James M. Hadder, B.S., Christopher S. Immel, B.A., Michael M. Knepp, M.S.,

1. Longitudinal Analysis of Children’s Coping Behavior Following Residential Fire James M. Hadder, B.S., Christopher S. Immel, B.A., Michael M. Knepp, M.S., Russell T. Jones, Ph.D., Thomas H. Ollendick, Ph.D. INTRODUCTION RESULTS DATA During a study funded by the National Institute of Mental Health, Jones and Ollendick (2002) conduced approximately 160 interviews with children and families exposed to residential fires. One of the specific areas examined was the extent to which children employed coping strategies consistent with the four factors of the “How I Coped Under Pressure” Scale (HICUPS; Ayers, Sandler, West, & Roosa, 1996). This 45-item scale allowed children to indicate the degree to which they engaged in various coping strategies following the fire. A specific aim of this poster was to measure the change in the degree to which children used these various coping strategies over a longitudinal period. Additionally, the degree to which the use of active coping strategies at time 3 could be predicted by the use of one or more of the remaining three strategies at times 1, 2, and 3 was examined.The four coping strategies, identified through confirmatory factor analysis (Ayers et al, 1996) were: Active coping - Engaging in efforts aimed at obtaining control over the stressful situation or one’s emotions Distraction coping - Engaging in positive thoughts and activities to distract one from the stressful situation Avoidant coping - Avoiding or disengaging from the stressful situation or one’s emotional experience Social support seeking coping - Seeking out forms of social support to assist in coping with stressful situations At times 1 through 3, the use of active coping was found to significantly correlate with the three other coping methods measured by the scale over times 1 through 3. We found that 44% of the variance in the extent to which children employed active coping at time three could be accounted for simply by examining the degree to which these children implemented the other three coping methods at times 1 and 2. In addition, 18% of the variance could be explained simply by examining the degree to which the other three methods were employed at time 1 (though this finding did not reach significance). Finally, 80.5% of the variance in active coping could be explained by examining the extent to which the three coping methods were employed at time 3. Correlations Between Active Coping at Time 3 and the 3 other Types of Coping across Times 1 through 3 CONCLUSION These findings suggest that children involved in residential fire engaged in consistent styles of coping across time. Additionally, we propose that, given these data, the various mechanisms involved in each of the four coping strategies may be largely similar (thereby accounting for the strong correlations between each child’s chosen coping strategy). Thus, with regard to practical applications, it would appear as though children involved in stressful situations may benefit from using multiple coping strategies with little strain on their psychological resources (in that the same mechanisms used to implement certain coping strategies may already be at work during the implementation of ongoing coping strategies). Amount of Variance in Active Coping at Time 3 Accounted for by Examining Coping Styles at Times 1 through 3 METHODOLOGY Model 1: Entering distraction, avoidant, and social support seeking coping at time 1 Model 2: Entering distraction, avoidant, and social support seeking coping at time 2 Model 3: Entering distraction, avoidant, and social support seeking coping at time 3 Of the 167 children examined in this study, only 45 were administered the HICUPS due to logistical constraints. Interviews were conducted 1, 6, and 12 months after the fire (times 1, 2, and 3; respectively). Pearson correlations were obtained to determine the extent to which active coping at time 3 correlated with the use of the other 3 coping types at times 1, 2, and 3. To determine the extent to which the amount of variance in children’s use of active coping at time 3 could be accounted for by their use of the other three types of coping at times 1, 2, and 3, three basic models were created and tested in which the other three types of coping at time 1 were entered into model 1, time 2 coping methods were entered into model 2, and time 3 coping methods were entered into model 3. REFERENCES Ayers, T. S., Sandler, I. N., West, S. G., & Roosa, M. W. (1996). A dispositional and situational assessment of children’s coping: Testing alternative models of coping. Journal of Personality, 64, 923-958. Jones, R. T., & Ollendick, T. H. (2002). Residential fires. In A.M. La Greca, W.K. Silverman, E. Vernberg, & M.C. Roberts, (Eds.), Helping children cope with disasters and terrorism (pp. 175-199). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association. Virginia Tech Dept. of Psychology – Stress and Coping Lab Presented at: Association for Psychological Science 19th Annual Convention