Coping and Emotion Regulation: Introduction 1

SPECIAL ISSUE TITLE: Developmental and Clinical Approaches to

Coping and Emotion Regulation

Special Issue Editor: Professor Melanie J. Zimmer-Gembeck, Griffith University

Included Papers: 1. Compas et al. 2. Frydenberg 3. Yeo & Frydenberg 4. Monti et al. 5. Rudolph & Zimmer-Gembeck 6. Thompson et al. 7. Pepping et al. 8. de Castello et al.

Coping and Emotion Regulation: Introduction 2

Introduction to the Special Issue: Developmental and Clinical

Approaches to Coping and Emotion Regulation

Melanie J. Zimmer-Gembeck

Michele D. Dunbar

Samantha Ferguson

Susan L. Rowe

Haley Webb

Ellen A. Skinner

The successful detection and confrontation of life's threats, challenges, and losses

depend on many fundamental adaptive processes. These processes involve attentional systems

that allow humans to alert and orient to events of adaptive significance. These processes also

involve motivational systems that support motor control and action readiness. Cognitions and

social understanding are also important to reflection and finding the best course of action

under fast changing internal and external conditions, and to allow for the cooperative use of

social partners for support and information. When taken together, these describe the complex

processes involved in coping with threats and other stressful events.

Emotions, and other quick reactions, are also core to these complex stress responses and

regulatory processes, however. Emotions provide quick information about the severity and

personal relevance of potential stressors. Emotions signal and give meaning to threats and

challenges. The importance of emotion is highlighted by functionalist theories, in which

emotion is considered “a kind of radar and rapid response system,” or as “biologically

endowed processes that permit extremely quick appraisals of situations and equally rapid

preparedness to act to sustain favorable conditions and deal with unfavorable conditions”

(Cole, Martin, & Dennis, 2004, p. 319; see also Barrett & Campos, 1991; Lazarus, 2000). As

explained by Williams (2010), “It is now commonplace to understand emotion as based on

Coping and Emotion Regulation: Introduction 3

automatic processes, reactions elicited by situations that are of significance for a person in

terms of imminent threat (fear), loss of attachments or of status (sadness), blocked goal

pursuit (anger), exposure or ingestion of unpleasant substances (disgust), and success in goal

pursuit (happiness)." Because emotion is so central to human experience, its regulation is a

crucial aspect of competent responding to threat, and emotion dysregulation is considered a

crucial element in most forms of psychopathology (Aldao, Nolen-Hoeksema, & Schweizer,

2010; Compas et al., 2014; Gross, 2007; John & Gross, 2004; Zimmer-Gembeck & Skinner,

in press).

Coping with stress is a process intimately linked to emotion and its regulation. In fact,

Kopp (1989), in a seminal paper on the development of emotion regulation, argues that,

“Emotion regulation is a term used to characterize the processes and characteristics involved

in coping with heightened levels of positive and negative emotions” (p.343). Eisenberg and

colleagues (Eisenberg, Fabes, & Guthrie, 1997) make a cogent case for a close connection,

noting that coping is “motivated by the presence or expectation of emotional arousal

(generally resulting from stress or danger)” (p. 288), as does Compas et al. (2014) in this

issue. Skinner and Wellborn (1994) and Skinner and Zimmer-Gembeck (Skinner & Zimmer-

Gembeck, 2007; Zimmer-Gembeck & Skinner, 2011) defined coping as action regulation

under stress, which includes coordination, mobilisation, energising, directing and guiding

behaviour, emotion, and orientation when responding to stress.

Overall, coping is often aimed at regulating emotional experiences, either by changing

one's own reactions or by modifying the stressor that prompted the emotional response

(Compas et al., 2014 – this issue; Losoya, Eisenberg, & Fabes, 1998). Emotion dysregulation,

very often assessed via measures originally designed to capture coping, is thought to be a core

aspect of many forms of psychopathology (see Aldao et al., 2010; Aldao & Nolen-Hoeksema,

2010, 2012; Compas et al., 2014 – this issue; Webb, Miles, & Sheeran, 2012). Due to the

clear conceptual and methodological overlaps, research on emotion regulation and the

Coping and Emotion Regulation: Introduction 4

dysregulation of negative affect and their links to mental health problems and

psychopathology often seem to be tantamount to studies of stress and coping.

One common theme across studies of coping and emotion regulation that underlies

these interrelations is the need to consider emotion and other core concepts of appraisals,

attributions, and the multitude of ways that individuals respond to stress. In coping research,

this often means considering ways that individuals modulate, regulate, or manage their

emotions at the same time that they are attempting to address, change, or avoid the stressor

itself. In emotion regulation research, this often means considering the type or level of

emotional reaction that is the target of the regulation. Both of these areas depend on

understanding how people appraise and interpret events and the meaning for themselves and

their environments. The purpose of this special issue is to extend these views by bringing

together developmental and clinical approaches to understanding emotion and its associations

with coping and regulation.

Papers in this Special Issue

This special issue begins with two reviews from experts on stress and coping, especially

among children and adolescents (Compas et al.; Frydenberg). Compas et al. provide in-depth

coverage of the convergence of theories and research on coping and emotion regulation, while

also outlining divergence by summarising clear differences in the definitions, approaches and

conclusions from these bodies of research (Compas et al., 2014; however, also see Eisenberg,

Valiente, & Sulik, 2009 for some ideas regarding relations between regulation and coping).

Frydenberg provides much more history on the study of stress and coping and raises many

important complexities and new directions emerging from this research.

Compas et al. provide an important and timely review, given that emotion regulation

and coping are two areas of research that are monumental in size and growing rapidly. Yet,

each area has its own particular theoretical history and has flourished somewhat in isolation

from the other. Thus, the purpose of including this review here is to provide background on

Coping and Emotion Regulation: Introduction 5

current conceptualisations in order to stimulate more cohesive approaches to the study of

coping and emotion regulation. Ultimately, the authors of this review hope a unified approach

will provide more comprehensive and effective clinical interventions to assist children,

adolescents, and adults to better recognise their emotions, regulate them, and cope with stress.

Throughout this review, similarities in the ways that coping and emotion regulation have been

defined and operationalised are used to make a strong case for why findings from these areas

of research often converge and yield very similar conclusions. However, these authors also

articulate the fine, but important, differences in how coping and emotion regulation are

conceptualised and argue that these differences have important implications for research in

both the developmental and the clinical domains.

Frydenberg adds significantly to the review of Compas et al. by providing background

on stress and coping, defining stress, and covering the many ways of coping that have been

identified and studied, while also highlighting the negative, but emphasising the positive,

outcomes that can accrue from stress. Frydenberg particularly highlights two influential

theories (Hobfoll, 1989; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984) in order to contrast classic theory with

more recent evolutions of stress and coping theory. These most recent theories broaden the

focus to include the roles of individual resources and adaption and personal development.

This review also focuses on developmental approaches to coping, which promote a more

cohesive framework to guide future research on emotion, emotion regulation, and coping.

Development, positive psychology, and resilience are of utmost importance in many of the

contemporary views of stress and coping that are described here, and they are particularly

highlighted as important new directions for the field of stress, coping, emotion, and emotion

regulation.

The two reviews by Compas et al. and Frydenberg are followed by reports on six

empirical studies. All six studies maintain the joint developmental and clinical focus by either

addressing the interface of emotion, coping, and regulation in childhood and adolescence

Coping and Emotion Regulation: Introduction 6

(Monti, Abaied, & Rudolph, 2014; Rudolph & Zimmer-Gembeck; Thompson et al., Yeo &

Frydenberg) or focusing on young or older adults exhibiting symptoms of psychological

disorder (de Castello et al.; Pepping, O'Donovan, Zimmer-Gembeck, & Hanisch). Moreover,

the six empirical papers included in this special issue illustrate the diversity of ways

researchers can capture concepts such as emotion and emotional reactivity; cognitions and

appraisals about threats and other stressors; and emotion regulation and coping. For example,

regarding emotional reactivity, Rudolph and Zimmer-Gembeck assessed emotional reactions

to specific events via self-report, whereas others captured more general emotionality (e.g.,

temperament; Thompson et al.) or used physiological assessment (Monti et al.). These

reactions were often part of a larger assessment of stress appraisals and other cognitions,

which variously incorporated the level of threat and controllability (Yeo & Frydenberg;

Thompson et al.), as well as other perceptions related to regulatory and/or coping processes

(all papers). Emotion regulation and coping were also assessed in various ways, including

specific coping and regulatory behaviours to manage emotion in response to particular events

(Rudolph & Zimmer-Gembeck; Monti et al.; Yeo & Frydenberg), assessing general coping

strategies (Thompson et al.), or capturing emotion regulation using widely used scales (de

Castello et al.; Pepping et al.). One study in this special issue (Thompson et al.) also

specifically referred to, and measured, threat appraisal, and another study incorporated

emotional reactions to specific stressful events (Rudolph & Zimmer-Gembeck).

Adding additional complexity to the diversity of constructs implicated in emotional

responses to stress, data were collected via self-report, other-report, observation, and the use

of physiological measures. Such a diversity of methods is both a strength and a challenge

when trying to integrate findings, but when taken together, the papers in this special issue

address four very general themes: development, social influences and socialisation, the role of

psychopathology and symptoms in emotion, emotion regulation and coping, and transactional

models.

Coping and Emotion Regulation: Introduction 7

Themes in this Special Issue

1. Development. A developmental conceptualisation involves considering how

people “mobilize, guide, manage, energize, and direct behavior, emotion, and orientation, or

how they fail to do so” (Skinner & Wellborn, 1994, p. 113; Skinner & Zimmer-Gembeck,

2007, 2009) under stressful conditions across the lifespan. Thus, in this view, coping refers to

how emotion, behaviour, cognition and attention, as well as other systems, are coordinated

and sequenced during stressful encounters. Such coordination and sequencing depends on age

and developmental level, which includes how much other social partners must or should be

directly involved. Compas et al. and Frydenberg address such developmental processes. Also,

four of the papers included in this special issue attend to development and/or the

developmental level of their participants, even though most do not directly address

development because they rely on cross-sectional (Monti et al.; Rudolph & Zimmer-

Gembeck; Yeo & Frydenberg), rather than longitudinal designs (see Thompson et al., for the

exception). Nevertheless, development is addressed either in the presentation of theory, in the

design of the studies and models, or in the concluding points, regardless of whether the

emphasis was placed on coping, emotion, or emotion regulation.

To describe one example, in their study of preschool age children, Yeo and

Frydenberg illustrate the importance of development in understanding coping by suggesting

that young children may have particular problems perceiving controllability and matching

responses to controllable versus uncontrollable events, when compared to research on older

children, adolescents, and adults. Perceiving controllability accurately is a particularly

important skill for adaptive coping in later life; using more active and approach coping

strategies in controllable situations, while using more emotion management strategies to cope

with uncontrollable situations, has been associated with better adaptation and fewer

symptoms of psychopathology in multiple studies of adolescents and adults (Clarke, 2006;

Sorgen & Manne, 2002). Consistent with the theme of development in this special issue, these

Coping and Emotion Regulation: Introduction 8

findings illustrate how important it is to consider developmental level when assessing and

investigating emotional reactions and coping responses.

2. Social influences and socialisation. Social influences and socialisation were

particular themes in the review by Frydenberg and in two studies (Monti et al.; Rudolph &

Zimmer-Gembeck) of children and young adolescents, in which behaviours were examined as

correlates of children's (Monti et al.) and young adolescents' (Rudolph & Zimmer-Gembeck)

emotional reactions and coping with stress. These reactions were related to peer relationship

challenges and threats in each study; and in addition, mothers' or children's distress or

symptoms were examined. Based on these studies and the growing body of research in this

area, it seems safe to conclude that socialisation and family relationships have an impressive

influence on children's responses to threat, which includes how they emotionally react to it,

regulate their emotions, and cope in a multitude of ways. These two studies also illustrate

Frydenberg’s discussion of the importance of dyadic coping and social support by

investigating social influences and socialisation. Overall the findings of these studies advance

research that has examined how social contexts, particularly family and peer relationships,

can be positive (or negative) forces in assisting young people to develop adaptive reactions to,

and management of, threatening events.

3. Symptoms and their associations with emotion regulation and coping. All six of

the studies in this special issue identified symptoms of psychopathology as correlates of

emotional reactions, emotion regulation, threat appraisal, and/or coping. Monti et al.

examined mothers' distress, Yeo and Frydenberg examined children's symptoms of anxiety,

Rudolph and Zimmer-Gembeck examined depressive and social anxiety symptoms, and

Thompson et al. examined children's problem behaviour. In addition, the final two papers

bring us forward into the later part of the lifespan by examining groups of adults. In these two

papers, the attention is on adults with elevated symptoms of psychosocial distress (Study 1;

Pepping et al.) or adults who were seeking services to address either their eating disorders

Coping and Emotion Regulation: Introduction 9

(Study 2; Pepping et al.) or their social anxiety disorders (de Castello et al.). However, some

studies were more focused on how symptomology or psychological adjustment may be a

source of continuing negative or more maladaptive responses to threatening and stressful

situations, whereas others argued that it is early social experiences and the ways of regulation

and coping that arose from these experiences (or interactions between experiences and threat

responses) that are the basis for symptom development over time. Although age mattered

here, with the former studies more often focused on older participants and the latter interested

in children and adolescents and their development, this does alert us to the possibility that

stress, coping, and psychopathology have bidirectional or reciprocal effects across many age

groups; stress can generate coping processes and good adjustment or psychopathological

outcomes, but at the same time, adjustment and psychopathology generate later experiences of

stress and the development of adaptive and maladaptive coping responses and resources

(Conway, Hammen, & Brennan, 2012; Lazarus, 2000; Roesch & Weiner, 2001; Rudolph &

Asher, 2000). Such a transactional (bidirectional) model is supported when findings across

the studies included in this special issue are considered. Nevertheless, given that most of these

studies were cross-sectional, rather than longitudinal, and thus, could only examine links

between measures at a single time point, it is not possible to determine a specific direction of

effects (or to conclude that associations are bidirectional and reciprocally associated). Instead,

the studies in this special issue provide some of the basic building blocks for such conclusions

and await longitudinal studies to provide direct tests of how emotions, coping and emotion

regulation, and symptoms (or well-being) unfold over time.

4. Transactional models. The above focus on symptoms and their associations with

emotional reactions, emotion regulation, and coping leads to the final theme of this special

issue, referred to as transactional models. The different models of the place of symptoms in

the study of regulation and coping, as well as the range of constructs assessed across all of the

studies in this special issue, make us aware of the complex processes and pathways involved

Coping and Emotion Regulation: Introduction 10

in stress and emotion and their links with coping, emotion regulation, and symptoms. It was

these processes and pathways that were often explicitly the target of interest or were implicit

in the aims of each study. All eight of the papers included in this special issue, however,

highlight how coping, emotion, or emotion regulation are players in the complicated

pathways of individual differences and processes involved in the development of adaptive

functioning, mental health, and/or psychopathology. Across these papers, the studies

incorporate physiological reactivity, temperamental factors and personality, cognition, and

social influences as correlates or antecedents of coping, emotion reactions/responding, or

emotion regulation. In some of these papers, processes among individuals exhibiting mental

health problems or elevated symptoms are examined. In other papers, coping, emotional

reactions, and/or emotion regulation are argued to be antecedents of mental health or problem

symptoms.

It is also important to notice that many of the associations across these studies in this

special issue are rather small to moderate. This makes it even more important to keep

transactional theories and models in mind, which posit complex roles for emotions,

appraisals, coping, emotion regulation, and coping resources when understanding responses to

stress and the symptoms, well-being, or developmental pathways that may follow (Fields &

Prinz, 1997; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Moos & Holahan, 2003; Skinner & Zimmer-

Gembeck, 2007; Taylor & Stanton, 2007). The simplest breakdown of these complex roles is

to consider whether many important constructs in these studies may be moderators,

mediators, or both. Moderators can minimise, buffer, or exacerbate the negative effects of

stress on adjustment. Mediators can be links in a chain between stress and adjustment

problems (or between other adaptive processes). Perhaps even more important would be

examining changes in all of these processes throughout multiple episodes of stressful events

over time to examine the development of adaptive processes as a whole, and how these

changes may be implicated in the development of psychopathology or resilience.

Coping and Emotion Regulation: Introduction 11

Conclusion

The robustness of these findings is clear, despite the diversity of study designs.

Nonetheless, it can be puzzling when reading these studies because of the many constructs

and measures. There seems to be overlap among indicators of stress, emotion regulation,

coping, and maladjustment. Sometimes, it appears that measures of maladaptive forms of

coping are very closely connected to measures of distress, or that measures of emotion are

very closely connected to measures of psychopathology or its symptoms. Because of these

issues, researchers continue to encourage us to design studies in ways that minimise

measurement overlap (Compas, Worhsham, & Ey, 2001; Zimmer-Gembeck & Skinner, in

press). For example, some researchers remove items from coping inventories that overlap

with measures of stress, emotional distress, and internalising and externalising behaviours

(Ayers, Sandler, West, & Roosa, 1996; Connor-Smith, Compas, Wadsworth, Thomsen, &

Saltzman, 2000; Treynor, Gonzalez, & Nolen-Hoeksema, 2003).

Such complexity and measurement concerns highlight the fact that coping and emotion

regulation are complex processes that involve many human systems of adaptation, with

emotions and appraisals of stressful events often at the core. Coping and emotion regulation

take many forms across studies, but it is clear from the papers included in this special issue

that both coping and regulation are important for responding adaptively to threats and other

stressors, and each is an umbrella term for a multitude of ways of responding. Moreover,

developmental perspectives are critical for continuing to explore change, transactional

models, and complex interrelations over time. From such a perspective, parents and other

close relationships can be particularly important, by, for example, socialising adaptive

responses to stress, neglecting to provide appropriate socialisation, being a source of stress, or

overtly undermining coping attempts. At the same time, clinical approaches show the

challenges that can occur for those with mental health problems when they are faced with

stress, and such approaches do not let us forget that all of this work is relevant to

Coping and Emotion Regulation: Introduction 12

psychological or related fields of clinical and support work. Taken together, the eight papers

included in this special issue serve to illustrate some of the core concepts of theories and

research on coping and emotion regulation. These include how children, adolescents, and

adults appraise stress when it occurs, emotionally react to it, make attributions for both

stressful events and one's own reactions, and respond via regulatory and coping processes to

manage the stressful environment and the self.

Coping and Emotion Regulation: Introduction 13

References

Aldao, A., & Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (2010). Specificity of cognitive emotion regulation

strategies: A transdiagnostic examination. Behavior Research and Therapy, 48, 974-

983. doi:10.1016/j.brat.2010.06.002.

Aldao, A., & Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (2012). When are adaptive strategies most predictive of

psychopathology?. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 121, 276-281.

doi:10.1037/a0023598

Aldao, A., Nolen-Hoeksema, S., & Schweizer, S. (2010). Emotion-regulation strategies across

psychopathology: A meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 30, 217-237.

doi:org/10.1016/j.cpr.2009.11.004

Ayers, T. S., Sandler, I. N., West, S. G., & Roosa, M. W. (1996). A dispositional and

situational assessment of children’s coping: Testing alternative models of coping.

Journal of Personality, 64, 923-958. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1996.tb00949.

Barrett, K. C., & Campos, J. J. (1991). A diacritical function approach to emotions and

coping. In E. M. Cummings, A. L. Greene, & K. H. Karraker (Eds.), Life-span

developmental psychology: Perspectives on stress and coping (pp. 21-41). Hillsdale,

NJ: Erlbaum.

Clarke, A. T. (2006). Coping with interpersonal stress and psychosocial health among

children and adolescents: A meta-analysis. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 35, 10-

23. doi:10.1007/s10964-005-9001-x

Cole, P. M., Martin, S. E., & Dennis, T. A. (2004). Emotion regulation as a scientific

construct: Methodological challenges and directions for child development research.

Child Development, 75, 317-333. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00673.x

Compas, B. E., Worsham, N. L., & Ey, S. (1991). Conceptual and developmental issues in

children's coping with stress. In A. La Greca, L. Siegel, J. Wallander, & C. E. Walker

Coping and Emotion Regulation: Introduction 14

(Eds.), Advances in pediatric psychology: Stress and coping with pediatric conditions.

New York: Guilford

Compas, B. E., Jaser, S. S., Dunbar, J. P., Watson, K. H., Bettis, A. H., Gruhn, M. A., &

Williams, E. K. (2014). Coping and emotion regulation from childhood to early

adulthood: Points of convergence and divergence. Australian Journal of Psychology,

this issue.

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 Counseling and Clinical Psychology, 68, 976-992.

doi:10.1037/0022-006X.68.6.976

Conway, C. C., Hammen, C., & Brennan, P. A. (2012). Expanding stress generation theory:

Test of a transdiagnostic model. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 121, 754-766.

doi:10.1037/a0027457

de Castello, K., Goldin, P., Jazaieri, H., Ziv, M., Heimberg, R., & Gross, J. (2014). Emotion

beliefs in social anxiety disorder: Associations with stress, anxiety, and well-being.

Australian Journal of Psychology, this issue.

Eisenberg, N., Cumberland, A., & Spinrad, T. L. (1998). Parent socialization of emotion.

Psychological Inquiry, 9(4), 241-273.

Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., & Guthrie, I. K. (1997). Coping with stress: The roles of

regulation and development. In S. A. Wolchik, & I. N. Sandler (Eds.), Handbook of

children's coping: Linking theory and intervention (pp. 41-70). New York: Plenum

Press.

Eisenberg, N., Valiente, C., & Sulik, M. J. (2009). How the study of regulation can inform the

study of coping. In E. A. Skinner & M. J. Zimmer-Gembeck (Eds.). Coping and the

development of regulation: New Directions in Child and Adolescent Development

(Vol. 124, pp. 75-86), San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. doi:10.1002/cd.241

Coping and Emotion Regulation: Introduction 15

Fields, L., & Prinz, R. J. (1997). Coping and adjustment during childhood and adolescence.

Clinical Psychology Review, 17, 937-976. doi:10.1016/S0272-7358(97)00033-0

Frydenberg, E. (2014). Coping research: Historical background, links with emotion, and new

research directions on adaptive processes. Australian Journal of Psychology, this issue.

Hobfoll, S.E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress.

American Psychologist, 44(3), 513-524. doi:org/10.1037/0003-066X.44.3.513.

John, O. P., & Gross, J. J. (2004). Healthy and unhealthy emotion regulation: Personality

processes, individual differences, and life span development. Journal of Personality, 72,

1301-1334. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2004.00298.x

Gross, J. J. (Ed.). (2007). Handbook of emotion regulation. New York: Guilford Press.

Kopp, C. B. (1989). Regulation of distress and negative emotions: A developmental view.

Developmental Psychology, 25, 343-354. doi:org/10.1037/0012-1649.25.3.343

Lazarus, R. S. (2000). Toward better research on stress and coping. American Psychologist,

55, 665-673. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.55.6.665.

Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer.

Losoya, S., Eisenberg, N., & Fabes, R. A. (1998). Developmental issues in the study of

coping. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 22, 287-313.

doi:10.1080/016502598384388

Monti, Abaied, J., & Rudolph, K. D. (2014). Contributions of socialization of coping to

physiological responses to stress. Australian Journal of Psychology, this issue.

Moos, R. H., & Holahan, C. J. (2003). Dispositional and contextual perspectives on coping:

Toward an integrative framework. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 59, 1387-1403.

doi:10.1002/jclp.10229

Pepping, C. A., O’Donovan, A., Zimmer-Gembeck, M. J, & Hanisch, M. (2014). Do emotion

regulation difficulties mediate the association between dispositional mindfulness and

psychosocial distress? Australian Journal of Psychology, this issue.

Coping and Emotion Regulation: Introduction 16

Roesch, S. C., & Weiner, B. (2001). A meta-analytic review of coping with illness: Do causal

attributions matter?. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 50, 205-219.

doi:10.1016/S0022-3999(01)00188-X

Rudolph, K. D., & Asher, S. R. (2000). Adaptation and maladaptation in the peer system.

In M. Lewis & S. M. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of developmental psychopathology (pp.

157-175). New York: Springer.

Rudolph, J., & Zimmer-Gembeck, M. J. (2014). Parent relationships and adolescents’

depression and social anxiety: Indirect associations via emotional sensitivity to

rejection threat. Australian Journal of Psychology, this issue.

Skinner, E. A., & Wellborn, J. G. (1994). Coping during childhood and adolescence: A

motivational perspective. In D.L. Featherman, R.M. Lerner and M. Perlmutter (Eds.),

Life-span Development and Behavior (pp. 91-133) Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

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

Skinner, E. A., & Zimmer-Gembeck, M. J. (2009). Challenges to the developmental study of

coping. In E. A. Skinner & M. J. Zimmer-Gembeck (Eds.). Coping and the

Development of Regulation. R. W. Larson & L. A. Jensen (Series Ed.), New

Directions in Child and Adolescent Development (Vol. 124, pp. 5- 17). San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass. doi:10.1002/cd.239

Sorgen, K. E., & Manne, S. L. (2002). Coping in children with cancer: Examining the

goodness-of-fit hypothesis. Children's Health Care, 31, 191-207.

doi:10.1207/S15326888CHC3103_2

Taylor, S. E., & Stanton, A. L. (2007). Coping resources, coping processes, and mental

health. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 3, 377-401.

doi:10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.3.022806.091520

Thompson et al. (2014). Appraisal and coping styles account for the effects of temperament

Coping and Emotion Regulation: Introduction 17

on preadolescent adjustment. Australian Journal of Psychology, this issue.

Treynor, W., Gonzalez, R., & Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (2003). Rumination reconsidered: A

psychometric analysis. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 27(3), 247-259.

Webb, T. L., Miles, E., & Sheeran, P. (2012). Dealing with feeling: A meta-analysis of the

effectiveness of strategies derived from the process model of emotion

regulation. Psychological Bulletin, 138, 775- 808. doi:10.1037/a0027600

Williams, J. M. G. (2010). Mindfulness and psychological process. Emotion, 10, 1-7.

Yeo, K., & Frydenberg, E. (2014). Coping with stress among preschool children and

associations with anxiety level and controllability of situations. Australian Journal of

Psychology, this issue.

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

Zimmer-Gembeck, M. J., & Skinner, E. A. (in press). The development of coping:

Implications for psychopathology and resilience. In D. Cicchetti (Ed.), Developmental

psychopathology (2nd Ed.). Oxford, England: Wiley & Sons.