Advertisement

Journal of Child and Family Studies

, Volume 26, Issue 9, pp 2623–2639 | Cite as

Does General Parenting Context Modify Adolescents' Appraisals and Coping with a Situation of Parental Regulation? The Case of Autonomy-Supportive Parenting

  • Stijn Van PetegemEmail author
  • Melanie J. Zimmer-Gembeck
  • Bart Soenens
  • Maarten Vansteenkiste
  • Katrijn Brenning
  • Elien Mabbe
  • Janne Vanhalst
  • Grégoire Zimmermann
Original Paper

Abstract

Theory and research suggest that adolescents differ in their appraisals and coping reactions in response to parental regulation. Less is known, however, about factors that determine these differences in adolescents’ responses. In this study, we examined whether adolescents' appraisals and coping reactions depend upon parents’ situation-specific autonomy-supportive or controlling communication style (i.e., the situation) in interaction with adolescents’ past experiences with general autonomy-supportive parenting (i.e., the parenting context). Whereas in Study 1 (N = 176) adolescents’ perceived general autonomy-supportive parenting context was assessed at one point in time, in Study 2 (N = 126) it was assessed multiple times across a 6-year period, allowing for an estimation of trajectories of perceived autonomy-supportive parenting context. In each study, adolescents read a vignette-based scenario depicting a situation of maternal regulation (i.e., a request to study more), which was communicated in either an autonomy-supportive or a controlling way. Following this scenario, they reported upon their appraisals and their anticipated coping reactions. Results of each study indicated that both the autonomy-supportive (relative to the controlling) situation and the perceived autonomy-supportive parenting context generally related to more positive appraisals (i.e., more autonomy need satisfaction, less autonomy need frustration), as well as to more constructive coping responses (i.e., less oppositional defiance and submission, more negotiation and accommodation). In addition, situation × context interactions were found, whereby adolescents growing up in a more autonomy-supportive context seemed to derive greater benefits from the exposure to an autonomy-supportive situation and reacted more constructively to a controlling situation.

Keywords

Adolescence Parenting Coping Appraisal Autonomy Control Regulation 

Notes

Author Contributions

S.V.P. coordinated the project, conceived of the study, analyzed and interpreted the data, and wrote the manuscript. M.Z.G., B.S. and M.V. helped in the conception of the study, interpretation of the data, and writing the manuscript. K.B. helped in the data collection and in writing the manuscript. E.M. helped in writing the manuscript. J.V. helped in the analysis and interpretation of the data, and writing the manuscript. G.Z. helped in the interpretation of the data and in writing the manuscript.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed involving human participants in this study were in accordance with the ethical standards of the Ghent University Institutional Review Board and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consents were obtained from all participants included in the study.

References

  1. Alexander, C. S., & Becker, H. J. (1978). The use of vignettes in survey research. Public Opinion Quarterly, 42, 93–104. doi: 10.1086/268432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Altshuler, J. L., Genevro, J. L., Ruble, D. N., & Bornstein, M. H. (1995). Children’s knowledge and use of coping strategies during hospitalization for elective surgery. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 16, 53–76. doi: 10.1016/0193-3973(95)90016-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Assor, A., Roth, G., & Deci, E. L. (2004). The emotional cost of parents’ conditional regard: A self-determination theory approach. Journal of Personality, 72, 47–88. doi: 10.1111/j.0022-3506.2004.00256.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Assor, A., & Tal, K. (2012). When parents’ affection depends on child’s achievement: Parental conditional positive regard, self-aggrandizement, shame and coping in adolescents. Journal of Adolescence, 35, 249–260. doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2011.10.004.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Barber, B. K. (1996). Parental psychological control: Revisiting a neglected construct. Child Development, 67, 3296–3319. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1996.tb01915.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Barber, B. K., & Xia, M. (2013). The centrality of control to parenting and its effects. In R. E. Larzelere, A. S. Morris, & A. W. Harrist (Eds.), Authoritative parenting: Synthesizing nurturance and discipline for optimal child development. Washington, DC: APA.Google Scholar
  7. Baudat, S., Zimmermann, G., Antonietti, J. P., & Van Petegem, S. (2016). Maternal reaction to an adolescent alcohol use episode: Enforcing control will lead to change motivation? Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy. doi: 10.1080/09687637.2016.1192584.
  8. Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  9. Brandtstädter, J., & Rothermund, K. (2002). The life-course dynamics of goal pursuit and goal adjustment: A two-process framework. Developmental Review, 22, 117–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (2006). The bioecological model of human development. In R. M. Lerner (Ed.), Handbook of Child Development: Vol. 1. Theoretical models of human development (6th ed., pp. 793–828). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
  11. Charness, G., Gneezy, U., & Kuhn, M. A. (2012). Experimental methods: Between-subject and within-subject design. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 81, 1–8. doi: 10.1006/drev.2001.0539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chen, B., Soenens, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Van Petegem, S., & Beyers, W. (2016). Where do the cultural differences in dynamics of controlling parenting lie? Adolescents as active agents in the perception of and coping with parental behavior. Psychologica Belgica, 56, 169–192. doi: 10.5334/pb.306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chen, B., & Vansteenkiste, M., et al. (2015). Basic psychological need satisfaction, need frustration, and need strength across four cultures. Motivation and Emotion, 39, 216–236. doi: 10.1007/s11031-014-9450-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  15. Collins, W. A., Maccoby, E. E., Steinberg, L., Hetherington, E. M., & Bornstein, M. H. (2000). Contemporary research on parenting: The case for nature and nurture. American Psychologist, 55, 218–232. doi: 10.1037/0003-066x.55.2.218.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Compas, B. E., Connor-Smith, J. K., Saltzman, H., Thomson, A. H., & Wadsworth, M. E. (2001). Coping with stress during childhood and adolescence: Problems, progress, and potential in theory and research. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 87–127. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.127.1.87.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Connor-Smith, J. K., Compas, B. E., Wadsworth, M. E., Thomsen, A. H., & Saltzman, H. (2000). Responses to stress in adolescence: Measurement of coping and involuntary stress responses. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68, 976–992. doi: 10.1080/10615800410001709412.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Darling, N., & Steinberg, L. (1993). Parenting style as context: An integrative model. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 487–496. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.113.3.487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dawson, J. F. (2014). Moderation in management research: What, why, when and how. Journal of Business Psychology, 29, 1–19. doi: 10.1007/s10869-013-9308-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York, NY: Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Finkel, E. J., & Campbell, W. K. (2001). Self-control and accommodation in close relationships: An interdependence analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 263–277. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.81.2.263.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Finnegan, R. A., Hodges, E. V. E., & Perry, D. G. (1998). Victimization by peers: Associations with children’s reports of mother–child interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1076–1086.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Galambos, N. L., Barker, E. T., & Almeida, D. M. (2003). Parents do matter: Trajectories of change in externalizing and internalizing problems in early adolescence. Child Development, 74, 578–594.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Garnefski, N., & Kraaij, V. (2006). The cognitive emotion regulation questionnaire: Development of a short 18-item version (CERQ-short). Personality and Individual Differences, 41, 1045–1053.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Grolnick, W. S. (2003). The psychology of parental control: How well-meant parenting backfires. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  26. Grolnick, W. S., Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1997). Internalization within the family: The self-determination theory perspective. In J. E. Grusec, & L. Kuczynski (Eds.), Parenting and children's internalization of values: A handbook of contemporary theory (pp. 135–161). New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
  27. Grolnick, W. S., Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (1991). Inner resources for school achievement: Motivational mediators of children's perceptions of their parents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 508–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gurland, S. T., Grolnick, W. S., & Friendly, R. W. (2012). The role of expectations in children’s experience of novel events. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 113, 305–321. doi: 10.1037/e699552007-001.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Heckhausen, J. (1997). Developmental regulation across adulthood: Primary and secondary control of age-related challenges. Developmental Psychology, 33, 176–187.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Kakihara, F., & Tilton-Weaver, L. (2009). Adolescents' interpretations of parental control: Differentiated by domain and types of control. Child Development, 80, 1722–1738.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Kass, R. E., & Raftery, A. E. (1995). Bayes factors. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 90, 773–795.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kliewer, W., Sandler, I., & Wolchik, S. (1994). Family socialization of threat appraisal and coping: Coaching, modeling, and family context. In K. Hurrelman, & F. Nestmann (Eds.), Social networks and social support in childhood and adolescence (pp. 271–291). New York, NY: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  33. Kochanska, G., Aksan, N., & Koenig, A. L. (1995). A longitudinal study of the roots of preschoolers’ conscience: Committed compliance and emerging internalization. Child Development, 66, 1752–1769. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1995.tb00963.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Kuczynski, L. (2003). Beyond bidirectionality: Bilateral conceptual frameworks for understanding dynamics in parent–child relations (pp. 1–24). In L. Kuczynski (Ed.), Handbook of dynamics in parent–child relations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  35. Legault, L., Ray, K., Hudgins, A., Pelosi, M., & Shannon, W. (2017). Assisted versus asserted autonomy satisfaction: Their unique associations with wellbeing, integration of experience, and conflict negotiation. Motivation & Emotion, 41, 1–21. doi: 10.1007/s11031-016-9593-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Little, R. (1988). A test of missing completely at random for multivariate data with missing values. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 83, 1198–1202. doi: 10.1080/01621459.1988.10478722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Maccoby, E. E. (2007). Historical overview of socialization research and theory. In J. E. Grusec, & P. D. Hastings (Eds.), Handbook of socialization: Theory and research (pp. 13–41). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  38. Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self and society from the point of view of a social behaviorist. Chicago, IL: University Press of Chicago.Google Scholar
  39. Miklikowska, M., Duriez, B., & Soenens, B. (2011). Family roots of empathy-related characteristics: The role of perceived maternal and paternal need support in adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 47, 1342–1352.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Moller, A. C., Deci, E. L., & Elliot, A. J. (2010). Person-level relatedness and the incremental value of relating. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 754–767.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Morling, B., & Evered, S. (2006). Secondary control reviewed and defined. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 269–296.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2012). Mplus user's guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.Google Scholar
  43. Nagin, D. S. (2005). Group-based modeling of development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Nolen-Hoeksma, S. (1998). Ruminative coping with depression. In J. Heckhausen, G. S. Dweck (Eds.). Motivation and self-regulation across the life span (pp. 237–256). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Nucci, L. (1996). Morality and personal freedom. In E. S. Reed, E. Turiel, & T. Brown (Eds.), Knowledge and values (pp. 41–60). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  46. Nylund, K. L., Asparoutiov, T., & Muthen, B. O. (2007). Deciding on the number of classes in latent class analysis and growth mixture modeling: A Monte Carlo study. Structural Equation Modeling, 14, 535–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Ojanen, T., & Perry, D. G. (2007). Relational schemas and the developing self: Perceptions of mother and of self as joint predictors of early adolescents’ self-esteem. Developmental Psychology, 43, 1474–1483.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Oliver, R. L. (1993). Cognitive, affective, and attribute bases of the satisfaction response. Journal of Consumer Research, 20, 418–430. doi: 10.1086/209358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Parkin, C. M., & Kuczynski, L. (2012). Adolescent perspectives on rules and resistance within the parent-child relationship. Journal of Adolescent Research, 27, 632–658. doi: 10.1177/0743558411435852.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Pomerantz, E. M., & Eaton, M. M. (2000). Developmental differences in children’s conceptions of parental control: “They love me, but they make me feel incompetent”. Merill-Palmer Quarterly, 46, 140–167. doi: 10.1111/j.2040-0209.2010.00352_2.x.Google Scholar
  51. Pomerantz, E. M., Moorman, E. A., & Litwack, S. D. (2007). The how, whom, and why of parents’ involvement in children’s academic lives: More is not always better. Review of Education Research, 77, 373–410. doi: 10.3102/003465430305567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Power, T. G. (2004). Stress and coping in childhood: The parents’ role. Parenting: Science and Practice, 4, 271–317. doi: 10.1207/s15327922par0404_1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Radel, R., Pelletier, L. G., Sarrazin, P., & Milyavskaya, M. (2011). Restoration process of the need for autonomy: The early alarm stage. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 919–934. doi: 10.1037/a0025196.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Reeve, J., & Jang, H. (2006). What teachers say and do to support students’ autonomy during a learning activity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 209–218. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.98.1.209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Reinecke, J. (2006). Lonitudinal analysis of adolescent’s deviant and delinquent behavior. Methodology, 2, 100–112. doi: 10.1027/1614-2241.2.3.100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Rowe, S., Zimmer-Gembeck, M. J., Rudolph, J., Nesdale, D., & Gowney, G. A. (2015). A longitudinal study of rejecting and autonomy-restrictive parenting, rejection sensitivity, and socioemotional symptoms in early adolescents. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 43, 1107–1118. doi: 10.1007/s10802-014-9966-6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68–78. doi: 10.1037/0003-066x.55.1.68.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Seiffge-Krenke, I., & Pakalniskiene, V. (2011). Who shapes whom in the family: Reciprocal links between autonomy support in the family and parents’ and adolescents’ coping behaviors. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 40, 983–995. doi: 10.1007/s10964-010-9603-9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Sheldon, K. M. (2011). Integrating behavioral-motive and experiential-requirement perspectives on psychological needs: A two process model. Psychological Review, 118, 552–569. doi: 10.1037/a0024758.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Sheldon, K. M., & Gunz, A. (2009). Psychological needs as basic motives, not just experiential requirements. Journal of Personality, 77, 1467–1492. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2009.00589.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Skinner, E. A., & Edge, K. (2002). Self-determination, coping and development. In E. L. Deci, & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Self-determination theory: Extensions and applications (pp. 297–337). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.Google Scholar
  62. Skinner, E. A., 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. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 216–269. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.129.2.216.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Skinner, E. A., & Wellborn, J. G. (1994). Coping during childhood and adolescence: A motivational perspective. In R. Lerner, D. Featherman, & M. Perlmutter (Eds.), Lifespan development and behavior (pp. 91–133). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  64. Skinner, E. A., & Zimmer-Gembeck, M. J. (2007). The development of coping. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 119–144. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085705.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. Smetana, J. G. (1988). Adolescents’ and parents’ conceptions of parental authority. Child Development, 39, 321–335. doi: 10.2307/1130313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Smetana, J. G. (2006). Social-cognitive domain theory: Consistencies and variations in children’s moral and social judgments. In M. Killen, & J. G. Smetana (Eds.), Handbook of moral development (pp. 119–153). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  67. Soenens, B., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2010). A theoretical upgrade of the concept of parental psychological control: Proposing new insights on the basis of self-determination theory. Developmental Review, 30, 74–99. doi: 10.1016/j.dr.2009.11.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Soenens, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Lens, W., Luyckx, K., Goossens, L., Beyers, W., & Ryan, R. M. (2007). Conceptualizing parental autonomy support: Adolescent perceptions of promotion of independence versus promotion of volitional functioning. Developmental Psychology, 43, 633–646. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.43.3.633.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. Soenens, B., Vansteenkiste, M., & Sierens, E. (2009). How are psychological control and autonomy support related? A cluster-analytic approach. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 71, 187–202. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2008.00589.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Soenens, B., Vansteenkiste, M., & Van Petegem, S. (2015). Let us not throw out the baby with the bathwater: Applying the principle of ‘universalism without uniformity’ to autonomy-supportive and controlling parenting. Child Development Perspectives, 9, 44–49. doi: 10.1111/cdep.12103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Torres, S. (2009). Vignette methodology and culture-relevance: Lessons learned through a project on successful aging with Iranian immigrants to Sweden. Journal of Cross-Cultural Gerontology, 24, 93–114. doi: 10.1007/s10823-009-9095-9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. Van Petegem, S., Soenens, B., Vansteenkiste, M., & Beyers, W. (2015). Rebels with a cause: Adolescent defiance from the perspective of reactance theory and self-determination theory. Child Development, 86, 903–918. doi: 10.1111/cdev.12355.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. Van Petegem, S., Vansteenkiste, M., Soenens, B., Zimmermann, G., Antonietti, J.-P., Baudat, S., & Audenaert, E. (2017). When do adolescents accept or defy to maternal prohibitions? The role of social domain and communication style. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 46, 1022–1037. doi: 10.1007/s10964-016-0562-7.
  74. van Prooijen, J. W. (2009). Procedural justice as autonomy regulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 1166–1180. doi: 10.1037/a0014153.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. Vanhalst, J., Soenens, B., Luyckx, K., Van Petegem, S., Weeks, M. S., & Ascher, S. R. (2015). Why do the lonely stay lonely? Chronically lonely adolescents’ attributions and emotions in situations of social inclusion and exclusion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109, 932–948. doi: 10.1037/pspp0000051.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. Vansteenkiste, M., & Ryan, R. M. (2013). On psychological growth and vulnerability: Basic psychological need satisfaction and need frustration as a unifying principle. Journal of Psychotherapy Integration, 23, 263–280. doi: 10.1037/a0032359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Vansteenkiste, M., Simons, J., Lens, W., Sheldon, K., & Deci, E. L. (2004). Motivation learning, performance, and persistence: The synergistic effects of intrinsic goal contents and autonomy-supportive contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 246–260. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.87.2.246.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. Vansteenkiste, M., Simons, J., Lens, W., Soenens, B., & Matos, L. (2005). Examining the motivational impact of intrinsic versus extrinsic goal framing and autonomy-supportive versus internally controlling communication style on early adolescents’ academic achievement. Child Development, 76, 483–501. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00858.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. Vansteenkiste, M., Soenens, B., Van Petegem, S., & Duriez, B. (2014). Longitudinal associations between adolescent perceived style of parental prohibition and oppositional defiance and internalization. Developmental Psychology, 50, 229–236. doi: 10.1037/a0032972.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. Weinstein, N., & Ryan, R. M. (2011). A self-determination theory approach to understanding stress incursion and responses. Stress & Health, 27, 4–17. doi: 10.1002/smi.1368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Zimmer-Gembeck, M. J., Ducat, W., & Collins, W. A. (2011). Autonomy development during adolescence. In B. B. Brown, & M. Prinstein (Eds.), Encyclopedia of adolescence (pp. 66–76). New York: Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Zimmer-Gembeck, M. J., & Locke, E. M. (2007). The socialization of adolescent coping behaviors: Relationships with families and teachers. Journal of Adolescence, 30, 1–16. doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2005.03.001.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. Zimmer-Gembeck, M. J., & Skinner, E. A. (2011). The development of coping across childhood and adolescence: An integrative review and critique of research. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 35, 1–17. doi: 10.1177/0165025410384923.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Zimmer-Gembeck, M. J., & Skinner, E. A. (2016). The development of coping and regulation: Implications for psychopathology and resilience. In D. Cicchetti (Ed.), Developmental psychopathology (3rd ed., Vol. 4, pp. 485–544). New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Family and Development Research Center (FADO), Institute of PsychologyUniversity of LausanneLausanneSwitzerland
  2. 2.School of Applied Psychology and Griffith Health InstituteGriffith UniversityGold CoastAustralia
  3. 3.Department Of Developmental, Personality, and Social PsychologyGhent UniversityGhentBelgium
  4. 4.KU Leuven – University of LeuvenLeuvenBelgium

Personalised recommendations