The Development of Coping

ANRV296-PS58-06 ARI 4 December 2006 15:32

The Developmentof CopingEllen A. Skinner1 andMelanie J. Zimmer-Gembeck2

1Department of Psychology, Portland State University, Portland, Oregon 97221;email: [email protected],2School of Psychology, Griffith University, Gold Coast, Queensland, 9726 Australia;email: [email protected]

Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2007. 58:119–44

First published online as a Review inAdvance on August 11, 2006

The Annual Review of Psychology is onlineat http://psych.annualreviews.org

This article’s doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085705

Copyright c© 2007 by Annual Reviews.All rights reserved

0066-4308/07/0110-0119$20.00

Key Words

stress, resilience, children, adolescence, regulation

AbstractResearch on coping during childhood and adolescence is distin-guished by its focus on how children deal with actual stressors in real-life contexts. Despite burgeoning literatures within age groups, stud-ies on developmental differences and changes have proven difficultto integrate. Two recent advances promise progress toward a devel-opmental framework. First, dual-process models that conceptualizecoping as “regulation under stress” establish links to the developmentof emotional, attentional, and behavioral self-regulation and suggestconstitutional underpinnings and social factors that shape coping de-velopment. Second, analyses of the functions of higher-order copingfamilies allow identification of corresponding lower-order ways ofcoping that, despite their differences, are developmentally gradedmembers of the same family. This emerging framework was used tointegrate 44 studies reporting age differences or changes in copingfrom infancy through adolescence. Together, these advances outlinea systems perspective in which, as regulatory subsystems are inte-grated, general mechanisms of coping accumulate developmentally,suggesting multiple directions for future research.

119

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

007.

58:1

19-1

44. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by P

OR

TL

AN

D S

TA

TE

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

on

01/1

9/07

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Coping: the studyof how people dealwith actual stressorsin real-life contextsand how the effectsof these episodesaccumulate

Contents

INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120Goals of the Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

KEY ISSUES IN THEDEVELOPMENTAL STUDYOF COPING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121Issue One: Developmental

Conceptualizations of Coping . . 121Issue Two: Families of Coping . . . . 124Issue Three: Developmental Shifts

in Coping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127Issue Four: Contributors to the

Development of Coping . . . . . . . 132FUTURE RESEARCH ON THE

DEVELOPMENT OFCOPING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135What Are the Different

Developmental Pathways ofCoping and What ShapesThem?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136

What Are the Effects of Copingon Development? . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136

How Does Coping (Potentially)Get Better and How Can It BePromoted? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136

CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137

INTRODUCTION

Children’s lives are filled with challengesand problems, ranging from traumatic insults(e.g., death of a parent) to major chronic stres-sors (e.g., poverty) to more normative diffi-culties (e.g., peer rejection) to daily hassles(e.g., sibling conflict) (Garmezy, 1983). Theo-ries and research depicting the impact of thesestressors likewise originate from many sourcesand levels. At a macro level, work on risk andresilience maps the effects of childhood adver-sity onto the development of children’s com-petence and psychopathology (Masten et al.1999). At a micro level, researchers docu-ment infants’ and children’s reactions to spe-cific stressors (e.g., novelty, restraint, delay,noncontingency), tracing the effects on their

neural, hormonal, attentional, emotional, be-havioral, and cognitive functioning.

In the middle of these streams of researchis coping. Coping research is distinguished byits focus on what children actually do (theirprofile of emotional, cognitive, and behavioralresponses) in dealing with specific difficultiesin real-life contexts, and how these episodesboth unfold and accumulate across time. Asdescribed by Lois Murphy (1974), the firstresearcher to study its development system-atically, coping captures “the child’s way ofgetting along—with whatever equipment heha[s] at his developmental stage—and his ownindividual makeup, as he face[s] the particularexternal and internal problems of his situa-tion” (p. 71). Coping is essential to a full un-derstanding of the effects of stress on childrenand adolescents because it not only depictsthe individual’s active role in the transactionalprocess of dealing with the demands that ad-versity actually brings into a child’s life, butalso has the potential to consider how theseongoing encounters shape development.

A great deal has been learned since theappearance of seminal publications urgingthe study of coping in children and ado-lescents (Compas 1987, Garmezy & Rutter1983, Murphy & Moriarity 1976) or acrossthe lifespan (Aldwin 1994). Much of that re-search has been summarized in recent re-view articles and handbooks (Compas et al.2001, Frydenberg 1997, Seiffge-Krenke 1995,Wolchik & Sandler 1997). As with researchon adults, research on children and adoles-cents largely focuses on individual differences,examining the links between different strate-gies and a range of outcomes in an attemptto identify adaptive and maladaptive patterns.Many ways of coping have been considered—including problem-solving, support-seeking,escape, rumination, positive restructuring,distraction, negotiation, direct action, socialwithdrawal, and helplessness—and they havebeen assessed using a number of methodolo-gies, most commonly open-ended interviews,observations, reports from parents or teach-ers, and, for older children and adolescents,

120 Skinner · Zimmer-Gembeck

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

007.

58:1

19-1

44. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by P

OR

TL

AN

D S

TA

TE

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

on

01/1

9/07

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


self-report questionnaires. Research on cop-ing during childhood has also examined itslinks to early temperament and ongoingparental practices as well as the continuity ofspecific ways of coping over time.

However, despite widespread agreementthat development shapes every aspect of howpeople deal with stress, it has proven sur-prisingly difficult to realize a developmentalagenda for the study of coping (Compas 1998,Skinner & Edge 1998). The field faces manychallenges. No overarching developmentalframework for the study of coping currentlyexists. Definitions of coping, largely borrowedfrom work with adults, are not always explic-itly developmental. Research is typically seg-regated by age and is further fragmented bythe kind of stressors children face, such as di-vorce, illness, or parental conflict (Wolchik &Sandler 1997). A serious obstacle, and one thatbedevils research at every age, is the prolifer-ation of ways of coping (Skinner et al. 2003);literally hundreds of responses are measuredby current assessments. As a result, work oncoping does not always seem well integratedwith other research that examines children’sreactions to adversity and stress (Compas et al.1999, Eisenberg et al. 1997).

Goals of the Review

Despite these challenges, there continues tobe keen interest in stress and coping duringchildhood, and recent advances promise toreinvigorate and reorient research. In this re-view, we first identify key issues in currentwork on coping that may help guide devel-opmental research. Second, we use a devel-opmental framework based on these issues tostructure the review and integration of cur-rent research on age differences and changesin coping from infancy to late adolescence.1

Third, from a selective review of the contribu-tors to coping, we suggest some general devel-

1Although development is a lifelong process, we could notinclude research on age changes across adulthood and oldage (but see Aldwin 1994).

Ways of coping:basic descriptiveunits that aredesigned to capturehow people actuallyrespond to stress asthey contend withreal life problems.Common ways ofcoping includeinstrumental action,problem-solving,support-seeking,distraction, escape,opposition, andsocial withdrawal

Developmentallyfriendly definitionsof coping:conceptualizationsthat providetheoretical links toother developingsubsystems, guidinginvestigation of howdevelopment ofcomponentsunderlying copingcombine to shapeemergence of newcoping abilities atsuccessive ages

opmental mechanisms that may explain nor-mative age–graded shifts in patterns of copingacross infancy, childhood, and adolescence.Fourth, we enumerate future directions forresearch, highlighting the complex and sub-stantial developmental questions that remain.

KEY ISSUES IN THEDEVELOPMENTAL STUDYOF COPING

We discuss four important advances, focusingon the core consensus that is emerging, as wellas identifying important points of contention.The advances are (a) the convergence of de-velopmental conceptualizations of coping onconstructs of regulation, (b) descriptions of thestructure of coping using a set of hierarchicallyorganized families, (c) suggestions for the out-lines of broad developmental levels of coping,and (d) the identification of multiple subsys-tems underlying coping that suggest a set ofexplanatory mechanisms contributing to nor-mative age changes and differential pathwaysof development.2

Issue One: DevelopmentalConceptualizations of Coping

Twenty years ago, conceptualizations of cop-ing in children were based almost exclusivelyon definitions from adulthood, which typi-cally consider coping as “constantly chang-ing cognitive and behavioral efforts to managespecific external and/or internal demands thatare appraised as taxing or exceeding the re-sources of the person” (Lazarus & Folkman1984, p. 141). Such conceptualizations arenot particularly “developmentally friendly”in that they do not provide clear theoreticallinks to other developing subsystems, such ascognition or language. Without such links,research cannot determine how the develop-ment of the components underlying coping

2The seeds of many of these advances were sown in a seriesof meetings on the development of coping sponsored by theCoping Consortium (2001) and hosted by Irwin Sandlerand Bruce Compas.

www.annualreviews.org • The Development of Coping 121

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

007.

58:1

19-1

44. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by P

OR

TL

AN

D S

TA

TE

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

on

01/1

9/07

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


ER: emotionalregulation

combine to shape the emergence of new cop-ing capacities (or liabilities) at successive ages.

Although heterogeneity remains (seeCompas et al. 2001 for a review), over thepast ten years developmental researchers haveincreasingly converged on conceptualizationsthat build on the idea of coping as “reg-ulation under stress” (Compas et al. 1997,Eisenberg et al. 1997, Rossman 1992, Skinner1999). Compas and colleagues (1997, 2001)define coping as “conscious and volitional ef-forts to regulate emotion, cognition, behavior,physiology, and the environment in responseto stressful events or circumstances” (2001,p. 89). Eisenberg and colleagues (1997) viewcoping as “involving regulatory processes ina subset of contexts—those involving stress”(p. 42). Our own definition of coping as “ac-tion regulation under stress” (Skinner 1999,Skinner & Wellborn 1994) refers to “howpeople mobilize, guide, manage, energize, anddirect behavior, emotion, and orientation, orhow they fail to do so” (1994, p. 113) understressful conditions. Collectively, these defi-nitions forge links between coping and workon the regulation of basic psychological andphysiological processes, including emotion,behavior, attention, and cognition, as well asthe effects of regulatory efforts on social part-ners and the environment.

Emotion regulation and coping. The affin-ity between coping and regulation is clear-est for emotion regulation (ER) (Barrett &Campos 1991, Bridges & Grolnick 1995,Eisenberg et al. 1997, Folkman & Moskowitz2004, Kopp 1989, Rossman 1992). Kopp(1989), a pioneer in work on the developmentof ER, argues that “Emotion regulation is aterm used to characterize the processes andcharacteristics involved in coping with height-ened levels of positive and negative emotions”(p. 343). As pointed out by Rossman (1992),“Models for both stress/coping and the ERprocess include an appraisal of the significanceof the environmental circumstance, the atten-dant emotional experience, the selection ofsome action to regulate the heightened emo-

tion and perhaps alter the environment, andsome kind of feedback regarding the success ofthe regulation attempt” (p. 1375). Eisenbergand colleagues (1997) make a cogent case fora close connection, noting that not only iscoping “motivated by the presence or expec-tation of emotional arousal (generally result-ing from stress or danger),” but “many formsof coping are very similar to types of regula-tion discussed in the emotion regulation liter-ature” (p. 288). In fact, all strategies of ERcan be considered ways of coping (Bridges& Grolnick 1995), and when studying youngchildren (whose capacities to change the envi-ronment are limited) or emotion-focused cop-ing at any age, ER and coping become virtu-ally synonymous.

The centrality of emotion to coping ishighlighted by functionalist theories, whichview emotion as “a kind of radar and rapid re-sponse system,” or as “biologically endowedprocesses that permit extremely quick ap-praisals of situations and equally rapid pre-paredness to act to sustain favorable condi-tions and deal with unfavorable conditions”(Cole et al. 2004, p. 319; see also Barrett &Campos 1991, Lazarus 1999). Emotion is in-tegral to all phases of the coping process, fromvigilance, detection, and appraisals of threat toaction readiness and coordinating responsesduring stressful encounters. However, adap-tive coping does not rely exclusively on pos-itive emotions nor on constant dampeningof emotional reactions. In fact, emotions likeanger have important adaptive functions, suchas readying a person to sweep away an obsta-cle, as well communicating these intentionsto others. Adaptive coping profits from flexi-ble access to a range of genuine emotions aswell as the ongoing cooperation of emotionswith other components of the action system(Holodynski & Friedlmeier 2006).

Coping as a coordinating concept. Copingis both more and less than emotion regula-tion. On the one hand, coping refers to onlya subset of self-regulatory processes—thosethat take place under stressful circumstances


Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

007.

58:1

19-1

44. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by P

OR

TL

AN

D S

TA

TE

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

on

01/1

9/07

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


(Compas et al. 2001, Eisenberg et al.1997, Gianino & Tronick 1998, Skinner &Wellborn 1994). On the other hand, copingincludes more than the regulation of emo-tion. When confronted with stress, individ-uals attempt not only to deal with emotionalexperience, expression, and physiological re-actions, but also to coordinate motor behav-ior, attention, cognition, and reactions fromthe social and physical environments (Compaset al. 2001, Eisenberg et al. 1997, Lazarus &Folkman 1984). Correspondingly, researchershave made connections from coping to be-havioral self-regulation (e.g., Metcalfe &Mischel 1999), attention deployment (e.g.,Wilson & Gottman 1996), ego control andresiliency (Block & Block 1980), and toself-regulation more generally (Aspinwall &Taylor 1997 ; Carver & Scheier 1998 ; Kopp1982, 1989). Collectively, these forms of reg-ulation can be considered regulatory subsys-tems that work together to shape the actionsthat are described by coping (Compas et al.1997, Eisenberg et al. 1997, Holodynski &Friedlmeier 2006, Skinner 1999). The focusof coping research is on how all of these fea-tures of action work together, synergisticallyor antagonistically, for example, how attemptsto regulate behavior can have a negative effecton emotional reactions under stress.

Dual-process models of coping. Mostmodels of regulation conceptualize twoprocesses—one describing the target to beregulated, such as an emotion or impulse, andthe other describing the set of processes thatregulate it. In work on emotion, these arereferred to as emotion and emotion regula-tion (Cole et al. 2004); in work on tempera-ment, “reactivity” and “regulation” (Rothbartet al. 1994); in work on willpower, the “hot”emotional and the “cool” cognitive systems(Metcalfe & Mischel 1999); in work on moti-vation, “intrinsic” and “extrinsic” motivation(Deci & Ryan 1985).

In general, the targets of regulation are theresult of a fast, reactive, emotionally driven,impulsive “hot” system that appraises and re-

Dual-processmodels of coping:conceptualizationsthat incorporatestress reactions andaction regulation

Stress reactions:immediate andautomatic responsesto stressful situations

Action regulation:efforts to mobilize,manage, and directphysiology, emotion,attention, behavior,and cognition inresponse to stress

acts to external stimuli or situations relativelyautomatically and with little conscious con-trol. Sometimes described as “go” responses,reactions can be of many types: fear reactionsto novelty, anger to restraint, approach to peo-ple, attention to a threatening object, or grab-bing a forbidden treat. “Go” responses refernot to an approach response per se, but to ac-tion readiness—the hot system brings the or-ganism into a state of readiness to act in accor-dance with the emotional urge, whether thatbe to flee, protest, or approach. The hot sys-tem has strong temperamental bases but alsoincorporates experiences through condition-ing and learning. It is adaptive for dealing withstress: Not only is it more flexible and differ-entiated than innate reflexes, it also triggersenvironmentally tuned actions faster than amore cognitively mediated system.

In contrast, regulatory processes are giventhe job of working with the hot system toguide, redirect, boost, interfere with, orga-nize, and/or sequence the actions it urges. Al-though some of the most effective strategiesare cognitive and deliberate, there seem tobe many regulatory processes, including neu-rophysiological, habitual, attentional, and so-cial, that operate already in neonates and in-fants (e.g., Kopp 1989). Regulatory processesare also adaptive: They allow actions to bemore informed and flexible and less deter-mined by local conditions.

Consistent with most models of regula-tion, coping researchers posit dual-processmodels. Compas and colleagues (1997, 1999)distinguish between involuntary stress re-sponses, which describe immediate and au-tomatic reactions to stressful situations, andcoping, which refers to “regulatory effortsthat are volitionally and intentionally enactedspecifically in response to stress” (Compaset al. 2001, p. 89). In our work (Skinner 1999),we refer to these two processes as “action ten-dencies,” defined “in terms of their joint prop-erties in creating an ‘urge,’ ‘desire,’ ‘want,’ or‘impulse’ that is redundantly experienced as amotor program (e.g., the urge to get out of theway or hide), an emotion (e.g., fear or shock),


Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

007.

58:1

19-1

44. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by P

OR

TL

AN

D S

TA

TE

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

on

01/1

9/07

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Families of coping:higher-order corecategories of copingthat are based onadaptive functionscoping serves andprovide hierarchicalorganization forlower-order ways ofcoping

and a goal orientation (e.g., the desire to be-come small or disappear)” (p. 479) and “actionregulation.”

As in other areas of regulation, there is ac-tive discussion about how stress reactions andregulation work together. Some researcherssuggest that they are parallel processes—inthat a reaction can be described as either astress reaction or a coping response (Compaset al. 1997, 1999); some suggest that they aresequential, with the regulation following andmodifying reactivity (Cole et al. 2004); andsome argue that they are simultaneousand continuous (Campos et al. 2004). Re-searchers generally agree that they mutu-ally influence each other over time (Compaset al. 2001, Eisenberg et al. 1997, Skinner1999). For example, an extreme reaction tostress elicits many coping responses. Or, con-versely, proactive coping allows a person toavoid situations in which they would be over-whelmed (Aspinwall & Taylor 1997). Someresearchers suggest that any given responsereflects a balance between the two subsystems(Metcalfe & Mischel 1999). In terms of cop-ing, this implies that “unregulated” involun-tary responses could reflect a strong stress re-action and/or a weak (immature or disabled)regulatory system, whereas volitional copingattempts reflect a weak stress response and/ora well-developed action regulation system.

The effects of stress on these regulatorysubsystems are receiving widespread empiri-cal attention. Although no definitive answersare available, a common working hypothesisis that moderate levels of stress may create azone of heightened regulation, during whichsubsystems are likely to become more cooper-ative and integrated, and during which regula-tory capacities are practiced and consolidated(e.g., Kopp 1989). In contrast, high levels ofstress may disrupt, disorganize, or overwhelmregulatory processes.

Summary. Built on constructs of regulation,overarching definitions of coping now havean explicit role for the emotional, behav-ioral, motivational, attentional, cognitive, and

social processes that have long been impli-cated: Coping focuses on how these multipleregulatory subsystems work together whendealing with stress. Most importantly, theseadvances open the door to conceptualiza-tions that are developmental. For example,dual-process models suggest that the majorcomponents of coping, namely, stress reac-tions and action regulation, likely have dif-ferent underlying temperamental bases anddifferent developmental timetables (Compaset al. 2001, Eisenberg et al. 1997, Metcalfe &Mischel 1999, Rothbart et al. 1994). In fact,a few strands of research on regulatory pro-cesses directly examine age-graded develop-mental changes (Holodynski & Friedlmeier2006; Kopp 1982, 1989; Mischel & Mischel1983), which should help to identify majorlandmarks in coping’s development. More-over, emphasis on the constitutional and socialbases of regulation points researchers to ananalysis of temperament and social relation-ships as contributors to the differential devel-opment of coping.

Issue Two: Families of Coping

“Ways of coping” are basic descriptive unitsdesigned to capture how people actually re-spond to stress as they contend with real-life problems. The empirical examination ofactual coping categories, such as problem-solving, support-seeking, rumination, or es-cape, distinguishes research on coping fromclosely related work on stress, adaptation, risk,resilience, and competence. The considera-tion of a profile of responses distinguishes thestudy of coping from the disparate programsof research focusing on each of the individ-ual categories. Hence, constructing categorysystems to conceptualize and measure copinghave been central endeavors.

However, this task is made challenging bythe complexity of coping. Coping responses,because they are suited to specific demandsand shaped by the resources and contexts inwhich they unfold, are virtually infinite intheir variety; a recent review collected more


Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

007.

58:1

19-1

44. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by P

OR

TL

AN

D S

TA

TE

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

on

01/1

9/07

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


than 400 different category labels (Skinneret al. 2003). Moreover, ways of coping aremultidimensional and can serve many differ-ent functions. They can be used to solve exter-nal problems or to deal with one’s own emo-tions (Lazarus & Folkman 1984); to changethe environment or to accommodate to it(Brandtstadter & Renner 1990, Rudolph et al.1995); to engage in stressful interactions orto disengage from them (Connor-Smith et al.2000).

Hierarchical models of coping. Over thepast decade, researchers have put enormouseffort into conceptualizing and assessing hi-erarchical models that use higher-order cate-gories or families to organize multiple lower-order ways of coping (Ayers et al. 1996,Connor-Smith et al. 2000, Ryan-Wenger1992, Walker et al. 1997). Despite differ-ences in theoretical approaches and dimen-sions, conceptual and empirical analyses haveconverged on a small number of families ofcoping, perhaps a dozen or so, that can be usedto classify most if not all of the ways of copingidentified in previous research (see Table 1;Skinner et al. 2003). These include problem-solving, support-seeking, escape, distraction,cognitive restructuring, rumination, helpless-ness, social withdrawal, emotional regula-tion, information-seeking, negotiation, oppo-sition, and delegation.

However, each family includes more thanthe lower-order way of coping from whichit takes its name—each includes all the waysof coping that serve that same set of func-tions (see Table 1). For example, “problem-solving” as a higher-order category includesnot only generating solutions to a problem,but also other ways of coping that are de-signed to coordinate actions with availablecontingencies to produce desired or preventundesired outcomes, such as instrumental ac-tions, effort exertion, planning, decision mak-ing, and repair. Moreover, some of the familieshave complementary adaptive functions (seeTable 1). For example, both support-seekingand self-reliance allow people to coordinate

Developmentallygraded members ofcoping families:different ways ofcoping that serve thesame set of functionsat different ages

their reliance on others with the social re-sources available; and both negotiation andaccommodation allow people to coordinatetheir goals with the options available. [Simi-lar functional analyses have been suggested byother researchers for ways of coping (Lazarus1999, White 1974), emotions (Barrett &Campos 1991, Sroufe 1996), and action ten-dencies (Holodynski & Friedlmeier 2006), aswell as for individual ways of coping, such asproximity-seeking (Bowlby 1969/1973)].

Developmentally friendly families. Theidentification of these higher-order familieshelps clarify the complex structure of cop-ing and encourages renewed discussions ofits adaptive functions (Coelho et al. 1974,Lazarus & Folkman 1984). Most importantlyfor developmentalists, the families offer a wayto incorporate the spectrum of age-gradedways of coping by posing the question, “Howdo the ways of coping in each family manifestthemselves at different developmental lev-els?” To answer this question, researchers firstnote the functions served by a higher-orderfamily and then trace how those functionsare fulfilled by different patterns of action atdifferent ages.

For some families, such analyses have al-ready begun. For example, young children usebehavioral strategies to distract themselves(like playing with something fun), whereasolder children can use cognitive strategies(like thinking about something pleasant),leading reviewers to note that cognitive sec-ondary control coping strategies emerge inlate childhood (Band & Weisz 1990, Compas1998). By moving the analysis vertically down-ward in age, it is possible to identify func-tionally similar coping strategies during thetoddler period, when children who cannot ac-tively distract themselves can nevertheless bedistracted by others, and even into infancy,when infants turn their heads away from wor-risome stimuli to fasten their gaze on otherinteresting objects. These strategies of atten-tion redeployment can also be seen at olderages, for example, when adolescents plan to


Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

007.

58:1

19-1

44. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by P

OR

TL

AN

D S

TA

TE

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

on

01/1

9/07

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Table 1 Links between higher-order families of coping and adaptive processes

Family of copingFamily function inadaptive process Adaptive process Also implicated

Problem-solvingStrategizingInstrumental actionPlanning

Adjust actions to be effective Watch and learnMasteryEfficacy

Information-seekingReadingObservationAsking others

Find additional contingencies Coordinate actions andcontingencies in theenvironment

CuriosityInterest

HelplessnessConfusionCognitive interferenceCognitive exhaustion

Find limits of actions GuiltHelplessness

EscapeBehavioral avoidanceMental withdrawalDenialWishful thinking

Escape noncontingentenvironment

Drop and rollFlightFear

Self-relianceEmotion regulationBehavior regulationEmotional expressionEmotion approach

Protect available socialresources

Tend and befriendPride

Support-seekingContact-seekingComfort-seekingInstrumental aidSocial referencing

Use available social resources

Coordinate reliance andsocial resources available

Proximity-seekingYearningOther alliance

DelegationMaladaptive help-seekingComplainingWhiningSelf-pity

Find limits of resources Self-pityShame

Social isolationSocial withdrawalConcealmentAvoiding others

Withdraw from unsupportivecontext

Duck and coverFreezeSadness

AccommodationDistractionCognitive restructuringMinimizationAcceptance

Flexibly adjust preferences tooptions

Pick and chooseSecondary control

NegotiationBargainingPersuasionPriority-setting

Find new options

Coordinate preferencesand available options

Compromise

SubmissionRuminationRigid perseverationIntrusive thoughts

Give up preferences DisgustRigid perseverance

OppositionOther-blameProjectionAggression

Remove constraints Stand and fightAngerDefiance

Adapted from Skinner et al. (2003).


Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

007.

58:1

19-1

44. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by P

OR

TL

AN

D S

TA

TE

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

on

01/1

9/07

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


bring a favorite book to distract themselveswhile they wait for a painful medical proce-dure. If analyses of the ways of coping in otherfamilies uncover parallel age-graded patterns,they may suggest major developmental shifts,for example, toward the increasing use of cog-nitive means of coping during late childhood.

Summary. Ways of coping are buildingblocks in the coping area, describing peo-ple’s actual behavioral, emotional, and cog-nitive responses to stress. Recent conceptualand empirical analyses have identified approx-imately a dozen core families of coping; theycan be depicted by a small number of dimen-sions but encompass a wide variety of ways ofcoping. Each of these families serves multiplefunctions in dealing with stress, and the dis-covery of how those functions can be achievedthrough different ways of coping at differentdevelopmental levels may allow the identifica-tion and study of age-graded ways of copingwithin a family and eventually of normativedevelopmental shifts across families.

Issue Three: Developmental Shiftsin Coping

Although studies have examined age differ-ences and changes in ways of coping, few re-views are available (Aldwin 1994, Fields &Prinz 1997, Losoya et al. 1998). These stud-ies, because they utilize a wide variety ofpartially overlapping coping categories and awide variety of largely unselected age groupsand gaps, have proven difficult to integrate(Compas et al. 2001). Hence, a central goalwas to construct a framework to organize theresearch on the normative development ofcoping during childhood and adolescence (forthe complete review, see Zimmer-Gembeck &Skinner 2006). To do so, we relied on (a) con-ceptualizations of coping as regulation to sug-gest landmarks indicating key ages at whichcoping might show developmental shifts, and(b) notions of hierarchical families to clar-ify the ways of coping that should be distin-guished at each age. We identified studies,

coded the ways of coping they assessed ac-cording to the families, and arrayed findingsfor each family along the axis of age, lookingfor regular patterns of age changes.

Retrieval of studies. Studies were includedif they explicitly used a measure of copingin response to stress.3 In total, 44 studies re-ported age differences (or changes) in copingresponses prior to or during late adolescence(only 3 studies for children under age 5; 28for children between ages 5 and 13; and 13 foradolescents age 12 to 18+). Much of the re-search on developmental changes in children’sreactions to stress prior to age five is likelycontained in studies of stress physiology, tem-perament, and regulation (Derryberry et al.2003 ; Holodynski & Friedlmeier 2006 ; Kopp1982, 1989).

Although research is limited, there was lit-tle difficulty in summarizing the studies ofvery young children; all studies relied on labo-ratory observations in distressing situations—background interpersonal conflict, stranger-infant interactions, or arm restraint and toyremoval. It was more challenging to summa-rize studies of older children due to the het-erogeneity in ages and measures included; ageranges varied from a minimum of 4–10 yearsto a maximum of 6–32 years, and assessmentsincluded interviews, standardized question-naires, written open-ended responses, obser-vations, and teacher reports.

Families of coping and developmental lev-els. We abstracted details of study design andmeasurement and (based on descriptions of

3It was a difficult decision to exclude studies that exam-ined phenomena we felt tapped coping but were not so la-beled by their authors. The inclusion of some studies wouldlikely not be controversial, for example, studies of emo-tional self-regulation that examine avoidance, distraction,and support-seeking strategies in preschoolers. However,once the terminological condition is removed, it is difficultto know exactly where to stop, given the many phenom-ena closely allied with coping, such as attachment, mastery,helplessness, problem-solving, delay of gratification, andmany kinds of regulation (Compas 1987).


Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

007.

58:1

19-1

44. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by P

OR

TL

AN

D S

TA

TE

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

on

01/1

9/07

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


subscale content and sample items provided)systematically coded for families of coping.Unfortunately, coping subscales often con-tained a mix of coping families. For example,“support-seeking” subscales sometimes com-bined seeking support from parents and peers,sometimes combined seeking help with seek-ing guidance and emotional comfort, some-times distinguished among all these kindsof support-seeking, and sometimes combinedsupport-seeking with other constructive waysof coping like problem-solving. In these cases,we assigned multiple codes and, in a few cases,included the findings multiple times. Becausecoping strategies can be dependent upon fea-tures of the stressful encounter, we also notedwhether coping was assessed in response toself-identified stressors, within a particulardomain, or with regard to a wide variety ofstressors.

Particular times of developmental transi-tion were underscored. Theory and evidencefrom studies of children’s cognitive, emo-tional, language, memory, and other aspects ofdevelopment (e.g., brain development) havepointed to particular points during whichstructure, organization, and flexibility in cop-ing processes are likely to undergo significantqualitative and quantitative shifts. Althoughthere may be others, the most conclusive evi-dence points to transitions during the follow-ing age periods: (a) infancy to toddlerhood;(b) ages 5 to 7; (c) late childhood to early ado-lescence (about ages 10 to 12); (d ) early andmiddle adolescence (about ages 12 to 16); and(e) middle and late adolescence (about ages 16to 22).

Translating these into terms of copingsuggests several broad developmental phasescharacterized by different mechanisms of reg-ulation and different kinds of participationby social partners. Infancy would begin withstress reactions governed by reflexes, soonto be supplemented by coordinated actionschema; during this period, caregivers wouldcarry out coping actions based on the ex-pressed intentions of their infants (interper-sonal coregulation). During toddlerhood and

preschool age, coping would increasingly becarried out using direct actions, includingthose to enlist the participation of social part-ners; this would be the age at which voluntarycoping actions would first appear (intraper-sonal self-regulation). During middle child-hood, coping through cognitive means wouldsolidify, as described in work on distraction,delay, and problem-solving; children wouldbe increasingly able to coordinate their cop-ing efforts with those of others. By adoles-cence, coping through meta-cognitive meanswould be added, in which adolescents are ca-pable of regulating their coping actions basedon future concerns, including long-term goalsand effects on others. Throughout the review,we highlight evidence for the development ofcoping during these transitional age periods.

Ways of coping. Although there were in-termittent references to other strategies,12 coping strategies appeared most of-ten (listed here in order of prevalence ofuse): support-seeking (sometimes encompass-ing information-seeking or help-seeking),escape (cognitive and/or behavioral), distrac-tion (cognitive and/or behavioral), problem-solving and instrumental action, accommo-dation, opposition and denial, self-reliance,aggression, social isolation, negotiation, help-lessness, and positive cognitive reappraisal.We provide detailed findings for the four mostcommon strategies, followed by a summary ofresults for the remaining families.

Support-seeking. Support-seeking andhelp-seeking, assessed in 32 studies, areamong the most commonly used strategiesacross all ages. However, support-seekingis a complex, multidimensional tactic, withconclusions about development dependenton age, source of support (e.g., parents,peers, teachers), domain (e.g., medical, aca-demic), kind of support sought (e.g., contact,comfort, guidance, instrumental aid), andmeans of seeking support (e.g., expressions ofdistress, bids and appeals, social referencing,proximity-seeking, verbal requests).


Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

007.

58:1

19-1

44. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by P

OR

TL

AN

D S

TA

TE

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

on

01/1

9/07

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


In the first years of life, young children be-come better able to seek the aid of attachmentfigures when distressed. About mid-first year,infants direct their facial responses in waysthat elicit support or shape instrumental ac-tions of others (also see Barrett & Campos1991). Other adaptive strategies also emergearound this time, such as seeking eye con-tact with caregivers when soothing or otherforms of assistance are desired (Kopp 1989;see also Bridges & Grolnick 1995, Holodynski& Friedlmeier 2006, Sroufe 1996).

Age differences in support-seeking werereported in about half of the 29 studies ofchildren and adolescents, with an almost equalnumber reporting increases and decreases. Af-ter examining subscale content, we concludedthat there are declines in seeking support fromadults, especially from about age 4 to 12,and increases in seeking support from peersinto middle adolescence. Further, there is ev-idence that much of this occurs because of adecline in seeking support from adults dur-ing two periods—the age 5 to 7 shift andthe adolescent transition (age 9 to 12). More-over, the pattern of developmental changes insupport-seeking between the ages of about 4and 12 differed as a function of domain of thestressor (e.g., aggression by peers, medical).When in situations that are uncontrollable orin which adults have authority, young peo-ple seek support from adults more as they getolder. Hence, children are increasingly ableto identify situations in which adult supportis appropriate and helpful. As children moveinto adolescence, especially between the agesof about 10 and 16, they become more effec-tive in determining the best source of supportfor particular problem domains.

Finally, we expected that reasons forsupport-seeking, such as comfort, instrumen-tal assistance with a problem, advice, or sim-ply to talk about a problem, would changewith age. In particular, there should be in-creasing differentiation among the many rea-sons to seek support, which would appear asdeclines in some forms of support-seekingand increases in others. A pattern of in-

creasing differentiation could not be dis-cerned, however, primarily because most sub-scales included a mix of types of support-seeking as well as items from other copingfamilies.

Problem-solving. Across 28 studies, pat-terns of age differences depended on whethersubscales focused on instrumental actionsto change the stressful situation, morecomplex forms of problem-solving, or, foryounger children, some combination that in-cluded help- or support-seeking (usually fromadults). In studies of children under age 8(which utilized observer or teacher-reportscales focusing on instrumental actions orcombinations), children showed modest orlow levels of problem-solving as a copingstrategy, and age differences were not appar-ent. Among studies of children 6 and older,when subscales included cognitive problem-solving (e.g., working out other ways of deal-ing with the problem), this strategy was usedmuch more often, especially by older childrenand adolescents; in fact, problem-solving wasused as often (or more often) than support-seeking and distraction. However, when sub-scales contained items referring to specificinstrumental behaviors or included items con-cerning self-criticism or taking responsibility,these combinations of coping strategies werenot as frequently endorsed.

When it was assessed as cognitive activ-ity to master the problem, problem-solvingshowed age-related increases, and these in-creases were found between mid-childhoodand early, middle, and late adolescence, andbetween adolescence and young adulthood.Specifically, increases were reported in 11studies of children within the age range of4 to 18, and these findings were specific tothe measurement of problem-solving coupledwith items that tap self-reliance, cognitivedecision-making strategies, and/or have a ma-jority of items tapping practical and mastery-type problem-solving. Similarly, higher lev-els of problem-solving were found betweenthe ages of 20 and 25 compared with between


Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

007.

58:1

19-1

44. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by P

OR

TL

AN

D S

TA

TE

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

on

01/1

9/07

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


the ages of 14 and 17. In addition, one studyfound lower problem-solving at age 11–12 incomparison with younger and older children,which suggests that a focus on the adolescenttransition might yield important informationabout the development of problem-solvingand instrumental action as ways of coping withstress.

Conversely, when age-related decreases orno age differences were found, subscales withproblem-solving items also included itemstapping a range of other families of cop-ing. For example, age-related decreases werefound when subscales combined problem-solving and support-seeking from parents orhelp-seeking. Age-related declines were alsofound for subscales that combined cognitiveand behavioral problem-solving, plus plan-ning, making lists, and reflecting on emotionalresponses to stress; in addition, declines werefound for a subscale that combined problem-solving with commitment, ambition, and hardwork.

Taken together, the findings suggest thatinstrumental action to change the stressful sit-uation (sometimes called approach or primarycontrol engagement coping) comes on-line asa potential stress response as soon as childrengain motor control, but that it can be supple-mented and replaced by more self-regulatedand cognitive activities, such as problem-solving and going to others for advice andhelp. Even more cognitively advanced formsthat extend instrumental actions proactively,such as planning, list making, reflection, com-mitment, and ambition, may emerge in lateradolescence or early adulthood.

Distraction. Twenty-five studies includeddistraction as a way to cope with stress. For-tunately, behavioral and cognitive forms wereoften measured separately, making age differ-ences clearer. Surprisingly, however, this dis-tinction was not utilized in studies of ado-lescents age 14 and over; all of these studieseither measured behavioral distraction aloneor mixed behavioral and cognitive distractionitems.

Behavioral distraction tactics, such askeeping busy or playing games, were amongthe most common strategies reported by orobserved in children, and adolescents re-ported using these strategies about as oftenas they used support-seeking. Regarding agedifferences, there were increases in behavioraldistraction during infancy. As would be ex-pected from increasing abilities to locomoteand coordinate behaviors, infants’ use of es-cape via gaze aversion declined while distrac-tion by turning to other objects increased be-tween 6 months and 12 months. In contrast,little age-related change in the use of behav-ioral distraction was found from about age4 to 6, but behavioral distraction increasedbetween about age 6 and early adolescence.It should be noted, however, that some ofthese studies included behavioral distractionitems in multiple subscales, producing mixedresults.

There was little evidence of age differencesin behavioral distraction between the ages of12 to 18. Yet, as was found with support-seeking, features of the stressors were impor-tant considerations; age-related increases inbehavioral distraction were found when par-ticipants reported how they would deal withinescapable and uncontrollable stressors (den-tal, school report, cancer) or when adolescentsidentified their own recent problem.

Cognitive distraction, which was assessedseparately from behavioral distraction only upto age 14, was most often described as someform of diversionary thinking, such as think-ing about other things, thinking about some-thing fun, or trying to forget the stressor.These were used more often as children gotolder, regardless of whether the age range wasfrom 6 to 9, 5/6 to 11/12, 8 to 14, or 10 to13. However, these subscales often containeditems assessing strategies other than cogni-tive distraction. Nevertheless, the bulk of theevidence suggested increases in the use ofcognitive distraction between childhood andadolescence.

Taken together, the mixed results likely re-flect the variety of distraction tactics drawn


Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

007.

58:1

19-1

44. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by P

OR

TL

AN

D S

TA

TE

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

on

01/1

9/07

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


upon to cope with particular stressors. Aschildren add strategies, they also increasinglycomprehend how to apply this expandingrepertoire to specific adverse situations, and,as their use becomes more conscious and reg-ulated, young people can more easily shiftfrom behavioral to cognitive distraction andback again.

Escape. Twenty-seven studies examinedescape—attempts to leave the distressingenvironment or to avoid direct action.However, the use of mixed subscales made itchallenging to draw conclusions. When weisolated nine studies with the “purest” escapemeasures, age differences between 4 and 12years were typically found. Although evidencewas not balanced across all age periods, threetransitional periods were especially importantfor identifying changes—ages 5 to 7, ages9 to 12, and ages 12 to 14. Developmentalpatterns depended upon whether coping wasassessed in response to a specific (recent)stressor or as a general “coping style.” Whenparticipants, especially adolescents, identifiedtheir own stressors or focused on uncontrol-lable and specific stressors, slight age declinesin the use of escape were typically revealed.Unfortunately, findings were too nonspecificand contradictory to test expectations aboutdevelopmental shifts from behavioral tocognitive forms of escape.

Other families. Because there were so fewstudies and subscales were nonspecific, therewas little evidence of age differences in thecoping strategies of social isolation, nego-tiation, and helplessness. There were someage differences in six categories that appearedmore frequently: rumination (part of submis-sion), aggression in response to problems,accommodation (e.g., focus on the positive,acceptance), opposition (e.g., blaming oth-ers), denial, and self-reliance (e.g., acceptingresponsibility for solving the problem, self-regulation of emotions). Of these strategies,children and adolescents reported high lev-

els of rumination and worry, accommodation,and self-reliance.

With regard to developmental patterns,age differences were found in two stressresponses—rumination and aggression. Ru-mination was more common among adoles-cents as compared with preadolescents, andthis escalated across the adolescent years. Ag-gression was relatively uncommon, but washigher in adolescence as compared with latechildhood. The transition period betweenchildhood and adolescence also brought withit more use of cognitive restructuring, higherrates of blaming others for problems, andmore self-reliance, including managing thepractical and emotional aspects of stress. Dur-ing adolescence, young people increasinglyrelied on positive self-talk to cope with stress(i.e., accommodation), and self-reliance be-came a more frequent response.

Summary. Organizing ways of coping intosets of broader families and focusing on cer-tain ages as likely to mark developmental tran-sitions allowed some trends to be detected,especially in comparison with earlier reviews(which included fewer than half of these stud-ies). Despite the hundreds of ways of cop-ing that have been identified, children andyouth seem to favor four families—support-seeking, problem-solving (and instrumentalaction), escape, and, when escape is not possi-ble, distraction. Studies that combined thesefamilies or failed to distinguish developmen-tally appropriate members within them (e.g.,behavioral versus cognitive) were unlikely toreveal clear developmental trends.

Interestingly, behavioral forms of theseways of coping, which are common at allages, may decrease across middle childhood,but they do not disappear. Instead, they tendto be partially replaced or supplemented atolder ages, becoming more differentiated inboth form and application. Among preschoolchildren, coping shows little differentiation:Young children primarily seek support fromcaregivers, intervene directly in stressful situa-tions, withdraw, or use behavioral activities to


Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

007.

58:1

19-1

44. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by P

OR

TL

AN

D S

TA

TE

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

on

01/1

9/07

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Temperament:inborn physiologicaldifferences inpatterns ofresponding toenvironmentalstimulation (such asnovelty, restraint, orother people)

Temperamentalreactivity:individual differencesin arousability or theamount ofstimulation requiredto produce positiveand negativereactions

Temperamentalregulation:constitutionaldifferences in theease with whichinfants can modulatetheir reactivity,either facilitating orinhibiting theiraffective, motor, andattentional responses

distract themselves. As children start school,these strategies become more differentiated:More cognitive strategies are added to bothproblem-solving and distraction tactics, andchildren begin to rely on additional sourcesof support. Moreover, developmental patternsof support-seeking suggest increasing under-standing of contextual specificity—in com-parison with younger children, older childrenand adolescents become more selective aboutsources of support within different stress-ful situations. Distraction tactics also be-come more diverse and flexible; as they getolder, young people increasingly draw uponboth behavioral and cognitive strategies. Fur-ther, with age, young people are more self-reliant and can more intentionally monitorand modulate their own internal emotionalstates through positive self-talk and cognitivereframing. The capacity to focus on the futuremay also lead to more anxiety and ruminationas well.

Our focus on particular transitional pe-riods also revealed that the earliest years oflife, as well as the years between ages 5 to7 and during the transition to adolescence(about ages 8 to 12), are important peri-ods when coping develops rapidly. Yet, aswould be expected from recent research onadolescent brain development and knowledgeof other important developmental tasks un-dertaken during adolescence, the capacity touse particular cognitive strategies under stress(such as strategizing, decision making, plan-ning, and reflection) may not fully emerge un-til late adolescence or early adulthood.

Such a progression is consistent with thepicture painted in major reviews of copingduring childhood and adolescence (Compaset al. 2001, Fields & Prinz 1997, Losoya et al.1998). Yet, it was difficult to confirm all the de-velopmental shifts suggested by previous nar-rative reviews. The current literature on agedifferences in coping strategies provides im-portant information, but many studies werenot designed to capture development, result-ing in unclear or incomplete findings; only sixwere longitudinal. Future studies should use

more differentiated subscales and target spe-cific age periods; there is no reason to believethat all strategies included in mixed subscalesshow the same developmental trajectories orthat coping evinces major, uniform, or linearshifts across all age gaps. More fine-grainedanalyses within age groups will also be infor-mative, perhaps incorporating information onnormative development of emotion and be-havioral self-regulation strategies, broadly de-fined. There is clearly much work to be donein order to investigate how coping strategiesbecome more differentiated, organized, andflexible while they may also be changing inform and function.

Issue Four: Contributors to theDevelopment of Coping

Most of the research on predictors duringchildhood and adolescence, like research inadulthood, examines concurrent correlates ofcoping strategies. Recent developmental anal-yses have pointed out the need to go beyondsuch research (Aldwin 1994, Bridges 2003,Compas 1998, Compas et al. 1992, Eisenberget al. 1997, Fields & Prinz 1997, Skinner &Edge 1998) to integrate individual differencesand developmental perspectives by examiningthe constitutional and social contributors todifferential developmental pathways of cop-ing; at the same time, studies need to beginto identify underlying developmental changes(e.g., in cognition, communication, and at-tachment) that contribute to normative de-velopmental shifts in the coping process.

Temperament and coping. Although cop-ing theorists have long pointed out poten-tial connections (Compas 1987, Maccoby1983, Rutter 1983), research linking dimen-sions of temperament to specific ways ofcoping is thin, involving a handful of stud-ies at preschool age (e.g., Eisenberg et al.1994) and middle childhood (e.g., Lengua& Sandler 1996). However, rich conceptualand empirical literatures on physiologicallybased differences in susceptibility to stress and


Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

007.

58:1

19-1

44. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by P

OR

TL

AN

D S

TA

TE

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

on

01/1

9/07

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


stress reactivity in infants would seem to holdparticular promise for identifying the con-stitutional underpinnings of children’s cop-ing (Derryberry et al. 2003, Eisenberg et al.1997). As suggested by Derryberry and col-leagues (2003), “temperamental systems canbe viewed as coping mechanisms” (p. 1050),some of which “constitute motivational sys-tems that have evolved to detect and respondto stimuli that are crucial to the survival of ourspecies” (p. 1052).

At the most general level, temperamentrefers to inborn physiological differences inpatterns of responding to environmental stim-ulation (such as novelty, restraint, or otherpeople). A set of dimensions particularly rel-evant to coping focuses on reactivity, whichdescribes individual differences in arousabil-ity or the amount of stimulation required toproduce positive and negative reactions. Al-though all human infants come with species-general capacities and motivations to detectand respond to psychological and bodilythreats (Gunnar & Cheatham 2003), the sys-tems of some infants seem to be tuned to alower threshold and a narrower range of reac-tions. For example, highly inhibited childrentend to react to novelty with fearfulness andwithdrawal (Fox et al. 2005), and some chil-dren are predisposed to react to mild stressors(e.g., restraint or delay) with anger and frus-tration (e.g., Calkins et al. 2002). In general,children with high negative reactivity seemparticularly vulnerable to the disorganizingeffects of stress.

A second broad set of temperamental di-mensions relevant to coping refers to regu-latory processes and describes constitutionaldifferences in the ease with which infants canmodulate their reactivity, either facilitatingor inhibiting their affective, motor, and at-tentional responses. Infants higher in dispo-sitional regulation are better able to governtheir attention and behavior, for example, dis-engaging attention from distressing stimuli, inways that return arousal to manageable levels(Rothbart et al. 1994). In general, regulationshould provide a buffer to reactivity, allowing

children more flexibility and adaptability intheir reactions to stress (Eisenberg & Fabes1992).

Other dimensions, particularly ones de-scribing an “easy” temperament, have alsobeen implicated in coping (Rutter 1983).Children who are more active, sociable, andemotionally positive have been found to bemore resistant to the effects of stress, and thismay in part be due to the advantages such pre-dispositions confer on coping (Eisenberg et al.1997). Moreover, infants higher in masterymotivation (i.e., more active, attentive to con-tingencies, and persistent in the face of chal-lenge) are likely to show more constructiveproblem-solving and information-seeking.

Empirical studies of children duringpreschool age and middle childhood are be-ginning to show that temperament shapescoping processes in many ways, contribut-ing to individual differences in environmentalsensitivity, stress reactivity, threat appraisals,initial emotional reactions, preferred ways ofcoping, and ease of modifying coping strate-gies in the face of changing demands (e.g.,Eisenberg et al. 1994, Lengua & Sandler1996). Moreover, temperamental dimensions,such as sociability or impulsivity, may also in-fluence coping by shaping other people’s reac-tions, thus making some children more likelyto be targets of social stressors, such as criti-cism or rejection, as well as differential recip-ients of social support (Maccoby 1983).

Most interesting for developmental re-search on coping are findings showing thatstress reactivity and dispositional regulationare not fixed at birth. Both show regular de-velopmentally graded changes and are shapedby social relationships and experiences ofdealing with stress. For example, matura-tion of the central nervous system duringinfancy allows for normative improvementsin the capacity to maintain behavioral andphysiological organization in the face of dis-tressing events (Kopp 1982, Maccoby 1983).Regulation of behavioral, attentional, andemotional reactions have their own inter-related developmental timetables, with the


Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

007.

58:1

19-1

44. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by P

OR

TL

AN

D S

TA

TE

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

on

01/1

9/07

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Socialization ofcoping: ways thatsocial partners shapethe development ofcoping and howthese processeschange as childrendevelop

general suggestion that high reactivity inter-feres with or slows the development of reg-ulatory capacities (Eisenberg & Fabes 1992,Kopp 1989, Rothbart et al. 1994). Moreover,even the physiologically based processes ofreactivity and regulation can be dampenedor exacerbated by the quality of caregivingand attachments (Fox et al. 2005, Gunnar &Cheatham 2003) and their functioning shapedby cognitive expectancies and developments(Derryberry et al. 2003).

Socialization of coping. Research in adult-hood is often accused of considering copingas an individual affair, but research in child-hood, from its inception, recognized that cop-ing is shaped by social relationships and con-texts (Compas 1987, Maccoby 1983, Murphy& Moriarity 1976, Rutter 1983). Consistentwith that perspective, research on attachment,social support, parenting, family processes,peer relationships, teaching, and parent-childinteractions have all shown links betweenavailability of support and quality of relation-ships, on the one hand, and children’s phys-iological and psychological stress reactivity,regulation, and coping, on the other. Socialpartners, especially sensitive and responsivecaregivers, seem to be a fundamental part ofthe stress reactivity system of infants, influ-encing not just how they respond but whetherthey even physiologically register an event asstressful (Gunnar et al. 1996).

It is difficult to overstate the impor-tance of social partners, especially parents,to children’s coping (Kliewer et al. 1994,Power 2004, Skinner & Edge 2002, Zimmer-Gembeck & Locke 2006). Parents play a rolein determining the stressors, both chronic andacute, to which children are exposed; parents’problems can themselves become stressors forchildren; parents contribute to the develop-ment of children’s coping resources, such astheir self-efficacy or social skills; parents par-ticipate in children’s coping through their ownemotions and actions; and parents help chil-dren learn from bad experiences, includingplanning proactive coping to prevent their re-

occurrence. Beyond the general conclusionthat good relationships accompany good cop-ing, specific findings suggest that parents canalso be too protective; for example, if theycompletely shield their highly reactive chil-dren from stress, they may also prevent chil-dren from developing effective coping strate-gies (e.g., Fox et al. 2005). These findingssuggest that an important function of parentsmay be to “dose” children, grading their expo-sure to stress, while providing sufficient sup-ports so that they can learn to manage it well(Power 2004).

Although multiple pathways have beensuggested, research is just beginning toexplore the precise mechanisms throughwhich social forces shape children’s coping(Eisenberg et al. 1997, Power 2004, Skinner& Edge 2002). Of special import are studiesexamining the ways in which parents socializecoping, either explicitly, for example, throughmodeling, teaching, and coaching (Klieweret al. 1994), or implicitly, through comfort-ing, soothing, and helping (Holodynski &Friedlmeier 2006, Sroufe 1996). Theories andmethods adapted from work on the socializa-tion of children’s emotional reactivity and ex-pression, as well as their behavioral and emo-tional self-regulation, promise to enrich theseavenues of research on coping (Eisenberget al. 1997, Power 2004). Two intriguing sug-gestions from this work are that the kinds ofparenting that promote the development ofcoping depend on children’s temperamentalcharacteristics (Eisenberg & Valiente 2004)and are likely to change as children develop(Power 2004).

Developments underlying shifts in cop-ing. Perhaps the greatest challenge to the de-velopmental study of coping is to discoverhow developments in the processes under-lying children’s reactions and responses tostress lead to age-graded changes in chil-dren’s coping (Compas et al. 1992, Compas1998). As noted in previous reviews, the de-velopment of coping is affected by changesin physiology, perception, memory, cognition,


Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

007.

58:1

19-1

44. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by P

OR

TL

AN

D S

TA

TE

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

on

01/1

9/07

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


language, emotion, self-perceptions, motiva-tion, social comparison, and social relation-ships (Derryberry et al. 2003, Eisenberg et al.1997, Fields & Prinz 1997, Maccoby 1983,Murphy & Moriarity 1976, Rutter 1983).

Up to now, there has been a narrow fo-cus on specific underlying developments. Forexample, the development of social refer-encing allows infants long-distance access toinformation from their caregivers about dan-ger and safety. The development of mo-bility opens up a whole range of copingthrough physical interactions with the envi-ronment, such as reaching, withdrawal, andproximity-seeking. Cognitive developmentscontribute to improvements in problem-solving, internalization of behavioral stan-dards, and perspective taking, all of which al-low more constructive and effective coping.During adolescence, improvements in meta-cognitive skills and the recognition of emo-tions facilitate planning and the use of cogni-tive strategies to regulate complex emotions.Although many of these developments signalimprovements, reviewers also point out de-velopmental increases in vulnerabilities. Forexample, adolescents are less likely to be over-whelmed by emotional arousal, but they mayalso be more likely to experience threats totheir self-concepts, to worry about social rela-tionships, to internalize negative experiences,or to ruminate (Eisenberg et al. 1997).

At this point, the underlying mechanismsthat have been suggested are numerous, het-erogeneous, and follow differing yet inter-twined timetables. Useful studies will con-tinue to describe age differences, but will alsodirectly examine how coping changes as afunction of developments in specific underly-ing processes (Compas et al. 1992). For ex-ample, studies that directly assess cognitivedevelopment and then examine whether cer-tain coping strategies are more likely at differ-ent levels (e.g., Band & Weisz 1990) providea firmer foundation for inferences about thebasis of age differences. Mapping out these in-terrelated changes and figuring out how theyinteract to produce quantitative and qualita-

tive shifts in coping are among the greatestchallenges to the area (Compas 1998).

Summary. A broader integrative frameworkallows for a consideration of how tempera-ment, socialization, and normative develop-ments shape differential pathways of cop-ing. According to this framework, the first“coping” subsystem is physiological, includ-ing individual differences such as tempera-ment (Derryberry et al. 2003). These sub-systems have their own checks and balances,including social ones, in the form of care-givers who fulfill all the functions of a cop-ing system, such as monitoring and detect-ing threats, protecting, removing stressors,soothing, and comforting (Barrett & Campos1991, Holodynski & Friedlmeier 2006). Frombirth, infants are active participants in theseprocesses, communicating their distress reac-tions and preferences through their motor be-haviors and emotions in social interactions.All these subsystems are shaped by objectivestressors, that is, the actual dangers, threats,losses, pleasures, and challenges faced by chil-dren and their families on an ongoing basis.Key developmental questions involve how, aschildren age, the development of new capaci-ties, such as language, voluntary behavior, andcognition, changes both the structure of thecoping system and how it functions when en-countering such stressors.

FUTURE RESEARCH ON THEDEVELOPMENT OF COPING

Traditional research on the development ofcoping, including most of the research re-viewed above, tends to focus on a single facet,like appraisals, stress reactivity, or ways of cop-ing, and examine how it changes with ageor can be predicted from earlier personal orsocial factors. The next generation of cop-ing research will build on the advances justdescribed, but will focus on individual dif-ferences in developmental pathways of cop-ing and on coping episodes as mechanismsof development. Moreover, studies will frame


Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

007.

58:1

19-1

44. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by P

OR

TL

AN

D S

TA

TE

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

on

01/1

9/07

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


developmental issues as not only increases ordecreases in particular components, but alsoas potential reorganizations of the entire cop-ing system over time. These three importantsets of questions, as guides to a developmentalagenda to the study of coping, are describedbelow (see also Compas 1998).

What Are the DifferentDevelopmental Pathways of Copingand What Shapes Them?

The descriptive strand of this research in-volves longitudinal studies tracing differentpathways from early forms of coping to laterforms. For example, if negotiation emerges asan interpersonal coping strategy at about agethree, then longitudinal research could tracewhether it is more likely to emerge from ear-lier interpersonal coping via aggression, sub-mission, or some other way of coping. Thisresearch could also uncover whether certainearly forms of coping or reactivity are “de-velopmental dead ends” in that they interferewith the emergence of later forms.

The explanatory strand of this researchexamines how profiles of coping emerge asthe long-term effect of different combinationsof stressors and social relationships on chil-dren with differing temperaments. It wouldbe especially important to include markersof previous experiences with aversive eventsand of the resources or liabilities these expe-riences engendered, such as stress toleranceor learned helplessness. Studies could alsoprobe possible explanations for why childrenfail to transform from one means of coping toanother (e.g., temperamental vulnerabilities,too much stress, insecure attachments, or re-peated failure experiences).

What Are the Effects of Copingon Development?

This research focuses on how coping influ-ences development. Children’s reactions andways of dealing with stress likely shape theirsocial relationships, the subsequent stressors

they encounter, and eventually, even their ownstress physiology and development. Studieswould investigate how certain patterns of cop-ing contribute to the accumulation of re-sources and liabilities that shape future stress-ful encounters, such as a sense of autonomyor close friendships. Eventually, research mayexplore how coping marks a site of develop-mental significance—a zone of struggle, prac-tice, or experience—that cumulatively shapesmajor developments (Skinner & Edge 1998).

How Does Coping (Potentially)Get Better and How Can It BePromoted?

This research investigates aspects of copingsuggested (but not really specified) by termslike flexible, differentiated, appropriate, selec-tive, reflective, considered, organized, con-structive, measured, modulated, sturdy, andautonomous. These terms imply a systemthat potentially progresses from diffuse todifferentiated, from uncoordinated to inte-grated, from egocentric to cooperative, andfrom reactivity to proactive autonomous reg-ulation. These developmental potentials de-pict a system that can increasingly monitorand appropriately appraise more (current andfuture) demands using its own and others’“radar”; maintain composure under higherlevels of appraised threat with more capac-ity to withstand multiple demands and bet-ter “fallbacks”; respond increasingly in mea-sured socially competent ways that reflectintegration of ongoing emotional, attentional,and motivational reactions; more flexibly ad-just actions to meet changing environmentaldemands without losing sight of genuine pri-orities; recover more quickly from setbacks;and at the same time, take more away fromstressful encounters, learning how to preventand deal with future challenges and how todeploy coping in line with future goals.

Because not all adolescents (or adults)reach these potentials, the refinement of inter-ventions that promote more adaptive copingis a high priority for developmental research


Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

007.

58:1

19-1

44. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by P

OR

TL

AN

D S

TA

TE

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

on

01/1

9/07

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


(Sandler et al. 1997). To the extent that suchprograms take into account the constraintsand opportunities created by children’s dis-positions and developmental levels and bythe configuration of stressors and supportspresent in their daily lives, these interventionswill be more effective in helping children de-velop their long-term coping resources andcapacities.

CONCLUSION

As it becomes clear that the development ofcoping cannot be understood without consid-ering the multiple physiological, emotional,behavioral, attentional, and interpersonalprocesses that give rise to it and the largersocial ecological contexts within which it un-folds, more researchers have suggested con-ceptualizing coping as part of a complex adap-tive system that includes stress, resilience, andcompetence (Haggerty et al. 1994, Masten2006). Although no consensus exists about thespecifics of such a perspective, it seems clearthat coping operates at multiple levels andacross several different time scales. As graphi-cally depicted in Figure 1, coping can be con-sidered an adaptive process on the scale of de-velopmental time, an episodic process acrossdays and months, and an interactive processin real time (Coping Consortium 2001).

Currently, most research focuses on cop-ing as an episodic process (middle portion ofFigure 1): Coping is recruited in response todemands (environmental or intrapsychic) andis shaped by the individual’s appraisals and bysocial and individual resources. From this per-spective, the primary questions involve howcoping functions with the other componentsduring an episode: How do particular socialcontexts, demands, social factors, and individ-ual characteristics shape coping? Up to now,these are the main questions that have preoc-cupied coping researchers.

As important as these questions are, copingresearch needs to grow and change if it is tobenefit from and contribute to other work onstress, adversity, and development. At a more

Coping as amulti-level adaptivesystem: models ofcoping as a systemoperating at multipleembedded levels

micro level, studies will need to consider cop-ing as an interactional process, as it operatesat the level of interactions with the social andphysical context (bottom of Figure 1), and ascaptured by observations or daily diaries. Suchresearch would need to include the multiplecomponents of reactions to stress evoked inreal time and should specify how they worktogether in interactions. Studies may use newconceptualizations of coping as regulation un-der stress to build on what is known abouttemperament and stress physiology and tocreate a place for behavior, emotion, atten-tion, cognition, motivation, and social rela-tionships (Derryberry et al. 2003, Gunnar &Cheatham 2003, Holodynski & Friedlmeier2006).

At a more macro level, coping has the po-tential to contribute to research on adversity,competence, and resilience if studies can doc-ument its function as part of the adaptive pro-cesses through which exposure to adversityhas a long-term impact on individual func-tioning and development (Grant et al. 2003,Masten et al. 1999). At this level (top portionof Figure 1), coping can be considered a set ofproximal processes depicting how children ac-tually react to and deal with the specific stres-sors to which they have been exposed.

This article summarizes challenges to re-search on the development of coping as wellas recent advances that promise progress incharting developmental shifts in coping pat-terns and in capturing the many constitu-tional, psychological, and social factors thatinteract to shape those developments. Wesuggest future research directions that focuson differential pathways of development andon the power of coping episodes to shapeshort- and long-term developments. As a sub-text throughout this article runs the convic-tion that research on coping is critical to anunderstanding of stress and adversity in thereal lives of children and adolescents. Webelieve that as an organizational construct,it has the potential to provide an integra-tive link from the physiological processes ofstress reactions to the sociocultural forces that


Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

007.

58:1

19-1

44. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by P

OR

TL

AN

D S

TA

TE

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

on

01/1

9/07

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Figure 1A model of coping as a multi-level adaptive system operating (a) as an adaptive process acrossdevelopmental time, (b) as an episodic process across episodic time, and (c) as an interactional processacross real time.

determine the stressors that societies allowinto children’s lives. To the extent that workon coping can make developmental progress,it may not only guide research across the age-graded literatures on coping within childhood

and adolescence, but may also begin to createmeaningful theoretical and empirical links toother important literatures currently attempt-ing to chart the effects of childhood stress andadversity.


Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

007.

58:1

19-1

44. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by P

OR

TL

AN

D S

TA

TE

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

on

01/1

9/07

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


SUMMARY POINTS

1. Although development shapes every aspect of how people deal with stress, it has beenvery difficult to realize a developmental agenda for the study of coping.

2. Two recent theoretical advances promise to orient and invigorate research. First, con-ceptualizations of coping as regulation under stress establish links between coping andthe normative development of emotional, attentional, and behavioral self-regulation.They also suggest constitutional underpinnings and social factors that shape the de-velopment of coping. Second, functional analyses of about a dozen hierarchicallyorganized core families of coping can be used to identify how those functions canbe achieved through different ways of coping at different ages, allowing the study ofdevelopmentally graded ways of coping within a family.

3. The research on age differences and age changes in coping from early childhood toearly adulthood can be organized using a framework that relies on the families ofcoping to map ways of coping and the developmental course of regulation to identifykey ages at which coping might show developmental shifts.

4. General mechanisms of coping may accumulate developmentally, starting with stressresponses guided by reflexes during the neonatal period, and adding regulation viaaction schemes during infancy, supplemented by coping through direct action duringpreschool age, coping using cognitive means during middle childhood, and copingusing meta-cognitive means during adolescence.

5. A broad integrative framework considers how temperament, socialization, and nor-mative developments shape differential pathways of coping. Accordingly, the first cop-ing subsystem is physiological, including individual differences such as temperament.These subsystems have their own checks and balances, including social ones, in theform of caregivers who fulfill all the functions of a coping system, such as monitoringand detecting threats, protecting, removing stressors, soothing, and comforting.

6. The greatest challenge to the developmental study of coping is to discover how, aschildren and adolescents age, the development of new capacities, such as language,voluntary behavior, and meta-cognition, changes both the structure of the copingsystem and how it functions when encountering stressors.

7. Future research may be guided by multilevel systems perspectives on the developmentof coping as including both the successive differentiation of responses to different de-mands (e.g., novelty, failure, delay, separation) and the integration of regulatory sub-systems, potentially allowing coping to become more flexible, organized, cooperative,and autonomous across childhood and adolescence.

FUTURE ISSUES

1. How do ways of coping differ and change with age? Studies should use core families toorganize ways of coping into more differentiated subscales and focus on certain agesas likely to mark developmental transitions. More fine-grained analyses within agegroups should incorporate information on the normative development of emotion,attention, and behavioral self-regulation.


Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

007.

58:1

19-1

44. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by P

OR

TL

AN

D S

TA

TE

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

on

01/1

9/07

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


2. How does temperament shape the development of coping? Research can explore themany ways that individual differences in underlying constitutional differences (as wellas developmental changes in these physiological processes) contribute to how childrendeal with stress.

3. How do social partners and social contexts shape the development of coping? Studiesshould continue to examine the role parents and other social partners play in thedevelopment of coping, including the ways in which this role changes as childrendevelop new capacities (and liabilities).

4. How does coping change as a function of developments in specific underlying pro-cesses? Research would explore how changes in underlying developmental processes(such as cognition, communication, attachment) interact to produce quantitative andqualitative shifts in coping.

5. What are the different pathways of coping, and what contributes to their development?Research would examine how profiles of coping emerge as the long-term effects ofdifferent combinations of stressors and social relationships on children with differingtemperaments. This research would include longitudinal studies tracing differentpathways from early forms of coping to later forms.

6. What are the effects of coping on development? Research would examine how certainpatterns of coping contribute to the accumulation of resources and liabilities thatshape future stressful encounters. Eventually research may explore how coping marksa site of developmental significance, a zone of struggle, practice, or experience, thatcumulatively shapes major developments.

7. How does coping (potentially) get better and how can it be promoted? Research willcontinue to refine interventions that promote more adaptive coping. To the extentthat such programs take into account the constraints and opportunities created bychildren’s dispositions and developmental levels and by the configuration of stressorsand supports present in their daily lives, these interventions will be more effective inhelping children develop their long-term coping resources and capacities.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We are pleased to acknowledge the contributions of Danielle Sutton and Glen Richardson inpreparing this article. We appreciate Wolfgang Friedlmeier, Ann Masten, and Bruce Compasfor their willingness to review earlier drafts. We salute the other members of the CopingConsortium—Irwin Sandler, Bruce Compas, Nancy Eisenberg, Pat Tolan, and Tim Ayers—for the inspiration they provide.

LITERATURE CITEDOne of the fewbooks that coversthe lifespan. Lastthree chaptersreviewdevelopmentalresearch from birthto death.

Aldwin CM. 1994. Stress, Coping, and Development: An Integrative Perspective. New York:Guilford

Aspinwall LG, Taylor SE. 1997. A stitch in time: self-regulation and proactive coping. Psychol.Bull. 121:417–36

Ayers TS, Sandler IN, West SG, Roosa MW. 1996. A dispositional and situational assessmentof children’s coping: testing alternative models of coping. J. Personal. 64:923–58


Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

007.

58:1

19-1

44. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by P

OR

TL

AN

D S

TA

TE

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

on

01/1

9/07

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Band EB, Weisz JR. 1990. Developmental differences in primary and secondary control copingand adjustment to juvenile diabetes. J. Clin. Child Psychol. 19:150–58

Barrett KC, Campos JJ. 1991. A diacritical function approach to emotions and coping. In Life-Span Developmental Psychology: Perspectives on Stress and Coping, ed. EM Cummings, ALGreene, KH Karraker, pp. 21–41. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum

Block JH, Block J. 1980. The role of ego-control and ego-resiliency in the organization ofbehavior. In Development of Cognition, Affect, and Social Relations, ed. WA Collins, MinnesotaSymposium on Child Psychology, 13:39–101. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum

Bowlby J. 1969/1973. Attachment and Loss. Vols. 1 and 2. New York: Basic BooksBrandtstadter J, Renner G. 1990. Tenacious goal pursuit and flexible goal adjustment: expli-

cation and age-related analysis of assimilative and accommodative strategies of coping.Psychol. Aging 5:58–67

Bridges LJ. 2003. Coping as an element of developmental well-being. Well-Being: PositiveDevelopment Across the Life Course. ed. M Bornstein, L Davidson, CL Keyes, KA Moore,pp. 155–66. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum

Bridges LJ, Grolnick WS. 1995. The development of emotional self-regulation in infancy andearly childhood. In Review of Personality and Social Psychology. ed. N Eisenberg, 15:185–211.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Calkins SD, Dedmon SE, Gill KL, Lomax LE, Johnson LM. 2002. Frustration in infancy:implications for emotion regulation, physiological processes, and temperament. Infancy3:175–97

Campos JJ, Frankel CB, Camras L. 2004. On the nature of emotion regulation. Child Dev.75:377–94

Carver CS, Scheier MF. 1998. On the Self-Regulation of Behavior. Cambridge, UK: CambridgeUniv. Press

Coelho GV, Hamburg DA, Adams JE, eds. 1974. Coping and Adaptation. New York: BasicBooks

Cole PM, Martin SE, Dennis TA. 2004. Emotion regulation as a scientific construct: method-ological challenges and directions for child development research. Child Dev. 75:317–33

First identifieddisparate strands ofresearch as directlyrelevant to study ofcoping. This is thearticle that definedthe field.

Compas BE. 1987. Coping with stress during childhood and adolescence. Psychol. Bull.

101:393–403Compas BE. 1998. An agenda for coping research and theory: basic and applied developmental

issues. Int. J. Behav. Dev. 22:231–37Compas BE, Connor J, Osowiecki D, Welch A. 1997. Effortful and involuntary responses to

stress: implications for coping with chronic stress. In Coping with Chronic Stress, ed. BHGottlieb, pp. 105–30. New York: Plenum

Compas BE, Connor JK, Saltzman H, Thomsen AH, Wadsworth M. 1999. Getting specificabout coping: effortful and involuntary responses to stress in development. In Soothingand Stress, ed. M Lewis, D Ramsay, pp. 229–56. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum State-of-the-art

review of theoriesand research onchildhood andadolescent coping.Includes manyinsights ondevelopmentalthough majorfocus is individualdifferences.

Compas BE, Connor-Smith JK, Saltzman H, Thomsen AH, Wadsworth ME. 2001.Coping with stress during childhood and adolescence: problems, progress, andpotential in theory and research. Psychol. Bull. 127:87–127

Compas BE, Malcarne VL, Banez GA. 1992. Coping with psychosocial stress: a developmen-tal perspective. In Personal Coping: Theory, Research, and Application, ed. BN Carpenter,pp. 47–63. London: Praeger

Connor-Smith JK, Compas BE, Wadsworth ME, Thomsen AH, Saltzman H. 2000. Responsesto stress in adolescence: measurement of coping and involuntary stress responses. J. Con-sult. Clin. Psychol. 68:976–92


Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

007.

58:1

19-1

44. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by P

OR

TL

AN

D S

TA

TE

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

on

01/1

9/07

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Coping Consortium (Sandler I, Compas B, Ayers T, Eisenberg N, Skinner E, Tolan P, organiz-ers). 1998, 2001. New Conceptualizations of Coping. Workshop sponsored by Arizona StateUniv. Prev. Res. Cent., Tempe, AZ

Deci EL, Ryan RM. 1985. Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior. NewYork: Plenum

Provocativeresearch-basedessay on theimplications ofconsidering thebasic motivationaland attentionalsubsystemsinvolved intemperament asconstituting earlycopingmechanisms.

Derryberry D, Reed MA, Pilkenton-Taylor C. 2003. Temperament and coping: advan-tages of an individual differences perspective. Dev. Psychopathol. 15:1049–66

Eisenberg N, Fabes RA. 1992. Emotion, regulation, and the development of social competence.In Emotion and Social Behavior. Review of Personality and Social Psychology, ed. MS Clark,14:119–50. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Empirical review,guided by a broadheuristic model,that examines rolesof emotionregulation,temperament, andsocialization indevelopment ofcoping throughadolescence.

Eisenberg N, Fabes RA, Guthrie IK. 1997. Coping with stress: the roles of regulationand development. In Handbook of Children’s Coping: Linking Theory and Interven-

tion, ed. SA Wolchik, IN Sandler, pp. 41–70. New York: PlenumEisenberg N, Fabes RA, Nyman M, Bernzweig J, Pinuelas A. 1994. The relations of emotion-

ality and regulation to children’s anger-related reactions. Child Dev. 65:109–28Eisenberg N, Valiente C. 2004. Elaborations on a theme: beyond main effects in relations of

parenting to children’s coping and regulation. Parenting Sci. Pract. 4:319–23

Excellent reviewand integration ofresearch, includingage-groupcomparisons andlinks betweencoping andadjustment.Outstandingsection ondevelopmentaldifferences.

Fields L, Prinz RJ. 1997. Coping and adjustment during childhood and adolescence.Clin. Psychol. Rev. 17:937–76

Folkman S, Moskowitz JT. 2004. Coping: pitfalls and promise. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 55:745–74Fox NA, Henderson HA, Marshall PJ, Nichols KE, Ghera MA. 2005. Behavioral inhibi-

tion: linking biology and behavior within a developmental framework. Annu. Rev. Psychol.56:235–62

Describesdevelopmental andclinicalperspectives oncoping andsummarizes anextensive body ofempirical researchon adolescents.

Frydenberg E. 1997. Adolescent Coping: Theoretical and Research Perspectives. New York:Routledge

Garmezy N. 1983. Stressors of childhood. In Stress, Coping, and Development in Children, ed. NGarmezy, M Rutter, pp. 43–84. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press

Shaped andforeshadowedresearch oversubsequent decadesin a seminal volumewritten by expertsin subspecialtiesranging from

Garmezy N, Rutter M, eds. 1983. Stress, Coping, and Development in Children. Baltimore,MD: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press

Gianino A, Tronick E. 1998. The mutual regulation model: the infant’s self and interactiveregulation and coping and defensive capacities. In Stress and Coping Across Development, ed.T Field, P McCabe, N Schneiderman, pp. 47–68. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum

Grant KE, Compas BE, Stuhlmacher AF, Thurm AF, McMahon SD, Halpert JA. 2003. Stres-sors and child and adolescent psychopathology: moving from markers to mechanisms ofrisk. Psychol. Bull. 129:447–66

Gunnar MR, Cheatham CL. 2003. Brain and behavior interface: stress and the devel-oping brain. Infant Mental Health J. 24:195–211

Gunnar MR, Brodersen L, Nachmias M, Buss K, Rigatuso J. 1996. Stress reactivity andattachment security. Dev. Psychobiol. 29:191–204

Haggerty RJ, Sherrod LR, Garmezy N, Rutter M, eds. 1994. Stress, Risk, and Resilience inChildren and Adolescents: Processes, Mechanisms, and Interventions. New York: CambridgeUniv. Press

Holodynski M, Friedlmeier W. 2006. Development of Emotions and Emotion Regulation. NewYork: Springer

Kliewer W, Sandler I, Wolchik S. 1994. Family socialization of threat appraisal and coping:coaching, modeling, and family context. In Social Networks and Social Support in Childhoodand Adolescence, ed. K Hurrelman, F Nestmann, pp. 271–91. Berlin: de Gruyter

Kopp CB. 1982. Antecedents of self-regulation: a developmental perspective. Dev. Psychol.18:199–214


Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

007.

58:1

19-1

44. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by P

OR

TL

AN

D S

TA

TE

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

on

01/1

9/07

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Kopp CB. 1989. Regulation of distress and negative emotions: a developmental view. Dev.Psychol. 25:343–54

Lazarus RS. 1999. Stress and Emotion: A New Synthesis. New York: SpringerLazarus RS, Folkman S. 1984. Stress, Appraisal, and Coping. New York: SpringerLengua LJ, Sandler IN. 1996. Self-regulation as a moderator of the relation between coping

and symptomatology in children of divorce. J. Abnorm. Child Psychol. 24:681–701Losoya S, Eisenberg N, Fabes RA. 1998. Developmental issues in the study of coping. Int. J.

Behav. Dev. 22:287–313Maccoby EE. 1983. Social-emotional development and response to stressors. See Garmezy &

Rutter 2003, pp. 217–34Masten AS. 2006. Developmental psychopathology: pathways to the future. Int. J. Behav. Dev.

30:47–54Masten AS, Hubbard JJ, Gest SD, Tellegen A, Garmezy N, Ramirez ML. 1999. Competence

in the context of adversity: pathways to resilience and maladaptation from childhood toadolescence. Dev. Psychopathol. 11:143–69

Metcalfe J, Mischel W. 1999. A hot/cool-system analysis of delay of gratification: dynamics ofwillpower. Psychol. Rev. 106:3–19

Mischel HN, Mischel W. 1983. The development of children’s knowledge of self-controlstrategies. Child Dev. 54:603–19

Murphy LB. 1974. Coping, vulnerability, and resilience in childhood. In Coping and Adaptation,ed. GV Coelho, DA Hamburg, JE Adams, pp. 47–68. New York: Basic Books

biochemistry topublic policy.

Reviews researchon the physiologyof the stress systemand how itsdevelopment isshaped bytemperament andsocial relationships.

Describes the firstcomprehensivelongitudinal studyof the developmentof children’s copingfrom infancy toadolescence.

Murphy LB, Moriarity A. 1976. Vulnerability, Coping, and Growth: From Infancy to Ado-

lescence. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press

A developmentalandprocess-orientedreview of howparents shapechildren’s coping.

Power TG. 2004. Stress and coping in childhood: the parents’ role. Parenting Sci. Pract.

4:271–317Rossman BBR. 1992. School-age children’s perceptions of coping with distress: strategies for

emotion regulation and the moderation of adjustment. J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry AlliedDiscipl. 33:1373–97

Rothbart MK, Derryberry D, Posner MI. 1994. A psychobiological approach to the develop-ment of temperament. In Temperament: Individual Differences at the Interface of Biology andBehavior, ed. JE Bates, TD Wachs, pp. 83–116. Washington, DC: Am. Psychol. Assoc.

Rudolph KD, Dennig MD, Weisz JR. 1995. Determinants and consequences of children’s cop-ing in the medical setting: conceptualization, review, and critique. Psychol. Bull. 118:328–57

Rutter M. 1983. Stress, coping, and development: some issues and some questions. See Garmezy& Rutter 1983, pp. 1–41

Ryan-Wenger NM. 1992. A taxonomy of children’s coping strategies: a step toward theorydevelopment. Am. J. Orthopsychiatry 62:256–63

Sandler IN, Wolchik SA, MacKinnon D, Ayers TS, Roosa MW. 1997. Developing linkagesbetween theory and intervention in stress and coping processes. In Handbook of Children’sCoping: Linking Theory, Research, and Intervention, ed. SA Wolchik, IN Sandler, pp. 3–40.New York: Plenum

Good example ofhow to studycoping as adevelopmentalprocess. Reportson studies of adevelopmentalmodel of stress,coping, andoutcomes duringadolescence.

Seiffge-Krenke I. 1995. Stress, Coping, and Relationships in Adolescence. Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum

Skinner EA. 1999. Action regulation, coping, and development. In Action and Self-Development,ed. JB Brandtstadter, RM Lerner, pp. 465–503. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Skinner EA, Edge K. 1998. Reflections on coping and development across the lifespan. Int. J.Behav. Dev. 22:357–66


Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

007.

58:1

19-1

44. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by P

OR

TL

AN

D S

TA

TE

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

on

01/1

9/07

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Skinner EA, Edge K. 2002. Parenting, motivation, and the development of children’s coping.In Agency, Motivation, and the Life Course: Vol. 48 of the Nebraska Symposium on Motivation,ed. RA Dienstbier, LJ Crockett, pp. 77–143. Lincoln, NE: Nebraska Univ. Press

Tackles theproblem ofconstructing corehigher-orderfamilies of coping.

Skinner EA, Edge K, Altman J, Sherwood H. 2003. Searching for the structure of coping:a review and critique of category systems for classifying ways of coping. Psychol. Bull.

129:216–69Skinner EA, Wellborn JG. 1994. Coping during childhood and adolescence: a motivational

perspective. In Life-Span Development and Behavior, ed. D Featherman, R Lerner, MPerlmutter, 12: 91–133. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum

Sroufe LA. 1996. Emotional Development: The Organization of Emotional Life in the Early Years.New York: Cambridge Univ. Press

Walker LS, Smith CA, Garber J, Van Slyke DA. 1997. Development and validation of the painresponse inventory for children. Psychol. Assess. 9:392–405

White RW. 1974. Strategies of adaptation: an attempt at systematic description. In Coping andAdaptation, ed. GV Coelho, DA Hamburg, JE Adams, pp. 47–68. New York: Basic Books

Wilson BJ, Gottman JM. 1996. Attention—the shuttle between emotion and cognition: risk,resiliency, and physiological bases. In Stress, Coping, and Resiliency in Children and Families,ed. EM Hetherington, EA Blechman, pp. 189–228. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum

Definitivecompendium oftheory, research,and interventionson coping duringchildhood andadolescence.

Wolchik SA, Sandler IN, eds. 1997. Handbook of Children’s Coping: Linking Theory and

Intervention. New York: PlenumZimmer-Gembeck MJ, Locke EM. 2006. The socialization of adolescent coping: relationships

at home and school. J. Adolesc. In pressZimmer-Gembeck MJ, Skinner EA. 2006. The development of coping across childhood and adoles-

cence: An integrative review and critique of research. Unpubl. manuscr., Portland State Univ.,Griffith Univ.


Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

007.

58:1

19-1

44. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by P

OR

TL

AN

D S

TA

TE

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

on

01/1

9/07

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

Contents ARI 8 November 2006 21:2

Annual Review ofPsychology

Volume 58, 2007

Contents

Prefatory

Research on Attention Networks as a Model for the Integration ofPsychological ScienceMichael I. Posner and Mary K. Rothbart � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 1

Cognitive Neuroscience

The Representation of Object Concepts in the BrainAlex Martin � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 25

Depth, Space, and Motion

Perception of Human MotionRandolph Blake and Maggie Shiffrar � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 47

Form Perception (Scene Perception) or Object Recognition

Visual Object Recognition: Do We Know More Now Than We Did 20Years Ago?Jessie J. Peissig and Michael J. Tarr � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 75

Animal Cognition

Causal Cognition in Human and Nonhuman Animals: A Comparative,Critical ReviewDerek C. Penn and Daniel J. Povinelli � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 97

Emotional, Social, and Personality Development

The Development of CopingEllen A. Skinner and Melanie J. Zimmer-Gembeck � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 119

vii

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

007.

58:1

19-1

44. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by P

OR

TL

AN

D S

TA

TE

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

on

01/1

9/07

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Biological and Genetic Processes in Development

The Neurobiology of Stress and DevelopmentMegan Gunnar and Karina Quevedo � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 145

Development in Societal Context

An Interactionist Perspective on the Socioeconomic Context ofHuman DevelopmentRand D. Conger and M. Brent Donnellan � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 175

Culture and Mental Health

Race, Race-Based Discrimination, and Health Outcomes AmongAfrican AmericansVickie M. Mays, Susan D. Cochran, and Namdi W. Barnes � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 201

Personality Disorders

Assessment and Diagnosis of Personality Disorder: Perennial Issuesand an Emerging ReconceptualizationLee Anna Clark � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 227

Social Psychology of Attention, Control, and Automaticity

Social Cognitive Neuroscience: A Review of Core ProcessesMatthew D. Lieberman � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 259

Inference, Person Perception, Attribution

Partitioning the Domain of Social Inference: Dual Mode and SystemsModels and Their AlternativesArie W. Kruglanski and Edward Orehek � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 291

Self and Identity

Motivational and Emotional Aspects of the SelfMark R. Leary � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 317

Social Development, Social Personality, Social Motivation,Social Emotion

Moral Emotions and Moral BehaviorJune Price Tangney, Jeff Stuewig, and Debra J. Mashek � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 345

viii Contents

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

007.

58:1

19-1

44. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by P

OR

TL

AN

D S

TA

TE

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

on

01/1

9/07

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


The Experience of EmotionLisa Feldman Barrett, Batja Mesquita, Kevin N. Ochsner,

and James J. Gross � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 373

Attraction and Close Relationships

The Close Relationships of Lesbian and Gay MenLetitia Anne Peplau and Adam W. Fingerhut � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 405

Small Groups

OstracismKipling D. Williams � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 425

Personality Processes

The Elaboration of Personal Construct PsychologyBeverly M. Walker and David A. Winter � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 453

Cross-Country or Regional Comparisons

Cross-Cultural Organizational BehaviorMichele J. Gelfand, Miriam Erez, and Zeynep Aycan � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 479

Organizational Groups and Teams

Work Group DiversityDaan van Knippenberg and Michaéla C. Schippers � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 515

Career Development and Counseling

Work and Vocational Psychology: Theory, Research,and ApplicationsNadya A. Fouad � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 543

Adjustment to Chronic Diseases and Terminal Illness

Health Psychology: Psychological Adjustmentto Chronic DiseaseAnnette L. Stanton, Tracey A. Revenson, and Howard Tennen � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 565

Contents ix

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

007.

58:1

19-1

44. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by P

OR

TL

AN

D S

TA

TE

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

on

01/1

9/07

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Research Methodology

Mediation AnalysisDavid P. MacKinnon, Amanda J. Fairchild, and Matthew S. Fritz � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 593

Analysis of Nonlinear Patterns of Change with Random CoefficientModelsRobert Cudeck and Jeffrey R. Harring � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 615

Indexes

Cumulative Index of Contributing Authors, Volumes 48–58 � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 639

Cumulative Index of Chapter Titles, Volumes 48–58 � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 644

Errata

An online log of corrections to Annual Review of Psychology chapters (if any, 1997 to thepresent) may be found at http://psych.annualreviews.org/errata.shtml

x Contents

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

007.

58:1

19-1

44. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by P

OR

TL

AN

D S

TA

TE

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

on

01/1

9/07

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

The Development of Coping

Documents

Transcript of The Development of Coping