Among adolescents, affect, behavior, and academic engagement are important indicators of well-being. In the United States, 24.9%, 10.0%, and 16.3% of adolescents are estimated to meet criteria for any anxiety disorder, mood disorder, or behavioral disorder, respectively, in the past 12 months [1]. Both internalizing and externalizing symptoms are associated with lower academic engagement among adolescents [2]; low academic engagement is a risk factor for academic failure and dropout [3].

Poor relationships with caregivers and exposure to adversity and other stressful life circumstances during childhood and adolescence are risk factors for the development of internalizing and externalizing symptoms [4, 5], as well as low academic engagement and performance [6,7,8]. Ideally, engagement in adaptive coping strategies can mitigate potentially negative effects of stressor exposure on health and well-being [9]. Coping refers to the cognitive and behavioral efforts that individuals make to manage stress – internal and external demands that they appraise to be challenges or threats to their resources and well-being [10]. Coping is an important life skill that exerts promotive and protective effects with respect to adolescents’ emotional health, behavioral health, and academic achievement [9, 11,12,13,14]. However, poor relationships with caregivers and exposure to adversity and other stressful life circumstances during childhood and adolescence may impede the development of adaptive coping strategies [15, 16].

Theory and evidence support the value of developing different types of coping efforts to promote health and well-being across the life course [17]. Positive forms of coping include behavioral/problem-focused coping, which involves attempting to change a stressful situation, and cognitive/emotion-focused coping, which involves thinking about a stressful situation differently in order to feel better [10, 18]. Another positive form of coping, seeking support from others, has the potential to facilitate both problem-focused and emotion-focused coping among adolescents [18, 19]. The adaptiveness of positive coping strategies can depend on the type of stressor an individual faces. Problem-focused coping is typically associated with better psychological adjustment when stressors are controllable, whereas emotion-focused coping is typically associated with better adjustment when stressors are uncontrollable [20,21,22]. It is important to distinguish between thinking about a stressful situation differently in order to feel better (defined here as cognitive/emotion-focused coping), and other forms of emotion-focused coping that have been described in the literature [17]. Negative forms of emotion-focused coping include anger, denial, distraction, disengagement, distancing, avoidance, helplessness, and wishful thinking [9, 18, 23, 24], particularly when a stressor is controllable [24]. When adolescents routinely utilize negative coping strategies or positive coping strategies that do not match the controllability of the stressor, they may be at heightened risk for poor outcomes [9].

Given the importance of coping to adolescents’ well-being across the life course, it is important to understand determinants of different coping strategies, as well as their outcomes. This information can be used to develop prevention strategies to promote the development of adaptive coping strategies among youth, particularly those who are at risk for poor outcomes. In the following sections, existing literature linking adolescents’ coping strategies to their relationships with caregivers and exposure to stressors is reviewed, as well as literature examining coping as a mediator of associations between contextual factors (relationships with caregivers, exposure to stressors) and adjustment outcomes.

Associations Between Family and Community Contextual Factors and Coping Strategies Among Adolescents

Relationships with caregivers may impact the coping strategies that children and adolescents learn and utilize in response to stressors. Perceived support is one characteristic of relationships with caregivers that is likely to be important. In one longitudinal study of African American and Latino male adolescents, a small association was observed between maternal support and more effective coping in response to non-violence related stressors, both at the time of early assessments, when the mean age of adolescents was 15, and at later assessments, when the mean age of adolescents was 19 [25]. In a cross-sectional study of female adolescents recruited from juvenile justice and diversion settings, a small association was observed between family support and lower levels of avoidance coping [26]. Perceived conflict is another characteristic of relationships with caregivers that may influence adolescents’ approach to coping. In two samples of undergraduates – one comprised of students whose parents were continuously married and one of students whose parents had divorced, retrospective recall of family conflict prior to age 16 was associated with greater levels of disengagement coping (i.e., avoidance, wishful thinking, denial); effect sizes were moderate in strength [27]. Family conflict was also associated with lower levels of engagement coping (i.e., problem-focused coping, emotion regulation, sharing feelings with others) within the sample of students whose parents had divorced; this effect was also moderate in strength.

Beyond relationships with caregivers, exposure to stressful life circumstances may impact the coping strategies that children and adolescents learn and utilize. In one cross-sectional study of Turkish adolescents, small associations were observed between perceived stress and lower levels of support seeking and problem-focused coping and greater levels of behavioral avoidance [28]. In Goodkind and colleagues’ [26] cross-sectional study of female adolescents recruited from juvenile justice and diversion settings, small to moderate associations were observed between stressful life events and different negative forms of emotion-focused coping (anger, withdrawal, avoidance).

Exposure to violence is a specific type of stressor that can have significant detrimental effects on the well-being of adolescents [29]. Gaylord-Harden and colleagues [25] observed a small association between exposure to community violence and less effective coping (i.e., negative forms of emotion-focused coping and disengagement) in response to non-violence related stressors among African American and Latino male adolescents. In a separate, cross-sectional study of African American and Latino adolescents, Rasmussen and colleagues [30] observed a moderate association between community violence exposure and greater use of confrontative coping (i.e., use of aggressive tactics to alter a situation). In this study, community violence exposure was not associated with other forms of coping, including positive reappraisal of stressors, a form of emotion-focused coping; problem-focused coping; seeking support; and avoidance. Similarly, in a cross-sectional study of unstably housed youth, Mohammad and colleagues [31] found no significant association between community violence exposure and a positive coping composite variable (e.g., problem-focused coping, seeking support, positive forms of distraction). In a cross-sectional study of African American adolescents, Dempsey [32] observed a moderate association between community violence exposure and negative forms of coping (e.g., yelling, crying, avoidance), but no significant association with positive forms of coping (i.e., problem-focused coping, emotion-regulation, seeking support from adults). This pattern of findings was mirrored in an ethnically diverse sample of adolescents placed in foster care [33]. In this cross-sectional study, Garrido and colleagues [33] observed a moderate association between community violence exposure and negative coping (i.e., interpersonal aggression and self-destructive behaviors), but no significant association with positive coping (i.e., expressing emotions in a diary or to siblings and friends, relaxation).

Coping Strategies as Mediators of Associations Between Family and Community Contextual Factors and Adjustment Outcomes Among Adolescents

At least two studies have examined whether coping mediates associations between family contextual factors and indices of well-being among youth. In Roubinov and Luecken’s [27] samples of undergraduates, disengagement coping (i.e., avoidance, wishful thinking, denial) mediated moderately-sized associations between retrospective recall of family conflict prior to age 16 and current symptoms of depression. In one cross-sectional sample of adolescents, lower levels of engagement in positive forms of coping mediated moderately-sized associations between family conflict and both internalizing symptoms and aggressive behavior; in this study, disengagement coping was not a mediator [34].

A few studies have examined whether coping mediates associations between stressful life events and indices of well-being. In Goodkind and colleagues’ [26] cross-sectional study of female adolescents recruited from juvenile justice and diversion settings, coping through anger and withdrawal both mediated an association between stressful life events and depressive symptoms; in this study, avoidance was not a mediator. In one longitudinal study of a predominantly White sample of children and adolescents, the accumulation of stressful life events over 16 months was associated with lower levels of problem-focused coping and greater levels of disengagement coping (e.g., avoidance) at 16 months (small-to-moderate effects), which were in turn associated with more depressive symptoms at 22 months (moderate effects) [35]. However, in another longitudinal study of a predominantly White sample of adolescents, different types of coping strategies (i.e., problem-focused, emotion-focused, seeking support, avoidance, distraction) did not mediate a moderately-sized association between stressful life events and a composite of externalizing and internalizing symptoms [36].

A few studies have examined whether coping mediates associations between exposure to violence and indices of well-being. In Dempsey’s [32] cross-sectional study of African American adolescents, negative coping (e.g., yelling, crying, avoidance) – but not positive coping (i.e., problem-focused coping, emotion-regulation, seeking support from adults) – mediated small-to-moderately sized associations between community violence exposure and symptoms of posttraumatic stress, depression, and anxiety. In Garrido and colleagues’ [33] study of ethnically diverse adolescents placed in foster care, negative coping (i.e., interpersonal aggression and self-destructive behaviors) mediated a moderate association between community violence exposure and symptoms of trauma.

In summary, several studies support the premise that coping can mediate associations between family and community contextual factors and adjustment outcomes among adolescents. Negative coping strategies, in particular, appear to mediate associations between contextual risk factors and poor adjustment.

The Present Research. In a sample of urban adolescents in the Midwestern United States, adolescents’ relationships with their caregivers (support, conflict) and exposure to stressors (uncontrollable life events, violence) were examined as contextual predictors of positive and negative coping strategies. These coping strategies were in turn examined as predictors of externalizing symptoms, internalizing symptoms, and academic investment. Finally, specific coping strategies were examined as mediators of associations between contextual factors and adjustment outcomes. Based on reviewed literature, it was hypothesized that caregiver support would be associated with greater use of positive coping strategies and less use of negative coping strategies, while conflict with caregivers, uncontrollable life events, and violence exposure would be associated with less use of positive coping strategies and greater use of negative coping strategies. Coping strategies were expected to mediate associations between contextual factors and adjustment outcomes, and effects were expected to be particularly pronounced for negative coping strategies.

Method

The present research is a secondary analysis of data collected between December 2016 and July 2018 as part of a community-engaged project within an urban, Midwestern United States community [37, 38]. Twenty-five African American boys aged 8–14 years were recruited from a partnering K-8 school; 71 additional adolescents aged 8–14 years were recruited from a second partnering organization, a local Boys & Girls Club. Adolescents recruited from the Boys & Girls Club were diverse with respect to gender (38% female, 62% male) and ethnicity (54% African American or Black, 14% Asian, 4% Hispanic, 3% White, 1% American Indian, 20% two or more races, 4% unknown). Of the 96 early adolescents who comprised the total sample, 76 (79%) identified as African American or Black, either solely or with another race or ethnicity, and 72% were male. The mean age of adolescents was 11.7 (SD = 1.8). In the region of the county from which adolescents were recruited, the mean 2017 household income was $53,036; the corresponding mean household income in other regions of the county ranged between $80,904 to $97,333 [39].

Approval to conduct research at the partnering school was granted by the school district, as well as the University IRB. In the 2017/2018 academic year, 81% of students received free or reduced price lunch and the student body was 45% African American or Black, 32% Asian, 15% Hispanic, 7% White, and 1% American Indian. Letters of invitation were sent from the school principal to families with an African American male student between the ages of 8–14 years. School-based research staff phoned caregivers to provide further information, answer questions, and screen interested families for eligibility. Inclusion criteria were caregiver-reported African American or Black race, male gender, and age of adolescent between 8 and 14 years, inclusive. African immigrants and refugees were excluded. Structured interviews were held at school. Consent was obtained from caregivers, and assent was obtained from adolescents. Of 87 eligible adolescents, 25 participated (29% response rate).

Approval to conduct research at the local Boys & Girls Club was granted by the club’s branch director, as well as the University IRB. The club serves ethnically diverse families, most of which are of lower socioeconomic status. In 2018, club youth were 60% African American or Black, 2% Asian, 7% Hispanic, 4% White, and 1% American Indian; race and ethnicity were unknown for 27% of club youth. A passive consent procedure was utilized at the club site. Parents or legal guardians of youth who attend the club complete a membership enrollment form prior to youths’ attendance. Included in the form is consent for youth to participate in research conducted by organizations that work with the club to improve programming. A letter of invitation from the branch director and a passive consent form were mailed home and/or placed in the adolscent’s backpack prior to interviews. The branch director also posted the letter of invitation at the club’s door to notify visiting parents and legal guardians about the research study. Adolescents whose caregivers did not previously provide consent did not participate in the present research study unless their parents or legal guardians provided active consent. The passive consent form provided options for parents or legal guardians to opt their adolescent out of the study. The only inclusion criterion for the club site was age of adolescent between 8 and 14 years, inclusive. Assent was obtained from adolescents who elected to participate. Of 320 invitations sent to families, 71 adolescents completed interviews (22% response rate).

All letters of invitation, active consent forms, and passive consent forms explained that interviews of adolescents were being conducted to better understand issues related to the well-being and future success of youth, and to inform the way that staff and health professionals think about youths’ behavior and plan programs to promote youths’ well-being and future success. Structured interviews of adolescents were held at the site through which they were recruited. All adolescents (total n = 96) were compensated with a $20 gift card for participation in an interview.

Measures

Coping. Adolescents were administered the Response-Based Coping Inventory [40], comprised of psychometrically sound subscales with weak to moderate correlations with different dimensions of temperament, suggesting appropriate discriminant and convergent validity. Using a modified 3-point scale (1 = not at all; 2 = a little; 3 = very much), adolescents rated the extent to which they engaged in different coping strategies when they experienced a problem at school or at home. Items were averaged within six coping subscales for the present study: [1] Behavioral coping/problem-focused coping (e.g., I think about the choices before I do anything; 6 items; α = 0.76); [2] Cognitive coping/emotion-focused coping (e.g., I look for something good in what is happening; 6 items; α = 0.69); [3] Support from family members (e.g., I get emotional support from my family; 4 items; α = 0.84); [4] Avoidant coping (e.g., I try to put the problem out of my mind; 12 items; α = 0.70); [5] Coping through anger (e.g., I get mad at people; 7 items; α = 0.80); [6] Coping through helplessness (e.g., I say “I can’t deal with it” and quit trying; 4 items; α = 0.70).

Perceived Support from and Conflict with Caregivers. Adolescents were administered the Family Support and Conflict Scales [41], comprised of psychometrically sound subscales with moderate to strong correlations with good self-control (soothability, dependability, planfulness, problem solving) and poor self-control (impatience, distractibility, angerability, impulsiveness), suggesting appropriate convergent validity. Using a modified 3-point scale (1 = not at all; 2 = a little; 3 = very much), adolescents rated the extent to which different items were true for their primary caregiver. Items were averaged within subscales: [1] Emotional support (e.g., I can share my feelings with my (caregiver); 5 items; α = 0.81); [2] Instrumental support (e.g., if I’m having a problem with a friend, my (caregiver) would have advice about what to do; 6 items; α = 0.70); [3] Conflict (e.g., I have a lot of arguments with my (caregiver); 3 items; α = 0.56). For the present study, a total support subscale was created by combining the 11 emotional support and instrumental support items (α = 0.85).

Uncontrollable Stressful Life Events. Adolescents were administered the Family, Friend, and Child Life Events measure [42]. Adolescents indicated whether each of 24 events occurred in the past year (0 = no; 1 = yes). Life events were divided into 15 uncontrollable events (e.g., somebody in my family had a serious illness; my father/mother lost his/her job) and 9 potentially controllable events (e.g., I got bad grades in school; I had a lot of arguments with my parents). For the present study, uncontrollable life events were summed to form a composite. Comparable life events measures have demonstrated test-retest reliabilities ranging from 0.64 to 0.89 for periods of time from two weeks to three months [43,44,45].

Violence Exposure. Adolescents were administered the Things I Have Seen and Heard Scale [46]. Adolescents indicated whether each of 12 events occurred in the past year (0 = no; 1 = yes). Items assessed 10 events occurring within the community (e.g., Seen somebody get beaten up) and 2 events occurring within the home (e.g., Seen grownups in my home hit each other). The 12 items were summed to form a composite. Comparable violence exposure measures have demonstrated test-retest reliabilities ranging from 0.81 to 0.92 for periods of time from two to four weeks [47,48,49].

Internalizing and Externalizing Symptoms. Adolescents were administered the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) [50], comprised of scales with satisfactory internal consistency, cross-informant correlation, test-retest stability after 4–6 months, and corroboration with independent psychiatric diagnosis. Using a 3-point scale (1 = not true; 2 = somewhat true; 3 = certainly true), adolescents rated to the extent to which each item was true for them for the past 6 months. An externalizing score was generated by averaging items from the conduct problems (e.g., I get very angry and often lose my temper) and hyperactivity/inattention (I am restless, I cannot stay still for long) subscales (10 items; α = 0.76); an internalizing score was generated by averaging items from the emotional symptoms (I get a lot of headaches, stomach-aches, or sickness) and peer relationship problems (I would rather be alone than with people of my age) subscales (10 items; α = 0.66).

Academic Investment. Adolescents completed items from the cognitive and behavioral engagement scales developed by the National Center for School Engagement [51]; these scales demonstrated adequate internal consistency and were associated with better academic performance and fewer unexcused absences in school samples. In the present study. adolescents used a 3-point scale (1 = not at all; 2 = a little; 3 = very much) to rate the extent to which items represented what they thought about school. Adolescents completed 19 items assessing cognitive engagement (e.g., I will graduate from high school) and 7 items assessing behavioral disengagement (e.g., I get in trouble at school). All 26 items were coded in the same direction and averaged to form a total academic investment composite (α = 0.85).

Analytic Plan

Differences in study variables by site were examined through independent samples t-tests. Distributions of and correlations between study variables were examined, adjusting for covariates (site, age, sex, and race/ethnicity). A series of linear regression analyses were conducted to examine whether [1] coping strategies varied as a function of family- and community-based contextual correlates, and [2] behavioral correlates (externalizing symptoms, internalizing symptoms, academic investment) varied as a function of coping strategies. In separate sets of regression analyses, predictors (family- and community-based contextual correlates, coping strategies) were entered both individually and simultaneously. All regression analyses were adjusted for covariates.

A final set of analyses examined whether selected coping strategies statistically mediated observed associations between family- and community-based contextual correlates and behavioral correlates of coping. Mediation tests were performed if three conditions were met: [1] a specific family- or community-based contextual correlate was associated with a specific behavioral correlate of coping (Table 1); [2] a specific coping strategy varied as a function of the identified family- or community-based contextual correlate (Table 2); [3] the identified behavioral correlate varied as a function of the identified coping strategy (Table 3). When all three conditions were met, the identified behavioral correlate was regressed on the identified family- or community-based contextual correlate, both without and with the identified coping strategy (see Table 4). Using output from these regression analyses, Sobel’s test of mediation was conducted [52, 53].

Table 1 Distributions of and correlations between study variables. a
Full size table
Table 2 Linear regressions of coping strategies on family- and community-based contextual correlates. a
Full size table
Table 3 Linear regressions of behavioral correlates on coping strategies. a
Full size table
Table 4 Linear regressions testing whether coping strategies mediate associations between contextual and behavioral correlates
Full size table

Results

With the exception of coping through anger (M = 1.55 versus M = 1.26, t = 3.10, p < .01), there were no site differences in study variables. Table 1 shows that adolescents’ use of positive coping strategies (behavioral/problem-focused coping, cognitive/emotion-focused coping, family support) were above the scale midpoint, on average, while adolescents’ use of two negative coping strategies (anger, helplessness) were below the scale midpoint, on average. Adolescents’ use of one negative coping strategy – avoidance – was above the scale midpoint, on average, and associated with greater use of all positive coping strategies with moderate effect sizes (r’s between 0.30 and 0.39). Use of different positive coping strategies were associated with one another with large effect sizes (r’s between 0.52 and 0.66). Coping through anger and helplessness were associated with a large effect size (r = .53); in addition, coping through helplessness was associated with less use of behavioral/problem-focused coping, with a small effect size (r=-.26).

Table 2 shows that independent of covariates, caregiver support was associated with greater use of behavioral/problem-focused coping, cognitive/emotion-focused coping, and coping through family support, as well as lower use of coping through anger and helplessness. In contrast, caregiver conflict was associated with less use of coping through family support and greater use of coping through avoidance, anger, and helplessness. Both exposure to a greater number of uncontrollable life events and violent events were associated with greater use of coping through avoidance and anger. In addition, exposure to a greater number of violent events was associated with greater use of coping through helplessness. When contextual correlates were entered into regression analyses simultaneously, caregiver support was significantly associated with behavioral/problem-focused coping, cognitive/emotion-focused coping, coping through family support, and coping through avoidance. In addition, caregiver conflict and violence exposure were significantly associated with coping through avoidance and anger.

Table 3 shows that independent of covariates, greater use of behavioral/problem-focused coping and coping through family support were associated with fewer externalizing symptoms and greater academic investment. In addition, greater use of cognitive/emotion-focused coping was associated with greater academic investment. Greater use of coping through avoidance, anger, and helplessness were associated with more externalizing and internalizing symptoms. Greater use of coping through anger and helplessness were associated with less academic investment. When coping strategies were entered into regression analyses simultaneously, coping through avoidance and anger were significantly associated with more externalizing symptoms, while coping through avoidance and helplessness were significantly associated with more internalizing symptoms. Coping through anger was significantly associated with less academic investment.

Thirty-one sets of variables met criteria for conducting mediation tests. Thirteen of 31 tests were significant (42%), exceeding what would be expected due to chance (i.e., 5%). Table 4 contains output from mediation analyses, and Figure 1 shows the 13 pathways for which Sobel’s test of mediation was significant. Coping through anger and helplessness at least partially mediated associations of low caregiver support and high caregiver conflict with externalizing symptoms. Coping through anger mediated the association between exposure to violent events and externalizing symptoms. Coping through helplessness mediated associations of low caregiver support and high caregiver conflict with internalizing symptoms. Behavioral/problem-focused coping, low levels of coping through anger, and low levels of coping through helplessness partially mediated the association between caregiver support and academic investment. High levels of coping through anger and helplessness partially mediated the association between caregiver conflict and low academic investment. Finally, coping through anger mediated the association between exposure to violent events and low academic investment.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Mediation pathways supported through regression analyses

Full size image

Discussion

Findings from the present cross-sectional study suggest pathways through which different types of coping may develop and exert effects on the health and well-being of early adolescents; longitudinal research is needed to further test pathways. In comparison to previous research, the present study examined a broader array of contextual factors, coping strategies, and adjustment outcomes. Of all assessed contextual factors, only perceived support from caregiver was associated with all positive forms of coping (behavioral/problem-focused coping, cognitive/emotion-focused coping, coping through family support) in analyses adjusting for covariates and other contextual factors. Supportive caregivers may foster adaptive coping skills in their adolescents through a number of mechanisms. Supportive caregivers may explicitly suggest that their children engage in problem-focused and emotion-focused strategies to cope with stressors (i.e., things to do to solve problems, ways to think differently in order to feel better). Perceiving that one is supported by caregivers may make it easier to engage in adaptive coping, including seeking support. Supportive caregivers may also monitor and acknowledge the stressors their children experience and offer support without being asked. Lastly, supportive caregivers may model adaptive forms of coping. Not surprisingly, adolescents who reported greater levels of conflict with their caregiver were less likely to cope with stressors by seeking family support. This effect did not remain significant after adjustment for perceived caregiver support and other contextual factors.

All assessed contextual factors were associated with negative forms of coping (coping through avoidance, anger, or helplessness). Perceiving high levels of support from one’s caregiver was associated with less engagement in negative forms of coping, while perceiving high levels of conflict with one’s caregiver, experiencing a greater number of uncontrollable life events, and experiencing a greater number of violent events were associated with greater engagement in negative forms of coping. Supportive caregivers may actively discourage their children’s engagement in negative forms of coping and be less likely to model these strategies. Children who experience high levels of conflict with their caregiver may learn to avoid stressors and feel a sense of anger and helplessness when confronted with stressors. Uncontrollable life events and violent events may contribute to the belief that stressors cannot be controlled. If violent events and other uncontrollable stressors frequently occur, they may be indicative of a truly uncontrollable environment. Avoidance may assist adolescents in temporarily escaping from adverse environments that cannot be controlled, and coping through anger or helplessness may be a response to perceptions of low control.

Brady and colleagues [54] have suggested that environments characterized by less control may provide fewer opportunities to learn problem-focused coping strategies. They also suggested that problem-focused coping, if initially tried, may be less effective in environments that afford fewer opportunities for control, and thus, less likely to be tried later. In the present cross-sectional study, problem-focused coping mediated an association between perceived support from caregiver and greater academic investment. It is possible that supportive caregivers assist adolescents in feeling a greater sense of control over stressors, particularly those that are likely to be impacted through adolescents’ behavior. Chesmore and colleagues [13] have posited that youth who engage in problem-focused coping are likely to view challenges in the school environment as problems to be solved, and engage in adaptive behaviors such as information seeking, problem solving, and goal-setting. Supportive caregivers may position their adolescents to view school challenges as problems to be solved and encourage academic engagement and persistence.

Coping through anger mediated associations between different contextual factors (low perceived support and high perceived conflict with caregiver, violence exposure) and both externalizing symptoms and low academic investment. Similarly, coping through helplessness mediated associations between caregiver contextual factors and all outcomes. In the context of an unsupportive, conflictual family environment, adolescents may feel angry or helpless when additional stressors arise. Living within an unsafe environment may also contribute to anger when stressors arise. Adolescents who feel a sense of anger or helplessness in response to stressors may be more likely to “act out” through externalizing symptoms and less likely to persist in the face of academic challenges. In addition, feelings of helplessness may contribute to internalizing symptoms, including somatization and withdrawal. Longitudinal research is needed to test whether mediation pathways of the present study are observed temporally, and whether the proposed mechanisms by which coping may mediate contextual factors and adjustment outcomes are supported.

The present study complements a growing prevention science literature on coping among adolescents. Consistent with previous literature [23, 26, 27, 32, 33], negative coping strategies appeared to be particularly important in explaining associations between family- and community-level contextual risk factors and poor adjustment. With the exception of problem-focused coping mediating the association between perceived support from caregiver and academic investment, only negative coping strategies were supported as mediators of associations between family and community contextual factors and adjustment outcomes in the present study.

Also consistent with previous literature [26], the most harmful negative copies strategies appeared to be coping through anger and helplessness. In the present study, avoidance coping was correlated with all three positive forms of coping. In addition, coping through anger and helplessness – but not coping through avoidance – mediated associations between family and community contextual risk factors and poorer adjustment. Collectively, these findings suggest that avoidance is not necessarily a negative coping strategy. Boxer and colleagues [55] examined associations between coping and internalizing and externalizing symptoms within a predominantly African American sample of youth aged 11–14 years. Similar to the present findings, coping with general stressors through emotional responses (e.g., yelling, crying) – but not coping through distancing behaviors (e.g., forget the whole thing) – were associated with youth-reported externalizing and internalizing symptoms. The authors suggested that distancing (avoidance) coping might represent an especially useful short-term coping response for youth living in socioeconomically distressed conditions.

The present sample of adolescents was recruited from organizations that serve socioeconomically disadvantaged families and communities. These organizations are situated within a region where, at the time of data collection, families had a much lower mean income in comparison to families living in surrounding regions. Although socioeconomic status was not assessed among adolescent participants, it is likely that participants’ families had lower incomes in comparison to families living in nearby regions. Research suggests that low socioeconomic status may constrain or promote adolescents’ development or use of specific coping strategies. In one study of urban Mexican-American and European-American adolescents, lower socioeconomic status was associated with less use of problem-focused coping and more use of emotion-focused coping [54]. Some evidence supports the idea that emotion-focused coping may be particularly adaptive in environments that afford fewer opportunities for control. Utilizing different samples of adults and methodological approaches (i.e., internet-based survey, standardized laboratory paradigm), Troy and colleagues [56] found in three separate studies that emotion-focused coping was associated with lower levels of depression among individuals of lower SES, but not higher SES. Because problem-focused coping may result in more positive outcomes than emotion-focused coping alone when stressors are controllable [20,21,22], socioeconomically disadvantaged adolescents may benefit from prevention interventions to strengthen both problem-focused and emotion-focused coping skills, as well as skills to evaluate the controllability of stressors.

Study Limitations. The primary limitation of the present study is its cross-sectional design. This limits the ability to make causal inferences from observed associations. In general, mediation analyses are not advised in cross-sectional datasets unless a case can be made that the temporal ordering of examined variables is likely to be correct [57]. The present research tested a model in which contextual experiences (adolescents’ relationships with caregivers and exposure to uncontrollable stressors and violence) influenced coping strategies, which in turn influenced adjustment outcomes (externalizing and internalizing symptoms, academic investment). While this model is conceptually plausible, it must be corroborated through future longitudinal research. Additional research with longitudinal study designs is needed to determine whether family and community contexts prospectively influence the development of coping strategies among children and adolescents. In addition, research is needed to determine whether coping strategies influence trajectories of behavioral health, emotional health, and academic investment into young adulthood.

In addition to the cross-sectional study design, the present study utilized a relatively small sample along with a convenience sampling method. The small sample meant that small effect sizes would not be significant. Based on a simulation study conducted by Fritz and MacKinnon [58], the present study had the power to detect mediation effects for which the association between the contextual factor and the coping variable, as well as the coping variable and the adjustment outcome, were both at least moderate in size. While the small convenience sample may reduce generalizability to other populations of youth, the fact that some findings are consistent with past literature makes it more likely that novel findings may hold true outside of the study sample, particularly for African American, socioeconomically disadvantaged adolescents. It must also be noted that analyses utilized data reported by adolescents, and not data reported by other informants (e.g., parents) or archival sources (e.g., medical, school, or club records). Future research utilizing multi-informant/source study designs is needed.

Clinical Implications. Family counseling may aid in improving relationships between caregivers and children if these relationships are characterized by conflict or a lack of support. The present study suggests that support from caregivers may be particularly important to adolescents’ utilization of behavioral/problem-focused coping. One advantage of family counseling is that caregivers and children can learn to identify individual- and family-level stressors and utilize adaptive coping strategies that fit the controllability of stressors. Individual counseling and school- or community-based socio-emotional programming may assist adolescents in developing a repertoire of adaptive strategies to cope with stressors. For example, Creating Opportunities for Personal Empowerment (COPE) is an evidence-based cognitive behavioral therapy program for children, adolescents, and young adults that can be implemented in primary and secondary schools and health care systems, including primary care practices [59, 60].

Summary

Coping is recognized as an important life skill that exerts promotive and protective effects with respect to behavioral health, emotional health, and academic achievement. To promote optimal youth development, it is important to consider the social ecological context in which children and adolescents are developing coping skills. In the present cross-sectional analysis of adolescents recruited from an urban Pre-K-8 school and Boys and Girls Club, coping strategies were examined as mediators of associations between family and community contexts and adjustment outcomes (externalizing symptoms, internalizing symptoms, academic investment). Findings suggest pathways through which different coping strategies may develop and exert effects on the health and well-being of adolescents; these pathways must be corroborated through future longitudinal research. Unsupportive, conflictual relationships with caregivers and exposure to violence may lead to engagement in negative coping strategies (coping through anger and helplessness), which may in turn lead to the development of externalizing and internalizing symptoms and low academic investment. Engaging in avoidance may be an adaptive coping strategy in the context of uncontrollable stressors. However, adolescents must be equipped with skills to distinguish between uncontrollable and controllable stressors and to engage in appropriate coping strategies, depending on the nature of the stressor they are experiencing (e.g., problem-focused coping in response to academic challenges). Additional research is needed to determine whether family and community contexts prospectively influence the development of coping strategies among children and adolescents, and whether coping strategies influence trajectories of emotional health, behavioral health, and academic investment into young adulthood.