STRESS AND COPING

IN JAPANESE MIDDLE CHILDHOOD

A Thesis

Presented in

Partial Fulfillment of the

Requirements for the Degree of

Master of Arts

BY

DONALD F. KILBURG III

OCTOBER, 1997

Department of Psychology

College of Liberal Arts and Sciences

DePaul University

Chicago, Illinois

ii

THESIS COMMITTEE

Linda A. Camras, Ph.D.

Chairperson

Kathryn E. Grant, Ph.D.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I express deep gratitude to Dr. Linda A. Camras for sharing her ideas,

expertise and guidance throughout this research project, and to Dr. Kathryn E. Grant

for her comments on drafts and future directions for this line of research. I am also

grateful to Dr. Paul E. Jose, of Loyola University for providing the original measures

of this research, as well as invaluable direction. Sincere thanks go to Sawako Suzuki

for her careful assistance with data translation and entry. I am also indebted to Rikako

Takatsu and Mikako Nakajima for their work in translating the original measures from

English to Japanese. Additionally, I greatly appreciate Itsuko Takatsu, Mikako

Toshitaka, and Robert Purcell who facilitated the data collection. Lastly, I thank the

children who participated in this study, and their parents for their consent. Without

them, this research would not have been possible.

iv

VITA

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

1970. The writer 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. He will receive his Master of Arts degree in Experimental Psychology from

DePaul University in Chicago, Illinois in 1997.

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Thesis Committee………………………………………………………...... ii

Acknowledgments………………………………………………………..... iii

Vita……………………………………………………………………….... iv

List of Tables…………………………………………………………….… viii

List of Figures…………………………………………………………….... ix

CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION ..............................................……........ 1

Definitions of Stress and Coping ...........................................…..... 1

Person-based Approaches to Stress and Coping ......................…....2

Situation-based Approaches to Stress and Coping ...................…... 4

Interactionist Approaches to Stress and Coping ........................... 4

Transactionist Approaches to Stress and Coping .......................... 5

General Methodological Issues in Stress Research ...................…... 9

General Methodological Issues in Coping Research ...................… 10

Design and Measurement in Stress Research ............................…. 11

Design and Measurement in Coping Research ...........................…..15

Adult Stress and Coping Research ............................................… 18

Child Stress and Coping Research: General ................................. 22

Child Stress and Coping Research: Middle Childhood .................... 24

Ethnic Differences in Children’s Stress and Coping………………. 26

Parental Warmth and Control………………………........................29

Summary and Critique of American Studies of Children’s

Stress and Coping………………………………………… 30

vi

Cross-cultural Stress and Coping Research: Issues ................……. 31

Japan as a Setting for Cross-cultural Research…………………… 34

Cross-cultural Stress and Coping Research Utilizing Japanese

Participants...........…………………………….................... 35

Rationale, Overview, Hypotheses, and Research Questions………. 41

CHAPTER II. METHOD ..............................................................…... 46

Research Participants ..........................................................…….. 46

Materials .............................................................................…... 47

Design .............................................................................………... 49

Procedure ...........................................................................…….. 50

Coding ..................................................................................…..... 51

CHAPTER III. RESULTS ............................................................…….... 53

Tests of Hypotheses I & II and Research Questions I, II, & III…… 53

Tests of Hypotheses III, IV, V, VI, & VII and Research

Questions IV, V, & VI………………………………......….61

Tests of Hypotheses VIII, IX, X and Research Question VII…….. 68

Tests of Hypotheses XI, XII, XIII, XIV and Research Questions

VIII, IX, X, & XI………………………………….............. 69

Ancillary Analyses of Stress Scales’ Items……………................... 74

Ancillary Analyses of Coping Scale Variables………….................. 82

Ancillary Yamamoto and Davis (1982) Comparison Analyses…..... 84

Summary of Results………………………………………………... 89

CHAPTER IV. DISCUSSION…………………………………….............91

vii

The Experience of Stress……......................................................... 91

The Utilization of Coping Strategies………................................... 101

Cross-cultural Comparisons………………......................................106

Limitations of this Research………………………………….......... 108

Directions for Future Study........………………………………....... 112

CHAPTER V. SUMMARY…………………………...............……... 113

References ................................................................……........……… 118

Appendix A-1. Child Consent Form .......................................................... 129

Appendix A-2. Parent Consent Form……..……………………………..... 130

Appendix B-1. Child Demographic Form……………………………….... 131

Appendix B-2. Parent Demographic Form ................................................ 132

Appendix C. The Everyday Life Events Scale for Children ........................ 133

Appendix D. The Major Life Events Scale for Children ............................. 137

Appendix E. Everyday and Major Life Event Stress Key............................ 140

Appendix F. The Children’s Integrated Stress and Coping Scale ............... 142

Appendix G. The Children’s Integrated Stress and Coping Key .........….... 144

Appendix H. The Children’s Perception of Parenting Style

Questionnaire……………………………………………………..... 145

Appendix I. The Children’s Perception of Parenting Style

Questionnaire Key........…………………………………………..... 146

Appendix J. Japanese Versions of Forms/Measures ................................... 147

viii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Multivariate analysis of variance: children’s everydaylife event stress……………………………………………………...55

Table 2. Multivariate analysis of variance: children’s majorlife event stress………………………………………………...........55

Table 3. Mean stress scores for everyday life event stress by sex……........ 56

Table 4. Mean stress scores for everyday life event stress by age……….... 58

Table 5. Mean stress scores for major life event stress by age x sex……....60

Table 6. Multivariate analysis of variance: coping as a function ofsex & age........................................................................................ 63

Table 7. Mean coping scores by sex…....................................................... 63

Table 8. Mean coping scores by age…………........................................... 66

Table 9. Multivariate analysis of variance: coping as a function ofwarmth & control…………….........................................................72

Table 10. Mean coping scores by warmth…………….............................. 73

Table 11. Multivariate analysis of variance: selected life events’ stressintensity as a function of sex & age…………................................. 78

Table 12. Selected life events, stress intensity, & stress occurrenceby age............................................................................................. 79

Table 13. Selected life events, stress intensity, & stress occurrenceby sex…..........................................................................................80

Table 14. Selected life events, stress intensity, & stress occurrenceby warmth....................................................................................... 81

Table 15. Selected life events, stress intensity, & stress occurrenceby control….................................................................................... 81

Table 16. Multivariate analysis of variance: selected coping strategiesas a function of sex & age…………............................................... 83

Table 17. Selected coping strategies by sex................................................ 84

ix

Table 18. Major life event experiences in Yamamoto & Davis (1982)and the present study……………....................................................86

Table 19. Mean cumulative stress occurrence and intensity by sex……..... 87

Table 20. Mean cumulative stress occurrence and intensity by age……..... 88

x

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Mean everyday life event stress by SEX……………………….... 56

Figure 2: Mean major life event stress by AGE………………………….... 58

Figure 3: Mean major life event peer relations stress by AGE X SEX……. 61

Figure 4: Mean coping scores by SEX…………………………………….. 64

Figure 5: Mean coping scores by AGE………………………………..........67

Figure 6: Mean coping scores by WARMTH…………………………........ 73

CHAPTER I.

INTRODUCTION

Definitions of Stress and Coping

The words “stress” and “coping” are so widely used one would assume their

meanings are completely clear. When you get “stressed out,” you have to “deal with

it.” To many, it is just that simple. Indeed, a staggering number of stress-related

articles and books have been written under the guise of self-help and general advice.

The mass media and popular American culture have become obsessed with such

pursuits. The craze has even gone world-wide, with versions of the word “stress”

coming into use in most of the major languages. The New York Times recently ran an

article that whimsically declared stress to be “as useful as a Visa card and as satisfying

as a Coke. It's noncommittal. Also, noncommittable.” (Shweder, 1997).

The problem with popular conceptions of stress and coping is that they

oversimplify the issues. Stress is described as a kind of tangible force, external to its

victims. In these cases, coping is portrayed as a kind of internal “ammunition.” Under

scrutiny, internal and external dynamics are not so clearly demarcated. In actuality,

direction of cause and effect in stress and coping research is intimately tied to ongoing

exchanges between the person and his or her environment. According to Carolyn M.

Aldwin, a prominent stress researcher, “The important point is to understand clearly

which components of the stress process are important in a given context and to make

sure that the appropriate concepts and tools are being utilized, whether in research or

clinical work.” (1994, p. 43).

2

Person-based Approaches to Stress and Coping

One purpose of studying stress and coping is to see how different people

respond to stress and how that in turn affects their experience of that stress, positively

or negatively. The approaches to these issues differ in the degree to which they

emphasize the importance of the various factors involved.

Person-based approaches suppose that personality characteristics come first in

governing the stress-coping relationship. There are three basic schools of thought

under this rubric: psychoanalytic, personality trait, and perceptual style.

The psychoanalytic school of Sigmond Freud was instrumental in beginning the

systematic observation of coping strategies. The id-ego-superego model set forth by

Freud led to the detailed formulation of defense mechanisms by his daughter Anna

(1966). She described the ways in which the ego acts as a go-between, defending and

negotiating differences between internal demands and external realities. The major

ego defense mechanisms include: suppression, denial, projection, reaction formation,

rationalization, and sublimation (Freud, A., 1966). These defenses have unique

characteristics. For example, projection involves casting off one's feelings onto

someone else. The basic idea of all the defense mechanisms is that over the course of

development, individuals learn to distort reality and/or transduce their internal

demands.

There are several limitations inherent in the psychoanalytic school. The

emphasis is on how the individual defends and controls anxiety. His or her defense

mechanisms are assumed to be the deep-rooted consequences of childhood trauma and

therefore enduring personality factors. Unfortunately, this sidesteps the mutability of

3

such mechanisms given situational variance. Another shortcoming is that the

deliberate, active aspects of coping are often neglected in favor of the view that

negotiations between the individual and environment are typically the result of

unconscious adaptation.

The personality trait school attempts to study coping as it relates to categories

of response dispositions various people may have. A study conducted by Wortman

and Silver (1989) provides an example of this school. Four stable coping styles were

found among people grieving the death of a loved one: acute grievers, chronic

grievers, delayed reaction grievers, and those who appeared not to experience any

distress. Further research conducted by Bolder (1990) and Holakan and Moos (1985)

has confirmed the influence of personality in the coping process. Yet like the

psychoanalytic school, the trait approach is prone to ignore environmental

considerations that influence how someone will react.

Lastly, researchers focusing on perceptual style argue that the basis of coping

is found in how individuals process information, as opposed to emotion. The earliest

example of this kind of study was conducted by Byrne (1964). A dichotomy was

drawn between repression and sensitization (also called blunting and monitoring); that

is, between people who approach information and those who avoid it (the approach-

avoidance dichotomy). This perspective shares advantages and disadvantages with the

previous two schools. It allows for simple comparison. However, that may be at the

expense of situational factors. An individual may be found to typically process

information a certain way, but that could largely be a function of context, for example

work versus home.

4

Situation-based Approaches to Stress and Coping

As the name suggests, situation-based approaches emphasize environmental

demands that shape how individuals respond to stress. Different situations are

presumed to “pull for” different coping reactions. For example, the way in which a

person responds to the stress of losing his or her job could be different from the way in

which he or she responds to divorce. To study these responses one need not have

preconceptions. Rather, one could simply look at a particular stressor and study the

coping strategy employed. Pearlin and Schooler (1978) outlined major social roles:

work, marital, parental, household economics, and health. Some coping strategies

were utilized in some situations but not others. Thus, the importance of situation-

based approaches was shown. Situational influence has been further demonstrated by

other researchers, including Mattlin et al. (1990). Yet, as one might suspect, the

criticism of situation-based approaches has largely been that they neglect personality

factors.

Interactionist Approaches to Stress and Coping

The previous two approaches reduced the stress and coping relationship to one

of stimulus and response. The person type was said to have influenced the coping

type. The environment was said to have influenced the coping type. In a one-way

fashion, the environment might also be said to have influenced the person type, and in

turn, the coping type. Therefore, a resolution of the conflict between personality and

situational approaches ostensibly lies in models that incorporate interaction.

Proponents of such models argue that both environmental and dispositional

characteristics directly affect coping. This is an improvement over the previous two

5

approaches. Aldwin (1994) explains that this model does accommodate both the

personality approach advocated by Bolger’s emotionality concept (1990) and the

environmental approach of Mattlin, Wethington, and Kessler’s stressor-type

formulation (1990). Yet an even more encompassing view is taken with

transactionism.

Transactionist Approaches to Stress and Coping

The model that best represents the transactionist approaches is that of Richard

S. Lazarus, the dominant researcher and theorist in the field, who has provided training

for numerous other researchers, including Aldwin. Lazarus’ refers to his model as the

cognitive-motivational-relational theory of coping (Lazarus and Folkman, 1984;

Lazarus, 1991). The emphasis is on the interdependence of process variables. The

meaning of distinct emotion variables is presumed to change as person-environment

relationships develop. In other words, the emotional values of such changing person-

environment relationships is highly sensitive to cognitive interpretation. Lazarus

therefore argued that a new level of theoretical analysis, called relational meaning, is

necessary in understanding emotion and adaptation. As in the interactionist

approaches, coping is influenced by both the person and the environment. Lazarus

argues that, in addition, coping influences the person and the environment in return.

Moreover, person and environment factors also directly affect one another. If the

three elements are represented ideographically as a triangle, each corner can affect the

others.

According to Lazarus’ view, perception of environmental conditions is

inextricably linked with one’s beliefs and goals. Cognitive processes are, therefore,

6

central to the model. Lazarus identified primary and secondary appraisal as the

defining concepts in this analysis. Primary appraisal involves the determination that an

encounter is relevant to one's well-being. 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).

So it is through feedback that coping influences appraisal, and hence emotion. It is

useful to conceptualize this as a serial process. However, because coping directly and

indirectly affects subsequent appraisal, it is a reflection of joint involvement of ongoing

parallel interaction between person and environment variables.

According to Lazarus’ formulation, stress depends upon appraisal. That is,

determination that an encounter is relevant to well-being (i.e., that it is stressful or

uplifting) cannot be made apart from the perceiver (i.e., whether something is deemed

stressful always depends on subjective experience). Lazarus points out that

“Ultimately 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 - a

process I have been calling appraisal.” (1991, p. 10).

Coping is defined by Lazarus (1991, p. 112) 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.”

Folkman and Lazarus (1988) have identified problem-focused coping and emotion-

focused coping as distinct strategies. The former is action-centered and aimed at

7

changing the objective reality of the person-environment relationship. Lazarus

provides the example of facing off with an enemy. Display of aggression could have

the effect of changing the actual relationship if the enemy is warded off. In contrast,

emotion-focused coping involves thinking and activity aimed at changing the

subjective reality of the person-environment relationship. In the face of an enemy, one

may avoid focusing on that enemy and therefore change the mere experience of the

actual relationship. Use of the term "focused" indicates that the distinction between

problem and emotion coping is a matter of emphasis. In practice, coping that changes

appraisal likely results in some degree of actual change and vice versa.

Deliberation is an additional concern in clarifying what constitutes coping.

Lazarus (1991) contrasts deliberate coping efforts with automatic action tendencies.

Biological urges to act distinguish one emotion from another. Lazarus’ examples are

attack/anger and escape/fear. Such emotions are experienced in conjunction with

nondeliberate, primitive motivating tendencies. Coping occurs as one's deliberations

expand or constrain action tendencies.

This deliberation is likely to be very context sensitive. As Laux and Weber

(1991) argue, the intentions underlying coping differ for each emotion. In Lazarus

terminology, “each cognitive-motivational-relational configuration might differently

influence the coping process.” (1991, p. 115). How a person copes depends on

possibilities, appraisals, and goals. To understand an individual’s coping effort, the

specific goals he or she brought to the encounter and the specific goals that emerged in

the encounter must be understood. Lazarus provides the example of an individual who

is threatened. According to Lazarus, if self-image is an important issue with that

8

person, then an anger-appropriate appraisal may be made and anger may be

demonstrated. Conversely, if a person’s primary goals center around relationships,

then anxiety-centered threat encounters are “apt to be dealt with by strategies aimed at

preserving the relationship in the interest of obtaining reassurance and emotional

support.” (1991, p. 15).

Aldwin (1994, p. 6) explains that two assumptions of transactionist models, in

general, are especially relevant to stress and coping research. She argues the first

quite succinctly that “if mind and brain do transact, then, being regulated by the brain,

organ systems are subject to influence by the mind, and, in turn, anything that affects

the mind (e.g. society and culture). Thus, seemingly distinct levels of analysis --

sociocultural, psychological, and biological -- are all linked. Further, how a culture or

society is structured has implications for an individual’s physiological well-being, not

only through the direct allocation of resources (Pearlin, 1989), but also through

influencing characteristic psychological states and stress levels (Colby, 1987).” The

second assumption is that transactionist models necessarily imply the importance of

developmental processes. The nature of transaction is change. Accordingly, coping

should be considered both cause and effect, over a multitude of levels of analysis,

across the entire range of development.

Lazarus’ cognitive-motivational-relational theory will likely be the dominant

model for some time. It appears to encompass all the significant relationships between

factors that have been demonstrated to be important. However, research has not yet

addressed the full range of the model’s implications.

General Methodological Issues in Stress Research

9

Aldwin (1994) cites three basic issues concerning stress research designs. The

first relates to the temporal relationship between stressors and their associated health

outcomes. There may be cases where stress and illness do not coincide in time, yet are

causally related, and vice versa. This is because relatively insignificant illnesses may

come and go in a short time-frame while chronic illnesses may take longer periods to

develop and recede, if there is recession at all. Thus, special consideration of the

nature of particular illnesses is required.

Cultural and developmental appropriateness of stress items is the second issue.

What is potentially stressful for individuals of one age or cultural group may not be for

another. Attention must be paid to research participant demographics from the earliest

stages of instrument design.

Thirdly, whether stress effects are generally cumulative, multiplicative, or

asymptotic remains controversial. It may be a highly situationally-dependent matter.

Length of time a stressor exerts its effects is an issue as well. It is generally thought

that daily life event stress lasts 24 to 48 hours (DeLongis, Folkman, and Lazarus,

1988), major life event stress lasts about six months to a year (Depue and Monroe,

1986), whereas traumatic stress can extend decades after the original event that

precipitated it (Page, Engdahl, and Eberly, 1991).

General Methodological Issues in Coping Research

Measurement of coping is even more challenging than measurement of stress.

Lazarus’ cognitive-motivational-relational theory reasons that the stress-coping

process is multi-faceted. The myriad techniques of measurement reflect this reality.

Researchers typically choose to focus on a particular aspect of the stress-coping

10

process. One researcher’s emphasis is not necessarily more or less important than

another’s. Rather, they are pieces of the same whole.

With that in mind, there are several fundamental controversies relating to

coping theory that merit further elaboration here. Firstly, should inventory items be

general or situation-specific? This question returns to the issue of person versus

environment. To be sure, there is a tradeoff. If coping strategies are assessed in

specific form, findings are at risk of not being easily generalizable. Conversely, if

strategies are assessed too generally, they may not capture contextual peculiarities.

Secondly, are simpler conceptualizations of coping better than complex ones?

An example of a simple conceptualization can be found in the approach-avoidance line

of coping research that will be discussed below. Studies like these are theory driven in

nature. They take broad constructs and attempt to replicate relationships between

them. Researchers may be compromising when they opt for such discrete and often

dichotomous variables. Conversely, complex conceptualizations may limit

generalizability. Whether this is an issue depends in large part on the researchers goal.

Lastly, should coping inventories merely question whether or not a strategy

was used, or should they also have scales for extent of use? If participants are only

asked whether or not they used a strategy, nothing will be learned about how the

strategy was actually carried out. The transactionist would argue that the meaning of

a strategy to a particular person is of prime importance. However, there is concern

about how participants interpret questions about effort. The possibilities are in terms

of: frequency, duration, intensity, and usefulness. Unfortunately, wording questions

about extent of use more specifically may risk making them inapplicable to the

11

particular coping strategy. It seems that there will always be individual differences in

how people interpret questions about extent. Indeed, there can even be different

thresholds for willingness to report mere use of a strategy. Ideally, multiple

assessment items can be used to minimize such biases.

Design and Measurement in Stress Research

Traumatic events, major life events, and daily life events are commonly used to

look at stress. There are also measures that attempt to assess role strain, or systematic

stress from a certain setting. Outside of such inventory methods, are clinical

interviews and laboratory experiments. None of these methods alone are completely

adequate.

Traumatic event stressors fall into three categories: natural and technological

disasters, war and related problems, and individual trauma. Disasters of the first

category typically happen quickly, with extreme impact, allowing victims very little

personal control. Examples include: floods, tornadoes, earthquakes, and nuclear

reactor problems. Because of their magnitude they happen to groups of people, who

usually have little warning. Janis and Mann (1977) showed that even when warning is

provided, people are quite proficient at ignoring it. Of note, people who try to

exercise control in these kinds of traumas (e.g., by rescue or relief attempts) typically

show the fewest psychological symptoms afterwards (Erikson, 1976).

War also affects groups and involves extreme impacts, but this trauma is

usually drawn out after extensive warning. To be sure, there are grave effects for

most involved in this kind of trauma. However, Aldwin et al. (1994) showed that if

veterans could frame their experience of war as having been beneficial, they could

12

decrease Post Traumatic Stress Disorder symptoms later in life. Indeed, combat can

have positive effects on those who endure. Schnurr et al. (1993) demonstrated

moderate combat exposure to improve long-term psychological functioning. Elder

and Clipp (1989) listed several advantages: mastery, self-esteem, improved coping and

leadership skills.

Individual trauma involves major incidents that happen to individuals or small

groups. Major incidents are contrasted with minor ones in terms of quality. For

example, the experiences of rape, molestation, and kidnapping are all qualitatively

different from that of inadvertently locking your keys in your car. The most common

type of individual trauma is an automobile accident (Norris, 1992). Such traumas can

have life-long effects (see Aldwin, 1994, for a review of this literature).

Contrasted with individual traumatic event stressors are major life event

stressors. These include bereavement, divorce, and job loss. Holmes and Rahe (1967)

constructed the Schedule of Readjustment Rating Scale (SRRS) to assess the amount

of adaptational demand that an individual faces. Stressful life events were assigned

values, with death of a spouse ranking the highest. The SRRS spawned other

inventories including the Psychiatric Epidemiological Research Interview

(Dohrenwend et al., 1978) and the Life Experiences Survey (Sarason et al., 1978).

The main validity issue with these kinds of scales is whether or not consensus or

individual perception should be used to determine stressfulness. There are also

reliability concerns as to whether participants’ memories can be trusted.

Daily life event stressors, or hassles as they are known, have been shown to

have a greater effect on health than relatively rare life event stressors (Lazarus and

13

Folkman, 1984; Rowlison and Felner, 1989; Weinberger, Hiner, and Tiernery, 1987).

These include: “problems getting along with fellow workers,” “planning or preparing

meals,” “not getting enough sleep.,” “too many interruptions,” and the like (DeLongis

et al., 1988). The problem is that the greater correlation may be due in part to a

statistical artifact (1994, p. 65). Everyone experiences daily hassles. There are many

life events that affect only a minority of us. Consequently, daily hassle scales typically

have greater variance, and thus better lend themselves to statistical analysis.

Promisingly though, measures of chronic daily hassles may match well with those of

role strain (Lazarus, 1990).

Role strain studies have grown out of attempts to study stress as a contextual,

sociological phenomenon. Sociologists study how societal structures affect

macrolevel stress indicators. For example, they might consider the effect of the

unemployment rate on suicide rates. Work stress has been the main focus of role

strain investigators. Such stress may involve: heavy workload, poor workplace

conditions, and interpersonal problems with other workers.

Early role strain studies looked at the stress, “out there,” in the environment of

particular occupations. This stress was presumed to be injurious to most people. An

example of this is Rose’s (1978) study on air traffic controllers. Higher rates of stress-

related disorders (e.g., high-blood pressure and stomach ulcers) were correlated with

demands on attention, judgment, and decision-making.

More recent studies have admitted the interaction between person and

environment. For example, Carrere et al. (1991) studied the stress of San Fransisco

bus drivers as a function of their personality type. Type A personalities were shown to

14

perceive their environment as more stressful and to have higher levels of urinary

catecholamines. Karasek and Theorell (1990) added the factors of responsibility and

control. Their longitudinal research suggests that workers with high-responsibility and

low-control are more likely to develop, and die from, coronary heart disease.

Pearlin and Schooler (1978) claim that chronic role strain is the best indicator

of an individual's stress. They defined four basic roles: marital, parental, occupational,

and household economics. Their measurement of stress and coping was specific to

those domains. In their view, negative effects of life event stressors happen because

they cause disruptions in the four basic roles. The suggestion of role strain approaches

in general is that there are systematic, social causes of stress.

The clinical interview is another example of how stress has been measured.

The aim is to bypass the accuracy concerns of self-report questionnaires. A popular

semistructured interview called the Life Events and Difficulties Schedules (LEDS) was

developed by Brown (1989). Aldwin et al. (1993) reported that by using interviews,

they were able to substantially decrease the number of participants who reported “no

problems” on self-report measures. However, as with all measures, there are trade-

offs. Interviews are obviously more time-consuming and labor intensive.

Laboratory experiments have been conducted on animals and humans, to afford

greater control over stress and coping variables. A classic example of a study using

humans is that of Lazarus et al. (1962). Participants viewed stressful films and were

asked to either empathize with or detach from the subject of the film, depending on the

condition. Physiological reactions were shown to be affected by the types of cognitive

15

processes participants used. Experimentation is limited by ethical considerations.

However it will likely continue to be useful in examining the neurophysiology of stress.

Design and Measurement in Coping Research

Coping researchers typically ask participants what they did and how they

thought and felt in stressful situations. The main techniques have been reflective of the

theoretical positions mentioned earlier. The basic controversy is over whether coping

is more a function of stable, person-based characteristics or of fluctuating, situation-

based characteristics.

Early person-based approaches typically used standard personality trait tests to

infer coping style (Haan, 1977). More recent ones have inquired as to what

participants usually do in responding to general problems (Carver et al., 1989; Endler

and Parker, 1990). The underlying assumption is that individuals cope the same way,

regardless of stressor type. One problem with person-based approaches is that

participants may overestimate the cross-situational consistency of their coping

responses (Fondacaro and Moos, 1987; McCrae, 1989; Folkman and Lazarus, 1980).

The Pearlin and Schooler (1978) study mentioned in the preceding section,

provides an example of a situation-based approach to coping. Strategies were

assessed within individuals’ role domains (i.e., marital, parental, occupational &

household economics). The researchers attempted to determine how individuals

coped in these domains, hypothesizing that individuals cope in the same manner within

a domain, but not across domains.

This hypothesis is not necessarily more reasonable than that of the person-

based approach. Firstly, there may be cases where person characteristics outweigh

16

situation characteristics. For example, there is some evidence that neurotics may use

more emotion-focused coping than problem-focused, regardless of situation (Bolger,

1990). Secondly, there may be cases of coping inconsistency within situations or

roles, as a function of variation from episode to episode. For example, Folkman and

Lazarus (1985) found that how students cope with test taking can change greatly over

time.

Ogrocki et al. (1990) studied the relationship between person and situation-

based coping measures. Across situations, the situation-based measures were more

strongly correlated with each other than were the person-based measures, suggesting

that they may be more accurate assessments of coping behaviors. Using situation-

based approaches, participants have clearly been shown to use different coping

strategies with different problems (Billings and Moos, 1984; Folkman and Lazarus,

1980; McCrae, 1984; Mattlin et al., 1990).

In contrast to purely person-based or situation-based approaches, transactionist

approaches do not assume any consistency in use of coping strategies within or across

situations. Instead, transactionist approaches ask participants about specific episodes.

For example, Moos et al. (1990) asked participants to recall what they did in a

particular life event of the past year. Other researchers have asked participants to

write in diaries every day (Stone et al., 1993). The important point of a transactionist

approach is that it asks participants to recall specific, recent events and to recount their

emotions, cognitions, and behaviors with each of those events alone. As such, this

approach does not rely on participants’ often dubious generalized descriptions of their

behavior. The most commonly used measure of this type is the Ways of Coping Scale

17

(WOCS) (Folkman and Lazarus, 1980; Folkman et al., 1986). It will be discussed in

the next section.

Transactionist approaches attempt to control both the situation characteristics

and the specific stressful stimulus, in order to best consider person-environment-

coping dynamics. Holding such items constant, researchers have demonstrated that

coping is definitely not a fixed phenomenon. It is influenced by personality (Bolger,

1990; Friedman et al., 1992; Long and Sangster, 1993) and context (Folkman and

Lazarus, 1986; Heim et al., 1993; Mattlin et al., 1990), as well as by physical aspects

of setting (Mechanic, 1978).

The main problem with transactionist approaches is that variability of stressors

is almost unlimited. This being the case, the ultimate choice between the various

approaches would seem to depend on the particular research question. For prediction

of participant performance in a given role domain, without respect to variation within

that domain, situation-based measures may suffice. In contrast, for long-term, general

prediction, a researcher should probably use person-based measures (Aldwin, 1994).

Finally, for prediction of participant performance in particular instances, it is probably

best to use transactionist measures.

Adult Stress and Coping Research

Research on stress and coping in general has burgeoned in the past two

decades. Vingerhoets and Marcellissen’s (1988) review tallied almost 10,000 articles

on stress and coping between 1976 and 1985 alone. Coping has been demonstrated to

be of central importance in the relationship between stress and psychological and

physical adaptation (Aldwin and Revenson, 1987, Billings and Moos, 1981, Collins,

18

Baum, and Singer 1983, Folkman, Lazarus, Gruen, and Delongis, 1986, Pearlin and

Schooler, 1978). It has also been shown to be extremely diverse in the forms it can

take (Coelho, Hamburg, and Adams, 1974). This is due to the many factors that can

influence the overall process. These include situation, personality, and culture (Aldwin

and Revenson, 1987).

Studies on adult stress and coping have been conducted using inventories,

interviews, observation, and even experimentally induced variables. There is a large

body of literature related to the various types of stressors and their effects on physical

and mental health. A full review of this literature is beyond the scope of the present

paper. However, basic findings and concerns will be discussed. For substantial

reviews of the bulk of the literature, see Lazarus (1991) and Aldwin (1994).

Three general observations about research on adult stress, are reported by

Aldwin (1994). The first is that negative health outcomes are more likely to occur in

response to negative stressful events, as opposed to positive ones (Rabkin and

Streuning, 1976). Although there may be stress associated with a positive experience

such as a job promotion or a new marriage, the inauspicious health effects have

generally been shown to be insignificant. However, because even positive events can

tax resources, the totality of an event must be considered (Thoits, 1983).

Secondly, degree of perceived control has been demonstrated to be an

important factor. If an event is seen as being within the sphere of influence of an

individual, he or she is less likely to experience that event as stressful (Reich and

Zautra, 1981). Aldwin (1994, p. 45) argues that this may help to explain why natural

disasters are so stressful. A simple example of contrasting perceptions of control can

19

be seen in the case of a “back seat” driver. Presumably, command of a vehicle allows

greater empowerment and thus less stress.

Lastly, the findings about the relationship between stress and health outcomes

have not been very large in effect size. Usually correlations are between .20 and .30

(Aldwin, 1994, p. 45). Aldwin explains that although this is a pleasant indication of

our species resilience, it makes it difficult to infer causation. Because the health of

most people experiencing stress does not cross the threshold into illness, it is easiest to

access the relationship between stress and exacerbation of illnesses that are already

present (Revenson and Felton, 1989).

How people cope is clearly related to their mental health. Aldwin states that it

can account for as much as 50% of the variance in psychological symptom outcomes

(Aldwin, 1994; Aldwin, 1991; Folkman et al., 1993). Although there appear to be no

panacean coping strategies, several trends in the adult coping and health literature that

suggest there are reliable effects of particular coping strategies on health in particular

conditions (Aldwin, 1994). However, there is a seeming inconsistency running

through a large portion of this literature. Emotion-focused coping is theorized to

regulate negative emotional effects of stress so that problem-focused coping can occur

(Folkman and Lazarus, 1980). In spite of this, most studies show emotion-focused

coping to be correlated with increased stress.

In her espousal of a transactional approach, Aldwin (1994) outlined six

possible reasons for the above paradox, the first of which is that coping strategies have

situation-specific effects. As previously stated, use of coping strategies varies based

on context. The reason is that a particular strategy may be useful in some cases, but

20

not others. Individuals will benefit if they are proficient in moderating both the type of

coping and the amount of effort they use in that coping depending on the type of

stressor (Mattlin, et al., 1990, Mullen and Suls, 1982; Miller and Mangan, 1983). For

example, in an uncontrollable situation, it may be unwise to expend effort on problem-

focused coping strategies.

The second reason emotion-focused coping may be related to increased stress

is that the overall pattern of coping may be more important than any one type of

coping. That is, the ratio of different strategies may be more important than absolute

amounts of any one strategy in particular (Vitaliano et al., 1987). It may also be the

case that a particular strategy is both necessary and sufficient, or not, in a given

situation.

Effort is another consideration in the problem-focused/emotion-focused coping

paradox. If an event is highly stressful, it may require a large amount of coping effort.

Consequently, all the coping strategies will be associated with increased stress.

Separating effort and efficacy may help clarify the issues. However, it would not in all

cases. For example, drug use may require little effort, in spite of its high correlation

with increased stress (Aldwin, 1994, p. 156).

The problem of causal directionality is the fourth reason for the confusion

about emotion-focused coping and health outcomes. As noted in the theoretical

discussion of the present paper, coping may be a function of health, as much as health

may be a function of coping. Coyne et al. (1981) found that chronic depressives in

their study used more emotion-focused coping, and more coping in general, compared

with well individuals.

21

The fifth reason for the paradox is that there may be individual differences in

effectiveness of the same strategies. Aldwin explains that this is perhaps the most

troubling methodological issue if research generalizability is to be established (1994, p.

158). She argues that future work should include qualitative measures, as well as

measures of coping effectiveness.

Lastly, there is concern over whether wider dependent variables should be

considered, beyond depressive symptoms that are perhaps too often the sole outcomes

measured. It may be important to consider what goals individuals have in mind when

they use particular coping strategies. For example, mastery is a potential positive

outcome that could be measured.

Child Stress and Coping Research: General

Developmental studies of stress and coping are only just beginning. However,

it is well known that very early on, children try to change their internal and external

environments. Indeed, even a fetus can kick, arm wave, and thumb suck, albeit likely

in automatic response to changes in utero. Over time children's coping repertoires

increase and shift from behavioral to cognitive-emotional in nature. Children also

come to use more peer support as they develop. The review here will include general

findings with a focus on findings in the middle childhood literature. Numerous studies

have looked at other periods of development, as well as coping socialization. These

are beyond the scope of this paper; for a more extensive review see La Greca et al.

(1992) and Aldwin (1994).

One of the first attempts to investigate children's stress produced a widely used

stress measuring instrument for children by modifying adult scales (Coddington,

22

1972). However, it neglected to sufficiently consider the child's unique perspective.

Since then, many studies have correlated children's stress events with illness or

maladaptation (e.g., Hudgens, 1974; Boyce et al., 1977). Masten (1985) noted,

however, that the correlations in most life-events studies among children are quite low.

Sorenson (1993) adds that it is often unclear to what extent such life events are the

antecedents or the consequences of illness or maladjustment.

Daily hassles have been shown to be more strongly associated than life events

with children's mental and physical health (Sorenson, 1993, p. 52). For example,

Kanner, Coyne, Schaefer, and Lazarus (1981) have demonstrated that hassles were

generally associated with poor outcomes such as depression, low social competence,

and low self-worth. Sorenson cautions, however, that rather than favoring hassles

measures over life events stress measures, integration of the two ought to be the goal

(1993, p. 54). Her reasoning is that the two measures are necessarily correlated at

some level.

Another way that researchers have measured children's stress appraisal has

been to ask the children to rank order perceived stress of major and minor events (e.g.,

Yamamoto, 1979; Brown and Cowen, 1988; Ryan, 1988). The rankings stray

somewhat from the adult preconceptions (Sorenson, 1993, p. 54). At the least, this

line of research has demonstrated the importance of ascertaining the child's perspective

from the child. The usefulness of this approach will depend in part on whether

children can mentally compare the degrees of multiple stressors, particularly when the

stressors are hypothetical.

Child Stress and Coping Research: Middle Childhood

23

Band and Weisz (1988) pioneered the application of the Folkman and Lazarus

(1988) problem and emotion-focused categories to well children of middle childhood.

Their research demonstrated that in the face of a variety of everyday stressors, the

children in their sample would seldom relinquish control, preferring instead to employ

some type of coping. However, as age increased, self-reports of primary control

(a.k.a. problem-focused) coping declined, whereas self-reports of secondary control

(a.k.a. emotion-focused) coping increased. The main interpretation of this data was

that secondary coping may develop more slowly than primary coping, “in part because

it is hidden from view and thus more difficult to learn from observation.” (Band and

Weisz, 1988).

Altshuler and Ruble (1989) further examined children's coping strategies for

uncontrollable stressful situations. Their study helped to illuminate the contextual

dependence of children's coping. Among several unique findings was an age-related

increase in the proportion of “cognitive distraction” strategies. The occurrence of

“behavioral distraction” strategies, however, did not differ significantly across age.

The researchers' primary explanation for this finding was consistent with previous

literature. That is, younger children may not be able to generate as many secondary

appraisal options as older children. This may be due to the fact that they are not as

autonomous as older children. Additionally, they may simply not be aware that they

can manipulate their internal states. Further research has supported this conclusion

(Compas et al., 1992).

It has also been demonstrated that children of middle childhood begin to use

different coping strategies in different contexts. With school problems, they use

24

cognitive restructuring and self-criticism. When dealing with friends and siblings, they

tend to blame others (Spirito, et al., 1991).

In terms of age differences, older children seek more social support outside

their immediate family than do younger children (Bryant, 1985). Interestingly, there

are also sex differences in social support seeking as children grow older. Girls begin

to seek social support more, and this continues into adulthood (Wertlieb, et al., 1987;

Frydenberg and Lewis, 1990).

Kliewer (1991) considered the influence of broader individual differences on

children's coping processes. Among several variables, social competence was

identified as an important correlate of the use of avoidant actions and cognitions.

Whether the children's coping was emotion-focused or problem-focused, socially

competent children tended not to approach the stressful issue. Kliewer explained this

counterintuitive relationship by pointing out that children most often face

uncontrollable stress, in which case avoidance is, perhaps, most adaptive. Kliewer’s

research also examined Miller's (1987) monitoring/blunting distinction, in which

subjects are classified by the degree to which they attend to stressors. Unlike adults,

children in Kliewer’s study classified as high in monitoring sought more support and

comfort from other people (emotion-focused) than did those classified as low in

monitoring. This could have been interpreted as being inconsistent with Altshuler and

Ruble’s (1989) overlapped mapping of problem-focused, approach, and monitoring

strategies. However, Kliewer suggested that seeking comfort from others could

merely be a manifestation of the high self monitor's general tendency to seek out more

information about the stress, as opposed to a disregard for problem-focused coping.

25

Ethnic Differences in Children’s Stress and Coping

Jose, Cafasso, and D’Anna (1994) investigated ethnic group differences in

coping in Caucasian-American, African-American, and Hispanic-American children.

Coping tendencies were assessed using a five-factor structure that included: social

support (both problem & emotion-focused), problem-solving (problem-focused),

rejuvenation (emotion-focused), aggression (emotion-focused), and drug use

(emotion-focused). Stress was considered with respect to various structural levels

using Bronfenbrenner’s (1979, 1986) ecological model. In this model, the child is

affected by the microsystem (e.g., family, peers, school), the mesosystem (e.g., the

PTA), the exosystem (e.g., television programming, government), and the

macrosystem (e.g., cultural values). In their study, Jose et al. examined relationships

between self-reported well-being and the children’s experiences of stress and their

employment of various coping strategies.

The Jose et al. (1994) findings are somewhat complex. Regarding their stress

experiences, Hispanic-American and African-American children were confronted with

ethnic prejudice and immigration/second language use problems more than their

Caucasian-American counterparts. The stress of both these groups, however, was

found to be significantly moderated by family structure (i.e., single, two, or step-parent

family). Interestingly, this was not the case for Caucasian-American children. The

reason for this is not clear, but Jose et al. speculate that the moderating effect of family

structure may have been lost for Caucasian-American children when socioeconomic

status was covaried out of the regression equation.

26

Regarding coping, the three ethnic groups utilized roughly the same number

and amounts of coping strategies. Children from all three ethnic groups were found to

generally rely more on emotion-focused coping than problem-focused for stressors at

the structural level outside of their control (i.e., the exosystem). In terms of problem-

focused and emotion-focused coping, Jose et al. (1994) demonstrated that in arenas

where children had little control (i.e., exosystem matters), they utilized emotion-

focused coping more than problem-focused. This does not necessarily mean, however,

that emotion-focused coping was preferentially employed over problem-focused

coping. Rather, children may have been forced to use emotion-focused coping in

cases where that was the only option (e.g., at the doctor’s office, were the child’s

control may be limited). In any case, it is possible that stress domain (e.g., peer

relations, education, family, etc.) may be more influential in governing stress and

coping than Bronfenbrenner’s (1979, 1986) ecological levels.

With regard to psychological well-being, direct effects were found with some

particular stressors, as well as with both the adaptive and the maladaptive strategies of

all three ethnic groups in the Jose et al. (1994) study. For African-American and

Hispanic-American children, stress deriving from immigration/second language use,

grief and ethnic prejudice was found to detract from their well-being. In terms of

coping, the well-being of all three groups was predicted by rejuvenation and

aggression. The well-being of Caucasian-American children was predicted by social

support. The well-being of African-American children was predicted by social support

and family work problems. The well-being of Hispanic-American children was

predicted by family work problems, drug use, and ethnic prejudice.

27

With regard to gender analyses of the Jose et al. (1994) data, females were

found to use more social support coping than males (reported in Jose et al., 1997).

Conversely, males were found to use more externalizing kinds of coping strategies,

including aggression and drug use in particular. Analyses of the remaining factors,

problem-solving and rejuvenation, yielded no significant gender differences.

Moreover, differences found with the stress measures were marginal.

Age analyses of Jose et al. (1994) revealed few significant differences among

the early adolescents sampled. A weak increase in social support coping was observed

and drug use was seen to significantly increase across grade level. However, the

remaining findings curiously demonstrated minimal differences. Considering that age

differences have been documented in prior literature, it is conceivable that the Jose et

al. (1994) measures were simply not sensitive enough to capture such differences.

Jose et al. (1994) recommend that future work examine a wider range of

coping strategies and resources. They also urge that researchers must uncover the

particular processes of how children come to engage in such maladaptive strategies as

aggression and drug use. Lastly, they discuss longitudinal data collection as a means

of determining robustness of the findings.

Jose et al. (1994) laid a foundation for the investigation of children’s coping in

samples beyond those restricted to Caucasian-American participants. Taken as a

whole, the Jose et al. (1994) findings indicate that distinct ethnic groups conduct the

coping process differently. The ethnic groups in the Jose et al. (1994) study have

many cultural characteristics in common, by virtue of their membership in American

culture and wider Western culture. It would seem then that further examination of

28

stress and coping dynamics embedded in a wider vista might afford greater

understanding of how such processes may be influenced by more higher level elements,

such as cultural values. At present this kind of investigation lacking.

Parental Warmth and Control

Regardless of culture, parental socialization has long been considered a crucial

element in children’s stress and the development of their coping skills. Erik Erikson

(1963) outlined two aspects of parenting that are particularly important during the

elementary school years. They are parental warmth and parental control. Warmth

refers to the level of affection that parents express, and how responsive they are to the

child’s needs for self-esteem. Control is a dimension of regulatory supervision. High

controlling parents expend considerable effort monitoring their children’s behavior and

ensuring that there is adherence to rules deemed important (for a review of this

literature, see Maccoby and Martin, 1983).

The consensus is that parenting which provides warmth, considerable freedom,

yet rational restrictions is most highly correlated with high cognitive and social

competencies (Grolnick and Ryan, 1989). However, the quantification of what

constitutes high and low levels of warmth and control is hardly standardized. It is

reasonable to suspect that children may exhibit considerable differences in their

perception of their parents along these dimensions. Given variation of emotional

expression, such differences may be particularly pronounced across cultures.

Jose and Hunsinger (1997) measured perception of parental control and

warmth among Chinese-American and European-American adolescents. They found

that the two groups evaluated their parents similarly in terms of warmth. However,

29

Chinese-American parents were significantly perceived as being more controlling than

their European-American counterparts. The details of this unique study are not yet

available, as the manuscript is currently under review.

Summary and Critique of American Studies of Children’s Stress and Coping

It is clear that as children develop, their coping repertoires increase and

diversify, with a particular shift toward more emotion-focused strategies. Children

also come to use more social support over time. Girls have reliably been found to use

more social support than boys, but generally no other gender differences have been

found. In terms of stress, everyday life events have been more strongly associated

with health outcomes than major life events. Yet the two types of events are clearly

related to each other. Another key finding has been that children’s coping strategies

may differ across situational contexts. In the domain of education, they may reframe

their stress or become self-critical. In peer relations, they may resort to blame of

others.

In spite of the numerous replicable findings that have produced a basic

understanding of the development of coping, there are many questions left

unanswered. The importance of situational context has been neglected in most

research. In addition, virtually no studies have examined stress and coping as a

function of perceived parenting style. Yet there is reason to suspect that perceived

parenting style may vary widely across cultures. If this is the case, the relationship

between stress and coping may vary as well, by virtue of appraisal differences.

Cross-cultural Stress and Coping Research: Issues

30

Cultural Influences. Considering that the world’s populations have evolved in

varying ecological contexts, it is safe to assume a number of unique patterns of

socialization and enculturation exist. There is clear evidence that stress and coping

processes vary by situational context. Considering that in many cases cultural

differences are more influential than situational ones, such differences are also likely to

affect stress and coping processes.

There are four ways culture can impact the stress and coping process. It can

shape the types of stressors, the appraisal of stressors, the choice of coping strategies,

and the institutional mechanisms by which an individual can cope with stress. As

Lazarus’ transactional model suggests, human beings are in a dialectical relationship

with their cultures. Therefore, the outcomes of coping are not only psychological and

physical, but often social and cultural (Aldwin and Stokols, 1988; Gross, 1970). A

variety of cross-cultural studies of stress and coping exist in the literature. Selected

studies will be discussed here. For a more complete review, see Aldwin (1994).

For a concrete illustration of how particular cultures can dictate unique types

of stress, consider Turner’s (1969) work on puberty rituals. There is widespread

variation in rituals that mark individuals’ passage from childhood to adulthood.

Navajo youths can be required to spend several days in isolation in the wilderness,

Jews often participate in public bar mitzvahs and bat mitzvahs, and Japanese officially

become adults through the national ceremony of “coming of age” day.

Cultural variations in appraisal of stress have frequently been cited in the

anthropological literature. In accordance with the proverb that “a fish does not know

it is wet,” such differences are often hard to imagine. Heider (1958) first drew the

31

now-classic distinction between individualistic and collectivistic cultures, describing

how cultures differentially value autonomy and dependency. An example of how this

can affect appraisal was presented by Radford et al. (1993) who showed that Japanese

participants were higher than their Australian counterparts on decisional stress when

decisions had to be made without the benefit of a social group.

In terms of coping responses to stress, emotional expression is a major point of

cultural variation. Zborowski (1952) demonstrated that among a sample of

hospitalized Italians, Jews, and Irish-Americans, Italians and Jews displayed the most

expressive behavior in response to pain. A study on problem-focused coping by Offer

et al. (1981) provided further evidence of cross-cultural variation in response to stress.

With the use of a self-image questionnaire designed for teenagers, Offer et al.

demonstrated that Israeli participants were more active and mastery oriented than

American, Irish, and Australian participants.

For examples of how cross-culturally varying institutions can function as

coping mechanisms, consider the widely varying legal systems of the world. Nader

(1985) reported that in Mexico and Saudi Arabia, plaintiffs may have considerable

influence over punishment outcomes. In the United States, however, court decisions

are generally made by lawyers and judges.

Bias in Cross-cultural research. In cross-cultural research there is always

concern about cultural bias in measurement and interpretation. The general question is

“whether behavior has to be understood in the context of the culture in which it occurs

or whether cultural differences can be conceived of as variations on a common theme.”

(Berry et al., 1992, p. 219). Furthermore, there is dispute over whether equivalent

32

scores from participants from two different cultures have the same meaning.

Undoubtedly, if hypotheses and findings from research conducted in the U.S. are to be

transported and tested in other cultural settings, care must be taken. Berry et al.

(1992) argue that in theory such care is not unlike that required in general psychology;

that is, when different cultures are compared, there is simply a need for control of

confounding variables.

Japan as a Setting for Cross-cultural Research

The Japanese population is one of the most racially and culturally homogenous

in the world. Japanese culture has had a 2000 year history in which a multitude of

unique facets have evolved. In many ways, mainstream Japanese and American

cultures are radically different from one another.

Japanese culture has been described as collectivistic, relative to the

individualistic mainstream culture of the United States (Heider, 1958). Hofstede (e.g.,

1980) and Triandis (e.g., 1988) have argued that individualistic cultures emphasize

competitiveness, self-confidence, and freedom, while collectivistic cultures emphasize

communal feelings, social usefulness, and acceptance of authority. These concepts are

nicely illustrated by these contrasting metaphors: “the squeaky wheel gets the oil”

(America) and “the nail that stands up gets hammered down” (Japan).

Consistent with an emphasis on community, Japanese people are often

remarkably sensitive to each other’s feelings (Markus and Kitayama,1991). The

Japanese word enryo, has been used to describe a near paralyzing hesitation Japanese

people reportedly feel in certain social settings demanding group harmony. There may

be intense stress associated with the potential of offending others in such cases.

33

Another aspect of Japanese culture that appears to differ substantially from that

of the United States is captured by the Japanese linguistic distinction of honne and

tatemae. The former represents private affect or cognition and the latter represents

public affect or cognition. The notion is that conventional Japanese are not as driven

by values of self-expression as North Americans (Barnlund, 1975; Markus and

Kitayama, 1991). Consistent with emphasis on collectivism, appropriate tatemae is

favored over honne that may differ with convention.

Lastly, modern Japanese society has been characterized as rigid, fast-paced,

and competitive. The Japanese school system is no exception. From relatively early

on, Japanese parents, particularly mothers, are generally very involved and insistent in

their children's educational development (Shelley, 1993). It is thought that children

must gain a competitive edge as soon as possible in their development.

Cross-cultural Stress and Coping Research Utilizing Japanese Participants

A literature search of stress and coping in Japanese participants reveals a

dearth of articles published in English. Indeed, there are scant articles published in

Japanese. However, Nakano has produced several English-language articles reporting

studies aimed at testing American-based results in Japan. Using a translated measure

(i.e., the Hassles Scale, Kanner et al., 1981) she demonstrated daily life stressors, or

hassles, to be highly correlated with physical/psychological symptoms in a sample of

Japanese adults (1988). The Hassles Scale translation was also shown to demonstrate

adequate test-retest reliability over a 3-month period. A follow-up study examined the

relationships between five intervening coping strategies (active-cognitive, active-

behavioral, avoidance, problem-focused, and emotion-focused) and Type A behavior,

34

hardiness, social support, and social interest (Nakano, 1989). This study used a

translated coping measure developed in America by Billings and Moos (1981).

Consistent with American data (Billings and Moos, 1981), symptoms were related to

avoidance, emotion-focused coping, and Type A behavior.

In a further exploration of coping strategies and psychological symptoms in

Japanese participants, Nakano measured everyday stress, depression, physical

symptoms, and coping responses among female college undergraduates (Nakano,

1991a). Because Japanese are thought to be especially oriented toward control of the

personal and psychological impact of external realities, Nakano expected cognitive or

emotion-focused coping to moderate stress. In contrast, problem-focused coping was

found to moderate stress and emotion-focused coping actually enhanced the stress-

symptom relationship. Since these results are similar to results of American studies

(Aldwin and Revenson, 1987; Kobasa, 1982; Mitchell et al., 1983), Nakano

considered the possibility that influences of cultural environments on coping may be

minimal. However, she concluded that because the scales were simply adapted from

American research, they may have missed important coping strategies. She argued

that additional research is needed to develop scales with strategies specifically for

Japanese. Of primary importance, the Japanese translation of the coping inventory

developed by Billings and Moos (1981) was again demonstrated to have some

predictive validity for psychological well-being.

In a subsequent study using adults, the hypothesis that some types of emotion-

focused coping serve as stress moderators whereas other factors operate as stress

enhancers was generally supported (Nakano, 1991b). This study also demonstrated

35

the predictive validity of a translation of the WCCL coping measure (Folkman and

Lazarus, 1980). Results were generally consistent with those obtained by Folkman

and Lazarus (1985). However, in contrast to most studies with American participants

(Aldwin and Revenson, 1987), positive cognitive coping was effective in reducing

stress. Positive cognitive coping was defined by Nakano as a form of emotion-focused

coping that aims to reframe an event so that it can be seen as auspicious. Nakano

suggested that the inconsistency she found may have been due to an orientation

toward secondary control (emotion-focused coping) in Japanese culture.

Nakano also examined coping as it relates to individual differences in adults.

Using a translation of Folkman and Lazarus’ Ways of Coping Questionnaire,

extroverts were found to use both social support and avoidance more than introverts

(Nakano, 1992). Extroversion and independence were also found to be negatively

related to depression and hassles (Nakano, 1993).

To summarize Nakano’s work on stress and coping in Japanese, it seems that

the first steps have been taken to transport and test existing American instruments.

With one exception (Nakano, 1991b, described above), Nakano’s results have

generally been consistent with those reliably found in the literature on American

participants. However, there has been little attempt to critically analyze the results and

interpret them within a cross-cultural framework. In particular, it is not clear whether

the predictive validity of the instruments occurs for the same underlying reasons in

both the American and Japanese cultures. Such dynamics are not yet understood in

either American or Japanese samples.

36

In a related problem area, Radford, Mann, Ohta, and Nakane (1993) compared

decisional self-esteem, decisional stress, and coping styles of Australian and Japanese

college undergraduates. Self-report measurements showed differences consistent with

Hofstede's individualistic/collectivistic societal distinction (1980). Japanese reported

higher levels of stress associated with making a decision by themselves than did their

Australian counterparts.

A cross-cultural study of large scale was undertaken by Mauro et al. (1992) to

assess the role of appraisal in emotion. Over 900 participants from the United States,

Japan, Hong Kong, and the People's Republic of China were asked to re-experience an

emotional episode and then to describe the emotions associated with it, according to

10 dimensions. Many cross-cultural generalities were found. However, the U.S.,

Japanese, and Chinese participants differed on the dimensions of control,

responsibility, and anticipated effort. These differences were essentially related to

whether particular episodes were appraised as being in the participant’s control,

someone else’s control, or no one's control. The means of the U.S. sample in the

scope of the control-related dimensions differed significantly from one or more of

those of the Chinese samples. The Japanese means were found to lie in between those

of the U.S. and Chinese. Mauro et al. speculated that appraisals of being in control

were related to the individualistic qualities of the U.S. culture.

Related to appraisal is causal attribution. Kawanishi (1995) investigated the

effects of culture on beliefs about the cause of stress and successful coping. Over 400

Anglo-American and Japanese participants answered a questionnaire on internal-

external control. Items included statements about both stress and coping, and

37

participants were asked to indicate how often they agreed with the statements. The

Japanese participants were more likely than the Anglo-Americans to attribute

successful coping to good luck and to see stress as caused by bad luck. These results

are discussed in the context of an American sense of free will, perhaps having

developed from the period of Westward expansion. The Japanese Buddhist belief in

karmic fatalism is also considered as an antecedent for potential underlying tendencies

of Japanese people to view events as somehow being predetermined or inevitable.

Although Kawanishi ventures considerable speculation, her data appear to corroborate

those of Mauro et al. (1992).

Yamamoto and Davis (1982) studied the stressful experiences of over 600

Japanese and American children from grade four through six. A 20 event rating scale

was used that included daily 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.

Frequencies of various events in the Yamamoto and Davis study differed

sharply between the Japanese and American children. However, agreement on the

potential stressfulness of events was quite high, especially for events that were

perceived as being more stressful. No attempt was made to group the events into

context-based categories, but it was noted that the Japanese and American children

tended to differ most on school related items. For these items, the Japanese children

reported considerably higher stressfulness. Overall cultural differences were not

significant for the total number or the cumulative stress values of events experienced.

In both the Japanese and American samples, children in higher grades significantly

38

reported more stress. Significant sex differences were only detected for the Japanese

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

the similarity between the two cultures' perceptions were remarkable. They speculated

that school children in metropolitan areas in industrialized nations may have much in

common, in spite of unique 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.

Crystal et al. (1994) 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. 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. Crystal et al. (1994) also found that Chinese students reported

the highest frequencies of depression and somatic complaints, yet Japanese students

reported the lowest. These results would seem to conflict with previous studies (e.g.,

Yamamoto and Davis, 1982) in which high achievement in Japan was found to come

at greater expense, in terms of stress, relative to the case of America.

39

Rationale, Overview, Hypotheses, and Research Questions

Theories about the stress and coping relationship in general, have attributed

varying contributions on the part of person and environment factors. A transactionist

approach has been purported to be most accurate in accounting for the complex

dynamics involved. A discussion of methodological issues in this general line of

research has revealed a number of important considerations.

A review of related literature has shown a need for cross-cultural,

developmental research utilizing Japanese participants. Measurement of daily and

major life event stress, coping strategies, and perception of parenting style was put

forward as a means of meeting the specific exploratory research needs. In the present

study, several existing instruments (Jose, 1994, 1997) were modified, translated into

Japanese, and used to test Japanese children of 3rd through 6th grade.

Data were collected on Japanese children’s stress, coping, and perception of

parental warmth and control. The study utilized a 2 (sex) X 2 (age) X 2 (warmth: low

versus high) X 2 (control: low versus high) design. In two MANOVAs of stress, sex

and age constituted between subjects, independent variables and stress contexts

(family/home, health/fitness, education, and peer relations) constituted four dependent

variables. In one MANOVA of coping, sex and age constituted between subjects,

independent variables and coping strategies (approach/problem-focused,

approach/emotion-focused, avoidance/problem-focused, and avoidance/emotion-

focused) constituted four dependent variables.

In two additional MANOVAs of stress, perception of parental control and

warmth constituted between subjects, independent variables and stress contexts

40

(family/home, health/fitness, education, and peer relations) constituted four dependent

variables. In one additional MANOVA of coping, parental warmth and control

constituted between subjects, independent variables and coping strategies

(approach/problem-focused, approach/emotion-focused, avoidance/problem-focused,

and avoidance/emotion-focused) constituted four dependent variables. (Note: the

original intent was to analyze warmth and control in the same MANOVAs as sex and

age, however cell sizes were prohibitively small).

The main objective of this research was to ascertain whether Japanese children

would exhibit similar gender differences and developmental changes as American

children have. Modified Jose (1994, 1997) instruments formed the base for cross-

cultural comparisons. This research aimed to expand our knowledge of the types of

stress Japanese children encounter and the coping strategies they utilize at various

ages, in various circumstances. It also probed into the appropriateness of American

codings as they relate to wider populations.

Hypotheses

I. Boys will report greater stress than girls for an education context. (Based on

Yamamoto and Davis, 1979).

II. Older children will report greater stress for an education context than younger

children. (Based on Yamamoto and Davis, 1979).

III. Girls will report greater use of approach/emotion-focused coping than boys for a

tease/avoid scenario. (Based on Wertlieb, et al., 1987; Frydenberg and Lewis,

1990; Jose et al., 1997).

41

IV. Boys will report greater use of avoidance/problem-focused coping than girls for a

tease/avoid scenario. (Based on Jose, et al., 1997).

V. Older children will report greater use of approach/emotion-focused coping for a

tease/avoid scenario than younger children. (Based on Band and Weisz, 1988;

Altshuler and Ruble, 1989; Compas, et al., 1992).

VI. Older children will report less use of avoidance/problem-focused coping for a

tease/avoid scenario than younger children. (Based on Band and Weisz, 1988).

VII. Younger girls will employ approach/emotion-focused coping more than younger

boys. (Based on Wertlieb, et al., 1987; Frydenberg and Lewis, 1990).

VIII. Children with high perceived parental warmth will report less stress than those

with low perceived parental warmth. (Tentatively hypothesized).

IX. Children with high perceived parental control will report greater stress than those

with low perceived parental control. (Tentatively hypothesized).

X. Children with high perceived parental control and low perceived parental warmth

will report greater stress than children with high perceived parental control and

high perceived parental warmth. (Tentatively hypothesized).

XI. Children with high perceived parental warmth will report greater

approach/emotion-focused coping than those with low perceived parental warmth.

(Tentatively hypothesized).

XII. Children with low perceived parental warmth will report greater use of

avoidance/problem-focused coping than those with high perceived parental

warmth. (Tentatively hypothesized).

42

XIII. Children with high perceived parental control and low perceived parental warmth

will report the least approach/emotion-focused coping of all four parental control

and warmth high/low groups. (Tentatively hypothesized).

XIV. Children with high perceived parental control and high perceived parental

warmth will report the greatest use of approach/emotion-focused coping of all four

parental control and warmth high/low groups. (Tentatively hypothesized).

Research Questions

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

peer relations context?

II. Will older children or younger children report greater stress for a family/home life,

health/fitness, and/or peer relations context?

III. Will there be any interactions between sex and age regarding education,

family/home life, health/fitness, and peer relations stress?

IV. Will boys or girls report greater use of approach/problem-focused and

avoidance/emotion-focused coping for a tease/avoid scenario?

V. Will older children or younger children report greater use of avoidance/emotion-

focused and approach/problem-focused coping for a tease/avoid scenario?

VI. Will there be any interactions with respect to sex, age, and approach/problem-

focused, avoidance/emotion-focused, or avoidance/problem-focused coping?

VII. How will children with low warmth & low control and high warmth & low

control compare with those of high warmth & high control and low warmth & high

control with respect to stress?

43

VIII. How will children with low versus high warmth compare in their use of

approach/problem-focused coping and avoidance/emotion-focused coping?

IX. How will children with low versus high control compare in their use of

approach/emotion-focused, approach/problem-focused, avoidance/emotion-

focused, or avoidance/problem-focused coping?

X. How will children with low warmth & low control and children with high warmth

and low control compare with children of high warmth & high control and low

warmth & high control with respect to approach/emotion-focused coping?

XI. How will children of low versus high control and low versus high warmth compare

in their use of approach/problem-focused, avoidance/emotion-focused, or

avoidance/problem-focused coping?

44

CHAPTER II.

METHOD

Research Participants

Participants were all native Japanese children, sampled from three separate

schools. The first sample was taken from a rural juku, or private “cram” school, in

Meiwa-cho of Mie prefecture. The researcher taught English there for a period of one

year. The second two samples were taken from public elementary schools, one in

Nanto-cho, Mie prefecture, the other in Ichikawa-shi, Chiba prefecture. All three

samples can be classified as being primarily middle-class in student composition.

A total of 114 children participated, however 2 of them did not fill out the

entirety of their questionnaire packets and 3 had extreme data. These cases were

eliminated. Therefore, a total of 109 children were used in the analyses. The Meiwa-

cho sample consisted of 27 participants, the Ichikawa-shi sample, 30 participants, and

the Nanto-cho sample, 52 participants. In the aggregate, there were 21 third graders,

30 fourth graders, 32 fifth graders, and 26 sixth graders. The age ranged from 8 to 12,

with a mean of 10.56 (SD=1.08). Third and fourth graders comprised a younger age

group (N=51, M=9.55, SD=.54) and fourth and fifth graders comprised an older age

group (N=58, M=11.45, SD=.50). There were 49 females (24 in the younger age

group and 25 in the older age group) and 60 males (27 in the younger age group and

33 in the older age group).

Materials

45

Each child completed one questionnaire packet consisting of the following

measures (completed in order of presentation):

The Everyday Life Events Scale for Children [(ELESC) see Appendix C] - A

modified version of Jose’s original (1991) scale was presented to the children to assess

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

After the children were asked to state whether particular items actually happened to

them or not (occurrence), 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 of stress did it cause? (a little, some, or a lot).” There was also a blank

provided for a write-in event. There were 44 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 stress occurrence should be

distinct from stress intensity where possible. Such neutral presentation of items might

also have prevented biased responses where participants might have otherwise been

inadvertently primed.

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.” All the

46

additional items were composed based on cultural considerations put forward by two

native born Japanese who translated and consulted for the project.

The Major Life Events Scale for Children [(MLESC) see Appendix D] -- A

modified version of Jose’s original (1991) scale was presented to the children to assess

the actual occurrence of major events that may or may not have changed their lives.

The checklist inquired about events such as: “your parents separated,” “you changed

to a new school,” and “you got caught stealing something.” As in the ELESC, if the

children experienced an event listed or one they themselves had provided, they were

asked to state how much stress it caused (a little, some, or a lot). There were 40 items

in total, the last 7 of which were open. Finally, based on cultural considerations, the

following item was added to the original measure: “You failed to make an athletic

team or play in a game.”

The Children's Integrated Stress and Coping Scale [(CISCS) see Appendix F] -

- A modified version of Jose et al.s’ original (1994) scale was presented to the children

to assess actual and hypothetical responses to the particular event of “kids teased or

avoided you,” that may or may not have actually occurred (this event was chosen after

consideration of pilot data that indicated a majority of the children had actually

experienced having been teased/avoided). They were asked how much they actually

used (or would have used given the scenario) each of 20 or more ways of coping (not

at all, some/a little, or a lot). The ways of coping include the following items: “I

accepted the way things were,” “I tried to solve the problem,” and “I ignored or tried

to get away from the problem.” This modified version of the scale was essentially the

47

same as the original, except that several of the statements were reworded to ensure

clarity before translation. There were 22 items in total, the last of which was open.

The Children's Perception of Parenting Style Questionnaire [(CPPSQ) see

Appendix H] -- A modified version of Jose’s original (1995) questionnaire was

presented to the children to assess their perception of their parents' style along the

dimensions of control and warmth. The children were asked how true a series of

statements were for them on a scale of 0 to 2 (not true, very true, sort of true). Items

assessing parental control included: “When my friends and I disagree, my parents let us

resolve the disagreement on our own.” Questions assessing parental warmth included:

“My parents communicate to me how much they value me.” Several modifications

were made from the original measure to increase item objectivity. One item was

added to the original measure: “My parents communicate to me how much they value

me.” This item was intended to gauge an approximation of perceived parental love.

There were 7 items in total, 4 for control and 3 for warmth.

Design

The study utilized a 2 (sex) X 2 (age) X 2 (control: low vs. high) X 2 (warmth:

low vs. high) design. In two MANOVAs of stress, sex and age constituted between

subjects, independent variables and stress contexts (family/home, health/fitness,

education, and peer relations) constituted four dependent variables. In one MANOVA

of coping, sex and age constituted between subjects, independent variables and coping

strategies (approach/problem-focused, approach/emotion-focused, avoidance/problem-

focused, and avoidance/emotion-focused) constituted four dependent variables.

48

In two additional MANOVAs of stress, perception of parental control and

warmth constituted between subjects, independent variables and stress contexts

(family/home, health/fitness, education, and peer relations) constituted four dependent

variables. In one additional MANOVA of coping, parental warmth and control

constituted between subjects, independent variables and coping strategies

(approach/problem-focused, approach/emotion-focused, avoidance/problem-focused,

and avoidance/emotion-focused) constituted four dependent variables. (Note: the

original intent was to analyze warmth and control in the same MANOVAs as sex and

age, however cell sizes were prohibitively small).

Procedure

The children were asked to complete the questionnaires during normal class

time. They were told that the questionnaires were part of a study examining the

problems that children face. The children were assured that their anonymity would be

respected and that they should not write their names on the questionnaires. They were

also told that upon full completion of the questionnaire packet, they would receive a

candy reward. The full packet of measures only took about 15 minutes to complete

for most of the children. However, the children were given as much time as they need.

This never ran beyond approximately 25 minutes.

All of the measures were independently translated into Japanese by two

bilinguals. They were then exchanged, back-translated, checked, and modified as

necessary to ensure meaning was consistent between the English and Japanese

versions. This researcher was present for the entire process and is confident that the

integrity of the original meanings was maximally preserved.

49

Coding

The Everyday Life Events Scale for Children [(ELESC) see Appendix C] and

The Major Life Events Scale for Children [(MLESC) see Appendix D] - Data obtained

from these two stress measures were grouped into categories predetermined by this

researcher, representing the following contexts: family/home life, health/fitness,

education, and peer relations (see Appendix E: Every day and Major Life Event Stress

Key).

For each participant, scores were computed representing their responses to

each stress context category. For each stress context (Family/Home Life,

Health/Fitness, Education, and Peer Relations), stress intensity values were averaged

(i.e., summed and divided by the number of stress events reported to have occurred

within that category). This resulted in 4 overall stress scores for each participant for

each stress measure.

The Children's Integrated Stress and Coping Scale [(CISCS) see Appendix F] -

- Data obtained from this measure were grouped into categories predetermined by

Jose (1994), representing the following: Approach/Emotion-focused strategies,

Approach/Problem-focused strategies, Avoidance/Emotion-focused strategies, and

Avoidance/Problem-focused strategies (see Appendix G). Each participant received

four scores representing his or her tendency to use each of the four main coping

strategies. Each score was simply an average of the scores for the several items in the

coping strategy category.

The Children's Perception of Parenting Style Questionnaire [(CPPSQ) see

Appendix H] -- Data obtained from this measure were grouped into predetermined

50

categories of either “control” or “warmth” (see Appendix I). Each child received a

score for “warmth” and a score for “control.” Scores were computed by taking the

intensity values of the measure’s items and averaging them for both of the categories.

After the “control” and “warmth” scores were obtained for each participant, median

splits were performed on both the “warmth” scores and the “control” scores. Based

on that, each participant was placed into either the “high control” (N=54) or “low

control” (N=55) group and into either the “high warmth” (N=54) or “low warmth”

(N=55) group.

51

CHAPTER III.

RESULTS

Tests of Hypotheses I & II and Research Questions I, II, & III

The hypotheses and research questions related to the children’s reported stress

scores as a function of sex and age are as follows: HI, HII, RI, RII, RIII. They were

examined in two separate MANOVAs. In each, sex and age (3rd and 4th grade versus

5th and 6th) constituted between subjects variables and the stress scores in each context

(family/home, health/fitness, education, and peer relations) constituted four dependent

variables. The first analysis used participants’ stress scores from the ELESC as the

dependent variables, while the second analysis used participants’ stress scores from the

MLESC.

Diagnostic tests were conducted to evaluate MANOVA assumptions. With

respect to the ELESC scores, Box’s M was found to be significant at 51.32, p<.05.

Consequently, homogeneity of variance could not be guaranteed. However, analysis

of the ELESC data was carried out, in the case that Box’s M may have been over-

sensitive. With respect to the MLESC scores, very few participants experienced the

single health/fitness stress event described (“you got very sick or were badly injured”).

Therefore the health/fitness context was eliminated for the MLESC analyses, leaving

three stress context dependent variables instead of four. Subsequently, results of

evaluation of assumptions were satisfactory.

Hypothesis I predicted that boys would report greater stress than girls for the

education context. With the use of Wilks’ criterion, a significant main effect for SEX

was detected for everyday life event stress, F(4, 102) = 2.55, p<.05 (see Table 1).

52

However, the analysis of major life event stress failed to reach significance (see Table

2). Wilks’ Lambda contrasts were conducted with the everyday life event stress result

using joint multivariate, 95% confidence intervals. No significant difference was found

for education stress. Therefore, hypothesis I was rejected.

Research question I asked whether boys or girls would report greater stress for

family/home life, health/fitness, and/or peer relations contexts. The girls’ everyday

health/fitness stress (M=.86, SD=.59) was found to be significantly greater than that of

the boys (M=.64, SD=.51), t=2.03, p<.05 (see Table 3, Figure 1). The girls’ everyday

peer stress (M=.95, SD=.56) was also found to be significantly greater than that of the

boys (M=.64, SD=.63), t=2.75, p<.01 (see Table 3, Figure 1). In terms of

family/home life stress, no significant difference was found.

53

Table 1

Multivariate Analysis of Variance: Children’s Everyday Life Event Stress

Source Hypothesis df Error df F p

SEX 4 102 2.55 .044

AGE 4 102 .96 .434

AGE X SEX 4 102 .51 .728

Table 2

Multivariate Analysis of Variance: Children’s Major Life Event Stress

Source Hypothesis df Error df F p

SEX 3 103 1.27 .289

AGE 3 103 6.94 .000

SEX X AGE 3 103 5.39 .002

54

Table 3

Mean Stress Scores for Everyday Life Event Stress by Sex

Education Family Health/Fit Peer

Sex N M SD M SD M SD M SD

Girls 49 .87 .51 .77 .44 .86 .59 .95 .56

Boys 60 .81 .61 .72 .38 .64 .51 .64 .63

context

health/fitness

peer relations

education

family/home lifemea

n el

esc

stre

ss s

core

boysgirls

1.0

.9

.8

.7

.6

Figure 1: Mean everyday life event stress by SEX.

55

Hypothesis II predicted that older children would report greater stress for the

education context than younger children. With the use of Wilks’criterion, a significant

main effect for AGE was detected for major life event stress, F(3, 103) = 6.94, p<.001

(see Table 2). The test for everyday life event stress, however, failed to reach

significance (see Table 1). Wilks’ Lambda contrasts were conducted with the major

life event stress result using joint multivariate, 95% confidence intervals. The older

children’s major life event education stress (M=.75, SD=.67) was found to be

significantly greater than that of the younger children (M=.33, SD=.60), t=-3.79,

p<.001 (see Table 4, Figure 2). Thus hypothesis II was confirmed in this analysis.

Research question II asked whether older children or younger children would report

greater stress for a family/home life, health/fitness, and/or peer relations context. With

regard to this question, no significant differences were found.

56

Table 4

Mean Stress Scores for Major Life Event Stress by Age

Education Family Peer

Age N M SD M SD M SD

Younger 51 .33 .60 .83 .59 .79 .82

Older 58 .75 .67 .69 .50 .59 .76

context

education

family/home life

peer relationsolderyounger

mea

n m

lesc

stre

ss s

core

.9

.8

.7

.6

.5

.4

.3

.2

Figure 2: Mean major life event stress by AGE.

57

Research question III asked whether there would be any interactions between

sex and age regarding education, family/home life, health/fitness, and peer relations

stress. With the use of Wilks’criterion, a significant SEX X AGE interaction effect

was detected in the analysis of major life event stress, F(3, 103) = 5.39, p<.01 (see

Table 2). The analysis of everyday life events, however, failed to reach significance

(see Table 1). Wilks’ Lambda contrasts were conducted with the major life event

stress result using joint multivariate, 95% confidence intervals. The SEX X AGE

interaction reached significance for major life event peer stress, t=-3.08, p<.01. A

Tukey post hoc test revealed that the girls’ major life event peer stress significantly

increased across age (younger: M=.56, SD=.80, older: M=.86, SD=.87, see Table 5,

Figure 3). In contrast, that of the boys’ significantly decreased across age (younger:

M=.99, SD=.79, older: M=.39, SD=.59, see Table 5, Figure 3).

58

Table 5

Mean Stress Scores for Major Life Event Stress by Age X Sex

Education Family Peer

Age Sex N M SD M SD M SD

Younger Girls 24 .33 .64 .91 .64 .56 .80

Boys 27 .32 .57 .75 .55 .99 .79

Older Girls 25 1.01 .79 .68 .55 .86 .87

Boys 33 .56 .50 .69 .47 .39 .59

59

olderyounger

sex

female

malemea

n m

lesc

sco

re

1.2

1.0

.8

.6

.4

.2

Figure 3: Mean major life event peer relations stress by AGE X SEX

Tests of Hypotheses III, IV, V, VI, & VII and Research Questions IV, V, VI

The hypotheses and research questions related to the children’s sex, age, and

use of coping strategies are as follows: HIII, HIV, HV, HVI, HVII, RIV, RV, and

RVI. They were examined in one MANOVA. Sex and age (3rd and 4th grade versus

5th and 6th) were between-subjects variables in the analysis and the four coping strategy

scores (approach/problem-focused, approach/emotion-focused, avoidance/problem-

focused, and avoidance/emotion-focused) were dependent variables. Results of tests

of MANOVA assumptions were satisfactory. It should also be noted that the coping

scenario of “kids teased or avoided you” appears to have been sufficiently stressful to

as to give legitimacy to the reality of the coping responses. 57% of the boys, 65% of

the girls, 55% of the younger children, and 66% of the older children reported having

experienced this event. The overall mean stress intensity associated with the

tease/avoid stress item was .88, with a standard deviation of .90.

60

Hypothesis III predicted that girls would report greater use of

approach/emotion-focused coping than boys for the tease/avoid scenario used in this

study. Hypothesis IV predicted that the boys would report greater use of

avoidance/problem-focused coping than the girls. With the use of Wilks’criterion, a

significant main effect was found for SEX on coping strategies, F(4, 102) = 3.04,

p<.05 (see Table 6). Wilks’ Lambda contrasts were conducted using joint

multivariate, 95% confidence intervals. No significant sex difference was found for

either approach/emotion-focused coping or avoidance/problem-focused coping. Thus,

both hypothesis III and IV were rejected.

Research question IV asked whether boys or girls would report greater use of

approach/problem-focused and avoidance/emotion-focused coping for the tease/avoid

scenario. The girls’ approach/problem-focused coping (M=.79, SD=.44) was found to

be significantly greater than that of the boys (M=.55, SD=.38), t=3.47, p<.001 (see

Table 7, Figure 4). However, no significant difference was found regarding

avoidance/emotion-focused coping.

61

Table 6

Multivariate Analysis of Variance: Coping as a Function of Sex and Age

Source Hypothesis df Error df F p

SEX 4 102 3.04 .021

AGE 4 102 5.48 .000

SEX X AGE 4 102 1.59 .181

Table 7

Mean Coping Scores by Sex

App./Emo. App./Pro. Avo./Emo. Avo./Pro.

Sex N M SD M SD M SD M SD

Girls 49 .81 .43 .79 .44 .55 .35 .53 .26

Boys 60 .69 .34 .55 .38 .45 .33 .50 .29

62

Figure 4: Mean coping scores by SEX.

coping strategy

approach/emotion

approach/problem

avoidance/emotion

avoidance/problemmalefemale

mea

n ci

scs

copi

ng s

core

.9

.8

.7

.6

.5

.4

63

Hypothesis V predicted that older children would report greater use of

approach/emotion-focused coping for the tease/avoid scenario than younger children.

Hypothesis VI predicted that older children would report less use of

avoidance/problem-focused coping than younger children. With the use of

Wilks’criterion, a significant main effect was found for AGE on coping strategies, F(4,

102) = 5.48, p<.001 (see Table 6). Wilks’ Lambda contrasts were conducted using

joint multivariate, 95% confidence intervals. No significant age difference was found

for approach/emotion-focused coping. Thus, hypothesis V was rejected. In terms of

hypothesis VI, the older children reported significantly greater use of

avoidance/problem-focused coping (M=.59, SD=.27) than the younger children

(M=.43, .26), t=-2.89, p<.01 (see Table 8, Figure 5). This stands in contrast to what

was expected. Thus hypothesis VI was rejected.

Research question V asked whether older or younger children would report

greater use of avoidance/emotion-focused and approach/problem-focused. No

significant difference was found for AGE on avoidance/emotion-focused coping.

However, a significant difference was found for AGE on approach/problem-focused

coping. The older children used this strategy significantly more (M=.76, SD=.38) than

the younger children (M=.53, SD=.43), t=-2.96, p<.01 (see Table 8, Figure 5).

64

Table 8

Mean Coping Scores by Age

App./Emo. App./Pro. Avo./Emo. Avo./Pro.

Age N M SD M SD M SD M SD

Younger 51 .73 .37 .53 .43 .43 .32 .43 .26

Older 58 .75 .40 .76 .38 .55 .35 .59 .27

65

coping strategy

approach/emotion

approach/problem

avoidance/emotion

avoidance/problemolderyounger

mea

n ci

scs

copi

ng s

core

.8

.7

.6

.5

.4

.3

Figure 5: Mean coping scores by AGE.

66

Hypothesis VII predicted that younger girls would employ approach/emotion-

focused coping more than younger boys. However, with the use of Wilks’criterion, no

significant interaction between SEX and AGE was found (see Table 6). This result

also addressed research question VI (asking whether there would be any interactions

with respect to sex, age, and approach/problem-focused, avoidance/emotion-focused,

and avoidance/problem-focused coping).

Tests of Hypotheses VIII, IX, X and Research Question VII

The hypotheses and research question related to the children’s reported stress

scores as a function of perceived parental warmth and control are as follows: HVIII,

HIX, HX, and RVII. They were examined in two separate MANOVAs. In each,

perceived parental warmth (low vs. high) and control (low vs. high) constituted

between subjects, independent variables and the stress scores in each context

(family/home, health/fitness, education, and peer relations) constituted four dependent

variables. The first analysis used participants’ stress scores from the ELESC for the

dependent variables, while the second analysis used participants’ stress scores from the

MLESC.

Diagnostic tests were conducted to evaluate MANOVA assumptions. With

respect to the MLESC scores, cell counts were too low for the health/fitness stress

context dependent variable. It was therefore eliminated, leaving three stress context

dependent variables instead of four. Subsequently, results of evaluation of

assumptions were satisfactory.

Hypothesis VIII predicted that the children with high perceived parental

warmth would report less stress than those with low perceived parental warmth.

67

Hypothesis IX predicted that the children with high perceived parental control would

report greater stress than those with low perceived parental control. Hypothesis X

predicted that the children with high perceived parental control and low perceived

parental warmth would report greater stress than the children with high perceived

parental control and high perceived parental warmth. With the use of Wilk’s criterion,

there were no significant main or interaction effects for everyday life event stress or

major life event stress as a function of warmth or control. Hypotheses VIII, IX, and X

were therefore rejected. Research question VII asked how the children with low

warmth & low control and high warmth & low control would compare with those of

high warmth & high control and low warmth & high control with respect to stress.

No significant differences were found.

Tests of Hypotheses XI, XII, XIII, XIV and Research Questions VIII, IX, X, & XI

The hypotheses and research questions related to the children’s perceived

parental warmth & control and use of coping strategies are as follows: HXI, HXII,

HXIII, HXIV, RVIII, RIX, RX, & RXI. They were examined in one MANOVA.

Warmth (low vs. high) and control (low vs. high) were between-subjects, independent

variables in the analysis and the four coping strategy scores (approach/problem-

focused, approach/emotion-focused, avoidance/problem-focused, and

avoidance/emotion-focused) were dependent variables. Results of tests of MANOVA

assumptions were satisfactory.

Hypothesis XI predicted that the children with high perceived parental warmth

would report greater approach/emotion-focused coping than those with low perceived

parental warmth. Hypothesis XII predicted that the children with low perceived

68

parental warmth would report greater use of avoidance/problem-focused coping than

those with high perceived parental warmth. With the use of Wilks’criterion, a

significant main effect was found for WARMTH on coping strategies, F(4, 102) =

3.29, p<.05 (see Table 9). Wilks’ Lambda contrasts were conducted using joint

multivariate, 95% confidence intervals. No significant difference was found for

approach/emotion-focused coping. Thus, hypothesis XI was rejected. However, a

significant difference was found for avoidance/problem-focused coping, t=2.66, p<.01.

The children low in perceived parental warmth reported significantly greater use of

avoidance/problem-focused coping (M=.58, SD=.29, see table 10) than those with

high perceived parental warmth (M=.45, SD=.24, see table10). Thus hypothesis XII

was retained.

Research question VIII asked how the children with low versus high warmth

would compare in their use of approach/problem-focused coping and

avoidance/emotion-focused coping. No significant differences were found for

WARMTH on approach/problem-focused coping or avoidance/emotion-focused

coping.

Research question IX asked how the children with low versus high control

would compare in their use of approach/emotion-focused, approach/problem-focused,

avoidance/emotion-focused, or avoidance/problem-focused coping. There was no

significant main effect for CONTROL.

Hypothesis XIII predicted that the children with high perceived parental

control and low perceived parental warmth would report the least approach/emotion-

focused coping of all four parental control and warmth high/low groups. Hypothesis

69

XIV predicted that the children with high perceived parental control and high

perceived parental warmth would report the greatest use of approach/emotion-focused

coping of all four parental control and warmth high/low groups. With the use of

Wilks’criterion, no significant interaction effect was found for WARMTH and

CONTROL on coping strategies, F(4, 102) = .28, p<.887 (see Table 9). Thus,

hypothesis XIII and XIV were rejected.

Research question X asked how the children with low warmth & low control

and the children with high warmth and low control would compare with the children of

high warmth & high control and the children of low warmth & high control with

respect to approach/emotion-focused coping. Research question XI asked how the

children of low versus high control and low versus high warmth would compare in

their use of approach/problem-focused, avoidance/emotion-focused, or

avoidance/problem-focused coping. With respect to both of these questions, no

significant differences were found.

Table 9

Multivariate Analysis of Variance: Coping as a Function of Warmth and Control

Source Hypothesis df Error df F p

WARMTH 4 102 3.29 .014

CONTROL 4 102 2.31 .063

70

WARMTH X

CONTROL

4 102 .28 .887

71

Table 10

Mean Coping Scores by Warmth

App./Emo. App./Pro. Avo./Emo. Avo./Pro.

Sex N M SD M SD M SD M SD

Low 55 .72 .42 .69 .42 .51 .36 .58 .29

High 54 .77 .35 .62 .43 .49 .33 .45 .24

Figure 6: Mean coping scores by WARMTH.

coping strategy

approach/emotion

approach/problem

avoidance/emotion

avoidance/problemHighLow

mea

n ci

scs

copi

ng s

core

.8

.7

.6

.5

.4

72

Ancillary Analyses of Stress Scales’ Items

Coupled with popular reports, past literature has suggested that, at least

compared to Western cultures, in Japanese culture there exists a considerable amount

of emphasis on: (1) high standards of academic performance, (2) conformity and

politeness aspects of collectivism, and (3) distinct sex-roles (e.g., Barnlund, 1975;

Crystal et al., 1994; Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Triandis, 1988). To explore these

contentions the stress occurrence and intensity values of five individual questionnaire

items were examined. The following four items were selected from the ELESC: 22,

23, 33, and 37. The remaining item, 27, was selected from the MLESC.

All of the selected items were chosen for their theoretical relation to the three

contentions. ELESC #22 (“you got a grade that was less than you expected”) and

MLESC #27 (“you got a bad grade on your report card”) directly relate to academic

performance. ELESC #33 (“you disagreed with most of the people in a group but did

what they wanted anyway”) and #23 (“you did not like someone but were nice to them

anyway”) directly relate to conformity and politeness, respectively. ELESC #37 (“you

had to do something because you’re a boy/girl, but you did not want to do it”) directly

relates to sex-roles. Lastly, items 23, 33, and 37 were specially composed and added

to the modified Jose et al. (1994) ELESC to create an instrument more culturally

sensitive to Japanese participants than the original measure.

The ancillary stress analyses were carried out utilizing chi square tests and

MANOVAs. Twenty chi square tests were conducted to assess stress occurrence

differences. Each evaluated the effect of either AGE, SEX, WARMTH, or

CONTROL on the occurrence values of each of the 5 stressor items. Two

73

MANOVAs were conducted to assess differences in stress intensities. In the first

MANOVA, AGE and SEX served as the independent variables while the intensity

values of the five stressor items served as the dependent variables. In the second

MANOVA, WARMTH and CONTROL served as the independent variables. In both

MANOVAs, Wilks’ Lambda contrasts were conducted with significant results, using

joint, multivariate, 95% confidence intervals. Results of all statistical assumption tests

were satisfactory.

Age-related Chi Square Tests. Significant age differences were detected for

the occurrence of two of the five stress items. These were for ELESC #22 (“you got a

grade that was less than you expected”) and MLESC #27 (“you got a bad grade on

your report card”). For both items, more older children reported academic

performance stress than did their younger counterparts (for ELESC #22, X2=4.49,

df=1, p<.05, for MLESC #27, X2=18.96, df=1, p<.001, see Table 12).

Sex-related Chi Square Tests. A significant sex difference was detected for the

occurrence of one of the five stress items. This was for ELESC #23 (“you did not like

someone but were nice to them anyway”). The number of girls found to report having

had the experience of this politeness-related stressor was significantly greater than the

number of boys (X2=18.53, df=1, p<.0001, see Table 13). However, no significant

sex difference was detected with respect to the number of girls versus boys who

reported having had the conformity-related experience of ELESC #33 (“you disagreed

with most of the people in a group but did what they wanted anyway”).

Warmth-related Chi Square Tests. Two significant differences were detected

with respect to warmth. “You had to do something because you’re a boy/girl, but you

74

did not want to do it” was reported to have been experienced by a significantly greater

number of low perceived parental warmth children than by high perceived parental

warmth children (X2=7.70, df=1, p<.01, see Table 14). “You got a bad grade on your

report card” was also reported to have been experienced by a significantly greater

number of low warmth children than by high warmth children (X2=8.86, df=1, p<.01,

see Table 14).

Control-related Chi Square Tests. Two significant differences were detected

with respect to control. These were for the same academic performance-related (i.e.,

grade-related) items for which significance was obtained in the above age-related chi

square. In this case, more children low in perceived parental control reported

academic performance stress than did children high in perceived parental control for

ELESC #22 (X2=6.69, df=1, p<.01, see Table 15). However, fewer of the low control

children reported academic performance stress for MLESC #27 than did high control

children (X2=5.73, df=1, p<.05, see Table 15).

Age X Sex - Stress Intensity MANOVA. Significant main effects were found

for both age and sex, but no significant interaction effect was detected (see Table 11).

Results of the contrast tests showed that older children reported experiencing

significantly greater stress (M=.72, SD=.79) associated with the everyday life event of

“you got a grade that was less than you expected” than younger children (M=.41,

SD=.63, t=-2.29, df=6, p<.05, see Table 12). Older children also reported

experiencing significantly greater stress (M=.64, SD=.77) associated with the major

life event of “you got a bad grade on your report card” than younger children (M=.24,

SD=.59, t=-3.24, df=6, p<.01, see Table 12). These age differences indicate that older

75

children reported greater stress intensity associated with academic performance than

did younger children.

Significant sex differences were also detected for two items. Girls reported

experiencing significantly greater stress (M=.53, SD=.79) associated with the everyday

life event of “you did not like someone but were nice to them anyway” than did boys

(M=.20, SD=.48, t=2.70, df=6, p<.01, see Table 13). Girls also reported experiencing

significantly greater stress (M=.69, SD=.80) associated with the everyday life event of

“you disagreed with most of the people in a group but did what they wanted anyway”

than did boys (M=.28, SD=.52, t=3.24, df=6, p<.01, see Table 13). These two sex

differences indicate that girls reported greater stress intensity associated with

conformity and politeness pressures than did boys.

Warmth X Control - Stress Intensity MANOVA. No significant main or

interaction effects for warmth and/or control were detected.

Table 11

Multivariate Analysis of Variance: Selected Life Events’ Stress Intensity as a Function

of Sex and Age

76

Source Hypothesis df Error df F p

SEX 6 100 2.55 .025

AGE 6 100 2.23 .046

SEX X AGE 6 100 .868 .521

77

Table 12

Selected Life Events, Stress Intensity, and Stress Occurrence by Age

Younger (N=51) Older (N=58)

Event Stress

Intensity

%

Experiencing

Stress

Intensity

%

Experiencing

M SD M SD

“you got a grade that was lessthan you expected” (ELE #22)

*.41 .63 *61 *.72 .79 *79

“you got a bad grade on yourreport card” (MLE #27)

**.24 .59 ****25 **.64 .77 ****67

* = significant difference at p<.05, ** = significant difference at p<.01, **** =significant difference at p<.0001.

78

Table 13

Selected Life Events, Stress Intensity, and Stress Occurrence by Sex

Girls (N=49) Boys (N=60)

Event Stress

Intensity

%

Experiencing

Stress

Intensity

%

Experiencing

M SD M SD

“you did not like someone butwere nice to them anyway” (ELE#23)

**.53 .79 ****84 **.20 .48 ****43

“you disagreed with most of thepeople in a group but did whatthey wanted anyway” (ELE #33)

**.69 .80 71 **.28 .52 66

** = significant difference at p<.01, **** = significant difference at p<.0001.

79

Table 14

Selected Life Events, Stress Intensity, and Stress Occurrence by Warmth

Low (N=55) High (N=54)

Event Stress

Intensity

%

Experiencing

Stress

Intensity

%

Experiencing

M SD M SD

“you had to do somethingbecause you’re a boy/girl, but youdid not want to do it” (ELE #37)

.53 .69 **66 .33 .64 **39

“you got a bad grade on yourreport card” (MLE #27)

.58 .76 **62 .31 .64 **33

** = significant difference at p<.01

Table 15

Selected Life Events, Stress Intensity, and Stress Occurrence by Control

Low (N=55) High (N=54)

Event Stress

Intensity

%

Experiencing

Stress

Intensity

%

Experiencing

M SD M SD

“you got a grade that was lessthan you expected” (ELE #22)

.67 .77 **82 .48 .69 **59

“you got a bad grade on yourreport card” (MLE #27)

.35 .67 *36 .56 .74 *59

* = significant difference at p<.05, ** = significant difference at p<.01

80

Ancillary Analyses of Coping Scale Variables

Past literature has demonstrated that girls are more likely than boys to make

use of emotional & instrumental social support in coping. Conversely, they are less

likely than boys to make use of aggression and drug taking behavior (Wertlieb et al.,

1987; Frydenberg and Lewis, 1990; Jose et al., 1997). Additionally, Japanese in

general have been shown to have a relatively high tendency for self-blame coping

relative to their Western counterparts (Minami, 1987). To explore these differences,

five individual CISCS questionnaire items were analyzed. They are: “I talked to

someone in order to feel better” (#11, emotional social support), “I asked someone to

give me help to solve the problem” (#12, instrumental social support), “I got into a

fight” (#8, aggression), “I smoked cigarettes or drank alcohol in order to feel better”

(#1, drug use), and “I blamed myself for the problem” (#18, self-blame).

Differences in tendencies to use the particular strategies were considered as a

function of AGE, SEX, WARMTH, and CONTROL in 2 MANOVAs. As with all the

previously reported MANOVAs, AGE and SEX were examined separately from

WARMTH and CONTROL, due to participant number constraints. With the

significant results, Wilks’ Lambda contrasts were conducted using joint, multivariate,

95% confidence intervals. Test assumptions were satisfactorily met for all items, with

the exception of drug use. In both analyses, several cells for this item had variances of

zero. Consequently the item was eliminated.

The AGE X SEX MANOVA yielded a significant main effect for sex (see

Table 16). Contrast tests indicated that girls reported significantly greater use of

emotional social support (M=1.10, SD=.69) than boys (M=.80, SD=.63, t=2.37, df=5,

81

p<.05, see Table 17). Girls were also found to report significantly greater use of

instrumental social support (M=.76, SD=.63) than boys (M=.45, SD=.53, t=2.65,

df=5, p<.01, see Table 17). Finally, girls were found to report significantly greater use

of self-blame (M=.74, SD=.64) than boys (M=.43, SD=.50, t=2.90, df=5, p<.01, see

Table 17). No significant effects were obtained in the WARMTH X CONTROL

MANOVA.

Table 16

Multivariate Analysis of Variance: Selected Coping Strategies as a Function of Sex

and Age

Source Hypothesis df Error df F p

SEX 5 101 3.5 .006

AGE 5 101 1.72 .135

SEX X AGE 5 101 1.14 .34

82

Table 17

Selected Coping Strategies by Sex

Girls (N=49) Boys (N=60)

Coping Strategy M SD M SD

“I talked to someone in order to feel better.” (CISCS #11,emotional social support)

*1.10 .69 *.80 .63

“I asked someone to give me help to solve the problem.”(CISCS #12, instrumental social support)

**.76 .63 **.45 .53

“I got into a fight.” (CISCS #8, aggression) .67 .63 .70 .70

“I smoked cigarettes or drank alcohol in order to feelbetter.” (CISCS #1, drug use)

.04 .20 .07 .26

“I blamed my self for the problem.” (CISCS #18, self-blame)

**.74 .64 **.43 .50

* = significant difference at p<.05, ** = significant difference at p<.01

Ancillary Yamamoto and Davis (1982) Comparison Analyses

As previously discussed in the literature review, Yamamoto and Davis (1982)

conducted a study of stress occurrence and intensity in Japanese and American

elementary school-age children. Further analyses were performed to allow for

comparisons between their study and the present study.

Yamamoto and Davis (1982) used a 20-item, life event inventory with a stress

intensity scale of 1 to 7. The present study had nearly four times that number of items

and used a stress intensity scale of 0 to 2. The difference in intensity scales precluded

direct comparisons of stress intensity. However, it was possible to directly compare

stress occurrence, in terms of percentages of participants having experienced given

events.

83

The Yamamoto and Davis (1982) stress inventory consisted of both everyday

and major life event stress. Five major life event stress items were directly comparable

to items in the present study: “new baby sibling,” “move to new school,” “a poor

report card,” “caught in theft,” and “academic retainment.” Percentages of

participants in Yamamoto and Davis (1982), as well as those of the present study, are

tabled below.

Notably, the percentages of Japanese participants in both samples were similar

for the events of: “move to new school,” “caught in theft,” and “academic retainment.”

Conversely, for the events of “new baby sibling” and “a poor report card,” the

percentages were quite disparate. Chi square tests were employed for further

assessment. The results were not surprising. The percentage of Japanese participants

in Yamamoto & Davis (1982) having reported the experience of “new baby sibling”

was found to be significantly greater than the percentage of Japanese participants in

the present study having reported that experience (X2=15.4, df=1, p<.001, see Table

18). Yamamoto and Davis’ Japanese participants were also significantly more likely

than those of the present study to have experienced “a poor report card” (X2=8.99,

df=1, p<.01, see Table 18). Significant results were not, however, obtained for the

remaining three events. Hence, the percentages of participants experiencing those

events were similar between the two studies.

84

Table 18

Major Life Event Experiences in Yamamoto and Davis (1982) and the Present Study

YAMAMOTO AND DAVIS (1982) PRESENT

STUDY

Major Life Event % experiencing -

(American, N=367)

% experiencing -

(Japanese, N=248)

% experiencing -

(Japanese, N=109)

A poor report card(MLE #27)

46 **64.9 **48

New Baby Sibling(MLE #21)

25.6 ***41.5 ***20

Move to new school(MLE #3)

42.8 4.8 6

Caught in theft (MLE#6)

12.3 2.8 3

Academic retainment(MLE #23)

10.9 3.6 0

* = significant difference at p<.05, ** = significant difference at p<.01, *** =significant difference at p<.001

Yamamoto and Davis (1982) analyzed cumulative stress occurrence and

cumulative stress intensity scores for their participants. Similar scores were calculated

and analyzed for the present data so that patterns of developmental change and sex

differences could be compared across the studies. However, because of differences in

the number of items examined and the range of stress intensity scale values,

Yamamoto and Davis’ data and present study’s data could not be examined together

in a single analysis. Thus a MANOVA was performed only on the data from the

present study with sex and age serving as independent variables and cumulative stress

85

occurrence and intensity scores serving as the dependent variables. In keeping with

the Yamamoto and Davis procedure, the analysis was performed with overall stress

scores, irrespective of stress context or whether the stressor was an everyday or major

life event. No significant main or interaction effects were found (see Table 19 for

mean scores).

Table 19

Mean Cumulative Stress Occurrence and Intensity by Sex

Occurrence Intensity

Sex N M SD M SD

Girls 49 31.35 9.15 28.27 17.12

Boys 60 28.43 8.10 21.88 13.35

86

Table 20

Mean Cumulative Stress Occurrence and Intensity by Age

Occurrence Intensity

Age N M SD M SD

Younger 51 28.70 7.98 25.11 16.99

Older 58 30.66 9.20 24.43 14.04

87

Summary of Results

Two analyses examined the Japanese children’s stress in four contexts

(education, health/fitness, family/home life, and peer relations) as a function of sex and

age. On the MLESC, older children reported significantly more education stress than

the younger children (HII). In addition, girls’ peer stress was found to increase with

age, whereas boys’ was found to decrease. On the ELESC, girls reported significantly

greater stress than boys for both the health/fitness context and the peer relations

context.

One analysis examined the Japanese children’s coping as a function of their sex

and age. Girls were found to report significantly more approach/problem-focused

coping use than boys (RIV). In terms of age, in contrast to hypothesis VI, older

children reported significantly greater use of avoidance/problem-focused coping than

younger children. Additionally, older children were found to report significantly more

approach/problem-focused coping than younger children (RV).

One analysis examined the Japanese children’s coping as a function of their

perceived parental warmth and control. Children low in perceived parental warmth

reporting significantly greater use of avoidance/problem-focused coping than those

high in perceived parental warmth (HXII). No effect was found for control.

Several ancillary analyses examined selected individual stressor items. Older

children reported significantly greater stress intensity and event occurrence associated

with academic performance than younger children. Girls reported significantly greater

stress intensity and event occurrence associated with politeness pressures than boys.

They also reported significantly greater stress intensity associated with conformity

88

pressures than boys. In terms of warmth, children low in perceived parental warmth

reported significantly greater event occurrence associated with sex-roles and academic

performance pressure than children high in perceived parental warmth. In terms of

control, results were somewhat inconsistent. Children low in perceived parental

control reported significantly greater event occurrence associated with everyday life

academic performance pressure than children high in perceived parental control, yet

significantly less event occurrence associated with major life academic performance

pressure.

Several ancillary analyses examined selected individual coping items. Girls

reported significantly greater use of emotional and instrumental social support coping

than boys. Girls also reported significantly greater use of self-blame coping than boys.

Finally, general comparisons were made between data of the present study and

those of Yamamoto and Davis (1982). The percentages of Japanese participants of

both studies having experienced events that the two studies had in common were quite

similar for three items, but differed significantly for two items. However, in contrast

to Yamamoto and Davis’ findings, cumulative stress intensity and cumulative event

occurrence analyses of the present data yielded no significant age or sex differences.

89

CHAPTER IV.

DISCUSSION

This research sought to expand the study of children’s stress and coping by

testing hypotheses with Japanese participants. The primary goal was to ascertain

whether Japanese children would exhibit similar gender differences and developmental

changes as American children have. The secondary goal was to explore the effects of

perceived parental warmth and control on stress and coping. The implications of the

results of this study will be discussed in this chapter.

The Experience of Stress

Developmental Differences (HII, RII). Yamamoto and Davis (1982) found

that older children reported having experienced greater stress than younger children.

When the pattern of findings within their study was compared to that of the present

study, results provided only partial support. Yamamoto and Davis found both

cumulative stress occurrence and cumulative stress intensity to increase with age. The

present study found no significant age differences for these cumulative scores.

However, the main stress analyses and the selected item analyses indicated that older

children reported greater major and everyday life event stress than younger children

for an education context.

In the main stress analyses, older children reported significantly more major life

event stress associated with their educational experiences than younger children. This

provides support for Yamamoto and Davis (1982). 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.”

90

The ancillary analyses provided further information about the contribution of

specific grades-related items to the results of the main analyses. Older children

reported significantly greater major and everyday life event stress related to

undesirable grades than younger children. The major life event of getting a “bad grade

on your report card” and the everyday life event of getting a “grade that was less than

you expected” were both grouped in the education contexts in the main analyses.

Evidently the major life event version of academic performance pressure accounts for

part of the reason why older children were found to experience more major life event

education-related stress than younger children. This item’s stress occurrence result, in

particular, was found to be highly significant.

The significant effect of the everyday life event of getting a “grade that was

less than you expected” may have been overshadowed in the main analysis by the

contributions of other, non grade-related items occurring in the education context

(e.g., “you used a bus or train to go to school,” etc.). Possibly the stress caused by

these events actually decreased with age, thus “canceling out” the increase in stress

related to grades. Unfortunately, for statistical reasons, it was not possible assess the

relative contributions of all the individual items to each stress context.

There may be additional reasons why older children reported greater overall

education stress for major life events but not everyday life events. It is plausible that

on a daily basis, parents and teachers apply educational performance pressures equally

to older and younger children. In contrast, they may be decidedly more intolerant of

major educational infractions by children as they grow older. Younger children may

simply be granted more latitude in the kinds of major academic evaluations that were

91

measured by the MLESC than those measured by the ELESC. It is quite clear that

younger children are not subject to near the level of educational productivity demands

of their older counterparts. In Japan, merit-based competition for school enrollment

starts at sixth grade. The sharp increase in academic performance pressure observed in

this study appears to reflect this reality. Interestingly, the age difference is also

consistent with widespread reports that early childhood is a time of indulgence in

Japanese culture (Shwalb and Shwalb, 1996).

No significant age differences were obtained for the other three stress contexts

(health/fitness, peer relations, family/home life) in the main analysis of stress. This was

somewhat surprising because Yamamoto and Davis (1982) found significant age

differences in their Japanese sample for a wide variety of events. Older children

experienced more events and more stress than their younger counterparts in

Yamamoto and Davis (1982).

Why did the present study only partially support the above Yamamoto and

Davis (1982) findings? Firstly, the contrast between the two age samples of the

present study may simply have been insufficient for significant differences to emerge.

Presumably, older children have had longer lives in which to experience a wider variety

of events including stressful events. Consistent with this idea, the event occurrence

values in this study were nonsignificantly higher for the older children. Secondly, the

age differences found by Yamamoto and Davis in stress may have been predominantly

related to academic performance. The present analysis of stress was much more

comprehensive than that of Yamamoto and Davis. Their stress measure consisted of

merely 20 items, whereas the present study’s consisted of nearly 80 items. Based on

92

the present study, it would seem that younger Japanese children are not necessarily

under less overall stress than their older counterparts.

The present study extends the Yamamoto and Davis (1982) finding that older

children reported experiencing more stress than younger children for education-related

items. The fourth to sixth grade participant bracket of the Yamamoto and Davis study

was augmented to third grade in the present study. Additionally, as previously stated,

the present study used a much more comprehensive inventory of events than did

Yamamoto and Davis. Thus, it provides grounds for further generalization of

developmental differences to a wider variety of stressors.

Sex Differences (HI, RI, RIII). Yamamoto and Davis (1982) did not detect

sex differences in their U.S. sample. However, they found boys to report greater

stress than girls in their Japanese sample for both cumulative occurrence and intensity.

They concluded that Japanese boys were generally under more pressure than their

female counterparts. The data of the present study do not support this interpretation.

Girls reported having experienced just as many stressful events as boys, at a

mean cumulative intensity that was actually higher than that of the boys. In fact, the

main stress analyses demonstrated girls to report significantly greater stress for the

contexts of health/fitness and peer relations. Moreover, the ancillary analyses of single

items showed girls to report significantly greater stress intensity than boys for 2 items

and significantly greater stress occurrence for 1 item. There is absolutely no evidence

in the present study that boys experience more stress than girls.

Girls reported significantly greater everyday stress for the context of

health/fitness. This context included many physical wellness items such as: “you

93

thought about the way you look,” “you thought about your weight,” and “you were

ill.” As is generally found in America (Attie and Brooks-Gunn, 1989; Adler et al.,

1992), it seems that Japanese girls may be under a considerable amount of pressure to

meet perceived standards of physical appearance, relative to Japanese boys. It is also

possible that boys are merely more reluctant than girls to disclose dissatisfaction with

themselves.

Girls also reported significantly greater everyday life event stress than boys for

peer relations. Stressors in this context included items such as: “you thought about

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

thought you did something foolish.” Evidently, Japanese girls - like American girls

(Miller, et al., 1986) - are relatively more preoccupied with avoiding falling into ill-

regard with their peers than are boys.

Possibly girls reported 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 boys (Wertlieb, et al., 1987; Frydenberg and Lewis,

1990; Jose et al., 1997). Certainly this is a reflection and manifestation of girls’

greater interest in social support coping strategies than boys.

The coping results of the present study provide some corroboration for this

interpretation. Girls were more likely than boys to utilize both emotional and

instrumental social support when dealing with being teased/avoided. This would seem

to be related, in part, to differential sex-role norms and expectations in communication

styles. These issues will be discussed further in the subsequent section on coping.

94

Not surprisingly, the general picture of girls being more socially preoccupied

than boys appears to be further substantiated by the selected item analyses. The

findings support the contention that girls are more concerned with politeness and

conformity related pressure than their male counterparts. The experience of politeness

pressure (i.e., having to be nice to an adversary) was found to be particularly common

among girls.

Based on Yamamoto and Davis (1982), boys were predicted to report greater

stress than girls for an education context. However, no sex significant difference was

found. Yamamoto and Davis (1982) interpreted their sex difference as being a

consequence of sex-differential “zeal for education” in Japanese culture.

Possibly the instruments utilized in this study were simply not sensitive enough

to capture a sex difference for education. There are, in fact, disproportionate numbers

of males and females enrolled in Japanese universities. The overriding opinion is 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.

Another possible explanation for the finding is that the education of girls may

have become a higher priority in Japan than it was 15 years ago when the Yamamoto

& Davis (1982) study was conducted. If this is the case, the sex-differential “zeal for

education” may have simply shifted to a higher age bracket. This remains to be

demonstrated.

Sex Differences in Developmental Change (RIII). Interestingly, girls’ reports

of major life event peer stress significantly increased across age, whereas boys’

95

significantly decreased across age. These major life event peer stressors included: “a

close friend stopped being a friend,” “you had trouble getting along with classmates,”

and “someone you liked very much went away.”

The age x sex interaction may be best explained by sex-differential

developmental factors. Firstly, within North American samples, boys’ same-sex

relationships have been shown to center around athletic events, games, and the like

(Adler, 1992). Perhaps elementary school age boys are relatively content with peer

relations, so long as game playing is “smooth” (i.e., rules are followed in a sportsmanly

fashion). Older boys may simply be more principled game players than younger boys.

Secondly, older girls’ reports of greater peer relations stress may be an indication that

they are delving into complex social dynamics sooner than their male counterparts.

Lastly, the age x sex interaction may partly be a reflection of greater emotional

sensitivity and/or willingness of social-emotional self-disclosure among older girls.

The Effects of Warmth (HVIII). Based on Grolnick and Ryan (1989), children

high in perceived parental warmth were predicted to report less stress than those low

in perceived parental warmth. Surprisingly, in the main stress analyses there were no

significant differences in children’s reported stress as a function of perceived parental

warmth. However, there were significant differences in the ancillary analyses of

selected items.

Many more children low in perceived parental warmth reported having

experienced the major life event of getting a poor grade on their report card than did

children high in perceived parental warmth. This difference is rather striking. Only a

third of the high warmth participants reported a poor grade, whereas roughly two

96

thirds of the low warmth participants reported this experience. Interestingly, however,

the stress intensity scores for this item did not significantly differ by warmth.

Unfortunately, these data do not indicate what children felt constituted a poor

grade. It may be that children low in warmth simply had higher expectations for

grades. Such expectations might be self-imposed and/or fostered by greater parental

dissatisfaction with report cards, regardless of the grades. Conversely, it may be that

children have a stable consensus about what constitutes a poor grade, by virtue of their

shared peer culture and shared classroom norms. If this is the case, the grade report

difference found here in relation to perceived parental warmth may reflect actual

academic performance. This finding would be consistent with the literature that has

shown high perceived parental warmth to be associated with positive cognitive

development (e.g., Grolnick and Ryan, 1989). Objective data on grade reports would

help to clarify this issue.

Warmth was also found to be related to the item: “you had to do something

because you’re a boy/girl, but you did not want to do it.” Roughly two thirds of the

low warmth children experienced this event, compared to roughly one third of the high

warmth children. One explanation for the finding may be that parents high in warmth

have less extreme sex-role expectancies for their children than parents low in warmth.

Interestingly, no significant sex difference was detected with respect to “you

had to do something because you’re a boy/girl but you did not want to do it.” This

may simply be a reflection of relatively highly differentiated sex-roles in Japanese

culture. That is, sex role expectations may be equally high for both boys and girls. Of

additional interest, no significant sex difference in stress intensity was observed for this

97

item. This may indicate that boys and girls are equally content (or discontented) with

their apparently differentiated sex-roles.

The Effects of Control (HIX). Based on Grolnick and Ryan (1989), children

high in perceived parental control were predicted to report greater stress than those

low in perceived parental control. Surprisingly, in the main stress analyses there were

no significant differences in children’s reported stress as a function of perceived

parental control. However, significant differences were found in the ancillary analyses.

Two grades-related items were found to significantly vary as a function of

control. Thirty-six percent of the low control children reported experiencing a poor

report card (major life event), whereas 59% of the high control children reported this

experience. Yet oddly, 82% of the low control children reported experiencing a grade

that was less than they expected (everyday life event), whereas 59% of the high

control children reported this experience.

How might this seeming discrepancy be explained? Perhaps low control

children’s perception of academic performance pressure is simply more variable than

that of high control children. The occurrence figure is 82% for low control children in

the everyday life version of the undesirable grade event, whereas it is only 36% in the

major life version. In contrast, the occurrence figure is 59% for high control children

in both the everyday life and the major life version of the undesirable grade event.

Unfortunately, there is no past literature with which to check the reliability of these

findings.

The Effects of Warmth and Control Interactions (HX, RVII). Based on

Grolnick and Ryan (1989), high control/low warmth children were predicted to report

98

significantly greater stress than high control/high warmth children. However, no

significant interaction was found between warmth and control. It is certainly plausible

that these two dimensions are independent of one another.

There are numerous possible reasons for the failure to find more significant

differences for both warmth and control. Firstly, the seven-question, combined

warmth and control measure may simply have been too crude to detect the true range

of participant variation along the warmth and control dimensions. Secondly,

participants from all three of the schools sampled may have been relatively moderate in

warmth and control, owing to their middle-class standing in Japan. Thirdly,

dichotomous coding may have obscured the full range of warmth and control in

parenting styles. It may be helpful in future research to separate warmth and control

into more than two levels, considering that moderate levels of warmth and control

(rather than very high or very low levels) may be most advantageous for children.

Finally, warmth and control may simply not play a major role in Japanese children’s

stress beyond the domain of academic performance. After all, schoolwork is the

primary occupation of Japanese middle childhood.

The Utilization of Coping Strategies

Developmental Differences (HV, HVI, RV). Older children have been found

to utilize more coping strategies than younger children (e.g., Band and Weisz, 1988;

Altshuler and Ruble, 1989). In particular, emotion-focused coping has been found to

increase for American children. In the present study, no significant age differences

were detected with either of the two types of emotion-focused coping strategies

(approach and avoidance). However, at p<.07, the result for avoidance/emotion-

99

focused strategies did approach significance. This appears to be consistent with the

existing literature.

In terms of problem-focused coping, past developmental studies have typically

found modest increases. However, one of the most prominent findings of the present

study was that older children reported significantly greater use of both approach and

avoidance kinds of problem-focused coping. Avoidance/problem-focused coping

items included: “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 included: “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. Such techniques would seem to be effective in dealing

with being teased/avoided. 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. Coping efficacy data were not collected,

however. Such data would further clarify the issue.

Sex Differences (HIII, HIV, RIV). The data suggest there are significant

differences in Japanese children’s reports of coping strategy use as a function of sex,

independent of age. Girls were found to report significantly greater use of

100

approach/problem-focused coping than boys. In the 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.

Girls have been found to be more gregarious than boys (Wertlieb, et al., 1987;

Frydenberg and Lewis, 1990; Jose et al., 1997). There is general agreement between

this finding and those of the social-support-related coping items. Girls were observed

to report seeking help from others to improve their subjective and objective plights

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

responsibility-taking coping than boys.

There are several possible reasons why girls also 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, girls may simply be more

advanced in their development of this characteristic than are boys.

Based loosely on Jose et al. (1997), boys were predicted to report significantly

greater use of avoidance/problem-focused coping than girls. This hypothesis was

rejected. The 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 (the original version of the CISCS) in

response to any particular stressor. Hence, the Jose et al. coping measure evaluated

general coping tendencies. In contrast, the present study asked children to complete

the CISCS exclusively in response to the specific situation of “kids teased or avoided

101

you.” Possibly boys use avoidance/problem-focused coping strategies more than girls

in only other types of stressful situations.

Boys reported using aggression more than girls. However, surprisingly, this

difference was not significant. This finding appears inconsistent with this researcher’s

anecdotal experience teaching elementary school age children in Japan for a year.

Boys were observed to resort to aggression much more frequently than girls in the

class environment, at least in situations where they had been teased.

Possibly 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 physical assault, especially in Japanese. 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 be judicious to better clarify aggression in future research,

especially when participants are asked to respond to a tease/avoid scenario.

Overall, girls seemed to use more approach strategies than did boys. As

previously stated, girls were found to report significantly greater use of

approach/problem-focused coping than boys. Girls’ were also found to report

nonsignificantly greater use of approach/emotion-focused coping than boys (p=.08).

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

102

account for the observed trend for boys and girls to differ in their scores for the

approach strategies.

Sex Differences in Developmental Change (HVII and RVI). Younger girls

were predicted to employ approach/emotion-focused coping more than younger boys

(based on Wertlieb, et al., 1987; Frydenberg and Lewis, 1990; Jose et al., 1997).

However, no significant interaction was detected between sex and age. A significant

age x sex interaction was found for peer relations stress. Girls’ major life event peer

stress increased developmentally, whereas that of boys decreased. It is surprising that

this difference did not coincide with a sex differential, developmental change in coping.

Perhaps a significant sex x age interaction would have been detected had more than

one stress scenario been used.

The Effects of Warmth (HXI, HXII, RVIII). As expected, children

significantly differed in their use of coping strategies as a function of their perceived

parental warmth. Specifically, children with low perceived parental warmth reported

significantly greater use of avoidance/problem-focused coping than children with high

perceived parental warmth. However, the two groups did not differ for the three other

types of coping strategies.

One possible implication of these findings is that children low in warmth do not

lack coping strategies that would be constructive for a “tease/avoid” scenario (i.e.,

approach-oriented strategies). Rather, they appear to supplement constructive

strategies with seemingly self-defeating ones. The avoidance/problem-focused coping

category includes items such as: “I pretended it wasn’t a problem,” “I ignored or tried

to get away from the problem by not thinking about it,” and “I didn’t do anything

103

about the problem.” Such strategies were deemed by Jose et al. (1994) to be helpless

and denying in nature. Hence, they would seem to be maladaptive in dealing with

being teased or avoided.

The Effects of Control (RIX). There were no significant effects with respect

to control. There were merely four items in the CPPSQ aimed at assessing control.

This measure may not have been sufficiently comprehensive or sensitive to register the

magnitude of true differences between low and high control children.

The Effects of Warmth and Control Interactions (HXIII, HXIV, RX, RXI).

Surprisingly, there were no significant interaction effects with respect to warmth and

control. There are numerous possible reasons for the failure to find more significant

differences for both warmth and control. Some of these were previously discussed.

Firstly, the warmth and control measure may have been too crude. Secondly,

participants may have been moderate in warmth and control, owing to their middle-

class standing in Japan. Thirdly, dichotomous coding may have obscured the full

range of warmth and control in parenting styles. Finally, warmth and control may

simply not play a major role in Japanese children’s coping.

Cross-cultural Comparisons

There were limits to the ancillary analyses comparing this study’s data to those

of Yamamoto and Davis (1982) because of extensive methodological differences

between the two studies. Yet five stress items were similar enough in content that

they could be directly compared. Comparisons were made in terms of the percentages

of the samples having experienced particular events.

104

In the American sample of Yamamoto and Davis (1982), 42.8% of the children

reported having moved to a new school. In the Japanese samples of both Yamamoto

and Davis and the present study, less than 6% of the children reported this experience.

Yamamoto and Davis interpreted the relatively low incidence of moving to a new

school in their Japanese sample as reflective of a less mobile population with more

stable family patterns than in the U.S.

In the American sample of Yamamoto and Davis (1982), 12.3% of the children

reported having been caught in theft. In the Japanese samples of both Yamamoto and

Davis and the present study, less than 3% of the children reported this experience.

Yamamoto and Davis interpreted the relatively low incidence of being caught in theft

in their Japanese sample as reflective of a long-standing emphasis on honesty in

Japanese culture.

In the American sample of Yamamoto and Davis (1982), 10.9% of the children

reported having been academically retained. In the Japanese samples of both

Yamamoto and Davis and the present study, less than 3.6% of the children reported

this experience. It seems that the policy of academic retainment is much less practiced

in Japan than in the U.S. It is not clear whether it is frowned upon, or just

unnecessary.

Interestingly, the percentages of participants having experienced a poor report

card were nearly equal for the Japanese sample of the present study (48%) and the

U.S. sample of Yamamoto and Davis (46%). In contrast, 64.9% of Yamamoto and

Davis’ Japanese participants reported having had the experience. If the two studies

can be reasonably compared, it appears that the percentage of Japanese having

105

experienced a poor report card has sharply dropped from around two thirds to less

than half. It is possible that academic guidelines have been relaxed since the Japanese

economic “miracle” of the 1980s, but such a hypothesis is purely speculative at this

point.

Another difference was observed in Japanese participants having experienced

the birth of a new baby sibling. About 26% of Yamamoto and Davis’ U.S. participants

and 42% of their Japanese participants reported having had this experience, whereas

only 20% of the present study’s participants did. It is well documented that the

Japanese birth rate has fallen dramatically over the past decade. This comparison

would seem to be a reflection of that population dynamic.

Limitations of this Research

There were a number of general limitations in the present study. Firstly, the

participant sample may have been unrepresentative. The Meiwa-cho sample was taken

from a private juku, or “cram” school, where the researcher taught English. The other

two samples were taken from public elementary schools. Although, most Japanese

children attend some form of supplementary schooling, perhaps a select group studies

English. The Meiwa-cho sample constitutes roughly one third of the total number of

participants. It is possible that this affected the results in some particular way.

A second general limitation is procedural in nature. Participants were told they

would receive a candy reward upon completion of the measures. This may have

introduced an element of haste. Arguably, a select group of participants was

motivated to obtain the reward at the expense of thorough completion of the

106

measures. Perhaps in the future it would be best to inform participants that they must

take a full period of time, for example 30 minutes.

A third general limitation was that a shortage of participants precluded analysis

of all four independent variables (age, sex, warmth, and control) in the same model.

Age and sex were analyzed in one model and warmth and control in another.

Consequently, interactions between these four variables could not be fully considered.

Obviously, this problem can be corrected in the future with a greater number of

participants.

Several limitations of the present study were related to the stress measures.

Firstly, the individual stress items were grouped into the four contexts (education,

health/fitness, family/home life, and peer relations) based on their theoretically

assumed membership in these categories. Most of the items were easily assigned. For

example, “you got a grade that was less than you expected” clearly belongs in the

education context. Unfortunately, several items were not so easily assigned. For

example, “you got caught stealing” was put into the family/home life context. Yet the

event may occur in a number of settings. This kind of item misplacement may have

affected the balance of items within a context.

Another limitation was that some of the participants may not have precisely

understood the concept of stress intensity. On both the ELESC and the MLESC,

participants were asked about the stress intensity of particular events they had

experienced. The Japanese word sutoresu was used in this inquiry. This word was

adapted from the English word “stress” and has only come into widespread use in

Japan in the past few years. As such, it may not have been fully understood by the

107

children. The term was explained to all of the children before they completed the

measures. However, it is unclear whether the children focused on the psychological or

physiological aspects of the word.

A third limitation was that important events may have been omitted on the

MLESC and ELESC. These measures were adapted from American studies. They

may be biased in one way or another, due to the proportions of particular kinds of

events. It may be useful to further expand the measures so as to increase their cultural

sensitivity.

A final limitation in the measurement of stress was that event occurrence and

stress intensity were averaged in the main analyses. For each stress context

(Family/Home Life, Health/Fitness, Education, and Peer Relations), stress intensity

values were summed and divided by the number of stress events reported to have

occurred within that category. This resulted in 4 overall stress scores for each

participant for each stress measure. These scores were calculated in this fashion to

simplify the analyses. Unfortunately, the entirety of the information could not be

preserved in the process. This kind of computation is always a compromise.

In addition to the general and stress-related limitations, there were at least

three coping-related limitations in the present study. Firstly, memories and/or images

of two distinct scenarios may have been invoked by the CISCS stress item: “kids

teased or avoided you.” This scenario was taken directly from the ELESC for the

sake of consistency. Unfortunately, it is possible that being teased and being avoided

are two different stressors that require diametrically opposed coping strategies for

108

effective resolution. In the future, it may be prudent to separate “teased” from

“avoided.”

Another issue with the measure of coping is that participants’ reports were

undoubtedly constrained by the fact that strategies were assessed exclusively in

response to one scenario. The decision to use only one scenario was a methodological

compromise. It was important that participants not envision radically different

stressors when responding. Otherwise, internal validity would be questionable. Yet,

the results here may be specific to the “teased/avoided” scenario, to the extent that

particular stressors elicit unique patterns of coping. In fact, this might explain why

emotion-focused coping was not shown to significantly increase with age.

A final coping-related limitation was that no attempt was made to gauge

children’s perception of control over the “teased/avoided” event on the CISCS.

Altshuler and Ruble (1989) found children’s choices of coping to be related to their

perceptions of whether they could influence the particular stressor at hand. Children

of the present study may have chosen to cope with being teased/avoided based on such

a consideration.

Directions for Future Study

Future work should expand upon and refine the present study. A wider range

of participants should be tested with a wider range of stressors and coping strategies.

In terms of participants, a greater number of Japanese children from a wider age range

and variety of backgrounds need to be tested. Then the next logical step would be to

test a matched sample of American children with the same instruments. It may also be

helpful to consider children’s perceived degree of control over particular events. At

109

this stage of the research it would be premature to dismiss this variable. Additionally,

coping should be assessed with stressors from a variety of contexts. In this case,

context could serve as an independent variable. Lastly, perhaps the most important

direction for future research deals with coping outcomes. We need to know more

about the efficacy of coping strategies in particular situations, within particular cultural

groups. That is, we need to know how children’s coping relates to their success and

well-being, as defined by their unique milieus. Only then will we have a useful

understanding of the stress and coping process.

110

CHAPTER V.

SUMMARY

The present research explored stress and coping in Japanese children of middle

childhood. Several existing instruments (Jose, 1994, 1997) were modified and

translated to measure daily and major life event stress, coping strategies, and

perception of parenting style in Japanese children of 3rd through 6th grade. Data were

analyzed in a 2 (sex) X 2 (age) X 2 (perception of parental warmth: high/low) X 2

(perception of parental control: high/low) design. Stress and coping served as

dependent variables. In particular, everyday and major life event stress were

considered in four contexts: education, family/home life, health/fitness, and peer

relations. Additionally, coping was considered in four categories: approach/emotion-

focused, approach/problem-focused, avoidance/emotion-focused, and

avoidance/problem-focused. These categories were assessed in response to the

scenario of: “kids teased or avoided you.” Lastly, several ancillary analyses examined

cumulative scores of stress and selected items of both stress and coping.

The Experience of Stress. In contrast to previous findings, older children did

not report significantly more cumulative stress intensity or cumulative event

occurrence than younger children. However, they did report experiencing greater

education-related stress than their younger counterparts. Firstly, when the four

contexts of stress were analyzed, older children reported significantly more major life

event stress than younger children for the education context. This strongly confirmed

hypothesis HII. Secondly, when selected stress items were analyzed, older children

111

reported significantly greater stress intensity and event occurrence associated with

major and everyday life academic performance pressures than younger children.

In spite of previous findings, results did not suggest that girls were under

significantly less stress than boys overall. Also, contrary to hypothesis I, girls did not

report significantly less education stress than boys. In fact, girls were found to

experience significantly greater stress than boys in several cases. Firstly, when the four

contexts of stress were analyzed, girls reported significantly greater everyday life event

stress than boys for both the health/fitness context and the peer relations context.

Interestingly, girls’ peer relations stress was found to increase across age, whereas that

of boys’ was found to decrease. Secondly, when selected items of stress were

analyzed, girls reported significantly greater stress intensity and event occurrence

associated with politeness pressures than boys. They also reported significantly

greater stress intensity associated with conformity pressures than boys.

The perceived parental control results were somewhat inconsistent. Firstly,

when the four contexts of stress were analyzed, control did not play a significant role

for any of the contexts. Thus hypotheses IX and X were not confirmed. Secondly,

when selected items of stress were analyzed, children low in control reported

significantly greater event occurrence associated with everyday academic performance

pressures than children high in control. Yet these same children reported significantly

less event occurrence associated with major life academic performance pressures than

their high control counterparts.

The perceived parental warmth results were also mixed. When the four

contexts of stress were analyzed, warmth did not play a significant role. Thus

112

hypothesis VIII was not confirmed. However, when selected items of stress were

analyzed, children low in warmth reported significantly greater event occurrence

associated with sex-role and academic performance pressures than children high in

perceived parental warmth. These findings may be reflective of high warmth parents’

less extreme sex-role expectancies, relative to low warmth parents. They may also be

an indication that the likelihood of academic success is higher among children of high

warmth parents in contrast to those of low warmth parents.

The Utilization of Coping Strategies. Hypothesis VI predicted that older

children would report significantly less use of avoidance/problem-focused coping than

younger children. This hypothesis was not confirmed. In fact, when the four

categories of coping were analyzed, older children reported significantly greater use of

avoidance/problem-focused coping than younger children. Other differences predicted

in hypothesis V and VII were not confirmed either. However, interestingly, older

children reported significantly greater use of approach/problem-focused coping than

younger children (RV). To the extent that this category of coping includes many

constructive strategies, the developmental increase seems to reflect older children’s

greater proficiency at dealing with being teased/avoided. Lastly, selected coping item

analyses yielded no significant age differences.

Hypothesis III predicted that girls would report significantly greater use of

approach/emotion-focused coping than boys. Hypothesis IV predicted that boys

would report significantly greater use of avoidance/problem-focused coping than girls.

Neither of these hypotheses were confirmed. However, several sex differences did

emerge. Firstly, when the four categories of coping were analyzed, girls were found to

113

report significantly greater approach/problem-focused coping use than boys (RIV).

Analyses of selected items of coping, revealed that girls reported significantly greater

use of emotional and instrumental social support coping than boys. They also reported

significantly greater use of self-blame coping than boys.

When the four categories of coping were analyzed, children low in perceived

parental warmth reported significantly greater use of avoidance/problem-focused

coping than those high in perceived parental warmth. Thus hypothesis HXII was

strongly confirmed. However, the other warmth-related hypotheses (XI, XIII, and

XIV) were not supported. Lastly, when selected items of coping were analyzed, no

significant warmth relationships were detected.

With respect to perceived parental control, there were no significant results for

any of the coping analyses.

Cross-cultural comparisons. Results from general comparisons between the

present data and those of Yamamoto and Davis (1982) revealed several interesting

relationships. The percentages of Japanese participants of both studies having

experienced events that the two studies had in common were quite similar for the

events of: “move to new school,” “caught in theft,” and “academic retainment.”

Interestingly, the percentage of children in the present study having

experienced a poor report card was nearly equal to that of the U.S. children in

Yamamoto and Davis (1982). If the two studies can be reasonably compared, it

appears that the percentage of Japanese having experienced a poor report card has

sharply dropped from around two thirds in the Yamamoto and Davis study to less than

half in the present study.

114

Another difference was observed in Japanese participants having experienced

the birth of a new baby sibling. About 26% of Yamamoto & Davis’ U.S. participants

and 42% of their Japanese participants reported having had this experience. In

contrast, only 20% of the present study’s participants did.

115

References

Adler, Patricia A., Kless, Steven J., Adler, Peter. “Socialization to Gender Roles:Popularity Among Elementary School Boys and Girls.” Sociology ofEducation, 65, July 1992: 169-187.

Aldwin, C. M. (1991). Does age affect the stress and coping process? Implications ofage differences in perceived control. Journal of Gerontology, 46, 174-180.

Aldwin, C. M. (1994). Stress, coping, and development: An integrative perspective.New York: Guilford Press.

Aldwin, C. M., Chiara, G., & Sutton, K.J. (1993). Stress and coping in older men:Findings from the Normative Aging Study. The Gerontologist, 33, 248.

Aldwin, C. M. & Revenson, T. (1987). Does coping help? A reexamination of therelation between coping and mental health. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 53, 337-348.

Aldwin, C. M., & Stokols, D. (1988). The effects of environmental change onindividuals and groups: Some neglected issues in stress research. Journal ofEnvironmental Psychology, 8, 57-75.

Altshuler, J., & Ruble, D. (1989). Developmental changes in children's awareness ofstrategies for coping with uncontrollable stress. Child Development, 60, 1337-1349.

Attie, I., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (1989). Development of eating problems in adolescentgirls: A longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 25, 70-79.

Band, E., and Weisz, J.R. (1988). How to feel better when it feels bad: children'sperspectives on coping with everyday stress. Developmental Psychology, 24, 2,247-253.

Barnlund, D. (1975). Public and private self in Japan and the United States. SanFransisco: Intercultural Press.

Berry, J. W., Poortinga, Y. H., Segall, M. H., & Dasen, P. R. (1992). Cross-culturalpsychology. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Billing, A. G., & Moos, R. H. (1981). The role of coping responses and socialresources in attenuating the impact of stressful life events. Journal ofBehavioral Medicine, 4, 139-157.

116

Billing, A. G., & Moos, R. H. (1984). Coping, stress, and social resources amongadults with unipolar depression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,46, 877-891.

Bolger, N. (1990). Coping as a personality process: A prospective study. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 59, 525-537.

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 respiratorytract illness. Pediatrics, 60, 609-615.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments bynature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986). Ecology of the family as a context for humandevelopment: research perspectives. Developmental Psychology 22: 723-742.

Brown, G. W. (1989). Life events and measurement. In G. W. Brown & T. O. Harris(Eds.), Life events and illness (pp.3-45). New York: Guilford Press.

Brown, L., Cowen, E. (1988). Children's judgments of event upsettingness andpersonal experiencing of stressful events. American Journal of CommunityPsychology, 16, 123-135.

Bryant, B. K. (1985). The neighborhood walk: Sources of support in middlechildhood. 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.

Carrere, S., Evans, G. W., Palsane, M. N., Rivas, M. (1991). Job strain andoccupational stress among urban transit operators. Journal of OccupationalPsychology, 64, 305-316.

Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F., & Weintraub, J. K. (1989). Assessing copingstrategies: A theoretically-based approach. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 56, 267-283.

Coddington, R. (1972). The significance of life events as etiologic factors in disease ofchildren. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 16, 7-18.

Coelho, G. V., Hamburg, D. A., Adams, J. E. (Eds.). (1974). Coping and adaptation.New York: Basic Books.

117

Cohen, F., & Lazarus, R. S. (1973). Active coping processes, coping dispositions, andrecovery from surgery. Psychosomatic Medicine, 35, 375-389.

Colby, B. N. (1987). Well-being: A theoretical program. American Anthropologist,89, 879-895.

Collins, D. L., Baum, A., & Singer, J. E. (1983) Coping with chronic stress at ThreeMile Island: Psychological and biochemical evidence. Health Psychology, 2,149-166.

Compas, B. E., Worsham, N. L., & Ey, S. (1992). Conceptual and developmentalissues 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.

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

Crystal, D. S., Chen, C., Fuligni, A. J., Stevenson, H. W., Hsu, C., Ko, H., Kitamura,S., Kimura, S. (1994). Psychological Maladjustment and AcademicAchievement: A Cross-Cultural Study of Japanese, Chinese, and AmericanHigh School Students. Child Development, 65, 738-753.

DeLongis, A., Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R.S. (1988). The impact of daily stress onhealth and mood: Psychology and social resources as mediators. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 54, 486-495.

Depue, R. A., & Monroe, S. M. (1986). Conceptualization and measurement ofhuman disorder in life stress research: The problem of chronic disturbance.Psychological Bulletin, 99, 36-51.

Dohrenwend, B.S., Krasnoff, L., Askenasy, A., & Dohrenwend, B.P. (1978).Exemplification of a method for scaling life events: The PERI life events scale.Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 19, 205-229.

Elder, G., & Clipp, E. (1989). Combat experience and emotional health: Impairmentand resilience in later life. Journal of Personality, 57, 311-341.

Endler, N., & Parker, J. D. A. (1990). Multidimensional assessment of coping: Acritical evaluation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 844-854.

Erikson, E. H. (1963). Childhood and society (2nd ed.). New York: Norton.

Erikson, K. T. (1976). Everything in its path. New York: Simon & Schuster.

118

Fabes, R., Eisenberg, N., & Bernzweig, J. (1990). The Coping with Children'sNegative Emotions Scale: Procedures and Scoring. Available from authors.Arizona State University.

Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1980). An analysis of coping in a middle-agedcommunity 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 ofemotion and coping during three stages of a college examination. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 48, 150-170.

Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1988). Coping as a Mediator of Emotion. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 54, 3, 466-475.

Folkman, S., Lazarus, R. S., Dunkel-Schetter, C., Delongis, A., & Gruen, R. (1986).The dynamics of a stressful encounter: Cognitive appraisal, coping, andencounter outcomes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 992-1003.

Folkman, S., Lazarus, R. S., Gruen, R., & Delongis, A. (1986). Appraisal, coping,health status, and psychological symptoms. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 50, 571-579.

Folkman, S., Chesney, M., Pollack, L., & Coates, T. (1993). Stress, control, copingand depressive mood in human immunodeficiency virus-positive and -negativegay men in San Francisco. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 181, 409-416.

Fondacaro, M. R., & Moos, R. H. (1987). Social support and coping: A longitudinalanalysis. American Journal of Community Psychology, 15, 653-673.

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). PsychologicalTest Bulletin, 3, 63-73.

Grolnick, W., & Ryan, R. (1989). Parent styles associated with self-regulation andcompetence in school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 143-154.

Gross, E. (1970). Work, organization and stress. In S. Levine & N. A. Scotch (Eds.),Social stress (pp. 54-110). Chicago: Aldine.

119

Haan, N. (Ed.). (1977). Coping and defending. New York: Academic Press.

Hardy, Power, and Jaedicke (1993). Examining the relation of parenting to children'scoping with everyday stress. Child Development, 64, 1829-1841.

Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley.

Hoffner, C. (1993). Children's strategies for coping with stress: blunting andmonitoring. Motivation and Emotion, 17(2), 91-106.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Holahan, C., & Moos, R. (1985). Life stress and health: Personality, coping and familysupport in stress resistance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49,739-747.

Holmes, D., & Rahe, R. (1967). The Social Readjustment Rating Scale. Journal ofPsychosomatic Research, 11, 213-218.

Hudgens, R. W. (1974). Personal catastrophe and depression: A consideration of thesubject with respect to medically ill adolescents, and a requiem forretrospective life events studies. In B. S. Dohrenwend & B. P. Dohrenwend(Eds.), Stressful life events: Their nature and effect (pp. 119-134). New York:Wiley.

Hui, C. H., & Triandis, H. C. (1985). Measurement in cross-cultural psychology: Areview and comparison of strategies. Journal of cross-cultural psychology, 16,131-152.

Janis, I., & Mann, L. (1977). Decision-making: A psychological analysis of conflict,choice, and commitment. New York: Free Press.

Jose, P. (1991a). The Children's Integrated Stress and Coping Scale. Unpublishedmanuscript, Loyola University Chicago, Chicago, Illinois.

Jose, P. (1991b). The Everyday Life Events Scale for Children. Unpublishedmanuscript, 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. Unpublishedmanuscript, Loyola University Chicago, Chicago, Illinois.

120

Jose, P., Cafasso, L., & D'Anna, C. (1994). Ethnic Group Differences in Children'sCoping Strategies. Sociological Studies of Children, 6, 23-53.

Jose, P., Cafasso, L., & D’Anna, C. (1997). Gender differences in stressors and copingstrategies among early adolescents. Manuscript in preparation.

Jose, P., Hunsinger, C. (1997). Stress and psycho-social adjustment of Chinese-American and European American Adolescents. Manuscript submitted forpublication.

Kanner, A., Coyne, J., Schaefer, C., & Lazarus, R. (1981). Comparison of two modesof stress measurement: Daily hassles and uplifts versus major life events.Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 4, 1-39.

Karasek, R., & Theorell, T. (1990). Healthy work: Stress, productivity, and thereconstruction of working life. New York: Basic Books.

Kawanishi, Y. (1995). The Effects of Culture On Beliefs About Stress and Coping:Causal Attribution of Anglo-American and Japanese Persons. Journal ofContemporary Psychotherapy, 25, 1, 1995.

Kliewer, W. (1991). Coping in middle childhood: relations to competence, type Abehavior, monitoring, blunting, and locus of control. DevelopmentalPsychology, 27, 689-697.

Kobasa, S. C. (1982). Commitment and coping in stress resistance among lawyers.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 707-717.

Kovacs, M. (1985). The children's depression inventory. PsychopharmacologicalBulletin, 21, 995-998.

La Greca, A. M., Siegal, L. J., Wallander, J. L., & Walker, C. E. (Eds.). (1992). Stressand Coping in Child Health. New York: Guilford Press.

Laux, L. & Weber, H. (1991). Presentation of self in coping with anger and anxiety:An intentional approach. Anxiety Research, 3, 233-255.

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.

121

Lazarus, R. S., Speisman, J. C., Markoff, A. M., & Davison, L. A. (1962). A lab studyof psychological stress produced by a motion picture film. PsychologicalMonographs, 76 (34, Whole No. 553).

Maccoby, & Martin (1983). Socialization in the context of the family: parent-childinteraction. In E. M. Hetherington (Ed.), P. H. Mussen (Series Ed.),Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 4. Socialization, personality, and socialdevelopment (pp. 1-101). New York: Wiley.

Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the Self: Implications forCognition, Emotion, and Motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 2, 224-253.

Masten, A., (1985). Stress, coping, and children's health. Pediatric Annals, 14, 543-547.

Mattlin, J., Wethington, E., & Kessler, R. C. (1990). Situational determinants ofcoping and coping effectiveness. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 31,103-122.

Mauro, R., Sato, K., & Tucker, J. (1992). The Role of Appraisal in Human Emotions:A Cross-Cultural Study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 2,301-317.

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 socialdevelopment (4th ed.). New York: Wiley.

McCrae, R. R. (1984). Situational determinants of coping responses: Loss, threat, andchallenge. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 919-928.

McCrae, R. R. (1989). Age differences and changes in the use of coping mechanisms.Journals of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 44, 161-169.

Mechanic, D. (1978). Students under stress: A study in the social psychology ofadaptation. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

Miller, P., Danaher, D., & Forbes, D. (1986). Sex-related strategies for coping withinterpersonal conflict in children ages five and seven. DevelopmentalPsychology, 22, 543-548.

Miller, S. (1987). Monitoring and blunting: validation of a questionnaire to assessstyles of information seeking under threat. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 52, 345-353.

122

Miller, S., & Mangan, C. E. (1983). Interacting effects of information and coping stylein adapting to gynecological stress: When should the doctor tell all? Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 45, 223-236.

Minami, O. (1987). Nihontekijiga (Japanese Self) Tokyo: Iwanami Shinsho Publishing.

Mitchell, R. E., Cronkite, R. C., & Moos, R. H. (1983). Stress, coping, and depressionamong married couples. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 92, 433-448.

Mullen, B., & Suls, J. (1982). The effectiveness of attention and rejection as copingstyles: A meta-analysis of temporal differences. Journal of PsychosomaticResearch, 26, 43-49.

Murphy, L., & Moriarty, A. (1976). Vulnerability, coping, and growth: from infancyto adolescence. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Nader, L. (1985). A user theory of legal change as applied to gender. NebraskaSymposium on Motivation, 33, 1-33.

Nakano, K. (1988). Hassles as a measure of stress in a Japanese sample: Preliminaryresearch. Psychological Reports, 63(1), 252-254.

Nakano, K. (1989). Intervening variables of stress, hassles, and health. JapanesePsychological Research, 31(3), 143-148.

Nakano, K. (1991a). Coping strategies and psychological symptoms in a Japanesesample. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 47(3), 346-350.

Nakano, K. (1991b). The role of coping strategies on psychological and physical well-being. Japanese Psychological Research, 33(4), 160-167.

Nakano, K. (1992). The Role of personality characteristics in coping behaviors.Psychological Reports, 71, 687-690.

Nakano, K. (1993). Personality, hassles, and psychological and physical well-being.Japanese Journal of Psychology. 64, 123-127.

Norris, F. H. (1992). Epidemiology of trauma: Frequency and impact of differentpotentially traumatic events on different demographic groups. Journal ofConsulting and Clinical Psychology, 60, 409-418.

Offer, D., Ostrov, E., & Howard, K. (1981). The adolescent: A psychological self-portrait. New York: Basic Books.

123

Ogrocki, P. K., Stephens, M. A. P., & Kinney, J. (1990, November). Assessingcaregiver coping: State vs. trait approaches. The Gerontologist, 30, 135A.

Page, W. F., Engdahl, B. F., & Eberly, R. E. (1991). Prevalence and correlates ofdepressive symptoms among former prisoners of war. Journal of Nervous andMental Disease, 179, 670-677.

Peak, L. (1991). Learning to go to school in Japan: The transition from home topreschool life. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Pearlin, L. (1989). The sociological study of stress. Journal of Health and SocialBehavior, 30, 241-256.

Pearlin, L., & Schooler, C. (1978). The structure of coping. Journal of Health andSocial Behavior, 19, 2-21.

Rabkin, J., Streuning, E. (1976). Life events, stress, and illness. Science, 194, 1013-1020.

Radford, M., Mann, L., Ohta, Y., & Nakane, Y. (1993). Differences betweenAustralian and Japanese students in decisional self-esteem, decisional stress,and coping styles. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 24, 3, 284-297.

Reich, J. W., & Zautra, A. (1981). Life events and personal causation: Somerelationships with satisfaction and distress. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 41, 1002-1112.

Revenson, T. A., & Felton, B. J. (1989). Disability and coping as predictors ofpsychological adjustment to rheumatoid arthritis. Journal of Consulting andClinical Psychology, 57, 344-348.

Rollins, and Thomas (1979). Parental support, power, and control techniques in thesocialization of children. In W. R. Burre, R. Hill, F. I. Nye, and I. L. Reiss(eds.), Contemporary theories about the family: Research based theories(pp.317-364). New York: Free Press.

Rose, R. M. (1978). Air traffic controller health change study: A prospectiveinvestigation of physical, psychological and work-related changes. Springfield,VA: National Technical Information Service.

Rosenberger, N. R. (1992). Japanese sense of self. Cambridge: University Press.

Rowlison, R., & Felner, R. (1989). Major life events, hassles, and adaptation inadolescence: Confounding in the conceptualization and measurement of lifeevents revisited. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 432-444.

124

Ryan, N. (1988). The stress-coping process in school-age children: Gaps in theknowledge needed for health promotion. Advances in Nursing Science, 11, 1-12.

Sarason, I., Johnson, J. H., & Siegel, J. M. (1978). Assessing the impact of lifechanges: Development of the Life Experiences Survey. Journal of Consultingand Clinical Psychology.

Schnurr, P., Rosenberg, S., & Friedman, M. (1993). Change in MMPI scores fromcollege to adulthood as a function of military service. Journal of AbnormalPsychology, 102, 288-296.

Shelley, R. (1993). Japan. Portland: Graphic Arts Center Publishing Company.

Shwalb, D. W., & Shwalb, B. J. (1996). Japanese childrearing: Two generations ofscholarship. New York: The Guilford Press.

Shweder, R. (1997, January 26). America's Latest Export: A Stressed-Out World. TheNew York Times, pp. C19.

Spirito, A., Stark, L. J., Grace, N., & Stamoulis, D. (1991). Common problems andcoping strategies reported in childhood and early adolescence. Journal ofYouth and Adolescence, 20, 531-544.

Sorenson, E. (1993). Children's stress and coping: A family perspective. New York:The Guilford Press.

Stevenson, H., Azuma H., Hakuta, K. (Eds.) (1986). Child development and educationin Japan. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company.

Stevenson, H. & Stigler, J. (1992). The learning gap: Why our schools are failing andwhat we can learn from Japanese and Chinese education. New York: SummitBooks.

Thoits, P. (1983). Dimensions of life events that influence psychological distress: Anevaluation and synthesis of the literature. In B. Kaplan (Ed.), Psycho-socialstress: Trends in theory and research (pp. 33-103). New York: AcademicPress.

Triandis, H. (1978). Some universals of social behavior. Personality and socialpsychology bulletin, 4, 1-16.

125

Triandis, H. (1988). Collectivism Vs individualism: A reconceptualization of a basicconcept in cross-cultural social psychology. In C. Bagley & G. Verma (Eds.).Personality, cognition and values (pp. 60-95). London: Macmillan.

Turner, V. S. (1969). The ritual process: Structure and anti-structure. Chicago:Aldine.

Vingerhoets, A. J., & Marcellissen, F. G. (1988). Stress research: Its present statusand issues for future developments. Social Science and Medicine, 36, 279-291.

Vitaliano, P. P., Russo, J., Maiuro, R. D. (1987). Locus of control, type of stressor,and appraisal within a cognitive-phenomenological model of stress. Journal ofResearch in Personality, 21, 224-237.

Weinberger, M., Hiner, S. L., & Tiernery, W. M. (1987). In support of hassles as ameasure of stress in predicting health outcomes. Journal of BehavioralMedicine, 10, 19-31.

Wertlieb, D., Weigel, C., & Feldstein, M. (1987). Measuring children's coping. Journalof Orthopsychiatry, 57, 548-560.

Yamamoto, K. (1979). Children's ratings of the stressfulness of experiences.Developmental Psychology, 15, 581-582.

Yamamoto, K. (1993). Their world, our world: Reflections on childhood. Westport,Connecticut: Praeger.

Zborowski, M. (1952). Culture and symptoms: An analysis of patients' presentingproblems. American Sociological Review, 31, 615-630.

126

A-1.

Consent for Participation (Child)

Director of Research: Donald Kilburg [Telephone: (773)325-7000, x2046]

Supervisor of Research: Linda Camras, Ph.D. [Telephone: (773)325-7000, 2029]

Dear Student,

This is a request for you to complete a questionnaire for the research of stress

at DePaul University of Chicago. The research of stress 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. Your

answers to the questions will be kept strictly confidential. If you agree to complete the

questionnaire, please sign and date below.

Signature: ___________________________________

Date: ____________________

127

A-2.

Consent for Participation (Parent)

Director of Research: Donald Kilburg [Telephone: (773)325-7000, x2046]

Supervisor of Research: Linda Camras, Ph.D. [Telephone: (773)325-7000, 2029]

Dear Parent,

This is a request for you to complete a questionnaire for the research of stress

at DePaul University of Chicago. The research of stress 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. Your

answers to the questions will be kept strictly confidential. If you agree to complete the

questionnaire, please sign and date below.

Signature: ___________________________________

Date: ____________________

128

B-1.

Demographic Information (Child)

Please fill in the following blanks. So that no one will know which questionnaire is

yours, please do not write your name anywhere.

Age: _______________

Sex: _______________

Home town: __________________________

Your parents' occupations: __________________________

129

B-2.

Demographic Information (Parent)

Please fill in the following blanks. So that no one will know which questionnaire is

yours, please do not write your name anywhere.

Age: _______________

Sex: _______________

Home town: __________________________

Your occupation: __________________________

Ages of children: ______________________

Sexes of children: ______________________

130

C.

The Everyday Life Events Scale for Children

Instructions:A) The following are things that can happen to anyone. Has any of the following ever happened toyou? Circle yes or no.B) If you circle "yes", how much stress did you feel? Circle 0 (None), 1 (Some), or 2 (A lot) by eachthing.

Happened? How much stress?

None Some A lot1. You and your sister or brother disagreed Yes No 0 1 2

2. You and yourmom or dad disagreed Yes No 0 1 2

3. You thought too many people livedin your house Yes No 0 1 2

4. You thought toofew people lived inyour house Yes No 0 1 2

5. You saw a familymember who dranka lot of alcohol Yes No 0 1 2

6. You used a bus ortrain to go to school Yes No 0 1 2

7. You could not talkto other people aboutyour feelings Yes No 0 1 2

8. You could notfind something youlooked for Yes No 0 1 2

9. You thought abouthaving school workto do Yes No 0 1 2

10. Someone in yourfamily was ill Yes No 0 1 2

11. You did not haveanything to do Yes No 0 1 2

131

Happened? How much stress?

None Some A lot

12. You weredisciplined by yourmom or dad Yes No 0 1 2

13. People thoughtyou did somethingfoolish Yes No 0 1 2

14. You could notwatch TV or playvideo games Yes No 0 1 2

15. Your sister orbrother did better thanyou at something Yes No 0 1 2

16. You were ill Yes No 0 1 2

17. Someone in yourfamily was very angryor cried a lot Yes No 0 1 2

18. You did a choreat home Yes No 0 1 2

19. You wanted moneyto buy something Yes No 0 1 2

*20. You had after-schoollessons or practice(e.g., juku, piano, English, etc.) Yes No 0 1 2

21. Kids teased oravoided you Yes No 0 1 2

22. You got a gradethat was less than youexpected Yes No 0 1 2

23. You did not like someonebut were nice to them anyway Yes No 0 1 2

24. You went to thedoctor, dentist, or tookmedicine Yes No 0 1 2

132

Happened? How much stress?

None Some A lot

25. Your mom anddad disagreed infront of you Yes No 0 1 2

26. Your mom or dadtalked about theirproblems or worries Yes No 0 1 2

27. You could not dosomething withgrandparents or otherrelatives Yes No 0 1 2

28. You thought aboutthe way you look Yes No 0 1 2

29. You thought aboutwhat your classmatesthought of you Yes No 0 1 2

30. You were inbed early Yes No 0 1 2

31. You took careof younger children Yes No 0 1 2

32. You and yourmom could not betogether Yes No 0 1 2

*33. You disagreedwith most of the peoplein a group but did whatthey wanted anyway Yes No 0 1 2

34. You and your dadcould not be together Yes No 0 1 2

*35. You did not wantto follow your school'sdress code Yes No 0 1 2

36. You went tobed late Yes No 0 1 2

*37. You had to dosomething becauseyou're a boy/girl, butyou did not wantto do it Yes No 0 1 2

133

Happened? How much stress?

None Some A lot

38. You could not play Yes No 0 1 2

39. You thought aboutyour weight Yes No 0 1 2

40. You were alone Yes No 0 1 2

41. There was fightingor violence at yourschool or in yourneighborhood Yes No 0 1 2

42. You thought aboutwhat your mom or dadthought of you Yes No 0 1 2

43. Someone stolesomething you own Yes No 0 1 2

Is there anything else?

44. ___________________ 0 1 2

[* = item added to original measure to increase cultural relevance]

134

D.

The Major Life Events Scale for Children

Instructions:A) Below is a list of things that could happen to anyone. Has one of these things ever happened inyour life? Circle "Yes" or "No".B) If you circle "yes", how much stress did you feel? Circle 0 (None), 1 (Some), or 2 (A lot) by eachthing.

Happened? How much stress?None Some A lot

1. your family movedto a new house Yes No 0 1 2

2. you had to learn a foreign language Yes No 0 1 2

3. you changed to a new school Yes No 0 1 2

4. someone in your family got very sick or was badly injured Yes No 0 1 2

5. your parents divorced Yes No 0 1 2

6. you got caught stealing Yes No 0 1 2

7. your mom or dad lost his or her job Yes No 0 1 2

8. a family member or relative past away Yes No 0 1 2

9. your parents lived separately Yes No 0 1 2

10. a close friend pastaway Yes No 0 1 2

11. you moved to a different town Yes No 0 1 2

12. your brother or sister left home Yes No 0 1 2

13. a close friend got very sick or was badly injured Yes No 0 1 2

135

Happened? How much stress?None Some A lot

14. your parent was away from home for at least a day Yes No 0 1 2

15. you got a new stepmotheror stepfather Yes No 0 1 2

16. you told a big lie Yes No 0 1 2

17. your parents made less money than they used to Yes No 0 1 2

18. one of your parentshit you Yes No 0 1 2

19. one of your parents got a new job Yes No 0 1 2

20. a close friend stopped being a friend Yes No 0 1 2

21. a brother or sister was born Yes No 0 1 2

22. you got very sick or were badly injured Yes No 0 1 2

23. you were held back a year in school Yes No 0 1 2

24. you got in trouble for doing something bad at school Yes No 0 1 2

*25. you failed to make anathletic team or play ina game Yes No 0 1 2

26. you fought or argued with parents Yes No 0 1 2

27. you got a bad grade on your report card Yes No 0 1 2

28. a parent stayed athome because they couldn't get a job Yes No 0 1 2

29. you had trouble getting along with classmates Yes No 0 1 2

136

Happened? How much stress?None Some A lot

30. you had troublegetting along with a brother or sister Yes No 0 1 2

31. a parent stayed away from home for at least a week Yes No 0 1 2

32. someone moved into your house Yes No 0 1 2

33. someone you likedvery much went away Yes No 0 1 2

Is there anything else?

34. ___________________________ 0 1 2

35. ___________________________ 0 1 2

36. ____________________________ 0 1 2

37. ____________________________ 0 1 2

38. ____________________________ 0 1 2

39. ____________________________ 0 1 2

40. ____________________________ 0 1 2

[* = item added to original measure to increase cultural relevance]

137

E.

Everyday and Major Life Event Stress Key

What follows are lists of the particular events of the ELESC and MLESC grouped by fourdifferent contexts: Family/Home Life, Health/Fitness, Education, and Peer Relations. The originalitem number of each event on the ELESC and MLESC is noted in parenthesis after each event (E =ELESC, M = MLESC).

1. Family/Home Life (47 total)A. ELESC Items-You and your sister or brother disagreed (E1)-You and your mom or dad disagreed (E2)-You thought too many people lived in your house (E3)-You thought too few people lived in your house (E4)-You saw a family member who drank a lot of alcohol (E5)-Someone in your family was ill (E10)-You did not have anything to do (E11)-You were disciplined by your mom or dad (E12)-You could not watch TV or play video games (E14)-Your sister or brother did better than you at something (E15)-Someone in your family was very angry or cried a lot (E17)-You did a chore at home (E18)-You wanted money to buy something (E19)-Your mom and dad disagreed in front of you(E25)-Your mom or dad talked about their problems or worries(E26)-You could not do something with grandparents or other relatives(E27)-You were in bed early(E30)-You took care of younger children(E31)-You and your mom could not be together(E32)-You could not find something you looked for (E8)-You and your dad could not be together(E34)-You went to bed late(E36)-You had to do something because you're a boy/girl, but you did not want to do it(E37)-You could not play(E38)-You thought about what your mom or dad thought of you(E42)-Someone stole something you own(E43)-You were alone(E40)B. MLESC Items-Your family moved to a new house(M1)-Someone in your family got very sick or was badly injured(M4)-Your parents divorced(M5)-You got caught stealing(M6)-Your mom or dad lost his or her job(M7)-A family member or relative past away(M8)-Your parents lived separately(M9)-Your brother or sister left home(M12)-Your parent was away from home for at least a day(M14)-You got a new stepmother or stepfather(M15)-You told a big lie(M16)-Your parents made less money than they used to(M17)-One of your parents hit you(M18)-One of your parents got a new job(M19)

138

-A brother or sister was born(M21)-You fought or argued with parents(M26)-A parent stayed at home because they couldn't get a job(M28)-You had trouble getting along with a brother or sister(M30)-A parent stayed away from home for at least a week(M31)-Someone moved into your house(M32)

2. Health/Fitness (6 total)A. ELESC Items-You went to the doctor, dentist, or took medicine(E24)-You thought about the way you look(E28)-You were ill (E16)-You thought about your weight(E39)-There was fighting or violence at your school or in your neighborhood(E41)B. MLESC Items-You got very sick or were badly injured(M22)

3. Education (11 total)A. ELESC Items-You had after-school lessons or practice (e.g., juku, piano, English, etc.) (E20)-You did not want to follow your school's dress code(E35)-You got a grade that was less than you expected (E22)-You used a bus or train to go to school (E6)-You thought about having school work to do (E9)B. MLESC Items-You have to learn a foreign language(M2)-You changed to a new school(M3)-You were held back a year in school(M23)-You got in trouble for doing something bad at school(M24)-You failed to make an athletic team or play in a game(M25)-You got a bad grade on your report card(M27)

4. Peer Relations (12 total)A. ELESC Items-You did not like someone but were nice to them anyway(E23)-You could not talk to other people about your feelings (E7)-You thought about what your classmates thought of you(E29)-You disagreed with most of the people in a group but did what they wanted anyway(E33)

-Kids teased or avoided you (E21)-People thought you did something foolish (E13)B. MLESC Items-A close friend past away(M10)-You moved to a different town(M11)-A close friend got very sick or was badly injured(M13)-A close friend stopped being a friend(M20)-You had trouble getting along with classmates(M29)-Someone you liked very much went away(M33)

139

F.

The Children's Integrated Stress and Coping Scale

Please remember the last time kids teased or avoided you. If this never happened to you, imagine thatit did. Below are ways to cope with stress. How much did you use each of them in dealing with thestressful event of being teased or avoided?

1. I smoked cigarettes or drank alcohol in order to feel better.

Not at all Some A lot

2. I did something like watched TV, listened to music, or played sports or a game so that I didn'thave to think about the problem for awhile.

Not at all Some A lot

3. I ignored or tried to get away from the problem by not thinking about it.

Not at all Some A lot

4. I pretended that it wasn't a problem.

Not at all Some A lot

5. I wished that the problem had never happened or that the problem would go away.

Not at all Some A lot

6. I went off by myself to get away from other people.

Not at all Some A lot

7. I didn't do anything about the problem.

Not at all Some A lot

8. I got into a fight.

Not at all Some A lot

9. I showed how I was feeling: cried, yelled, looked sad, or other things.

Not at all Some A lot

10. I prayed or asked God for help.

Not at all Some A lot

11. I talked to someone in order to feel better.

Not at all Some A lot

140

12. I asked someone to give me help to solve the problem.

Not at all Some A lot

13. I thought about the problem in a different way, and tried to see the good side.

Not at all Some A lot

14. I tried to solve the problem.

Not at all Some A lot

15. I accepted the way things were.

Not at all Some A lot

16. I tried to get more information about the problem.

Not at all Some A lot

17. I thought about all the things I could do to make the situation better.

Not at all Some A lot

18. I blamed myself for the problem.

Not at all Some A lot

19. I blamed someone else, lied, gave excuses, or cheated.

Not at all Some A lot

20. I tried to control my feelings, calm down, and make my feelings better.

Not at all Some A lot

21. I laughed or joked to make myself feel better.

Not at all Some A lot 22. Was there anything else you did? If so, write it in the blank. _________________________

Not at all Some A lot

141

G.

The Children's Integrated Stress and Coping Key

Note: number in parentheses indicates item number on the CISCS (see Appendix E).

1=Approach/Emotion-focusedEmotional Expression (9)Control Feelings (20)Humor (21)Emotional Social Support (11)Spiritual Social Support (10)Endurance (5)

2=Approach/Problem-focusedProblem Solving (14)Instrumental Social Support (12)Information Seeking (16)Cognitive Restructuring (13)Metacognitive Skills (17)Acceptance (15)

3=Avoidant/Emotion-focusedSelf-Blame (18)Isolation (6)Aggression (8)

4=Avoidant/Problem-focusedDenial (4)Avoidance (3)Drug Use (1)Distraction (2)Helplessness (7)Other Blame (19)

142

H.

The Children's Perception of Parenting Style Questionnaire

How true are the following statements for you?

Not true Sort of true Very true1. My parents make sure I finish my homework.

0 1 2

2. When I want my friends to come over,my mom or dad says, "Yes." 0 1 2

3. I have daily household chores to do,like making my bed, throwing out the garbage,or walking the dog. 0 1 2

4. My parents value my opinion even if it isdifferent from theirs. 0 1 2

5. My parents will help me if Ineed help. 0 1 2

6. When my friends and I disagree, myparents let us resolve the disagreement on our own. 0 1 2

7. My parents communicate to me howmuch they value me. 0 1 2

143

I.

Children's Perception of Parenting Style Key

Clusters1=Control2=Warmth

Question # - Cluster #1-12-1 (reversed scored)3-14-25-26-1 (reversed scored)7-2

144

J.

Japanese Version of Forms/Measures

(in order of English equivalents)