn-Waxler, C., Friedman, R. J., Cole, P. M., Mizuta, I., & Hiruma, N. (1996). Japanese and

United States preschool children’s responses to conflict and distress. Child Development, 67, 2462-

2477.

131

Appendix A. Coding Keys

132

The Children’s Inventory of Coping (CIC) and The Socialization Inventory of Coping (SIC) Part A (Miscellaneous items for controlling variables and for exploratory research) 1 - 3. (Intended only to assist recall.) 4. Stress intensity 5. Control/Opportunity 6. Fault (Self) 7. Fault (Other) 8. Stress frequency (past week) 9. Effort 10. Emotional sensitivity (Self) 11. Emotional sensitivity (Other) 12. Individual initiative 13. Collective initiative

Children: 14. Free recall – PF 15. Free recall – EF Mothers: 14. Free recall – Discourage – PF 15. Free recall – Discourage – EF 16. Free recall – Encourage – PF 17. Free recall – Encourage – EF

Part B [Note: what follows are the CIC versions of the items; the SIC versions are simply the the infinitive forms of the CIC versions (see SIC questionnaire)] Problem-Focused items: 27; Emotion-Focused items: 38; 65 Total (numbers in parenthesis correspond to item order numbers on the CIC questionnaire) Problem-Focused Items: (strategies that try to manage or modify the source of the problem) Cognitive 1. (11) I thought about all the things I could possibly do to fix the problem. 2. (2) I thought about why the problem happened. 3. (34) I tried to think what would work best to fix the problem. 4. (56) I imagined what someone else would do if they had the same problem. 5. (48) I tried to remember what I did last time I had a similar problem. 6. (15) I told myself to divide the problem and take it “one step at a time.” 7. (24) I made a plan to solve the problem. 8. (32) I prayed to God, or to a relative who is no longer living, or to some other spirit - to help fix the

problem. Behavioral 9. (14) I tried to get more information about the problem. 10. (27) I tried to directly hurt or do harm to someone’s body or someone’s stuff - to help fix the problem. 11. (43) I told someone that the problem was his or her fault and/or told someone to say sorry - to help fix the

problem. 12. (36) I said mean things directly to someone’s face - to help fix the problem. 13. (31) I tried to directly annoy someone by doing things like poking him/her, grabbing at his/her things,

making faces at him/her - to help fix the problem. 14. (12) In front of someone, I got angry and yelled and/or hit something - to help fix the problem. 15. (22) I tried to hurt or do harm to someone’s feelings - without that person knowing I did it - to help fix the

problem. 16. (33) I tried to annoy someone in a “light” or “indirect” way (for example: I made him/her wait for me; I

purposely forgot to do something for him/her; I hid something he/she was looking for; I was sarcastically polite to him/her, etc.) - to help fix the problem.

17. (45) I tried to hurt or do harm to someone’s body or someone’s stuff - without that person knowing I did it - to help fix the problem.

18. (39) I told someone the problem was my fault and/or I said I was sorry - to help fix the problem. 19. (51) I tried to be cheerful or happy in front of someone, or do nice things for someone - to help fix the

133

problem. 20. (1) I laughed or joked aloud - to help fix the problem. 21. (63) I tried to be polite or humble, or to show respect or honor - to help fix the problem. 22. (44) I cried and showed sad feelings in front of someone - to help fix the problem. 23. (35) I tried to get someone to feel guilty or to feel sorry for me - to help fix the problem. 24. (23) I went to be with someone - to help fix the problem. 25. (25) I talked to someone - to help fix the problem. 26. (60) I went off by myself to get away from other people - to help fix the problem. 27. (21) I told someone a lie (good or bad) - to help fix the problem. Emotion-Focused Items: (Strategies that try to manage or reduce emotional distress) Cognitive 1. (7) I ignored or tried to get away from the problem, by not thinking about it - so I would feel better. 2. (4) I day-dreamed about something and forgot all about the problem - so I would feel better. 3. (61) I pretended there was not a problem - so I would feel better. 4. (58) I tried to be patient and “put up” with things the way they were. 5. (26) I told myself to keep trying as hard as I could. 6. (62) I prayed to God, or to a relative who is no longer living, or to some other spirit - so I would feel better. 7. (46) I told myself the problem would be over in a short time. 8. (54) I told myself that the problem is not so bad; that it could be worse. 9. (17) I imagined that I could easily solve the problem. 10. (8) I tried to think of the problem as a good challenge. 11. (55) I tried to calm down. Behavioral 12. (52) I did something physically active like: rode my bike, went for a walk, or played sports - so I would feel

better. 13. (16) I sat down and did something fun like: watched TV, listened to music, or played a game - so I would

feel better. 14. (53) I got angry and yelled and/or hit something (but no one saw me do this) - so I would feel better. 15. (40) I held or played with my pet or stuffed animal - so I would feel better. 16. (10) I had something to eat or drink - so I would feel better. 17. (59) I smoked cigarettes, drank alcohol, took some pills, or took some kind of drug (not medicine) - so I

would feel better. 18. (49) I took a nap or went to bed early - so I would feel better. 19. (65) I cried (but no one saw me do this) - so I would feel better. 20. (41) I tried to focus on my breathing and make it right. 21. (19) I tried to directly hurt or do harm to someone’s body or someone’s stuff - so I would feel better. 22. (38) I told someone that the problem was his or her fault and/or told someone to say sorry - so I would feel

better. 23. (13) I said mean things directly to someone’s face - so I would feel better. 24. (50) I tried to directly annoy someone by doing things like poking him/her, grabbing at his/her things,

making faces at him/her, etc. - so I would feel better. 25. (47) In front of someone, I got angry and yelled and/or hit something - so I would feel better. 26. (37) I tried to hurt or do harm to someone’s feelings - without that person knowing I did it - so I would feel

better. 27. (6) I tried to annoy someone in a “light” or “indirect” way (for example: I made him/her wait for me; I

purposely forgot to do something for him/her; I hid something he/she was looking for; I was sarcastically polite to him/her, etc.) - so I would feel better.

28. (3) I tried to hurt or do harm to someone’s body or someone’s stuff - without that person knowing I did it - so I would feel better.

29. (9) I told someone the problem was my fault and/or I said I was sorry - so I would feel better. 30. (20) I tried to be cheerful or happy in front of someone, or do nice things for someone - so I would feel

better.

134

31. (57) I laughed or joked aloud - so I would feel better. 32. (42) I tried to be polite or humble, or to show respect or honor - so I would feel better. 33. (28) I cried and showed sad feelings in front of someone - so I would feel better. 34. (5) I tried to get someone to feel guilty or to feel sorry for me - so I would feel better. 35. (29) I went to be with someone - so I would feel better. 36. (18) I talked to someone - so I would feel better. 37. (64) I went off by myself to get away from other people - so I would feel better. 38. (30) I told someone a lie (good or bad) - so I would feel better.

135

The New Everyday Life Event Scale for Children (New ELESC) Key

What follows are lists of the particular events of the New ELESC grouped by four different contexts: Family/Home Life, Health/Fitness, Education, and Peer Relations. The original item number of each event on the New ELESC is noted in parenthesis after each event. A. Family/Home Life (27 total) 1-You and your sister or brother disagreed (1) 2-You and your mom or dad disagreed (2) 3-You thought too many people lived in your house (3) 4-You thought too few people lived in your house (4) 5-You saw a family member who drank a lot of alcohol (5) 6-Someone in your family was ill (10) 7-You did not have anything to do (11) 8-You were disciplined by your mom or dad (12) 9-You could not watch TV or play video games (14) 10-Your sister or brother did better than you at something (15) 11-Someone in your family was very angry or cried a lot (17) 12-You did a chore at home (18) 13-You wanted money to buy something (19) 14-Your mom and dad disagreed in front of you(25)

15-Your mom or dad talked about their problems or worries(26) 16-You could not do something with grandparents or other relatives(27) 17-You were in bed early(30) 18-You took care of younger children(31) 19-You and your mom could not be together(32) 20-You could not find something you looked for (8) 21-You and your dad could not be together(34) 22-You went to bed late(36) 23-You had to do something because you're a boy/girl, but you did not want to do it(37) 24-You could not play(38) 25-You thought about what your mom or dad thought of you(42) 26-Someone stole something you own(43) 27-You were alone(40)

B. Health/Fitness (4 total) 1-You went to the doctor, dentist, or took medicine(24) 2-You thought about the way you look(28) 3-You were ill (16) 4-You thought about your weight(39) C. Education (5 total) 1-You had after-school lessons or practice (e.g., juku, piano, English, etc.) (20) 2-You did not want to follow your school's dress code(35) 3-You got a grade that was less than you expected (22) 4-You used a bus or train to go to school (6) 5-You thought about having school work to do (9) D. Peer Relations (7 total) 1-You did not like someone but were nice to them anyway(23) 2-You could not talk to other people about your feelings (7) 3-You thought about what your classmates thought of you(29) 4-You disagreed with most of the people in a group but did what they wanted anyway(33) 5-Kids teased or avoided you (21) 6-People thought you did something foolish (13) 7-There was fighting or violence at your school or in your neighborhood(41) *[Note: in Kilburg (1997), item #41 was listed as “health/fitness.” It was moved to “peer relations.”]

136

Appendix B. Forms

137

Child Consent

Child Consent for Participation

Research Assistants: Murakami, Shouko [Telephone: (059)231-4793] Fujii, Kazuyo [Telephone: (059)226-8707] Director of Research: Nishikawa, Kazuo [Telephone: (059)231-9327] Hello. This is a request for you to complete a questionnaire for the research of children’s problems, at Mie University. The research of children’s problems is very important for health. There is nothing difficult about the questionnaire and it will not take long to complete. You are not required to participate, but your help would be greatly appreciated. No one will know which questionnaire you answered, because you will be given a secret number. If you agree to complete the questionnaire, please sign and date below. Signature: ___________________________________ Date: ____________________

138

Child Demographics

Child Demographics Please fill in the following blanks. (So that no one will know which questionnaire is yours, please do not write your name anywhere.) 1. Your age: _______________ 2. Your sex (circle one): Male or Female 3. Your grade in school: _______________ 4. The name of your school: __________________________ 5. The sexes and ages of your brothers and/or sisters: (Circle Sex) (Write Age) M F ____________ M F ____________ M F ____________ M F ____________ M F ____________

139

Mother Consent

Mother Consent for Participation

Research Assistants: Murakami, Shouko [Telephone: (059)231-4793] Fujii, Kazuyo [Telephone: (059)226-8707] Director of Research: Nishikawa, Kazuo [Telephone: (059)231-9327] Hello. This is a request for you to complete a questionnaire for the research of children’s problems, at Mie University. The research of children’s problems is very important for health. There is nothing difficult about the questionnaire and it will not take long to complete. You are not required to participate, but your help would be greatly appreciated. No one will know which questionnaire you answered, because you will be given a secret number. If you agree to complete the questionnaire, please sign and date below. Signature: ___________________________________ Date: ____________________

140

Teacher Letter

Teacher letter Research Assistants: Murakami, Shouko [Telephone: (059)231-4793] Fujii, Kazuyo [Telephone: (059)226-8707] Director of Research: Nishikawa, Kazuo [Telephone: (059)231-9327] Hello. We are from Mie University. We are doing a research project on the problems that children have and how they learn to solve them. Problems can be mental, emotional, or physical. Everyone has some problem and everyone has to learn how to have a healthy life. Therefore, this research is very important. We would like your students to fill out some questionnaires about their problems. The questions are not hard to answer and might be interesting to them. No one will know whose questionnaire is whose because secret numbers will be used. Also, this is not a test and there are no wrong or right answers. So ideally the children should share their real feelings. If they do not, the research will fail. Please take time from your class for the children to complete the questionnaires. A proctor will help the children through the process. If the children have any questions, they should be encouraged to ask. Also, we would like mothers of the children to fill out questionnaires too. After the children have finished theirs questionnaires, we will give them envelopes to bring home. They should not be opened by anyone but the mothers. After the mothers have finished, the questionnaire materials should be brought back to you, the teacher. At that time, we would like to collect everything from you. we would also like to thank the children with a small gift of appreciation. [Special Note: in the past when this research has been done, some children with certain problems (for example, divorced parents) were excluded. A teacher thought it was rude to ask such children about their problems. Actually, children often feel better after expressing their problems. In this research, if children with certain problems are excluded, the research results will be biased. Therefore, if possible, please include everyone. Ideally, the questionnaires should be given to whole classes of students.] Thank you very much for your cooperation. -------------------------------- Instructions: 1) Have proctor read proctor script. 2) Have proctor hand out consent forms, then collect them. 3) Hand proctor hand out child questionnaires and oversee the process. [Remind the children that no one will know which questionnaire is theirs, because of the secret number.] 4) Hand out mom questionnaires (collect later from teachers).

141

Proctor Script Research Assistants: Murakami, Shouko [Telephone: (059)231-4793] Fujii, Kazuyo [Telephone: (059)226-8707] Director of Research: Nishikawa, Kazuo [Telephone: (059)231-9327]

(Script for Proctor to Read to Children)

Hello. I am from Mie University. I am doing a research project on the problems that children have and how they learn to solve them. Problems can be mental, emotional, or physical. Everyone has some problem and everyone has to learn how to have a healthy life. Therefore, this research is very important. I would like you to fill out some questionnaires about your problems. The questions are not hard to answer and might be interesting to you. No one will know which questionnaire is yours because you will use a secret number. Also, this is not a test and there are no wrong or right answers. So please share your real feelings. If you do not, the research will fail. I will read the questionnaires to you. Then when everyone is finished I will collect them. If you have any questions, please ask. [after the children have completed their questionnaires and handed them in.] I would like your mothers to fill out questionnaires too. I will give you an envelope to bring home. Please do not open it; just give it to your mother. After your mother is finished, please bring the questionnaire materials back to your teacher. At that time, I would like to thank you with a small gift of appreciation. -------------------------------- Instructions to proctor: 1) Introduce yourself 2) Read proctor script 3) Hand out consent forms, then collect them. 4) Hand out child questionnaires, help children through and then collect the packets. [Remind the children that no one will know which questionnaire is theirs, because of the secret number.] 5) Hand out mom questionnaires (collect later from teachers).

142

Post-questionnaire questions

Post-Questionnaire Questions for Teachers and Proctors

1) Which groups of children completed the questionnaires? (for example, 25/30 students from class #3 of the 5th grade; 15/20 members of the soccer team; etc.) 2) Were any children excluded from filling out the questionnaires? If so, why? (for example, one student was excluded because his father had recently passed away, etc.) 3) What was the general reaction of the children to the questionniares? (for example, they did not want to complete all the questions and were fooling around, etc.) 4) Did any problems arise? Do you have any comments?

143

Letter to Mothers Research Assistants: Murakami, Shouko [Telephone: (059)231-4793] Fujii, Kazuyo [Telephone: (059)226-8707] Director of Research: Nishikawa, Kazuo [Telephone: (059)231-9327]

Letter to Mothers

Hello. We are from Mie University. We are doing a research project on the problems that children have and how they learn to solve them. Problems can be mental, emotional, or physical. Everyone has some problem and everyone has to learn how to have a healthy life. Therefore, this research is very important. We have asked your child to fill out a questionnaire about his or her problems. We would like you to fill out a questionnaire too. The questions are not hard and might be interesting to you. No one will know which questionnaire is yours because you will use a secret number. So please share your real feelings. If you do not, the research will fail. The questionnaire is not very long, but please take your time filling it out. Also... 1) Please do not discuss it with your child or your husband. We want only your opinions. 2) When you are finished please put the questionnaire into the envelope and seal it with tape. 3) Do not write your name on it anywhere. 4) Then instruct your child to bring the envelope back to his or her teacher as soon as possible.

144

Parent Demographics

Parent Demographics Please fill in the following blanks. So that no one will know which questionnaire is yours, please do not write your name anywhere. Circle your relationship to the child (if possible, the mother should fill out this questionnaire): mother father grandfather grandmother other __________ 1) Your Age: _______________ 2) Child’s school name (only for the child who brought the questionnaire): __________________________ 3) Your occupation: __________________________ 4) Your spouse’s occupation: ____________________ 5) Sexes and ages of all your children: (Circle Sex) (Write Age) M F ____________ M F ____________ M F ____________ M F ____________ M F ____________ 6) On average, how much time does your spouse spend with the child each week? (circle one) a. no time at all b. 1-5 hours c. 10-20 hours d. 20-30 hours e. more than 30 hours 7) On average, how much time do you spend with the child each week? (circle one) a. no time at all b. 1-5 hours c. 10-20 hours d. 20-30 hours e. more than 30 hours

145

Appendix C. Child Questionnaires

The New Everyday Life Events Scale Part 1 Instructions: Everyone has some problems in his or her life. A. Please write 3 kinds of problems you had in the past week (for example, you got sick, you lost something, etc.). B. Then circle how many times each problem happened to you in the past week. C. Then circle how much stress you usually felt when each problem happened. A. What kind B. How many C. How much stress of problems times in the past did you usually feel when did you have? week did this this happened? (Write three) happen? (Circle one) (Circle one) Example: __________________ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A Little Some A Lot __________________________ 1. ________________________ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A Little Some A Lot __________________________ 2. ________________________ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A Little Some A Lot __________________________ 3. ________________________ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A Little Some A Lot __________________________ Part 2 Instructions: Below are a list of things that can happen to anyone. A. For each thing, tell whether it happened to you in the past week. (Circle “yes” or “no”) B. If it did not happen to you in the past week, continue to the next thing. If it was a problem for you in the past week, tell how many times it happened. C. Then tell how much stress you usually felt when it happened. A. Did it B. How many C. How much stress happen times in the past did you usually feel to you in the week did it when it happened? past week? happen? (Circle one) (Circle one) (Circle one) 1. You and your sister or brother disagreed Yes No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A Little Some A Lot 2. You and your mom or dad disagreed Yes No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A Little Some A Lot 3. You thought too many people lived

147

in your house Yes No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A Little Some A Lot A. Did it B. How many C. How much stress happen times in the past did you usually feel to you in the week did it when it happened? past week? happen? (Circle one) (Circle one) (Circle one) 4. You thought too few people lived in your house Yes No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A Little Some A Lot 5. You saw a family member who drank a lot of alcohol Yes No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A Little Some A Lot 6. You used a bus or train to go to school Yes No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A Little Some A Lot 7. You could not talk to other people about your feelings Yes No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A Little Some A Lot 8. You could not find something you looked for Yes No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A Little Some A Lot 9. You thought about having school work to do Yes No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A Little Some A Lot 10. Someone in your family was ill Yes No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A Little Some A Lot 11. You did not have anything to do Yes No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A Little Some A Lot 12. You were disciplined by your mom or dad Yes No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A Little Some A Lot 13. People thought you did something foolish Yes No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A Little Some A Lot 14. You could not

148

watch TV or play video games Yes No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A Little Some A Lot 15. Your sister or brother did better than you at something Yes No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A Little Some A Lot 16. You were ill Yes No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A Little Some A Lot 17. Someone in your family was very angry or cried a lot Yes No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A Little Some A Lot A. Did it B. How many C. How much stress happen times in the past did you usually feel to you in the week did it when it happened? past week? happen? (Circle one) (Circle one) (Circle one) 18. You did a chore at home Yes No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A Little Some A Lot 19. You wanted money to buy something Yes No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A Little Some A Lot 20. You had after-school lessons or practice (e.g., math, piano, English, etc.) Yes No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A Little Some A Lot 21. Kids teased or avoided you Yes No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A Little Some A Lot 22. You got a grade that was less than you expected Yes No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A Little Some A Lot 23. You did not like someone but were nice to them anyway Yes No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A Little Some A Lot 24. You went to the doctor, dentist, or took medicine Yes No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A Little Some A Lot 25. Your mom and dad disagreed in

149

front of you Yes No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A Little Some A Lot 26. Your mom or dad talked about their problems or worries Yes No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A Little Some A Lot 27. You could not do something with grandparents or other relatives Yes No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A Little Some A Lot 28. You thought about the way you look Yes No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A Little Some A Lot 29. You thought about what your classmates thought of you Yes No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A Little Some A Lot 30. You were in bed early Yes No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A Little Some A Lot 31. You took care of younger children Yes No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A Little Some A Lot A. Did it B. How many C. How much stress happen times in the past did you usually feel to you in the week did it when it happened? past week? happen? (Circle one) (Circle one) (Circle one) 32. You and your mom could not be together Yes No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A Little Some A Lot 33. You disagreed with most of the people in a group but did what they wanted anyway Yes No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A Little Some A Lot 34. You and your dad could not be together Yes No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A Little Some A Lot 35. You did not want to follow your school's

150

dress code Yes No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A Little Some A Lot 36. You went to bed late Yes No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A Little Some A Lot 37. You had to do something because you're a boy/girl, but you did not want to do it Yes No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A Little Some A Lot 38. You could not play Yes No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A Little Some A Lot 39. You thought about your weight Yes No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A Little Some A Lot 40. You were alone Yes No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A Little Some A Lot 41. There was fighting or violence at your school or in your neighborhood Yes No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A Little Some A Lot 42. You thought about what your mom or dad thought of you Yes No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A Little Some A Lot 43. Someone stole something you own Yes No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A Little Some A Lot

151

School Performance and Well-being

1. How good is your attendance record for school? (Circle one) 0 1 2 3 4 | | | | | Very Bad So-so Good Very Bad Good 2. How good is your behavior record for school? (Circle one) 0 1 2 3 4 | | | | | Very Bad So-so Good Very Bad Good 3. How good are your marks/grades for school? (Circle one) 0 1 2 3 4 | | | | | Very Bad So-so Good Very Bad Good 4. How satisfied are you with how well you get along with other kids around your age? (Circle one) 0 1 2 3 4 | | | | | Very Unsatisfied Neither Satisfied Very Unsatisfied Satisfied nor Satisfied Unsatisfied 5. How satisfied are you about how you look (your face, your body, etc.)? (Circle one) 0 1 2 3 4 | | | | | Very Unsatisfied Neither Satisfied Very Unsatisfied Satisfied nor Satisfied Unsatisfied 6. How satisfied are you with how well you get along with your sisters and brothers? (Circle one) (If you have no sisters/brothers, how about your cousins?) 0 1 2 3 4 | | | | | Very Unsatisfied Neither Satisfied Very Unsatisfied Satisfied nor Satisfied Unsatisfied 7. How satisfied are you with your school marks/grades? (Circle one) 0 1 2 3 4 | | | | | Very Unsatisfied Neither Satisfied Very Unsatisfied Satisfied nor Satisfied

152

8. How satisfied are you with how well you get along with your mother? (Circle one) 0 1 2 3 4 | | | | | Very Unsatisfied Neither Satisfied Very Unsatisfied Satisfied nor Satisfied Unsatisfied 9. How satisfied are you with how well you get along with your father? (Circle one) 0 1 2 3 4 | | | | | Very Unsatisfied Neither Satisfied Very Unsatisfied Satisfied nor Satisfied Unsatisfied 10. How satisfied are you with your life in general? 0 1 2 3 4 | | | | | Very Unsatisfied Neither Satisfied Very Unsatisfied Satisfied nor Satisfied Unsatisfied

153

The Children’s Inventory of Coping (CIC) - 2A

Part. A Please think of the last time other KIDS (other people close to your age) WERE MEAN TO YOU. Maybe kids at school were mean to you. Maybe kids in your neighborhood were mean to you. Maybe they: teased you, or called you bad names, or pushed you around, or did something else to you that you did not like. Maybe this happened to you yesterday, last week, last month, or before. Think real hard to remember exactly what happened. Picture in your mind what was happening and then answer the following questions. (If you have never had this problem, just imagine you are having it right now). 1. Where were you? (for example, at a park, at school, etc.) _____________________________________________________________________ 2. Who was with you? (for example, your friend, your sister, etc.) _____________________________________________________________________ 3. What were you doing when the problem happened? (for example, playing, walking home, etc.) _____________________________________________________________________ 4.. How much stress did you feel when you had the problem? (Circle one) 0 1 2 3 4 | | | | | None A little A moderate Much Very at all amount much 5. Sometimes there is nothing people can do about their problems. Other times, people have the chance to solve or fix their problems if they try. How much of a chance did you have to solve or fix your problem? (Circle one) 0 1 2 3 4 | | | | | None A little A moderate Much Very at all amount much 6. When the problem happened, how much did you think it was your fault? (Circle one) 0 1 2 3 4 | | | | | None A little A moderate Much Very at all amount much 7. When the problem happened, how much did you think it was someone else’s fault? (Circle one) 0 1 2 3 4 | | | | | None A little A moderate Much Very at all amount much 8. About how many times did you ACTUALLY have this problem in the past week? (Circle one)

154

0 1 2 3 4 5 6+ 9. When people have problems, sometimes they try very much to solve them and other times they do not try very much to solve them. In general, how much did you try to solve your problem? (Circle one) 0 1 2 3 4 | | | | | None A little A moderate Much Very at all amount much 10. When you had the problem, how much did you think about the feelings you were having about the problem? (Cirlce one) 0 1 2 3 4 | | | | | None A little A moderate Much Very at all amount much 11. When you had the problem, how much did you think about the feelings of other people involved in the problem? (Circle one) 0 1 2 3 4 | | | | | None A little A moderate Much Very at all amount much 12. When you had the problem, how much did you try to solve it your own way? (Circle one) 0 1 2 3 4 | | | | | None A little A moderate Much Very at all amount much 13. When you had the problem, how much did you try to solve it someone else’s way? In other words, how much did you compromise or cooperate with other people in solving your problem? (Circle one) 0 1 2 3 4 | | | | | None A little A moderate Much Very at all amount much 14. When you had the problem, what did you do to try to solve or fix it? (Please write at least three things you did.) ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________

155

15. When you had the problem, what did you do to feel better? (Please write at least three things you did.) ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Part B. When people have problems they do many different things. When you had the problem we just asked you about (kids were mean to you), about how much did you do each of the following things? (Circle only one answer for each question) 0 1 2 3 4 | | | | | None A little A moderate Much Very at all amount much 1. I laughed or joked aloud - to help fix the problem. 0 1 2 3 4 2. I thought about why the problem happened. 0 1 2 3 4 3. I tried to hurt or do harm to someone’s body or someone’s stuff - without that person knowing I did it - so I would feel better. 0 1 2 3 4 4. I day-dreamed about something and forgot all about the problem - so I would feel better. 0 1 2 3 4 5. I tried to get someone to feel guilty or to feel sorry for me - so I would feel better. 0 1 2 3 4 6. I tried to annoy someone in a “light” or “indirect” way (for example: I made him/her wait for me; I purposely forgot to do something for him/her; I hid something he/she was looking for; I was sarcastically polite to him/her, etc.) - so I would feel better. 0 1 2 3 4 7. I ignored or tried to get away from the problem, by not thinking about it - so I would feel better. 0 1 2 3 4 8. I tried to think of the problem as a good challenge.

156

0 1 2 3 4 9. I told someone the problem was my fault and/or I said I was sorry - so I would feel better. 0 1 2 3 4 10. I had something to eat or drink - so I would feel better. 0 1 2 3 4 When people have problems they do many different things. When you had the problem we just asked you about (kids were mean to you), about how much did you do each of the following things? (Circle only one answer for each question) 0 1 2 3 4 | | | | | None A little A moderate Much Very at all amount much 11. I thought about all the things I could possibly do to fix the problem. 0 1 2 3 4 12. In front of someone, I got angry and yelled and/or hit something - to help fix the problem. 0 1 2 3 4 13. I said mean things directly to someone’s face - so I would feel better. 0 1 2 3 4 14. I tried to get more information about the problem. 0 1 2 3 4 15. I told myself to divide the problem and take it “one step at a time.” 0 1 2 3 4 16. I sat down and did something fun like: watched TV, listened to music, or played a game - so I would feel better. 0 1 2 3 4 17. I imagined that I could easily solve the problem. 0 1 2 3 4 18. I talked to someone - so I would feel better. 0 1 2 3 4 19. I tried to directly hurt or do harm to someone’s body or someone’s stuff - so I would feel better.

157

0 1 2 3 4 20. I tried to be cheerful or happy in front of someone, or do nice things for someone - so I would feel better. 0 1 2 3 4 21. I told someone a lie (good or bad) - to help fix the problem. 0 1 2 3 4 When people have problems they do many different things. When you had the problem we just asked you about (kids were mean to you), about how much did you do each of the following things? (Circle only one answer for each question) 0 1 2 3 4 | | | | | None A little A moderate Much Very at all amount much 22. I tried to hurt or do harm to someone’s feelings - without that person knowing I did it - to help fix the problem. 0 1 2 3 4 23. I went to be with someone - to help fix the problem. 0 1 2 3 4 24. I made a plan to solve the problem. 0 1 2 3 4 25. I talked to someone - to help fix the problem. 0 1 2 3 4 26. I told myself to keep trying as hard as I could. 0 1 2 3 4 27. I tried to directly hurt or do harm to someone’s body or someone’s stuff - to help fix the problem. 0 1 2 3 4 28. I cried and showed sad feelings in front of someone - so I would feel better. 0 1 2 3 4 29. I went to be with someone - so I would feel better.

158

0 1 2 3 4 30. I told someone a lie (good or bad) - so I would feel better. 0 1 2 3 4 31. I tried to directly annoy someone by doing things like poking him/her, grabbing at his/her things, making faces at him/her - to help fix the problem. 0 1 2 3 4 32. I prayed to God, or to a relative who is no longer living, or to some other spirit - to help fix the problem. 0 1 2 3 4 When people have problems they do many different things. When you had the problem we just asked you about (kids were mean to you), about how much did you do each of the following things? (Circle only one answer for each question) 0 1 2 3 4 | | | | | None A little A moderate Much Very at all amount much 33. I tried to annoy someone in a “light” or “indirect” way (for example: I made him/her wait for me; I purposely forgot to do something for him/her; I hid something he/she was looking for; I was sarcastically polite to him/her, etc.) - to help fix the problem. 0 1 2 3 4 34. I tried to think what would work best to fix the problem. 0 1 2 3 4 35. I tried to get someone to feel guilty or to feel sorry for me - to help fix the problem. 0 1 2 3 4 36. I said mean things directly to someone’s face - to help fix the problem. 0 1 2 3 4 37. I tried to hurt or do harm to someone’s feelings - without that person knowing I did it - so I would feel better. 0 1 2 3 4 38. I told someone that the problem was his or her fault and/or told someone to say sorry - so I would feel better. 0 1 2 3 4

159

39. I told someone the problem was my fault and/or I said I was sorry - to help fix the problem. 0 1 2 3 4 40. I held or played with my pet or stuffed animal - so I would feel better. 0 1 2 3 4 41. I tried to focus on my breathing and make it right. 0 1 2 3 4 42. I tried to be polite or humble, or to show respect or honor - so I would feel better. 0 1 2 3 4 43. I told someone that the problem was his or her fault and/or told someone to say sorry - to help fix the problem. 0 1 2 3 4 When people have problems they do many different things. When you had the problem we just asked you about (kids were mean to you), about how much did you do each of the following things? (Circle only one answer for each question) 0 1 2 3 4 | | | | | None A little A moderate Much Very at all amount much 44. I cried and showed sad feelings in front of someone - to help fix the problem. 0 1 2 3 4 45. I tried to hurt or do harm to someone’s body or someone’s stuff - without that person knowing I did it - to help fix the problem. 0 1 2 3 4 46. I told myself the problem would be over in a short time. 0 1 2 3 4 47. In front of someone, I got angry and yelled and/or hit something - so I would feel better. 0 1 2 3 4 48. I tried to remember what I did last time I had a similar problem. 0 1 2 3 4 49. I took a nap or went to bed early - so I would feel better. 0 1 2 3 4

160

50. I tried to directly annoy someone by doing things like poking him/her, grabbing at his/her things, making faces at him/her, etc. - so I would feel better. 0 1 2 3 4 51. I tried to be cheerful or happy in front of someone, or do nice things for someone - to help fix the problem. 0 1 2 3 4 52. I did something physically active like: rode my bike, went for a walk, or played sports - so I would feel better. 0 1 2 3 4 53. I got angry and yelled and/or hit something (but no one saw me do this) - so I would feel better. 0 1 2 3 4 54. I told myself that the problem is not so bad; that it could be worse. 0 1 2 3 4 When people have problems they do many different things. When you had the problem we just asked you about (kids were mean to you), about how much did you do each of the following things? (Circle only one answer for each question) 0 1 2 3 4 | | | | | None A little A moderate Much Very at all amount much 55. I tried to calm down. 0 1 2 3 4 56. I imagined what someone else would do if they had the same problem. 0 1 2 3 4 57. I laughed or joked aloud - so I would feel better. 0 1 2 3 4 58. I tried to be patient and “put up” with things the way they were. 0 1 2 3 4 59. I smoked cigarettes, drank alcohol, took some pills, or took some kind of drug (not medicine) - so I would feel better. 0 1 2 3 4 60. I went off by myself to get away from other people - to help fix the problem.

161

0 1 2 3 4 61. I pretended there was not a problem - so I would feel better. 0 1 2 3 4 62. I prayed to God, or to a relative who is no longer living, or to some other spirit - so I would feel better. 0 1 2 3 4 63. I tried to be polite or humble, or to show respect or honor - to help fix the problem. 0 1 2 3 4 64. I went off by myself to get away from other people - so I would feel better. 0 1 2 3 4 65. I cried (but no one saw me do this) - so I would feel better. 0 1 2 3 4

162

Additional 3 scenarios used in Part A of the Children’s Inventory of Coping (CIC)

The Children’s Inventory of Coping (CIC) - 2B Please think of the last time YOU HAD AN ARGUMENT WITH YOUR SISTER OR BROTHER. (If you do not have any sisters or brothers, think of the last time you had an argument with one of your cousins). Maybe this argument happened yesterday, last week, last month, or before then. Think real hard to remember exactly what happened. Picture the argument in your mind and then answer the following questions. (If you have never had this problem, just imagine you are having it right now).

The Children’s Inventory of Coping (CIC) - 2C

Please think of the last time YOU GOT WORRIED ABOUT HAVING A LOT OF SCHOOL WORK TO DO. Maybe you had a large homework assignment to do or an important test to study for. Maybe this happened to you yesterday, last week, last month, or before then. Think real hard to remember exactly what happened. Picture in your mind what was happening and then answer the following questions. (If you have never had this problem, just imagine you are having it right now).

The Children’s Inventory of Coping (CIC) - 2D

Please think of the last time YOU WERE UPSET ABOUT YOUR APPEARANCE OR DID NOT LIKE HOW YOU LOOKED. Maybe you felt overweight or fat. Maybe you felt unattractive or ugly. Maybe you did not like something else about how you looked. Maybe this happened to you yesterday, last week, last month, or before. Think real hard to remember exactly what happened. Picture in your mind what was happening and then answer the following questions. (If you have never had this problem, just imagine are having it right now).

163

Appendix D. Mother Questionnaires

164

School Performance and Well-being

1. How good is your child’s attendance record for school? (Circle one) 0 1 2 3 4 | | | | | Very Bad So-so Good Very Bad Good 2. How good is your child’s behavior record for school? (Circle one) 0 1 2 3 4 | | | | | Very Bad So-so Good Very Bad Good 3. How good are your child’s marks/grades for school? (Circle one) 0 1 2 3 4 | | | | | Very Bad So-so Good Very Bad Good 4. How satisfied are you with how well your child gets along with other kids around his/her age? (Circle one) 0 1 2 3 4 | | | | | Very Unsatisfied Neither Satisfied Very Unsatisfied Satisfied nor Satisfied Unsatisfied 5. How satisfied are you with your child’s appearance (his/her face, his/her body, etc.)? (Circle one) 0 1 2 3 4 | | | | | Very Unsatisfied Neither Satisfied Very Unsatisfied Satisfied nor Satisfied Unsatisfied 6. How satisfied are you with how well your child gets along with his/her sisters and brothers? (Circle one) (If he/she has no sisters/brothers, how about his/her cousins?) 0 1 2 3 4 | | | | | Very Unsatisfied Neither Satisfied Very Unsatisfied Satisfied nor Satisfied Unsatisfied

165

7. How satisfied are you with your child’s school marks/grades? (Circle one) 0 1 2 3 4 | | | | | Very Unsatisfied Neither Satisfied Very Unsatisfied Satisfied nor Satisfied Unsatisfied 8. How satisfied are you with how well you and your child get along? (Circle one) 0 1 2 3 4 | | | | | Very Unsatisfied Neither Satisfied Very Unsatisfied Satisfied nor Satisfied Unsatisfied 9. How satisfied are you with how well your child gets along with his/her father? (Circle one) 0 1 2 3 4 | | | | | Very Unsatisfied Neither Satisfied Very Unsatisfied Satisfied nor Satisfied Unsatisfied 10. How satisfied are you with your child’s life in general? (Circle one) 0 1 2 3 4 | | | | | Very Unsatisfied Neither Satisfied Very Unsatisfied Satisfied nor Satisfied Unsatisfied

166

The Socialization Inventory of Coping (SIC) - A

Part A. Please think of the last time KIDS (other people close to your child’s age) WERE MEAN TO YOUR CHILD. Maybe kids at school were mean to him/her. Maybe kids in your neighborhood were mean to him/her. Maybe they: teased him/her, or called him/her bad names, or pushed him/her around, or did something else to him/her that he/she did not like. Maybe this happened to your child yesterday, last week, last month, or before. Think real hard to remember exactly what you knew about what happened. Picture in your mind what was happening when you found out and then answer the following questions. (If your child has never had this problem, just imagine he/she is having it right now). 1. Where was your child when the problem happened? (for example, at a park, at school, etc.) _____________________________________________________________________ 2. Who was with your child when the problem happened? (for example, his/her friend, you, etc.) _____________________________________________________________________ 3. What was your child doing when the problem happened? (for example, playing, walking home, etc.) _____________________________________________________________________ 4. How much stress did your child seem to feel when he/she had the problem? (Circle one) 0 1 2 3 4 | | | | | None A little A moderate Much Very at all amount much 5. Sometimes there is nothing people can do about their problems. Other times, people have the chance to solve or fix their problems if they try. How much of a chance did your child have to solve or fix his/her problem? (Circle one) 0 1 2 3 4 | | | | | None A little A moderate Much Very at all amount much 6. When the problem happened, how much did your child think it was his/her fault? (Circle one) 0 1 2 3 4 | | | | | None A little A moderate Much Very at all amount much 7. When the problem happened, how much did your child think it was someone else’s fault? (Circle one) 0 1 2 3 4 | | | | | None A little A moderate Much Very at all amount much

167

8. About how many times did your child ACTUALLY have the problem in the past week? (Circle one) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6+ 9. When people have problems, sometimes they try very much to solve them and other times they do not try very much to solve them. In general, how much did your child try to solve his/her problem? (Circle one) 0 1 2 3 4 | | | | | None A little A moderate Much Very at all amount much 10. When your child had the problem, how much did he/she think about the feelings he/she was having about the problem? (Circle one) 0 1 2 3 4 | | | | | None A little A moderate Much Very at all amount much 11. When your child had the problem, how much did he/she think about the feelings of other people involved in the problem? (Circle one) 0 1 2 3 4 | | | | | None A little A moderate Much Very at all amount much 12. When your child had the problem, how much did he/she try to solve it his/her own way? (Circle one) 0 1 2 3 4 | | | | | None A little A moderate Much Very at all amount much 13. When your child had the problem, how much did he/she agree to solve it someone else’s way? In other words, how much did he/she compromise or cooperate with other people in solving his/her problem? (Circle one) 0 1 2 3 4 | | | | | None A little A moderate Much Very at all amount much 14. When your child had the problem, what did you DISCOURAGE him/her from doing to try to fix it? (Please write at least three things your child wanted to do to fix his/her problem, but you discouraged him/her from doing.) ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________

168

15. When your child had the problem, what did you DISCOURAGE him/her from doing to feel better? (Please write at least three things your child wanted to do to feel better about his/her problem, but you discouraged him/her from doing.) ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ 16. When your child had the problem, what did you ENCOURAGE him/her to do to try to fix it? (Please write at least three things you encouraged your child to do to fix his/her problem.) ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ 17. When your child had the problem, what did you ENCOURAGE him/her to do to feel better? (Please write at least three things you encouraged your child to do to feel better about his/her problem.) ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Part B. When people have problems they can do many different things. When your child had the problem we just asked you about (kids were mean to him/her), how much did you discourage or encourage each of the following things? (Circle only one answer for each question) -2 -1 0 1 2 | | | | | I greatly I somewhat I NEITHER I somewhat I greatly DIScouraged DIScouraged discouraged nor ENcouraged Encouraged my child my child encouraged my my child my child child 1. to laugh or joke aloud - to help fix the problem. -2 -1 0 1 2 2. to think about why the problem happened. -2 -1 0 1 2

169

When people have problems they can do many different things. When your child had the problem we just asked you about (kids were mean to him/her), how much did you discourage or encourage each of the following things? (Circle only one answer for each question) -2 -1 0 1 2 | | | | | I greatly I somewhat I NEITHER I somewhat I greatly DIScouraged DIScouraged discouraged nor ENcouraged ENcouraged my child my child encouraged my my child my child child 3. to try to hurt or do harm to someone’s body or someone’s stuff - without that person knowing it - so he/she (my child) would feel better. -2 -1 0 1 2 4. to day-dream about something and forgot all about the problem - so he/she would feel better. -2 -1 0 1 2 5. to try to get someone to feel guilty or to feel sorry for him/her - so he/she (my child) would feel better. -2 -1 0 1 2 6. to try to annoy someone in a “light” or “indirect” way (for example: to make someone wait for him/her; to purposely forget to do something for someone; to hide something someone was looking for; to be sarcastically polite to someone, etc.) - so he/she (my child) would feel better. -2 -1 0 1 2 7. to ignore or try to get away from the problem, by not thinking about it - so he/she would feel better. -2 -1 0 1 2 8. to try to think of the problem as a good challenge. -2 -1 0 1 2 9. to take blame for the problem and/or to say sorry - so he/she (my child) would feel better. -2 -1 0 1 2 10. to have something to eat or drink - so he/she would feel better. -2 -1 0 1 2 11. to think about all the things he/she could possibly do to fix the problem. -2 -1 0 1 2 12. to get angry and yell and/or hit something (in front of someone) - to help fix the problem. -2 -1 0 1 2

170

When people have problems they can do many different things. When your child had the problem we just asked you about (kids were mean to him/her), how much did you discourage or encourage each of the following things? (Circle only one answer for each question) -2 -1 0 1 2 | | | | | I greatly I somewhat I NEITHER I somewhat I greatly DIScouraged DIScouraged discouraged nor ENcouraged ENcouraged my child my child encouraged my my child my child child 13. to say bad things directly to someone’s face - so he/she (my child) would feel better. -2 -1 0 1 2 14. to get more information about the problem. -2 -1 0 1 2 15. to tell him/herself to divide the problem and take it “one step at a time.” -2 -1 0 1 2 16. to sit down and do something fun like: watch TV, listen to music, or play a game - so he/she would feel better. -2 -1 0 1 2 17. to imagine that he/she could easily solve the problem. -2 -1 0 1 2 18. to talk to me or to someone else - so he/she (my child) would feel better. -2 -1 0 1 2 19. to try to directly hurt or do harm to someone’s body or someone’s stuff - so he/she (my child) would feel better. -2 -1 0 1 2 20. to try to be cheerful or happy in front of someone, or to do nice things for someone - so he/she (my child) would feel better. -2 -1 0 1 2 21. to tell someone a lie (good or bad) - to help fix the problem. -2 -1 0 1 2 22. to try to hurt or do harm to someone’s feelings - without that person knowing it - to help fix the problem. -2 -1 0 1 2

171

23. to come to me or to go to be with someone - to help fix the problem. -2 -1 0 1 2 When people have problems they can do many different things. When your child had the problem we just asked you about (kids were mean to him/her), how much did you discourage or encourage each of the following things? (Circle only one answer for each question) -2 -1 0 1 2 | | | | | I greatly I somewhat I NEITHER I somewhat I greatly DIScouraged DIScouraged discouraged nor ENcouraged Encouraged my child my child encouraged my my child my child child 24. to make a plan to solve the problem. -2 -1 0 1 2 25. to talk to me or to someone else - to help fix the problem. -2 -1 0 1 2 26. to tell him/herself to keep trying as hard as he/she can. -2 -1 0 1 2 27. to try to directly hurt or do harm to someone’s body or someone’s stuff - to help fix the problem. -2 -1 0 1 2 28. to cry and show sad feelings in front of someone - so he/she (my child) would feel better. -2 -1 0 1 2 29. to come to me or to go to be with someone else - so he/she (my child) would feel better. -2 -1 0 1 2 30. to tell someone a lie (good or bad) - so he/she (my child) would feel better. -2 -1 0 1 2 31. to try to directly annoy someone by doing things like poking him/her, grabbing at his/her things, making faces at him/her - to help fix the problem. -2 -1 0 1 2 32. to pray to God, or to a relative who is no longer living, or to some other spirit - to help fix the problem. -2 -1 0 1 2

172

33. to try to annoy someone in a “light” or “indirect” way (for example: to make someone wait for him/her; to purposely forget to do something for someone; to hide something someone was looking for; to be sarcastically polite to someone, etc.) - to help fix the problem. -2 -1 0 1 2 When people have problems they can do many different things. When your child had the problem we just asked you about (kids were mean to him/her), how much did you discourage or encourage each of the following things? (Circle only one answer for each question) -2 -1 0 1 2 | | | | | I greatly I somewhat I NEITHER I somewhat I greatly DIScouraged DIScouraged discouraged nor ENcouraged ENcouraged my child my child encouraged my my child my child child 34. to try to think what would work best to fix the problem. -2 -1 0 1 2 35. to try to get someone to feel guilty or to feel sorry for him/her - to help fix the problem. -2 -1 0 1 2 36. to say bad things directly to someone’s face - to help fix the problem. -2 -1 0 1 2 37. to try to hurt or do harm to someone’s feelings - without that person knowing it - so he/she (my child) would feel better. -2 -1 0 1 2 38. to tell someone that the problem was his or her fault and/or to tell someone to say sorry - so he/she (my child) would feel better. -2 -1 0 1 2 39. to take blame for the problem and and/or to say sorry - to help fix the problem. -2 -1 0 1 2 40. to hold or play with his/her pet or stuffed animal - so he/she would feel better. -2 -1 0 1 2 41. to try to focus on his/her breathing and make it right. -2 -1 0 1 2

173

42. to try to be polite or humble, or to show respect or honor - so he/she (my child) would feel better. -2 -1 0 1 2 43. to tell someone that the problem was his or her fault and/or to tell someone to say sorry - to help fix the problem. -2 -1 0 1 2 44. to cry and show sad feelings in front of someone - to help fix the problem. -2 -1 0 1 2 When people have problems they can do many different things. When your child had the problem we just asked you about (kids were mean to him/her), how much did you discourage or encourage each of the following things? (Circle only one answer for each question) -2 -1 0 1 2 | | | | | I greatly I somewhat I NEITHER I somewhat I greatly DIScouraged DIScouraged discouraged nor ENcouraged ENcouraged my child my child encouraged my my child my child child 45. to try to hurt or do harm to someone’s body or someone’s stuff - without that person knowing it - to help fix the problem. -2 -1 0 1 2 46. to tell him/herself the problem would be over in a short time. -2 -1 0 1 2 47. to get angry and yell and/or hit something (in front of someone) - so he/she (my child) would feel better. -2 -1 0 1 2 48. to try to remember what he/she did last time he/she had a similar problem. -2 -1 0 1 2 49. to take a nap or go to bed early - so he/she would feel better. -2 -1 0 1 2 50. to try to directly annoy someone by doing things like poking him/her, grabbing at his/her things, making faces at him/her, etc. - so he/she (my child) would feel better. -2 -1 0 1 2 51. to try to be cheerful or happy in front of someone, or to do nice things for someone - to help fix the problem.

174

-2 -1 0 1 2 52. to do something physically active like: ride his/her bike, go for a walk, or play sports - so he/she would feel better. -2 -1 0 1 2 53. to get angry and yell and/or hit something (but alone or in privacy) - so he/she would feel better. -2 -1 0 1 2 54. to tell him/herself that the problem is not so bad; that it could be worse. -2 -1 0 1 2 When people have problems they can do many different things. When your child had the problem we just asked you about (kids were mean to him/her), how much did you discourage or encourage each of the following things? (Circle only one answer for each question) -2 -1 0 1 2 | | | | | I greatly I somewhat I NEITHER I somewhat I greatly DIScouraged DIScouraged discouraged nor ENcouraged ENcouraged my child my child encouraged my my child my child child 55. to try to calm down. -2 -1 0 1 2 56. to imagine what I or someone else would do if they had the same problem. -2 -1 0 1 2 57. to laugh or joke aloud - so he/she (my child) would feel better. -2 -1 0 1 2 58. to try to be patient and “put up” with things the way they are. -2 -1 0 1 2 59. to smoke cigarettes, drink alcohol, take some pills, or take some kind of drug (not medicine) - so he/she would feel better. -2 -1 0 1 2 60. to go off by him/herself to get away from other people - to help fix the problem. -2 -1 0 1 2

175

61. to pretend there was not a problem - so he/she would feel better. -2 -1 0 1 2 62. to pray to God, or to a relative who is no longer living, or to some other spirit - so he/she would feel better. -2 -1 0 1 2 63. to try to be polite or humble, or to show respect or honor - to help fix the problem. -2 -1 0 1 2 64. to go off by him/herself to get away from other people - so he/she (my child) would feel better. -2 -1 0 1 2 65. to cry (but alone or in privacy) - so he/she would feel better. -2 -1 0 1 2

176

Additional 3 Scenarios Used in Part A of the Socialization Inventory of Coping

The Socialization Inventory of Coping (SIC) - B Please think of the last time you knew YOUR CHILD HAD AN ARGUMENT WITH HIS/HER SISTER/BROTHER. (If he/she does not have any sisters or brothers, think of an argument your child had with one of his/her cousins). Maybe this argument happened yesterday, last week, last month, or before then. Think real hard to remember exactly what happened. Picture the argument in your mind and then answer the following questions. (If your child has never had this problem, just imagine he/she is having it right now).

The Socialization Inventory of Coping (SIC) - C Please think of the last time you knew YOUR CHILD GOT WORRIED ABOUT HAVING A LOT OF SCHOOL WORK TO DO. Maybe he/she had a large homework assignment to do or an important test to study for. Maybe this happened to your child yesterday, last week, last month, or before. Think real hard to remember exactly what you knew about what happened. Picture in your mind what was happening when you found out and then answer the following questions. (If your child has never had this problem, just imagine he/she is having it right now).

The Socialization Inventory of Coping (SIC) - D

Please think of the last time YOU THOUGHT YOUR CHILD MIGHT BE UPSET ABOUT HIS OR HER APPEARANCE. Maybe he/she felt overweight. Maybe he/she felt unattractive or ugly. Maybe he/she did not like something else about how he/she looked. Maybe this happened to your child yesterday, last week, last month, or before. Think real hard to remember exactly what you knew about what happened. Picture in your mind what was happening when you found out and then answer the following questions. (If your child has never had this problem, just imagine he/she is having it right now).

177

Appendix E. Japanese Versions of Questionnaires

For further information contact the author: [email protected] www.depaul.edu/~dkilburg

2001 Socialization Of Stress, Coping, & Adjustment In Japan

Education

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