Running head: CHILDREN’S OPTIMISM AND COPING
Children’s Optimism and Coping with Stress
When Living with a Parent with Depression
Susanna Crowell
Under the Direction of Dr. Bruce Compas
Vanderbilt University
CHILDREN’S OPTIMISM AND COPING
2
Abstract
In the U.S. approximately 16% of people are affected by depression in their lifetime and
it is estimated that depression will become the leading cause of disability worldwide by 2020
(Monroe & Reid, 2009). In order to help prevent depression in children who live with parents
with depression, Compas et al. (2009) created and tested an intervention that involved family
group cognitive behavioral therapy. Within this intervention the children were taught coping
skills to deal with stress associated with their parents’ depression in order to help reduce
depressive symptoms in these children. The current study found that optimism is positively
correlated with positive coping strategies in children. Further, the findings show that optimism
plays a role in lowering children’s affective and anxiety problems on its own, separate from
coping. Implications for interventions to enhance children’s coping with the stress of living
with a depressed parent are highlighted.
CHILDREN’S OPTIMISM AND COPING
3
Children’s Optimism and Coping with Stress
When Living with a Parent with Depression
Depression affects approximately 16% of people in the United States in their lifetime and
it is estimated to become the leading cause of disability in 2020 worldwide (Monroe & Reid,
2009). To put these numbers into perspective, nearly one out of every five people in the United
States will suffer from Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) at some point in their lives (Rakow et
al., 2009). It is imperative to better understand the characteristics and causes of depression in
order to help those who have depression and to help those who are at risk for developing this
disorder. One group who is at significant risk for developing depression is children who live
with parents who suffer from depression (Fendrich, Warner, & Weissman, 1990). Not only are
children of depressed parents more likely than children who live with non-depressed parents to
develop depression but they are also more likely to develop other internalizing and externalizing
forms of psychopathology (Compas et al., 2009). Understanding processes that increase risk vs.
processes that promote resilience among children of depressed parents is a high priority.
Parental Depression
There are biological, social and psychological risk processes that have been shown to
contribute to the risk of children living with a depressed parent for developing psychopathology
(Goodman & Gotlib, 1999). For instance, Goodman and Gotlib found that children living with a
depressed mother were more likely to develop depression or other disorders due to one or more
of the following factors: heritability of depression, stressful home environment, depressed
mother’s behavior and affect, and/or innate dysfunctional neuroregulatory mechanisms.
However, there were moderators found that possibly reduce the risk of the children developing
CHILDREN’S OPTIMISM AND COPING
4
depression or other disorders including the father’s availability and mental health; the timing of
the mother’s depressive episodes; and the child’s affect, gender, and intellectual/social-cognitive
skills. Several of these risk factors and moderators were examined in the current study.
Research on depression has shown that often parents with depression use parenting styles
that create a stressful environment for the child (Jaser et al., 2008). For instance, during a
depressive episode parents typically are extremely irritable and intrusive with their children or
they are distant and unavailable (Dietz et al., 2008). A parent can express neglect or distancing
behaviors by not being active in their child’s life (e.g., not knowing what grade their child is in
or their child’s best friend’s name). These same parenting styles often continue even after
depressive episodes end (Jaser et al., 2008). Either extreme (intrusive or neglecting) on the
parenting spectrum creates an environment where the child feels uncertain and faced with stress
about the interactions with their parent and their home life (Dietz et al., 2008). Too often this
chronically stressful environment that the children are living in leads them to have high levels of
anxiety, depression, and other emotional and behavioral problems. In order for the children to
adapt to living with a parent with depression they need to develop effective ways to cope with
these sources of stress.
Children’s Coping
Compas et al. (2009) examined the consequences that children living with a depressed
parent deal with while focusing on ways in which children can cope with the stress that is created
from living with a parent with depression. Coping is adaptive, episodic, and interactional
(Skinner & Zimmer-Gembeck, 2009). This means that coping is adaptive based on our
developmental stage in life while also working in episodes and is interactional through momentto-moment situations. Compas et al. (2001) define coping as “conscious and volitional efforts to
CHILDREN’S OPTIMISM AND COPING
5
regulate emotion, cognition, behavior, physiology, and the environment in response to stressful
events or circumstances.” Also, coping is part of two broader processes of responses to stress:
automatic and controlled responses. Automatic responses include how the body automatically
and physiologically responds to stress, for example increased heart rate. Coping involves the
conscious, controlled efforts that a person makes to deal with stress.
Coping is a controlled process and can involve attempts at either primary control (e.g.,
problem solving) or secondary control (e.g., cognitive restructuring, positive thinking,
acceptance, and distraction). Secondary control coping is an adaptive form of coping that is
useful when dealing with uncontrollable stressors. Because children living with a depressed
parent have little or no control over their parents’ behavior or their parents’ depression,
secondary control coping may be especially adaptive and can include cognitive restructuring in
which the children reframe their parent’s depression as something they can not solve or change.
Alternatively, children can think positively about their parent’s depression by remembering that
the depressive episodes don’t last forever. Another way children can use secondary control
coping skills is through acceptance and distraction. This type of coping occurs when the children
admit to themselves that their parent is depressed but decide to find something else to occupy
their thoughts with rather than worrying about their depressed parent. Through an investigation
of a preventive intervention to teach coping skills to children of depressed parents, Compas et al.
(2010) were able to discover factors that protect children from developing depression,
internalizing and externalizing problems along with other mental health problems.
Specifically, research in the field of depression has established that parental depression
can increase the risk of their children for developing depression and children’s coping is one
factor that can help lower this risk (Sarigiani, Heath, & Camarena, 2003). Previous research has
CHILDREN’S OPTIMISM AND COPING
6
shown that children with depressed parents who use secondary control coping skills, such as
cognitive restructuring, positive thinking, acceptance, and distraction are less likely to develop
symptoms of internalizing and externalizing problems (Jaser et al., 2005). It is known that not
all children of depressed parents develop problems such as internalizing and externalizing or
other psychological disorders. For example, Jaser et al. (2009) have shown that coping plays a
major role in lowering the risk of children developing these problems. The ways in which
children cope with the stress of living with a parent with depression may be an important factor
in why some children develop depression or other issues while some develop fewer problems.
Optimism
The role of coping and important correlates of coping in children of depressed parents has
not been fully identified. One important factor related to coping that has not been studied in
children of depressed parents is the tendency to hold optimistic vs. pessimistic beliefs about the
self and the world. Optimism is “an individual difference variable that reflects the extent to
which people hold generalized favorable expectancies for their future” (Carver, Scheier, &
Sergerstrom, 2010). Typically optimists and pessimists differ in their view and expectancies of
the future, those with more positive outlooks on the future are considered optimists while those
who have a more negative outlook on the future are considered to be pessimists. In studies of
optimism in adults it has been shown that optimists and pessimists differ in multiple ways
(Carver & Connor-Smith, 2010). In the face of adversity optimists are more likely to have
confidence and persevere while pessimists are more likely to approach the situation with
hesitation and doubt. Optimists are more likely to be physically and mentally healthier than
pessimists. Optimism has been seen as a way for resilience in stressful life events.
CHILDREN’S OPTIMISM AND COPING
7
Optimism is often measured in research by the LOT-R, a 10-item questionnaire (Scheier
& Carver, 1992). Only 6 of the items are scored to measure a person’s level of optimism and 4
filler questions. Three items are reversed scored in order to ensure reliability and validity of the
participants’ answers. Questions from the LOT-R include: “In uncertain times, I usually expect
the best”; “If something can go wrong for me, it will”; and “I’m always optimistic about my
future.”
Optimism and Coping
Optimism has been found to be related to coping in other populations and may be
important in children of depressed parents. For example, optimism was linked to active coping
efforts in women dealing with breast cancer prior to surgery (Carver et al., 1993). However,
relatively little research has examined the relations between optimism and coping in children,
leaving several important questions unanswered. More specifically, what role does optimism
play in a child’s ability to cope with stress when raised by a parent with depression? Does the use
of certain coping strategies cause children to be more optimistic and thus less depressed? Or do
the children who are more optimistic cope better and are thus less depressed? Or is it the
combination of coping and optimism that leads to the least depressive symptoms when living
with a depressed parent?
A recent review by Carver and Conner-Smith (2010) examined the relationship between
personality and coping. One of the aspects of personality that they analyzed was optimism.
They reviewed studies that have compared people’s types of coping to their levels of optimism.
The different types of coping they examined were engagement coping, disengagement coping,
and emotion-focused coping. Engagement coping includes accepting the problem or stress and
coping through self-regulation and controlled expressions of emotion or efforts to solve the
CHILDREN’S OPTIMISM AND COPING
8
problem or address the source of stress. This is what Compas et al. (2001) describe as primary
control and secondary control forms of coping. Disengagement coping occurs when the person
denies or ignores the stress and stressor completely. Emotion-focused coping is when a person
focuses on either avoiding the stressors that cause them negative emotion or managing the
emotions they feel, not necessarily managing the stressor itself. Connor-Smith and Carver found
that engagement coping was positively correlated with optimism and disengagement coping was
negatively correlated with optimism. Also, emotion-focused was not significantly correlated
with optimism.
Carver and Conner-Smith (2010) concluded that optimism is directly related to a person’s
“expectancy value motivational tradition” which is related to the way in which a person copes
with stress. This “expectancy-value tradition in motivational” theory means that the amount of
effort a person dedicates to something is determined by their perceived likelihood of success in
their endeavor. This suggests that a person’s motivation and coping levels are related to what
they expect to come from a situation. Therefore, when a person has a higher level of optimism
they feel that the outcome of a situation is going to be more positive than a less optimistic person
would believe and they may have more confidence and motivation to use engagement forms of
coping.
It has also been shown that optimism leads to better overall well-being for people
(Scheier & Carver, 1992). Thus, those who have higher optimism levels are not going to
experience as high levels of stress as those who are less optimistic. This process may be due to
the fact that people who are more optimistic have less overall stressful feelings because they
typically believe that everything will turn out all right in the end. This means that the more
optimistic people typically have lower anxious and depressive symptoms. In addition, the
CHILDREN’S OPTIMISM AND COPING
9
findings about optimism and coping were replicated and validated by the Carver and ConnerSmith (2010) review mentioned previously.
In another study looking at the role of optimism in a population of women recently
diagnosed with breast cancer it was found that dispositional optimism, measured by the LOT-R,
had a positive effect on women shortly after being diagnosed and at 6 months after diagnosis
(Epping-Jordan et al., 1999). Higher levels of optimism were negatively correlated with
emotion-focused disengagement coping at all time points, but not significantly correlated with
emotion-focused engagement coping. However, when assessed at 3 months after diagnosis it
appeared that the dispositional optimism was not a predictor of depressive or anxious symptoms.
What accounts for this change in the role of optimism in the midst of this population of women’s
stress? Would this same pattern occur in children of depressed parents? Also, would optimism
only reduce disengagement coping in children as it did in adults in this study? Or could optimism
also improve engagement coping in children even though it was not seen in adults in this study?
Optimism and Coping in Children and Adolescents
Sawyer, Pfieffer, and Spence (2009) provide evidence that an optimistic thinking style
can lower the risk of depressive symptoms in adolescents dealing with stress and negative life
events. Adolescents who experienced negative life events but used positive coping strategies and
had optimistic thinking styles showed less depressive symptoms. Optimism and coping were
both related to symptoms of depression. This suggests that optimism and positive coping styles
can help children and adolescents from developing depression. However, in this study the
researchers used their own 12-item scale to assess the adolescents’ optimism thinking styles. For
future research it would be useful to use the LOT-R questionnaire, which has been shown to be a
reliable measure of optimism in this age group.
CHILDREN’S OPTIMISM AND COPING
10
Ey et al. (2005) successfully measured optimism in elementary aged children and
concluded that it is critical to determine the importance of optimism and pessimism in children
and adolescents. Because optimistic thinking has been shown to have a positive effect on adults,
it is important to understand the role of optimism in children, especially children at higher risks
of developing depression. As discussed above, important research has been done on the role of
optimism in at risk populations of adults, but there has not been any research done on the role of
optimism in at risk children and adolescents of parents with depression.
Overall, there is still much research to be done on the role of optimism and coping in
relation to depression. The findings about coping and the risk that children with depressed
parents are at continue to replicate themselves making the results even more reliable and valid.
At this time, it is understood that coping can help a child from developing severe internalizing
and externalizing problems but it is not fully understood how the coping decreases these risks. It
has also been shown that optimism can improve coping in adults, but there have not been any
studies that look specifically at the effects of optimism on children’s ability to cope with stress.
Current Study
The current study addressed several questions about the relations between optimism and
coping in a sample of parents with a history of depression and their children. Are children’s
levels of optimism related to lower levels of anxiety and depression? Is children’s use of
secondary control coping to lower levels of anxiety and depression and higher levels of
optimism? And does children’s use of secondary control coping account for the relation between
optimism and anxiety and depression? The more that is understood about how children cope and
how optimistic they are can help lead researchers to a way in which to teach those children that
are not as optimistic and who don’t cope as well to cope better. This will lead to fewer children
CHILDREN’S OPTIMISM AND COPING
11
developing problems in the future and hopefully will lead to a lower percentage of depressed
adults in the future.
Methods
Participants
Participants for the intervention study from which the data was collected represented a varied
sample from Nashville, Tennessee, Burlington, Vermont and the surrounding areas of both cities
(see Table 1 for demographic statistics). There were 111 parents who either currently have or
have had previous major depressive disorder during the lifetime of their child(ren) and 155
children of these parents from the areas. Of the parents with a history of depression there were
95 mothers (mean age of 41.2, SD = 6.8) and 16 fathers (mean age = 48.3, SD = 8.2). The
families were randomly placed into one of two conditions: the cognitive-behavioral or written
information. The two conditions did not differ significantly on any of the demographic
variables. The children participants ranged in age from 9 to 15-years-old and included 70 girls
(mean age = 11.5, SD = 2.0) and 85 boys (mean age = 11.3, SD = 2.0).
The educational level of the parents included less than high school (7.2%), completion of
high school (8.1%), some college (31.5%), college degree (27%), and graduate education
(26.1%). The racial and ethnic breakdown of the participants was representative of the areas in
Tennessee and Vermont from which the participants were from based on the 2000 U.S. Census
data. This breakdown included 86% Euro-American, 5.8% African-American, 2.7% HispanicAmerican, 1% Asian-American, 1% Native American, and 3.9% mixed ethnicity. As for the
socioeconomic status of the participating families their annual family income ranged from an
average of less than $5,000 to over $180,000, with a median annual income of $40,000. Also,
CHILDREN’S OPTIMISM AND COPING
12
64% of parents were married, 21.6% were divorced, 3.6% separated, 9.0% had never married,
and 1.6% were widowed.
Measures
There are five different measures that each participant completed that are relative to the
questions of optimism and coping including the RSQ, the LOT, the CBCL, and the YSR.
Children’s responses to stress. The RSQ (Responses to Stress Questionnaire) measures
the children’s responses to stress and their coping through a 57-item questionnaire (ConnorSmith, Compas, Wadsworth, Thomsen, & Saltzman, 2000). This measure was found to be
reliable and valid in assessing a person’s coping and overall responses to stress. Confirmatory
factor analyses have identified five factors on the RSQ measures; for the current study the scales
that were included in the analyses were primary control coping, secondary control coping,
involuntary engagement coping, and disengagement coping.
Primary control coping and secondary control coping factors are both types of
engagement coping while disengagement coping involves cognitive and behavioral efforts to
orient away from the source of stress and/or one’s emotions. Primary control coping is
demonstrated when the child tries to solve the problem that is causing him/her stress. Secondary
control coping can be seen if the child tries to reason through the problem and think positively
about it. Involuntary engagement coping can be seen when a child experiences rumination or
intrusive thoughts. Disengagement coping is when the child denies the existence of the problem
and refuses to accept the need to cope. The RSQ measures these types of coping by asking the
children questions such as “When your mom or dad is sad or depressed what do you usually do?”
Primary Control Coping is significantly correlated with Secondary Control Coping and
Involuntary Engagement but not with the other scales (Connor-Smith et al., 2000).
CHILDREN’S OPTIMISM AND COPING
13
Disengagement Coping was correlated with both Involuntary Engagement and Involuntary
Disengagement but not correlated with either Primary or Secondary Control Coping. Finally,
Involuntary Engagement and Disengagement were significantly correlated. Moderate to strong
correlations among different types of coping are common in cross-sectional coping research
because most individuals use multiple coping strategies, and higher levels of distress are
associated with more coping of all types.
Children’s levels of optimism. The LOT-R (Life Orientation Test-Revised) measures the
children’s levels of optimism through a 10-item questionnaire (Scheier & Carver, 1992).
Herzberg, Glaesmer, & Hoyer (2006) tested the validity and reliability of the LOT-R and found
it to be a successful measure of optimism through a factor analysis. The following are the items
that comprise the optimism scale: (1) In uncertain times, I usually expect the best. (2) If
something can go wrong for me, it will. (3) I’m always optimistic about my future. (4) I hardly
ever expect things to go my way. (5) I rarely count on good things happening to me. (6)
Overall, I expect more good things to happen to me than bad. There are also four other filler
questions that do not count towards to evaluation of a person’s optimism level.
Children’s internalizing and externalizing symptoms. The CBCL is the Child Behavior
Check List that asks parents to report on their perception of their child’s level of stress and
problems (Achenbach & Rescorla, 2001). This measure is used to assess the children’s anxiety
and depression symptoms along with internalizing and externalizing problems. The CBCL
includes a 118-item checklist of problem behaviors that parents rate as not true (0), somewhat or
sometimes true (1), or very true or often true (2) of their child in the past 6 months. The YSR is
the Youth Self Report, which asks the children themselves to report their levels of stress and
problems of their own (Achenbach & Rescorla, 2001). Reliability and validity of the CBCL and
CHILDREN’S OPTIMISM AND COPING
14
YSR are well established (Achenbach & Rescorla, 2001). Internal consistency for the scales
used in this study ranged from  = .84 to  = .94 for the CBCL and from  = .84 to  = .90 for
the YSR. Test–retest reliability ranged from r = .82 to r = .91 for the CBCL and from r = .74 to
r = .89 for the YSR. Internal consistency in the current sample ranged from  = .78 to  = .91
for the scales used in this study.
Design and Procedure
Compas et al. (2009) recruited and enrolled a sample of 111 families in a randomized
controlled trial testing the efficacy of a preventive intervention for parents with depression and
their 9 to 15 year-old children. Over the course of 2 years, data were collected at baseline, after
2 months, after 6 months, after 12 months, and finally after 24 months. The families were
divided into two different groups, either the family group cognitive behavior therapy group or a
written information group. Both groups were administered the tests and data was collected from
all participants. The current study used data from the baseline assessment prior to families
participation in the preventive intervention.
The larger study examined the success of cognitive behavioral therapy on the parents’
depressive symptoms and the children’s level of stress in relation to coping (Compas et al.,
2009). As stated before the group cognitive behavioral therapy was successful. Due to the
nature of this large data set it can be used to investigate the children’s optimism in the face of
adversity in addition to studying the effectiveness of the family cognitive behavioral preventive
intervention. Also, what needs to be further investigated are the children’s responses to the Life
Orientation Test and see how that is correlated with the depressive symptoms and coping results.
These data are relevant to our understanding of optimism in children of depressed parents
and their coping strategies. As stated above, optimism can lead to a child’s coping style and thus
CHILDREN’S OPTIMISM AND COPING
15
lower their depressive symptoms. The hypothesis to be examined further is that children who are
coping with the stress of living with a parent with depression will better cope if they have higher
levels of optimism. Previous research has shown this to be true for adults dealing with cancer
and other types of physical illness but no study has specifically looked at children dealing with a
chronic stressor, such as living with a parent with depression (Scheier & Carver, 1992).
Data Analyses
The main analyses include Pearson correlations and linear multiple regression to examine
relations among measures of children’s optimism, coping and emotional/behavioral problems.
Results
Descriptive statistics for the measures used in the current study are presented in Table 2.
At baseline T scores on the YSR and CBCL scales were examined to provide a normative
reference point for this sample (Achenbach & Rescorla, 2001). Mean T scores on the YSR and
CBCL were, respectively, 55.12 and 58.00 for anxiety problems and 56.05 and 60.14 for
affective problems. The mean scores for affective and anxiety problems on the YSR and the
CBCL are approximately one-half to one standard deviation above the normative mean, in the
range of T = 55-60. These scores indicate that, as expected, this is a sample of children at risk
for more significant problems, as reflected by moderately elevated mean T scores. Due to the
fact that the LOT-R has not been used extensively to measure optimism in children and
adolescents there is not a norm or an established average mean score for this measure.
The correlations in Table 3 demonstrate the relationships between the children’s
responses to the RSQ, the LOT-R, the YSR, and their parents’ responses to the CBCL.
Children’s responses to the LOT-R were positively correlated with their responses to the RSQ
regarding primary and secondary control coping (i.e., r = .34 for primary control coping and r
CHILDREN’S OPTIMISM AND COPING
16
=.40 for secondary control coping). This means that more optimistic children were also higher
on positive coping strategies. In addition, children’s responses to the LOT-R were negatively
correlated with their responses to the RSQ regarding involuntary engagement (e.g., emotional
and physiological reactivity) and disengagement coping (i.e., r = -.29 for involuntary
engagement and r = -.30 for disengagement coping). This indicates that not only was optimism
positively related to positive coping strategies but it was also negatively related to negative
coping strategies.
There are also significant negative correlations in Table 3 between optimism and
affective problems in the children. Specifically, the children’s reports of affective problems on
the YSR were negatively correlated r = -.36 significantly with optimism. This pattern was also
evident with anxiety problems as reported by the YSR, optimism was negatively correlated r = .30 with anxiety problems in children. Parents’ reports on the CBCL did not yield as consistent
correlations with optimism as did the YSR. This is likely due to the fact that the parent rather
than the children completes the CBCL. The correlations between the children’s affective
problems based on the CBCL and optimism were modestly significantly correlated r = -.15.
However, the correlations between the children’s anxiety problems based on the CBCL and
optimism were not significant.
Table 4 demonstrates the associations of the measures of optimism and coping with
children’s affective problems through a linear regression analysis. In the first equation,
optimism accounted for 13% of the variance in children’s affective problems. When secondary
control coping was added optimism remained a significant predictor, however it only accounted
6% of the variance while secondary control coping accounted for 10% of the variance. Then in
the third step disengagement coping was added and there was not a significant change in the
CHILDREN’S OPTIMISM AND COPING
17
variance. But in the fourth step when primary control coping was added and there was an
unexpected suppressor effect with disengagement coping and the change in variance was again
significant. In this fourth step optimism and disengagement coping each accounted for 3% of the
variance while secondary control coping and primary control coping each accounted for 10% of
the variance. When accounting for all four variables (e.g., optimism, secondary control coping,
disengagement coping, and primary control coping) optimism accounted for the smallest effect
on affective problems in the children, however it is still at a significant level.
In Table 6, the associations of the measures of optimism and coping with children’s
anxiety problems through a linear regression analysis are displayed. Optimism accounted for 9%
of the variance in children’s anxiety problems. When secondary control coping was added
optimism remained a significant predictor, however it only accounted 3% of the variance while
secondary control coping accounted for 8% of the variance. Then in the third step
disengagement coping was added and there was not a significant change in the variance. But in
the fourth step when primary control coping was added and there was an unexpected suppressor
effect with disengagement coping and the change in variance was again significant. In this
fourth step optimism insignificantly accounted for 1% of the variance in children’s anxiety
symptoms. Secondary control coping accounted for 8% of the variance, disengagement coping
accounted for 3% of the variance, and primary control coping each accounted for 9% of the
variance. When accounting for all four variables (e.g., optimism, secondary control coping,
disengagement coping, and primary control coping) optimism accounted for the least effect on
anxiety problems in the children.
The findings in Table 5 and Table 7 present the results of linear regression analyses
predicting children’s affective problems and anxiety symptoms as reported by parents on the
CHILDREN’S OPTIMISM AND COPING
18
CBCL. Problems with statistical significance most likely due to the fact that these results were
based on the CBCL, which the parent completes, rather than the children themselves. However,
in Table 5 the second step change in variance in the regression equations predicting affective
problems on the CBCL was significant. Optimism accounted for 1% of the variance when
combined with secondary control coping, which accounted for 2% of the variance.
Discussion
My research questions focused on the relationship between coping and optimism. The
findings from the current study suggest that the children who are most optimistic are more likely
to cope more effectively with the stress related to living with a depressed parent, meaning that
optimistic children use more secondary control coping. More optimistic children report lower
levels of anxiety and depression symptoms, and the ways that children cope partially accounted
for the association between optimism and symptoms.
The correlations between the children’s responses to the LOT-R, RSQ, YSR, and CBCL
showed the relationship between children’s levels of optimism and their coping strategies.
Optimism (as measured by the LOT-R) was positively correlated with secondary control coping
(as measured by the RSQ) and negatively correlated with affective and anxiety problems (as
measured by the YSR and the CBCL). Also, optimism was negatively correlated with
involuntary engagement coping and disengagement coping. Thus, children who had higher
levels of optimism, also had lower affective and anxiety problems and higher levels of secondary
control coping.
Based on the linear regression analysis optimism and coping both matter in children’s
affective and anxiety problems. As more coping strategies were added to the equation, optimism
accounted for a smaller percentage of variance in affective and anxiety problems. Nevertheless,
CHILDREN’S OPTIMISM AND COPING
19
some optimism was shown to account for how children cope with the stress of living with a
parent with depression.
It may be inferred from this data that children who are more optimistic are less depressed
and anxious. Therefore, optimism could be a protective factor for developing depression for
children whose parents suffer from depression. Also, as the regression analysis demonstrated
there are some levels of optimism that can stand alone, apart from coping, to lower anxiety and
affective problems in the children. Therefore, it may be beneficial to hold an optimistic view on
life for children at risk for depression.
There has been very little research done on optimism in children and what implications
and conclusions can be gathered from measuring optimism in children. Aside from Ey et al.
(2005), researchers have not measured optimism in children, and consequently researchers have
not measured what it means for children to be more or less optimistic. This study is the first
known research on the relationship of optimism and coping in children dealing with the stress of
living with a parent with depression. These children are at a higher risk of developing
depression and are dealing with a chronic stressor. It is important to measure if optimism can
help children cope better who are at an increased risk of developing depression prior to
measuring if optimism is beneficial for a child at an average risk of developing depression.
Based on the children’s self-reports on the YSR and LOT-R through the linear regression
analysis, optimism is related to lower anxiety and depression but this relationship is partially
accounted for by their use of primary and secondary control coping. However, these effects
were not as strong when using the CBCL to measure the child’s anxiety and affective symptoms
which suggests that some of these effects may be due to the use of the same reporting method
CHILDREN’S OPTIMISM AND COPING
20
(i.e., children’s self reports) to assess optimism, coping, affective problems, and anxiety
symptoms.
This is an important area of psychology to study because so many people are affected by
depression and it is imperative that we find a way to prevent it in the future. The results of this
proposed study will help psychologists better understand how children cope with stress and the
role children’s optimism plays in their coping. Research has already established that an
individual’s optimism may help them cope better, but this current study looks specifically at
children and analyzes the process by which this happens in more depth. This study does have
limitations, however; it only involves children who are at risk for depression because they live
with parents who have depression. The study does not include all types of children including
those who are not at an apparent risk for depression. There is a need in the future research in
this area to use longitudinal designs to see if these results are stable over time. This is something
that can be done in the context of the Compas et al. (2009) preventative intervention study in
which these data were collected. The current study only used baseline data collected prior to the
preventative intervention. There are more data that range through 2 years after baseline that can
be analyzed in the future to better understand the role of optimism and coping in children living
with depressed parents.
This study opens up the possibility for more research in the future that could include all
types of children, at an increased risk of developing depression or not at risk (i.e., those living
with a depressed parent and those living with parents who don’t suffer from depression). Thus,
in the future researchers can discover if optimism helps all children to better cope with stress or
just those who are at a higher risk for depression early in life. The current study functions to
CHILDREN’S OPTIMISM AND COPING
determine how optimism may lower the risk of depression in children and adolescents, and is a
necessary step for future preventive interventions for depression.
21
CHILDREN’S OPTIMISM AND COPING
22
References
Achenbach, T. M., & Rescorla, L. A. (2001). Manual for ASEBA School- Age Forms and
Profiles. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont, Re- search Center for Children,
Youth, and Families.
Barber, B. K., Olsen, J. A. & Shagle, S. (1994). Associations between parental psychological
control and behavioral control and youth internalized and externalized behaviors. Child
Development, 65, 1120-1136.
Carver, C. & Conner-Smith, J. (2010). Personality and coping. Annual Review of Psychology,
61, 679-704.
Carver, C. S., Pozo, C., Harris, S. D., Noriega, V., Scheier, M. F., Robinson, D. S., Ketcham, A.
S., Moffat, F. L., & Clark, K. C. (1993). How coping mediates the effect of optimism on
distress: A study of women with early stage breast cancer. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 65, 375-390.
Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. F., Sergerstrom, S. C. (2010). Optimism. Clinical Psychology
Review, 30, 879-889.
Compas, B. E. (2009). Coping, regulation, and development during childhood and adolescence.
New Directions for Children and Adolescent Development, 124, 87-99.
Compas, B. E., Forehand, R., Keller, G., Champion, A., Reeslund, K. L., McKee, L., Fear, J. M.,
Colletti, C. J. M., Hardcastle, E., Merchant, M. J., Roberts, L., Potts, J., Garai, E., Coffelt,
N., Roland, E., Sterba, S. K., & Cole, D. A. (2009). Randomized clinical trial of a family
cognitive-behavioral preventive intervention for children of depressed parents. Journal
of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 77, 1009-1020.
CHILDREN’S OPTIMISM AND COPING
23
Compas, B. E., Potts, J., Reising, M. M., Reeslund, K. L., Williamson, J. A., Garai, E., &
Forehand, R. (2010). Resilience in children of parents with a history of depression:
Coping and the Regulation of Positive and Negative Affect. Manuscript submitted for
publication.
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.
Dietz, L. J., Birmaher, B., Williamson, D. E., Silk, J. S., Dahi, R. E., Axelson, D. A.,…Ryan, N.
D. (2008). Mother-child interactions in depressed children and children at high risk and
low risk for future depression. American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry,
47, 574-582.
Epping-Jordan, J. E., Compas, B. E., Osowiecki, D. M., Oppedisano, G., Gerhardt, C., Primo, K.,
& Krag, D. N. (1999). Psychological adjustment in breast cancer: Processes of
emotional distress. Health Psychology, 18, 315-326.
Ey, S., Hadley, W., Allen, D. N., Palmer, S., Klosky, J., Deptula, D., …Cohen, R. (2005). A
new measure of children’s optimism and pessimism: The youth life orientation test.
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 46, 548-558.
Fendrich, M., Warner, V. & Weissman, M. M. (1990). Family risk factors, parental depression,
and psychopathology in offspring. Developmental Psychology, 26, 40-50.
Herzberg, P. Y., Glaesmer, H. & Hoyer, J. (2006). Separating optimism and pessimism: A
robust psychometric analysis of the revised life orientation test (LOT–R). Psychological
Assessment, 18, 433-438.
CHILDREN’S OPTIMISM AND COPING
24
Jaser, S. S., Champion, J. E., Reeslund, K. L., Reising, M. M., & Compas, B. E. (2009).
“Coping and positive affect in the adolescent children of mothers with and without a
history of depression.” Manuscript Under Review.
Jaser, S., Fear, J. M., Reeslund, K. L., Champion, J. E., Reising, M. M., & Compas, B. E. (2008).
Maternal sadness and adolescents’ responses to stress in offspring of mothers with and
without a history of depression. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology,
37, 736-746.
Monroe, S. M. & Reid, M. W. (2009). Life stress and major depression. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 18, 68-72.
Rakow, A., Forehand, R., McKee, L., Coffelt, N., Champion, J., Fear, J., & Compas, B. (2009).
The relationship of parental guilt induction to child internalizing problems when a
caregiver has a history of depression. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 18, 367-377.
Sarigiani, P. A., Heath, P. A., & Camarena, P. M. (2003). The significance of parental depressed
mood for young adolescents’ emotional and family experiences. The Journal of Early
Adolescence, 23, 241-266.
Sawyer, M. G., Pfieffer, S., & Spence, S. H. (2009). Life events, coping, and depressive
symptoms among young adolescents: A one-year prospective study. Journal of Affective
Disorders, 117, 48-54.
Scheier, M. F. & Carver, C. S. (1992). Effects of optimism on psychological and physical wellbeing theoretical overview and empirical update. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 16,
201-228.
Skinner, E. A. & Zimmer-Gembeck, M. J. (2009). Challenges to the developmental study of
coping. New Directions for Children and Adolescent Development, 124, 5-17.
CHILDREN’S OPTIMISM AND COPING
25
CHILDREN’S OPTIMISM AND COPING
Table 1
Participants’ Demographics
Race
White-not
Latino/Hispanic
Black or AfricanAmerican
Asian
Latino or
Hispanic
American Indian
or Alaska Native
Mixed - Specify:
Other Specify:
Gender
Male
Female
Age
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Frequency
(n=242)
180
Percent
32
13.2
7
5
2.9
2.1
1
.4
16
1
6.6
.4
121
121
50.0
50.0
55
38
29
37
36
22
24
1
22.7
15.7
12.0
15.3
14.9
9.1
9.9
.4
74.4
26
CHILDREN’S OPTIMISM AND COPING
27
Table 2
Descriptive Statistics
Measure
LOT-R
RSQ Primary
Control Coping
RSQ Secondary
Control Coping
RSQ Disengagement
Coping
RSQ Involuntary
Engagement
YSR Anxiety
Problems (T score)
YSR Affective
Problems (T score)
CBCL Anxiety
Problems (T score)
CBCL Affective
Problems (T score)
N
234
239
Mean
14.02
.17
Min
1.00
.07
Max
24.00
.30
Standard
Deviation
4.50
.04
238
.24
.10
.37
.05
.00
239
.20
.12
.31
.03
.00
239
.22
.14
.32
.04
.00
233
55.12
50.00
78
6.78
45.90
233
56.05
50.00
80
7.25
52.58
234
58.00
50.00
77
7.52
56.49
234
60.14
50.00
81
7.85
61.56
Variance
16.79
.00
CHILDREN’S OPTIMISM AND COPING
28
Table 3
Correlations- Child Baseline
1
2
1
-.34**
2
3
LOT-R
RSQ-Primary
-Control Coping
3 RSQ-Secondary .40** .22** -Control Coping
4 RSQ-.29** -.31** -.71**
Involuntary
Engagement
Coping
5 RSQ-.30** -.64** -.28**
Disengagement
Coping
6 YSR-Affective
-.36** -.37** -.42**
Problems
7 YSR-Anxiety
-.30** -.34** -.36**
Problems
8 CBCL-Anxiety -.02
.01
-.12
Problems
9 CBCL-Affective -.15* -.13* -.17*
Problems
**Correlation is significant at the .01 level
* Correlation is significant at the .05 level
4
5
6
7
8
9
--
-.07
--
.46**
.18**
--
.44**
.16*
.68**
--
.23**
-.10
.16**
.37** --
.18**
.07
.36**
.34** .48**
--
CHILDREN’S OPTIMISM AND COPING
29
Table 4
Linear Regression Baseline
Regression Equations Predicting Affective Problems on the YSR in Children at Baseline
Equation 1—Affective Problems
Final R2= .30***
Block 1: R2 change = .13***
Optimism

-.36***
sr2
.13
Block 2: R2 change = .09***
Optimism
Secondary Control Coping
-.23***
-.32***
.06
.10
Block 3: R2 change = .001
Optimism
Secondary Control Coping
Disengagement Coping
-.23***
-.32***
.03
.05
.09
.00
Block 4: R2 change = .08***
Optimism
Secondary Control Coping
Disengagement Coping
Primary Control Coping
-.17**
-.32***
-.20**
-.37***
.03
.10
.03
.10
Note:  = standardized beta; sr2 = semi-partial correlation squared; Optimism Measured by LOTR; Primary, Secondary, and Disengagement coping measured by RSQ
*p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001
Affective Problems measured by YSR
CHILDREN’S OPTIMISM AND COPING
30
Table 5
Linear Regression Baseline
Regression Equations Predicting Affective Problems on the CBCL in Children at Baseline
Equation 1—Affective Problems
Final R2= .05
Block 1: R2 change =.02*
Optimism

-.15*
sr2
.02
Block 2: R2 change = .02
Optimism
Secondary Control Coping
-.10***
-.14
.01
.02
Block 3: R2 change = .00
Optimism
Secondary Control Coping
Disengagement Coping
-.10
-.14
-.00
.01
.02
.00
Block 4: R2 change = .00
Optimism
Secondary Control Coping
Disengagement Coping
Primary Control Coping
-.08
-.14
-.08
-.13
.01
.02
.00
.01
Note:  = standardized beta; sr2 = semi-partial correlation squared; Optimism Measured by LOTR; Primary, Secondary, and Disengagement coping measured by RSQ
*p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001
Affective Problems measured by CBCL
CHILDREN’S OPTIMISM AND COPING
31
Table 6
Linear Regression Baseline
Regression Equations Predicting Anxiety Problems on the YSR in Children at Baseline
Equation 1—Anxiety Problems
Final R2= .23*
Block 1: R2 change = .09***
Optimism

-.30***
sr2
.09
Block 2: R2 change = .07***
Optimism
Secondary Control Coping
-.18**
-.29***
.03
.08
Block 3: R2 change = .00
Optimism
Secondary Control Coping
Disengagement Coping
-.18*
-.28***
.03
.03
.07
.00
Block 4: R2 change = .08***
Optimism
Secondary Control Coping
Disengagement Coping
Primary Control Coping
-.12
-.28***
-.20**
-.37***
.01
.08
.03
.09
Note:  = standardized beta; sr2 = semi-partial correlation squared; Optimism Measured by LOTR; Primary, Secondary, and Disengagement coping measured by RSQ
*p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001
Anxiety Problems measured by YSR
CHILDREN’S OPTIMISM AND COPING
32
Table 7
Linear Regression Baseline
Regression Equations Predicting Anxiety Problems on the CBCL in Children at Baseline
Equation 1—Anxiety Problems
Final R2= .03
Block 1: R2 change = .00
Optimism

-.02
sr2
.00
Block 2: R2 change = .01
Optimism
Secondary Control Coping
.03
-.13
.00
.01
Block 3: R2 change = .02*
Optimism
Secondary Control Coping
Disengagement Coping
-.00
-.15*
-.14*
.00
.02
.02
Block 4: R2 change = .00
Optimism
Secondary Control Coping
Disengagement Coping
Primary Control Coping
.00
-.15*
-.18*
-.07
.00
.02
.02
.00
Note:  = standardized beta; sr2 = semi-partial correlation squared; Optimism Measured by LOTR; Primary, Secondary, and Disengagement coping measured by RSQ
*p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001
Anxiety Problems measured by CBCL