Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences Kobus, Reyes / Adolescent Coping

A Descriptive Study of Urban Mexican American Adolescents Perceived Stress and Coping
Kimberly Kobus Olga Reyes University of Illinois at Chicago

In this descriptive study, the perceived stress, coping, and coping effectiveness of 158 low-income, urban, Mexican American 10th graders were assessed using open-ended and structured interview procedures. A total of 95% of participants were able to identify a difficult life event stressor and at least one way they coped with this event. Participants, particularly females, most frequently identified family-related events as being the most difficult recent life event stressor. To manage stress, participants most commonly reported using active coping strategies, followed by family social support, self-reliance, and behavioral avoidance. Females were more likely than males to seek family support and to vent emotions when coping with stress. Participants were most likely to use active, problem-focused strategies when confronting school- and personal-related stressors, and to find coping most helpful when dealing with stressful school events. Findings are discussed in terms of the urban, ethnic-minority backgrounds of participants and directions for further research.

During adolescence, youth encounter normative physical, cognitive, social, and environmental life changes that are novel, challenging, and stressful (Blechman & Culhane, 1993; Rice, Herman, & Petersen, 1993). Many youth also confront stressful and demanding, nonnormative life events, such as parental divorce or the death of a family member (Hauser & Bowlds, 1990; Rice et al., 1993). The coping processes employed by adolescents to manage such stressors forecast future and, potentially, lifelong consequences. Whereas effective coping promotes growth and positive outcomes, ineffecAUTHORS NOTE: This research was partially supported by a fellowship from the Center for Urban Educational Research and Development (CUERD) at the University of Illinois at Chicago. We thank Lascelles Anderson, Ph.D., at CUERD for his support, and Jay Swanson, Karen Gillock, Ph.D., George Greene, M.A., Richard and Helen Contreras, Miryam Fagosa, Marie Hernandez, Bonni Hopkins, M.A., Kathy Kelly, M.A., Maria (Judy) Navarro, Juan Carlos Perez,
Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 22 No. 2, May 2000 163-178 2000 Sage Publications, Inc.

163

164

Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences

tive coping heightens youths risk for developing emotional and behavioral problems (Benson & Deeter, 1992; Rice et al., 1993). Ineffective coping may also limit youths interpersonal relationships and further reduce their access to coping resources and their development of coping skills that allow for effective stress management (Compas, 1987; Rice et al., 1993). Despite the implicit value of understanding the processes and outcomes of coping with stress and the extensive examination of this topic in adult populations, few studies have investigated this phenomenon among adolescents and even fewer have targeted urban minority youth (Copeland & Hess, 1995; Rosella, 1994). Research that has investigated adolescent coping has begun to identify the types of strategies youth employ when faced with stress. This work has revealed the heterogeneity of adolescent coping, including frequent use of such strategies as relaxation, self-reliance, problem solving, direct action, humor, positive reappraisal, peer support, physical recreation, and diversions (Copeland & Hess, 1995; Frydenberg & Lewis, 1993; Mates & Allison, 1992). Adolescents have also been found to cope by venting feelings, using substances, engaging in violence, and turning to religion (Feldman, Fischer, Ransom, & Dimiceli, 1995; Mates & Allison, 1992). Researchers have categorized such coping strategies in terms of their problem-solving or emotion-management nature, in which the former involves use of direct actions to manage stress, and the latter involves management of tensions and feelings (Glyshaw, Cohen, & Towbes, 1989; Patterson & McCubbin, 1987). Findings suggest the higher perceived effectiveness of problem-focused, over emotion-focused, strategies (Blechman & Culhane, 1993; Glyshaw et al., 1989). Research that has targeted understudied populations reveals differences in the coping patterns used by minority and majority youth. For example, youth from Mexican American and African American backgrounds have been found to more frequently involve relatives in their problem-solving coping efforts than White counterparts (Munsch & Wampler, 1993). Latino youth, compared with Whites, have been found to more frequently engage in social activities and turn to religion as a means of coping with stress (Copeland & Hess, 1995). Such differences between minority- and majority-group youth may be understood in terms of cultural norms and values, including appropriate levels of self-disclosure and conflict in relationships (Copeland & Hess,
Jorge Rivera, Bernadette Sanchez, M.A., Theresa Schultz, Ph.D., and Carolina Soldera for their assistance in the data collection, coding, and entry phases of this project. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Kimberly Kobus, Ph.D., University of Illinois at Chicago, Health Research and Policy Centers (M/C 275), 850 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 400, Chicago, Illinois, 60607; e-mail: kkobus@uic.edu.

Kobus, Reyes / Adolescent Coping

165

1995; Marn & Marn, 1991; Munsch & Wampler, 1993). For example, consistent with their cultural values, Mexican adolescents have been found to be less active, more interdependent, more family-centered, more cooperative, and more fatalistic in their styles of coping than youth from White backgrounds (Diaz-Guerrero, 1987). Gender-based differences in use of coping strategies have also been observed. For example, females have been found to seek support from friends, manage emotions, engage in wishful thinking, accept problems, and resign themselves to negative consequences more frequently than males (Feldman et al., 1995; Frydenberg & Lewis, 1991; Phelps & Jarvis, 1994). Males, in turn, have been found to cope through independence, humor, aggression, alcohol and drug use, avoidance, and the use of distractions (Frydenberg & Lewis, 1991; Halstead, Johnson, & Cunningham, 1993; Phelps & Jarvis, 1994; Shulman, 1993). Studies targeting ethnically diverse populations have found few interactions between ethnicity and gender (Copeland & Hess, 1995; Halstead et al., 1993; Munsch & Wampler, 1993). The purpose of this study was to provide a descriptive look at the stress and coping of urban Mexican American adolescents. In so doing, we aimed to fill a gap in the stress and coping literature and to inform researchers who may be interested in comparative work with youth from urban ethnic-minority backgrounds. Open-ended assessment procedures were used, given the descriptive aim of this study and criticisms that have been raised against the use of forced-choice measures (Knapp, Stark, Kurkjian, & Spirito, 1991; Phelps & Jarvis, 1994; Seiffge-Krenke, 1993; Stone & Neale, 1984). That is, forced-choice measures have been criticized for their failure to tap into the full range of stressors and coping patterns, for being extensive in length, and for their lack of adequate reliability and validity. Of additional concern was the likelihood that forced-choice procedures would gloss over individual differences in stress and coping. Such differences are of particular importance when considering youth, such as those targeted in this study, who experience unique problems or who reside in diverse social, economic, and cultural environments (Rosella, 1994). Based on the extant research literature, the Mexican American participants in this study were expected to seek family support, engage in social activities and distractions, and turn to religion in their coping efforts. Female participants were expected to seek peer support and vent emotions more often than males. Males, on the other hand, were expected to engage in avoidance and distractions. In addition, it was expected that coping strategies that directly address the problem situation would be perceived as being more effective than those in which youth engaged in problem avoidance.

166

Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences

Method
This study is part of a larger project investigating factors associated with urban Latino adolescents risk for school dropout and failure.

Participants
A total of 158 urban, Mexican American 10th graders participated in this study. (Ethnicity was determined based on students self-reports.) Of these youth, 62% were female, 28% were limited English proficient, and 89% were from low-income backgrounds. Sixty-two percent reported being born in the United States, and 38% were born in Mexico. The mean age of participants was 16.4 years (SD = 0.6 years). On average, participants earned slightly below average grades (M = 2.26, SD = 1.00, where A = 4). Participant characteristics mirrored those of their attendant school. That is, participants attended a predominantly Latino (99%) and low-income (89%) Chicago public high school at which 27% are limited English proficient and 46% drop out prior to graduation (Chicago Panel on School Policy, 1995). The final sample of 158 students represent 79% of those recruited for participation (n = 200) and 32% of the total sophomore class (n = 497). Of the 42 recruited students who were not included in the final sample, 27 were not interviewed due to the following reasons: drop out from school (n = 10, 5%), transfer to a new school (n = 11, 6%), withdrawal from participation (n = 3, 2%), excessive truancy (n = 1, 0.5%), and an inability to contact the student (n = 2, 1%). An additional 15 students were interviewed but were excluded from analyses because they belonged to special populations (e.g., special education, hearing impaired, non-Mexican decent) or were rated as dishonest in answering question (n = 1).

Procedures
During their 1993-1994 academic year, students were recruited for participation through in-classroom presentations by bilingual/bicultural research staff and offered incentives for return of parent- and student-signed consent documentation. Consenting participants completed 50-minute, one-on-one structured interviews during school hours and on school grounds. Twentynine (18%) interviews were conducted in Spanish. Interviews were conducted by one of eight (five female and three male) bilingual/bicultural undergraduate college students. All interviewers were trained for their roles during twelve 90-minute training sessions. Each interviewer conducted

Kobus, Reyes / Adolescent Coping

167

between 17 and 23 interviews and was assigned an equal number of interviews with female and male students.

Measures
The structured interview used in this study was modified from a similar measures used with urban, minority youth (Kyle, 1984; Reyes & Jason, 1993). Variables of focus are discussed below. Identification of stressful life events. A two-step process was used to identify difficult life event stressors. First, participants indicated yes or no to whether each of 46 stressors, as measured in the Life Events Checklist (LEC) (Johnson & McCutcheon, 1980), had occurred since beginning high school, that is, in the past 1 years. Second, participants were asked to pick from this list, the ONE thing that was the hardest for [them]. If there was nothing on the list that participants found stressful, they were asked, Did something else happen that [they] found difficult, but was not on this list? Participants identified 35 different events, 4 of which were not items on the LEC. The 35 identified stressors were categorized into one of four stressor categories that have been identified by the research literature (Gore & Aseltine, 1995; Munsch & Wampler, 1993; Seidman et al., 1995). Categories included (a) personalevents that affected the adolescent on an individual level; (b) familyevents that involve parents, siblings, or household arrangements; (c) friendevents regarding peer and romantic relationships; and (d) schoolevents that occur within the school or affect students academic performance. Categorization of identified stressors was based on previous research (Gillock & Reyes, 1999) in which Q-sort procedures were used to sort LEC items into the aforementioned categories. For the four participantidentified stressors that were not items on the LEC and thus not included in Q-sort procedures, categorizations were based on the stressors fit within a category. For example, peer pressure was categorized as a friend stressor. Identification of coping strategies. An open-ended format was used to assess coping strategies, as recommended by the literature (Compas, 1987; Rosella, 1994; Stone & Neale, 1984), to personalize and more fully assess the ways in which participants manage stress. Specifically, students were asked, How did you deal with [stressful event]? What did you do to deal with this situation? and could identify up to three strategies used to cope with the identified stressor.

168

Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences

Sixteen unique coping strategies were identified in the research literature and served as the basis for the identification of coping categories (Copeland & Hess, 1995; Feldman et al., 1995; Frydenberg & Lewis, 1993; Mates & Allison, 1992; Phelps & Jarvis, 1994; Seidman et al., 1995; Seiffge-Krenke, 1993). Preliminary examination of the data revealed that few, if any, respondents reported use of 6 of the 16 strategies, including the following: turning to religion, substance use, wishful thinking, relaxation, problem acceptance, and cognitively reframing a situation. Thus, coding procedures were conducted to categorize coping responses into one of the remaining 10 categories, as described below.
1. Friend social support: consulting or talking with peers for support or advice. 2. Family social support: consulting or talking with family members for support or advice. 3. Other social support: seeking professional assistance to help manage stress and/or seeking support from school personnel (e.g., teachers, counselors, school principal). 4. Venting emotions: getting upset and letting ones feelings out. 5. Active coping: information seeking, decision making, problem solving, or direct action. 6. Rebellious coping: rebelling against rules, engaging in antisocial activities, or resorting to violence, substance use, or acting out. 7. Distraction: engagement in physical or social activities to escape or release emotions, (e.g., diversions, sports, TV, movies, work). 8. Behavioral avoidance or withdrawal: actively avoiding or withdrawing from a problem, person, situation, or activity. 9. Mental avoidance or denial: avoiding thoughts about a problem, person, or situation, or denying that a problem exists. 10. self-reliance: independent and autonomous coping efforts, such as keeping to oneself; dealing with a problem situation alone; passively accepting or reflecting on a person, situation, or event; and adopting a positive outlook.

Four independent raters (two male and two female graduate students) were employed to categorize coping responses into these 10 categories. Raters were provided with a list of participantscoping responses and the corresponding life event stressors. Using the descriptions of categories provided above, raters identified the coping category that best fit with each individual response. These procedures resulted in majority agreement for 87% (n = 213) of the 244 coping responses. Two additional raters reviewed responses that did not meet requirements of majority agreement, specifically, considering responses of the participants and of the four independent raters. Consensus was reached on all items.

Kobus, Reyes / Adolescent Coping

169

Perceived helpfulness of coping strategy. To assess perceived helpfulness of coping strategies, students rated identified strategies on a 5-point scale, from 1 (not helpful) to 5 (extremely helpful).

Results
All analyses reflect the responses of 149 of the 158 participants. Reduction in sample size resulted from the absence of coping data for one student and the absence of identified stressors for 8 students who reported that they had not experienced difficult life stressors since beginning high school.

Analyses of Identified Stressors

Participants overwhelmingly identified family stressors (55%, n = 82) as the most difficult life event that had occurred since beginning high school. Friend stressors were the second most commonly identified stressor (22%, n = 32). School (16%, n = 24) and personal stressors (7%, n = 11) were less frequently identified. Table 1 presents the Individual Stressors, grouped by Stressor Type and separated by gender, identified by participants, including frequencies and percentages. Chi-square analyses revealed significant sex-based differences in type of 2 stressor identified as most difficult to manage, (3, 149) = 10.9, p < .05. Females were more likely to identify family stressors (39% females, 16% males), and males more likely to identify personal (14% males, 3% females) and school stressors (23% males, 12% females). Females and males did not differ in the frequency with which they identified friend stressors.

Analyses of Coping Strategies

Descriptive analyses revealed that participants identified an average of 1.6 coping strategy responses (SD = 0.5). No sex-based differences were observed in the number of strategies identified. Use of specific coping strategies. In the analysis of the 244 coping strategy responses, participants were found to most frequently use active coping, followed by family social support, self-reliance, and behavioral avoidance. Specific sources of familial social support identified by participants included the following: mothers (35%, n = 12), families in general (29%, n = 10), sisters (18%, n = 6), aunts (9%, n = 3), cousins (6%, n = 2), and

170

Table 1.

Frequencies and Percentages of Individual Stressor Responses, by Stressor-Type Categorizations

Individual Stressor Stressor Type % Female Male Total %

Stressor

Female

Male

Total

Family stressor Death of a family member Increased arguments with parents Increased arguments between parents Trouble with brother or sister Serious illness or injury of family member Moving to a new home Brother or sister leaving home Parental divorce Mother or father lost job Parent going to jail Change in how much money parents have Parents separated Decreased arguments with parents a Parents unsupportive Parent getting into trouble with the law Friend stressor Death of a close friend Breaking up with someone you were dating Losing a close friend Serious illness/injury of close friend Getting pregnant/girlfriend getting pregnant Going out with or dating someone new a Peer pressure

57 12 10 7 6 4 4 4 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 0 6 9 2 1 1 1 0 6 4 3 4 2 2 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 5 2 1 1 1 0 1 18 14 10 10 6 6 4 5 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 11 11 3 2 2 1 1 12.1 9.4 6.7 6.7 4.0 4.0 2.7 3.4 1.3 1.3 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 20 7.4 7.4 2.0 1.3 1.3 0.7 0.7

69.5

25

30.5

82

55.0

62.5

12

37.5

32

22.0

0 11 3 2 2 0 1 1 1 1 3 1 0 1 1 3 3 2 0 4 3 3 1 2.7 2.0 2.0 0.7 27.2 8 72.8 11 5 3 1 2 1 1 0 0 8 5 3 2 2 2 1 1 5.4 3.4 2.0 1.3 1.3 1.3 0.7 0.7 45.8 13 54.2 24

0.7 16.0

Peers tell lies about student School stressor Making failing grades on report card Changing to a new school Trouble with classmates Joining a new club Making the honor roll Failed a grade level Trouble with teacher a More homework Personal stressor Getting into trouble with the police Getting put in jail Major personal illness or injury Failing to make an athletic team Total

7.0

149 100.0

a. Not an item on the Life Events Checklist but identified by participants as the most difficult event experienced during the previous year. Categorization into Stressor Type categories was based on similarity with items in respective categories.

171

172

Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences

Table 2.

Frequencies and Percentages of Employing Specific Coping Strategies in Response to Life Event Stressors
N
Percentage

Coping Strategy

Active coping Family social support Self-reliance Behavioral avoidance Friend social support Venting emotions Distraction Mental avoidance Other social support Rebellious coping Total

55 34 33 27 21 20 19 18 9 8 244

22.5 13.9 13.5 11.1 8.6 8.2 7.8 7.4 3.7 3.3 100.0

parents (3%, n = 1). Infrequently used coping responses were other social support (nonfamily or nonfriend) and rebellious coping. A complete list of coping strategies and the frequencies and percentages with which they were identified by participants is presented in Table 2. To test for sex-based differences in use of specific coping strategies, dummy-coded variables were created, for example, friend social support versus not friend social support. Due to the infrequent use of rebellious coping and other social support, sex differences were not assessed for these categories. Chi-square analyses revealed significant differences between 2 females and males in their use of family social support, (1, 244) = 4.3, p < .05), with 79% (n = 27) of family support strategies reported by females. Females were also significantly more likely than males to vent emotions, 2 (1, 244) = 4.3, p < .05). Females identified 85% (n = 17) of the venting emotion strategies, of which 75% (n = 15) involved crying or feeling sad, and 25% (n = 5) involved anger. No other sex-based differences were observed. Chi-square analyses were conducted to assess for differences in the frequencies with which specific coping strategies were used in response to different types of stressors. Given the large number of categories and the resulting violation of expected cell frequency, coping strategies were collapsed into two categories as identified by the literature: problem focused (including friend, family, and other social support; active coping; and self-reliance) and emotion focused (including, venting emotion, rebellious coping, behavioral and mental avoidance, and distraction). Chi-square analyses revealed significant differences in the type of coping strategies used in 2 response to different stressor types, (3, 244) = 15.3, p < .01. Problem-

Kobus, Reyes / Adolescent Coping

173

focused strategies (62%) were used more frequently than emotionfocused strategies (38%). Participants tended to use problem-focused coping strategies in response to personal and school stressors (69% and 88%, respectively) and emotion-focused strategies in response to friend stressors (55%). No sex-based differences were observed. Perceived helpfulness of coping strategies. Overall, participants rated their coping efforts as moderately helpful (M = 3.8, SD = 1.2, where 5 = extremely helpful). No sex-based differences were observed. In addition, no differences in perceived helpfulness were found in comparing those who identified one coping strategy (n = 57) with those who identified multiple strategies (n = 92). Coping strategies were compared in their level of perceived effectiveness using dummy-coded variables, where, for example, friend support = 1 and all other strategies = 2. Independent sample t tests were conducted using Bonferroni procedures to correct for potential alpha inflation. Participants were found to perceive friend social support (M = 4.3, SD = .6) as more helpful in managing stressors than other coping strategies (M = 3.7, SD = 1.2), t(38.77) = 4.21, p < .001). Both behavioral (M = 3.0, SD = 1.3) and mental avoidance (M = 2.9, SD = .8) were perceived to be less helpful than other strategies (M = 3.9, SD = 1.1, and M = 3.8, SD = 1.2, for nonbehavioral and nonmental-avoidant strategies, respectively, t(239) = 4.81, p < .001, and t(239) = 3.39, p < .001, respectively. Also, in terms of perceived helpfulness, independent samples t-test analyses revealed that participants perceived problem-focused strategies (M = 4.1, SD = 1.0) as being significantly more helpful than emotion-focused ones (M = 3.2, SD = 1.2), t(239) = 5.66, p < .001. To assess for differences in the perceived helpfulness of coping in managing different types of stressors, one-way ANOVA procedures were performed, with stressor type as the grouping variable. Analyses revealed overall significance in the perceived helpfulness of coping strategies, F(3, 237) = 2.70, p < .05. Subsequent independent sample t tests revealed that participants perceived their coping efforts to be more helpful in managing school stressors (M = 4.2, SD = 0.7), than family (M = 3.7, SD = 1.2), t(169) = 2.29, p < .05, or friend stressors (M = 3.6, SD = 1.3), t(86) = 2.57, p < .05.

174

Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences

Discussion
The aim of this study was to fill a gap in the literature by providing a descriptive analysis of the ways in which low-income, urban, Mexican American adolescents manage stressful life experiences. Given skepticism about the value of forced-choice measures for examining coping (Phelps & Jarvis, 1994; Rosella, 1994; Seiffge-Krenke, 1993) and the extensive length of such measures, in the current study, an open-ended format was used in the inquiry of difficult life event stressors and coping strategies. Using this format, 95% of youth were able to identify a difficult life event stressor, and all but one of these youth reported at least one way in which they coped. In using such open-ended procedures, the current data provide a unique glimpse into adolescent stress and coping, and capture their experiences across a full range of self-identified real-life stressors. Current data highlight the centrality of family among the urban, minority youth who participated in this study. That is, more than one half of participants identified a stressful family situation as being the most difficult life event that had occurred since they began high school. Report of familial stressors surpassed the combined report of stressors occurring in friend, school, and personal domains, most notably among female participants. In addition to being the most frequently identified source of stress, family members (typically mothers) were frequently sought to provide social support and thus to help youth cope with stress. Once again, this emphasis on families was particularly evident among females. These findings are consistent with expectations and with research examining coping among minority group populations (Munsch & Wampler, 1993). The family-centered orientation of participants is also consistent with Mexican American cultural norms, which emphasize familial bonds and relationships, especially for females (Diaz-Guerrero, 1987; Marn & Marn, 1991). Results regarding friend-related stressors and coping resources are mixed. On one hand, participants reported that friend social support was the most effective of all available coping strategies, likely reflecting the problem-focused nature of this strategy. On the other hand, youth reported that the coping styles they used to manage friend-related stressors were largely ineffective. This latter finding is consistent with the reported effectiveness of coping strategies. That is, while choosing more effective problem-focused coping strategies for managing personal- and school-related stress, youth reported using relatively ineffective emotion-focused approaches in handling peer situations. It is possible that use of emotion-managing coping strategies reflects youths beliefs that such events lie outside their locus of control,

Kobus, Reyes / Adolescent Coping

175

especially when compared with more controllable school-related stressors. Alternatively, their emotion-management strategies may reflect the developmental importance of peers during adolescence (Brown, 1990). Specifically, youth may find it difficult to deal directly with stressors that threaten relationships with and acceptance by peers. Instead, they may elect to brood over a conflict in a relationship, rather than risk further rejection by attempting to resolve the estrangement. In addition, it is possible that the use of emotional and avoidant coping styles in handling peer conflicts reflect youths desire to take a distant and protective stance in these situations. Such a stance is understandable, and often warranted, when considering the high potential for violence in peer relationships, given the urban, low-income schools and neighborhoods of participant youth (Garbarino, 1999). Overall, findings from this study reveal the overwhelmingly active coping styles of participants and a high degree of similarity between females and males in their stylistic coping. Not only were active coping styles most frequently sought, they were also recognized as being the most effect way of handling stressful situations. Avoidant, passive, and emotional coping styles, such as substance use, turning to religion, and behavioral or mental distractions, were infrequently identified by participants. This was true for both females and males. In fact, with two exceptions, female and male participants were remarkably similar in the coping styles they employed for managing stress. Differences included females greater reliance on family social support and emotional venting compared with males. These findings differ from previous work suggesting Mexican youths more common use of passive coping styles (Diaz-Guerrero, 1987) and greater sex-based differences in the coping styles of nonminority youth (Feldman et al., 1995; Frydenberg & Lewis, 1991; Phelps & Jarvis, 1994). Without direct assessment of adolescents from multiple ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds, it is difficult to know the extent to which sociocultural background affects the types of stressors youth experience and the ways in which they cope with stress. Although this study is limited in that it targeted only one population and, thus, cannot adequately address questions of comparative psychology, its findings do suggest the possibility of sociocultural differences. First, as mentioned above, findings about the coping styles of the low-income, urban, Mexican American youth who participated in the current study appear to differ from those that have targeted youth from different backgrounds. Second, the stressors identified by current participants included such events (e.g., death of a close friend, being jailed, personal or parental problems with the law) that are less frequently reported by suburban, middle-class youth (Dise-Lewis, 1988; Swearingen & Cohen,

176

Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences

1985). It is likely that the taxing role such stressors placed on participant youth necessitated the use of coping strategies different from those required in less demanding circumstances. Findings from this study highlight the need for concentrated research efforts to examine youth from diverse ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds (Rosella, 1994). Understanding the similarities and differences between youth from diverse backgrounds promises to inform our understanding of the process of stress and coping, the etiology of adolescent psychopathology, and ways to bolster youths coping efforts through intervention and prevention programs. This work is especially relevant for youth from disadvantaged backgrounds who, by virtue of their school and neighborhood settings, are at increased risk for maladaptive outcomes and often have the fewest available resources (Copeland & Hess, 1995; Munsch & Wampler, 1993; Rosella, 1994).

References
Benson, L. T., & Deeter, T. E. (1992). Moderators of the relation between stress and depression in adolescents. The School Counselor, 39, 189-194. Blechman, E. A., & Culhane, S. E. (1993). Aggressive, depressive, and prosocial coping with affective challenges in early adolescence. Journal of Early Adolescence, 13(4), 361-382. Brown, B. B. (1990). Peer groups and peer cultures. In S. S. Feldman & G. R. Elliott (Eds.), At the threshold: The developing adolescent (pp. 171-196). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Chicago Panel on School Policy. (1995). Chicago Public School data book: School year 19931994. Chicago: Author. Compas, B. E. (1987). Coping with stress during childhood and adolescence. Psychological Bulletin, 101(3), 393-403. Copeland, E. P., & Hess, R. S. (1995). Differences in young adolescents coping strategies based on gender and ethnicity. Journal of Early Adolescence, 15(2), 203-219. Diaz-Guerrero, R. (1987). Historical sociocultural premises and ethnic socialization. In J. S. Phinney & M. J. Rotheram (Eds.), Childrens ethnic socialization: Pluralism and development (pp. 239-250). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Dise-Lewis, J. E. (1988). The life events and coping inventory: An assessment of stress in children. Psychosomatic Medicine, 50, 484-499. Feldman, S. S., Fischer, L., Ransom, D. C., & Dimiceli, S. (1995). Is What is good for the goose good for the gander? Sex differences in relations between adolescent coping and adult adaptation. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 5(3), 333-359. Frydenberg, E., & Lewis, R. (1991). Adolescent coping: The different ways in which boys and girls cope. Journal of Adolescence, 14, 119-133. Frydenberg, E., & Lewis, R. (1993). Boys play sport and girls turn to others: Age, gender and ethnicity as determinants of coping. Journal of Adolescence, 16, 253-266. Garbarino, J. (1999). Youth in dangerous environments: Coping with the consequences. In K. Hurrelmann & S. F. Hamilton (Eds.), Social problems and social contests in adolescence: Perspectives across boundaries (pp. 269-290). New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

Kobus, Reyes / Adolescent Coping

177

Gillock, K., & Reyes, O. (1999). Stress, support, and academic performance of urban, lowincome, Mexican American adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 28(2), 259-282. Glyshaw, K., Cohen, L. H., & Towbes, L. C. (1989). Coping strategies and psychological distress: Prospective analyses of early and middle adolescents. American Journal of Community Psychology, 17(5), 607-623. Gore, S., & Aseltine, R. H., Jr. (1995). Protective processes in adolescence: Matching stressors with social resources. American Journal of Community Psychology, 23(3), 301-327. Halstead, M., Johnson, S. B., & Cunningham, W. (1993). Measuring coping in adolescents: An application of the Ways of Coping Checklist. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 22(3), 337-344. Hauser, S. T., & Bowlds, M. K. (1990). Stress, coping, and adaptation. In S. S. Feldman & G. R. Elliot (Eds.), At the threshold: The developing adolescent (pp. 388-413). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Johnson, J. H., & McCutcheon, S. M. (1980). Assessing life stress in older children and adolescents: Preliminary findings with the Life Events Checklist. In L. G. Sarason & C. D. Spielberger (Eds.), Stress and anxiety (Vol. 7). Washington, DC: Hemisphere. Knapp, L. G., Stark, L. J., Kurkjian, J. A., & Spirito, A. (1991). Assessing coping in children and adolescents: Research and practice. Educational Psychology Review, 3(4), 309-334. Kyle, C. L. (1984). Los preciosos: The magnitude of and reasons for the Hispanic dropout problem in Chicago: A case study of two Chicago public high schools. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois. Marn, G., & Marn, B. V. (1991). Research with Hispanic populations. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Mates, D., & Allison, K. R. (1992). Sources of stress and coping responses of high school students. Adolescence, 27(106), 461-474. Munsch, J., & Wampler, R. S. (1993). Ethnic differences in early adolescents coping with school stress. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 63(4), 633-646. Patterson, J. M., & McCubbin, H. I. (1987). Adolescent coping style and behaviors: Conceptualization and measurement. Journal of Adolescence, 10, 163-186. Phelps, S. B., & Jarvis, P. A. (1994). Coping in adolescence: Empirical evidence for a theoretically based approach to assessing coping. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 23(3), 359-371. Reyes, O., & Jason, L. A. (1993). Pilot study examining factors associated with academic success for Hispanic high school students. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 22(1), 57-71. Rice, K. G., Herman, M. A., & Petersen, A. C. (1993). Coping with challenge in adolescence: A conceptual model and psycho-educational intervention. Journal of Adolescence, 16, 235-251. Rosella, J. D. (1994). Review of adolescent coping research: Representation of key demographic variables and methodological approaches to assessment. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 15, 483-495. Seidman, E., Allen, L., Aber, J. L., Mitchell, C., Feinman, J., Yoshikawa, H., Comotois, K. A., Golz, J., Miller, R. L., Ortiz-Torres, B., & Roper, G. C. (1995). Development and validation of adolescent-perceived microsystems scales: Social support, daily hassles, and involvement. American Journal of Community Psychology, 23(3), 355-388. Seiffge-Krenke, I. (1993). Coping behavior in normal and clinical samples: More similarities than differences. Journal of Adolescence, 16, 285-303. Shulman, S. (1993). Close relationships and coping behavior in adolescence. Journal of Adolescence, 16, 267-283.

178

Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences

Stone, A. D., & Neale, J. M. (1984). New measure of daily coping: Development and preliminary results. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 892-906. Swearingen, E. M., & Cohen, L. H. (1985). Measurement of adolescents life events: The Junior High Life Experience Survey. American Journal of Community Psychology, 13(1), 69-85.

Kimberly Kobus, Ph.D., was previously a graduate student in the Department of Psychology, University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC). Currently, she is a postdoctoral fellow at the Health Research and Policy Centers at UIC. Her research interests focus on adolescents peer relationships, mental health, academic performance, and alcohol and tobacco use. Olga Reyes, Ph.D., is an associate professor in the Department of Psychology, University of Illinois at Chicago. Her research interests broadly encompass academic achievement and school dropout among urban, minority youth.