Research on coping during childhood and adolescence is distinguished by its focus on how children deal with actual stressors in real-life contexts. Despite burgeoning literatures within age groups, studies on developmental differences and changes have proven difficult to integrate. Two recent advances promise progress toward a developmental framework. First, dual-process models that conceptualize coping as “regulation under stress” establish links to the development of emotional, attentional, and behavioral self-regulation and suggest constitutional underpinnings and social factors that shape coping development. Second, analyses of the functions of higher-order coping families allow identification of corresponding lower-order ways of coping that, despite their differences, are developmentally graded members of the same family. This emerging framework was used to integrate 44 studies reporting age differences or changes in coping from infancy through adolescence. Together, these advances outline a systems perspective in which, as regulatory subsystems are integrated, general mechanisms of coping accumulate developmentally, suggesting multiple directions for future research.

Despite consensus that development shapes every aspect of coping, studies of age differences in coping have proven difficult to integrate, primarily because they examine largely unselected age groups, and utilize overlapping coping categories. A developmental framework was used to organize 58 studies of coping involving over 250 age comparisons or correlations with age. The framework was based on (1) conceptualizations of coping as regulation to suggest ages at which coping should show developmental shifts (Skinner & Zimmer-Gembeck, 2009), and (2) notions of hierarchical families to clarify which coping categories should be distinguished at each age (Skinner, Edge, Altman, & Sherwood, 2003). Developmental patterns in coping (e.g., problem-solving, distraction, support-seeking, escape) were scrutinized with a focus on common age shifts. Two kinds of age trends were discerned, one reflecting increases in coping capacities, as seen in support-seeking (from reliance on adults to more self-reliance), problem-solving (from instrumental action to planful problem-solving), and distraction (adding cognitive to behavioural strategies); and one reflecting improvements in the deployment of different coping strategies according to which ones are most effective in dealing with specific kinds of stressors. Results were used to formulate guidelines for future research on the development of coping.

CONTEXT: Parent-child interaction therapy (PCIT) is effective at reducing children’s externalizing behavior. However, modifications are often made to PCIT, and it is not known whether these impact effectiveness. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review and meta-analyze the effects of PCIT on child externalizing behaviors, considering modifications, study design, and bias. DATA SOURCES: We searched PubMed, PsycINFO, Education Resources Information Center, Sociological Abstracts, and A+ Education. STUDY SELECTION: We selected randomized controlled or quasi-experimental trials. DATA EXTRACTION: We analyzed child externalizing and internalizing behaviors, parent stress, parent-child interactions, PCIT format, and study design and/or characteristics. RESULTS: We included 23 studies (1144 participants). PCIT was superior to control for reducing child externalizing (standardized mean difference [SMD]: −0.87, 95% confidence interval [CI]:−1.17 to −0.58). PCIT studies that required skill mastery had significantly greater reductions in externalizing behavior than those that did not (Mastery: SMD: −1.09, 95% CI: −1.44 to −0.73; Nonmastery: SMD: −0.51,95% CI: −0.85 to −0.17, P = .02). Compared with controls, PCIT significantly reduced parent-related stress (mean difference [MD]: −6.98, 95% CI: −11.69 to −2.27) and child-related stress (MD: −9.87, 95% CI: −13.64 to −6.09). Children in PCIT were observed to be more compliant to parent requests (SMD: 0.89, 95% CI: 0.50 to 1.28) compared with controls. PCIT effectiveness did not differ depending on session length, location (academic versus community settings), or child problems (disruptive behaviors only compared with disruptive behavior and other problems). LIMITATIONS: Results for parent-child observations were inconsistently reported, reducing the ability to pool important data. CONCLUSIONS: PCIT has robust positive outcomes across multiple parent-reported and observed parent-child interaction measures, and modifications may not be required even when implemented in diverse populations.

We conducted a meta-analytic review of 53 studies published between 2000 and 2020 to quantify associations of parents’ emotion regulation with parenting behavior and children’s emotion regulation and internalizing and externalizing symptoms. Twelve meta-analyses, which included between 4 to 22 effect sizes (N from 345 to 3609), were conducted to summarize associations of parent emotion regulation with positive or negative parenting behaviors and child outcomes of emotion regulation, difficulties in emotion regulation, internalizing symptoms, or externalizing behavior. Given the range of behavioral parent emotion regulation measures used across studies, effect sizes for parent emotion regulation strategy use (skill) were analyzed separately from effect sizes for parents’ difficulties with emotion regulation. Summary effect sizes ranged from |.08| to |.28| for relations of parent emotion regulation skill with parenting behaviors and children’s adjustment. Summary effect sizes ranged from |.03| to |.42| for relations of parent emotion regulation difficulties with parenting behaviors and children’s adjustment. In general, parents with better emotion regulation skill or fewer difficulties are higher in positive parenting behaviors and have children with better emotion regulation and fewer internalizing symptoms. Evidence was less clear-cut for child externalizing behaviors. Significant effect size heterogeneity was observed in most analyses, and study characteristics (measures, child age, parent gender, sampling, and region where the study was conducted) were examined as moderators. Measures used, child age, and participant risk status moderated effect size in some analyses.