The association of avoidance coping style, and perceived mother and father support with anxiety/depression among late adolescents: Applicability of resiliency models

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2005.11.009Get rights and content

Abstract

This study examined the applicability of the compensatory, the risk–protective, the challenge, and the protective–protective models of resiliency for the prediction of anxiety/depression from avoidance coping style (the risk factor) and perceived mother and father support (the protective factors). A total of 331 participants, with age ranging from 18 to 20 years, completed self-rating questionnaires covering perceived mother support, perceived father support, avoidance coping style, and anxiety/depression. Results showed that for perceived mother support as the protective factor, there was support for the compensatory, the risk–protective, and the challenge models. With perceived father support as the protective factor, there was support for the compensatory and challenge models. When both perceived mother and father support were considered together, there was support for the protective–protective model.

Introduction

Resiliency is the ability of individuals to be well adjusted despite exposure to risk factors. Theories of resiliency suggest that this is because of the operation of protective factors (Garmezy et al., 1984, Masten et al., 1988, Werner and Smith, 1982). Risk factors are those negative circumstances or conditions that are associated with a higher likelihood of negative outcome or problem behaviours, while protective factors are circumstances or conditions that reduce the effect of the risk factor on adjustment. Among other factors, an avoidance coping style is considered a risk factor for adolescent adjustment. In contrast, supportive parenting is a protective factor. Based on models of resiliency, the current study examined four different, but not mutually exclusive models, depicting the concurrent effects of avoidance coping style and perceived mother and father support on the anxiety and depression among a group of late adolescents.

It is generally accepted that maladaptive coping behaviour is associated with maladjustment. At present there is evidence of consistency and stability in coping over time, and across different stressful situations (Costa et al., 1996, Hewitt and Flett, 1996). These dispositional forms of coping have been referred to as coping styles. One major adolescent coping style is avoidance coping, which includes strategies and behaviours that avoid or ignore the conflict, such as withdrawal and distraction (Billings and Moos, 1984, Herman-Stahl et al., 1995). Although existing data indicate gender and age differences for avoidant coping style (Gomez, 1988) and also anxiety and depression (Achenbach, 1991), studies have generally shown that avoidance coping style is positively associated with adolescent anxiety and depression (Gomez, 1988, Seiffge-Krenke and Klessinger, 2000). This raises the possibility that avoidance coping style is a general risk factor for adolescent anxiety and depression.

In contrast to avoidant coping style, positive family related factors are associated with better adolescent adjustment. In this respect, there are data showing that overall perceived parent support (companionship, intimacy, affection, instrumental aid, and expression of admiration) is generally associated negatively with adolescent anxiety and depression (Holahan et al., 1995, Wolfradt et al., 2003, Zimmerman et al., 2000). Interestingly, a recent longitudinal study showed that time 1 parent support predicted time 2 anxiety and depression, and that neither anxiety nor depression at time 1 predicted parent support at time 2 (Zimmerman et al., 2000). These findings imply that parental support is a protective factor for anxiety and depression.

To date no study has examined the effects of avoidance coping and perceived mother and father support on anxiety and depression from the resiliency perspective. Researchers have proposed at least four generic resiliency models for evaluating the relationships of risk and protective factors with adjustment (Garmezy et al., 1984, Hollister-Wagner et al., 2001, Masten et al., 1988). These are the compensatory model, the risk–protective model, the challenge model, and the protective–protective model. The compensatory model suggests that the risk and protective factors have additive effects on maladjustment, with the risk factors increasing maladjustment, and protective factors reducing maladjustment. The risk–protective model suggests that maladjustment is related to the interaction involving the risk and protective factors. More specifically, relative to low levels of the protective factor, higher levels of the protective factors will have more buffering effects on the relation between the risk factor and maladjustment. The challenge model implicates a curvilinear relation between risk and maladjustment, such that a certain moderate amount of the risk factor is seen as enhancing better adjustment. This model assumes that at such levels of the risk factor, protective factors are activated, thereby reducing the potential impact of the risk factor. The protective–protective model suggests that maladjustment is related to the interaction between the risk factor and number of relevant protective factors that are present. The model predicts that the relationship between the risk factor and maladjustment will weaken as the number of protective factors increases. As an example, a person with 4 protective factors can be expected to have less maladjustment compared to a person with less than 4 protective factors even if they both have the same level of the risk factor.

The aim of the current study was to examine the applicability of the compensatory, the risk–protective, the challenge, and the protective–protective models of resiliency for the prediction of anxiety plus depression (anxiety/depression) from avoidance coping style and perceived mother and father support. Thus, unlike most previous studies that have examined separately the role of various risk and protective factors for depression and anxiety, this study examines the interplay of some of these risk and protective factors. Furthermore their effects on depression and anxiety will be examined through four general (normative) models that have been identified by past researchers as relevant for explaining individual differences in response to risk factors. Given the possibility of gender and age differences, the study controlled for gender effects statistically, and limited the participants to late adolescents. It is to be noted that generally there has been minimal research with adolescents in terms of the applicability of the resiliency models.

For this study, we did not have any definite hypothesis on the applicability of the four resiliency models because there is currently no empirical data that would justify us doing so. However, it is worth noting that the compensatory model would suggest that avoidance coping will contribute positively, while perceived parental (father or mother) support will contribute negatively to the prediction of anxiety/depression. The risk–protective model would suggest that higher levels of perceived parental (father or mother) support will reduce the effect of avoidant coping on anxiety/depression. For the challenge model, the prediction will be that anxiety/depression would have a curvilinear relationship with avoidant coping, such that moderate amounts of avoidance coping will have little or no effects on the level of anxiety/depression, compared to high levels. The protective–protective model would suggest that the level of anxiety/depression will be low for those with both high perceived father and mother support compared to those with either perceived father or mother support, and that the latter group would have less anxiety/depression compared to those with neither perceived father nor mother support.

Section snippets

Participants

A total of 331 adolescents participated in the study. The mean age of the participants was 18.83 years (SD = 0.76). Their age ranged from 18 to 20 years, and all age categories had more or less equal proportions of females and males. There were 192 females and 139 males. The mean ages of females and males were 18.72 (SD = 0.82) and 18.92 (SD = 0.93) years, respectively. Although the groups differed in age, t (329) = 2.09, p < .05, the difference was very low (Cohen’s effect size = 0.23). The vast majority of

Descriptive scores, correlations between measures, and gender difference

Table 1 presents the mean and standard deviation scores for all study measures. The mean (SD) scores for perceived father support for males and females were 18.71 (5.22) and 18.41 (6.52), respectively. This difference was not statistically significant, t (329) = 0.44, ns, Cohen’s d = .05. In contrast, the mean scores for perceived mother support were different, t (329) = 2.44, p < .05, Cohen’s d = .27, with females, 21.64 (4.94), scoring higher than males, 20.11 (4.94). The means scores for avoidant

Discussion

Consistent with existing data (Holahan et al., 1995, Wolfradt et al., 2003, Zimmerman et al., 2000), the results in this study showed that both perceived mother and father support were correlated negatively with anxiety/depression. In addition, consistent with existing data (Gomez, 1988, Seiffge-Krenke and Klessinger, 2000), results in this study indicated that avoidance coping style was correlated positively with anxiety/depression. Further to these findings, both perceived mother and father

References (20)

  • C. Meesters et al.

    Perceived parental rearing behaviours and coping in young adolescents

    Personality and Individual Differences

    (2004)
  • U. Wolfradt et al.

    Perceived parenting styles, depersonalisation, anxiety and coping behavior in adolescents

    Personality and Individual Differences

    (2003)
  • T.M. Achenbach

    Manual for the child behavior checklist/4-18 and the 1991 profile

    (1991)
  • G.C. Armsden et al.

    The inventory of parent and peer attachment: Individual differences and their relationship to psychological wellbeing in adolescence

    Journal of Youth and Adolescence

    (1987)
  • A.G. Billings et al.

    Coping, stress, and social resources among adults with unipolar depression

    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

    (1984)
  • J. Bowby

    Attachment and loss: Vol I Attachments

    (1982)
  • J. Cohen et al.

    Applied multiple regression analysis for the behavioral sciences

    (1983)
  • P.T. Costa et al.

    Personality and coping

  • N. Garmezy et al.

    The study of stress and competence in children: A building block for developmental psychopathology

    Child Development

    (1984)
  • R. Gomez

    Locus of control and avoidant coping: Direct, interactional and mediating effects on maladjustment in adolescents

    Personality and Individual Differences

    (1988)
There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (0)

View full text