The impact of accommodative coping on well-being in childhood and adolescence

Abstract

Coping research has consistently shown that accommodative coping is positively correlated with individuals' health. Until now, however, there have been little to no studies on the prognostic impact of accommodative coping on health, and only a few studies investigating its buffering effect on the relation between stress and health in childhood and adolescence. Thus, two main research questions were tracked in two longitudinal studies: Study 1 investigated if accommodative coping is indeed a functional resource that longitudinally predicts wellbeing in a sample of N ¼ 403 adolescents (aged 12-15 years at Wave 1). Study 2 examined the function of accommodative coping under stressful conditions by investigating its buffering effect on the negative impact of school-related stress on well-being in a sample of N ¼ 86 children (aged 9-12 years at Wave 1). Study 1 revealed accommodative coping longitudinally predicting well-being, and, conversely, there was no prediction of well-being through accommodative coping over time. Study 2 revealed a significant moderating effect and gives a first indication that accommodative coping buffers the negative impact of school-related stress on well-being in childhood. The results indicate that accommodation is a functional coping resource in adolescence that diminishes the negative impact of specific stressors. All main and further results are discussed, and implications for further research are given.

Modelling goal adjustment in social relationships: Two experimental studies with children and adults

“…Cronbach's alpha increased up to .67 for TGP and .71 for FGA. Negative‐part whole correlations and lower internal consistencies (around α = .70) in younger samples is known from other studies (Greve & Thomsen, ; Thomsen & Greve, ; Thomsen et al ., ).…”

“…Thus, individuals are able to adapt their goals flexibly by means of two processes: goal engagement (GE) and goal disengagement (GD). Cross-sectional and longitudinal research on the functionality of both goal adjustment processes has consistently shown that their flexible use leads to better physical health and psychological well-being in childhood and adolescence (Band & Weisz, 1990;DeCarlo Santiago & Wadsworth, 2008;Thomsen, Fritz, M€ oßle, & Greve, 2015) as well as in adulthood (Brandtst€ adter, Wentura, & Greve, 1993;Wrosch, Miller, Scheier, & de Pontet, 2007;Wrosch & Sabiston, 2012;Wrosch, Scheier, Miller, Schulz, & Carver, 2003). Cross-sectional and longitudinal research on the functionality of both goal adjustment processes has consistently shown that their flexible use leads to better physical health and psychological well-being in childhood and adolescence (Band & Weisz, 1990;DeCarlo Santiago & Wadsworth, 2008;Thomsen, Fritz, M€ oßle, & Greve, 2015) as well as in adulthood (Brandtst€ adter, Wentura, & Greve, 1993;Wrosch, Miller, Scheier, & de Pontet, 2007;Wrosch & Sabiston, 2012;Wrosch, Scheier, Miller, Schulz, & Carver, 2003).…”

“…Under the perspective of life span developmental psychology, three major approaches address these processes: the dual-process model of developmental regulation (DPM, assimilative and accommodative regulation, Brandtst€ adter, 2009;Brandtst€ adter & Rothermund, 2002), the motivational theory of life span development (MTD, primary and secondary control processes, Heckhausen & Schulz, 1995;Heckhausen, Wrosch, & Schulz, 2010), and the model of selection, optimization, and compensation (Baltes & Baltes, 1990;Freund & Baltes, 2002). Cross-sectional and longitudinal research on the functionality of both goal adjustment processes has consistently shown that their flexible use leads to better physical health and psychological well-being in childhood and adolescence (Band & Weisz, 1990;DeCarlo Santiago & Wadsworth, 2008;Thomsen, Fritz, M€ oßle, & Greve, 2015) as well as in adulthood (Brandtst€ adter, Wentura, & Greve, 1993;Wrosch, Miller, Scheier, & de Pontet, 2007;Wrosch & Sabiston, 2012;Wrosch, Scheier, Miller, Schulz, & Carver, 2003). Previous research has mainly focused on the functionality of goal adjustment processes but neglected questions on the development of these processes; that is, questions of how we learn these processes or a sense of when to employ which process or how we can change the implementation of adjustment processes across the life span.…”

Extending the scope of the ‘cognitive advantage’ hypothesis: multilingual individuals show higher flexibility of goal adjustment

“…A number of studies have shown that individuals vary considerably with respect to their preparedness and ability to accommodate their goals or values (for an overview see for example Brandtstädter 2006Brandtstädter , 2015Brandtstädter and Rothermund 2002;Schulz 2010, 2019;Haase, Heckhausen, and Wrosch 2013). Accordingly, the individual's FGA (Brandtstädter and Renner 1990) is a predictor for the stability of the self and well-being (Brandtstädter and Greve 1994), and a buffer against aversive circumstances and experiences both for adolescents (Thomsen et al 2015) and adults (e.g. Greve, Leipold, and Kappes 2017; Rühs, Greve, and Kappes 2017).…”

Humorous Coping With Unrequited Love: Is Perspective Change Important?

“…It is required at the latest when assimilative efforts fail, problems cannot be overcome by active problem solving, or this would involve too much difficulty or cost. A large body of work has shown that the individual capability and tendency for accommodative regulation helps to reduce strain across different kinds of threats and burdens and across different age groups (e.g., Thomsen et al, 2015;Greve et al, 2017;Rühs et al, 2017;for review, Brandtstädter and Rothermund, 2002). Although this has not been a central focus of research, some results suggest that humor might be associated with accommodative coping.…”