Abstract
One way to avert negative influences on well-being when confronted with blocked goals is the flexible adjustment of one’s goals to the given situation. This study examines developmental differences in flexible goal adjustment (FGA) regarding age and gender in a sample of N = 815 participants (10 to 20 years; M = 13.63, SD = 2.60, 48.5% male). Moreover, it is investigated if FGA consists of specific cognitive coping and emotion regulation strategies and if some are more indicative than others at different developmental stages. Results showed no age differences in FGA, but in the strategies positive reappraisal, coping humor, acceptance, and optimistic thinking. These strategies were also most indicative for FGA. Optimistic thinking was more indicative in younger adolescents, while reappraisal and coping humor were more indicative in older adolescents. Regarding gender differences, boys had higher scores in FGA and reappraisal than girls. Results highlight the necessity to consider the processes constituting FGA from a developmental perspective.
Keywords
Goals play an essential role in life: Setting, pursuing, and reaching goals contributes to personal development and determines subjective well-being (Brandtstädter, 2006; Brandtstädter, 2009; Wrosch, Scheier, & Miller, 2013), however, they can not always be achieved. Each individual, regardless of age, will be confronted with blocked goals that remain unattainable and can not be reached through tenacious goal pursuit or active problem solving efforts. The difficulty or even the incapacity to make progress on pursuing a goal, however, can cause stress and negative affect in individuals (Carver & Scheier, 1990). One possibility to avert negative influences on personal well-being and health is to adjust goals flexibly (Brandtstädter & Rothermund, 2002; Wrosch et al., 2003). Flexible goal adjustment implies the disengagement from a goal by downgrading and devaluating the blocked goal or positive reappraisal of the situation on the one hand, and the reengagement towards new goals by rescaling and revaluating ambitions and other available goals on the other hand (Brandtstädter, 2006, 2009; Greve & Strobl, 2004; Wrosch et al., 2003). Thus, flexible goal adjustment implies the adaptation of the self and one’s goals to the given situation, rather than tenaciously trying to change the situation even if all efforts fail. Cross-sectional and longitudinal research has shown that successful flexible goal adjustment leads to mental and physical health and well-being at all ages (Brandtstädter, 2009; Freund & Baltes, 1998, 2002; Haase, Heckhausen, & Wrosch, 2013; Thomsen, Fritz, Mößle, & Greve, 2015; Wrosch, Miller, Scheier, & de Pontet, 2007; Wrosch et al., 2013). Until now, however, there is still a lack of empirically funded knowledge what constitutes flexible goal adjustment or which strategies are involved in the process of adjusting goals flexibly. Moreover, evidence on the developmental differences in flexible goal adjustment during childhood and adolescence is also sparse and existing studies report contradictory results. The present study aims to give a better insight in both topics by investigating a sample of 815 children and adolescents.
Flexible Goal Adjustment under the Perspective of Life-Span Developmental Psychology
Theories that broach the issue of flexible goal adjustment have its source in the area of life-span developmental psychology. One of its central postulates is that individuals—in a way as (co-) producers—shape and influence their own development across the life span (Baltes, 1987; Greve &Staudinger, 2006). Within this perspective on developmental self-regulation, individuals are characterized by their competence to adapt to changing situations flexibly: On the one hand, they are able to set and to pursue their own goals, on the other hand, they are able to readjust und to disengage from these goals, in particular when confronted with invincible obstacles. Under this perspective, three major approaches have arisen: 1. the dual-process model of developmental regulation (DPM, assimilative and accommodative regulation, Brandtstädter, 2009; Brandtstädter & Rothermund, 2002); 2. the motivational theory of life-span development (MTD, primary and secondary control processes, Heckhausen & Schulz, 1995; Heckhausen, Wrosch, & Schulz, 2010); and 3. the model of selection, optimization, and compensation (SOC, Baltes & Baltes, 1990; Freund & Baltes, 2002). All theories share the assumption that people influence their own development by either pursuing desired goals, or, especially when confronted with invincibly blocked goals, flexibly adjusting their goals (for commonalities and differences, see Boerner & Jopp, 2007; Haaseet al., 2013). Haase and colleagues (2013) point out, that accommodative processes (DPM), compensatory secondary control strategies (MTD), and aspects of loss based compensatory control (SOC) serve to help the individual to disengage from a goal and thus, to flexibly adjust one’s goal.
Studies on the development of flexible goal adjustment have mainly focused on samples from young to old adulthood, but rather neglected its development during the age period of childhood and adolescence. Within the framework of DPM, several studies indicate that flexible goal adjustment increases over the adult life span (Brandtstädter, Wentura, & Greve, 1993), however, there are no studies with samples in adolescence or childhood. Studies within the SOC framework found positive age trends in adolescents from the age of 14 up to middle adulthood (Freund & Baltes, 2002). Within the MTD framework, studies also show an increase of flexible goal adjustment in adult samples (Wrosch & Heckhausen, 1999; Wrosch, Heckhausen, & Lachman, 2000). For younger age groups, Heckhausen and Schulz (1995) suppose an increase of flexible goal adjustment during childhood and adolescence. There are, however, only four studies that investigate age differences in younger age groups: Band and Weisz (1988; 1990) found higher levels of goal adjustment strategies in adolescents (Study 1: M = 12.0 years; Study 2: M = 14.6 years) than in children (Study 1: M = 8.8 years; Study 2: M = 6.6 and 9.4 years). In a study with 1,032 boys and girls between 8 and 16 years, however, Thurber and Weisz (1997) found a quadratic trend for goal adjustment in low homesick children, decreasing from age 8 to 13 and increasing from age 14 to 16, as well as a linear decrease in high homesick children. Contrary, Fear and colleagues (2009) found no association between age and goal adjustment strategies in 9 to 15 year-olds. In sum, under the perspective of the three major life-span-approaches, empirical evidence on developmental trends of flexible goal adjustment in childhood and adolescence is sparse. Moreover, results of the few studies do not show a clear, but rather four different trends (linear increases, linear decreases, quadratic trends, or no development) for the development of flexible goaladjustment.
Besides to the investigation of age differences, a few studies further investigate the role of gender in flexible goal adjustment in childhood and adolescence. Here, results mostly reveal no gender differences (Band & Weisz, 1988; Fear et al., 2009; Greve & Thomsen, 2013), however, one study reported adolescent boys scoring higher on flexible goal adjustment than girls (Thomsen & Greve, 2013).
Flexible Goal Adjustment under the Perspective of Coping and Emotion Regulation
Apart from this meta-perspective of life-span psychology on flexible goal adjustment as a way to shape one’s own path of life, flexible goal adjustment can also be considered on a more concrete level of coping with obstacles in life (“coping flexibility”, Cheng, Lau, & Chan, 2014). Flexible goal adjustment especially becomes relevant when goals are invincibly blocked and impossible to achieve and thus, it happens in concrete coping situations. Coping can be defined as regulation under stress (Aldwinet al., 2011; Compas et al., 2001; Eisenberg, Fabes, & Guthrie, 1997; Skinner & Zimmer-Gembeck, 2007) and refers to “how people mobilize, modulate, manage, energize, and coordinate their behavior, emotion, and attention (or fail to do so) under stress”(Skinner & Zimmer-Gembeck, 2009, p. 6). According to this definition, coping also involves the need to regulate upcoming emotions, referred to as emotion regulation (Eisenberg & Morris, 2002; Eisenberg, Valiente, & Sulik, 2009; Gross, 1998b; Skinner & Zimmer-Gembeck, 2007). Under this perspective it seems obvious that the ability to flexibly adjust one’s goals consists of concrete coping and emotion regulation strategies (for similarities and differences between coping and emotion regulation, see Aldwin et al., 2011; Compas et al., 2014; Gross, 1998b). Indeed, under the perspective of the major life-span approaches, flexible goal adjustment is often described by concrete regulation strategies, as e.g. reappraisal and finding positive meanings (DPM, Brandtstädter, 2009), downgrading goals and downward social comparisons (MTD, Heckhausen et al., 2010) or the adaptation of standards and the search for new goals (SOC, Freund & Baltes, 1998). Very similar, especially cognitive, strategies are known from coping and emotion regulation research (Abel, 2002; Ayers & Sandler, 1999; Compas et al., 2001; Garnefski, Kraaij, & Spinhoven, 2001; Garnefski et al., 2007; Gross, 1998b; Kuiper, McKenzie, & Belanger, 1995): Some strategies support the individual to change the perspective on the problem by reinterpretation or the attachment of a positive (positive reappraisal or positive cognitive restructuring) or a humorous meaning (coping humor). Other strategies turn attention away from the stressor, e.g. by thinking about pleasant things (positive refocusing, focus on the positive, or positive thinking) or by the comparison with less fortunate people or situations (minimization or putting into perspective). Strategies as optimistic thinking refer to have positive thoughts about the things that will follow after the stressor and acceptance refers to simply accept the situation how it was experienced. All these cognitive strategies described by coping and emotion regulation research demonstrate striking parallels to regulation strategies that are used to describe flexible goal adjustment by the major life-span approaches. Until now, however, there is nearly no empirical evidence on coping and regulation strategies that constitute flexible goal adjustment. One study that investigated the association between goal adjustment, cognitive and behavioral coping, and indicators of subjective well-being among adults under stressful life circumstances (Wrosch, Amir, & Miller, 2011) revealed different negative (self-blame and substance-use) and positive (active coping, planning, instrumental support, positive reframing, humor, religion, self-distraction, venting) associations between goal adjustment and coping. Another study reported a significant correlation of r = 0.33 with cognitive reappraisal strategies in late adolescence (Andreotti et al., 2011).
Under the perspective of coping and emotion regulation research, there is more empirical knowledge about the developmental pathways of cognitive coping and emotion regulation strategies that are related to flexible goal adjustment. In a review on the development of coping across childhood and adolescence, Zimmer-Gembeck and Skinner (2011) found nineteen studies that investigate the development of coping strategies associated with flexible goal adjustment (e.g. cognitive restructuring, distraction, focus on positive, positive reinterpretation and growth, acceptance, minimization; named here as “accommodative coping”). To summarize the results of the review, a general developmental trend could not be detected again: Eight studies found an increase between childhood and adolescence, during adolescence, and between adolescence and adulthood (especially when items where combined with other items assessing problem-focused coping). However, nine studies did not find any age effects during childhood, between childhood and early adolescence, and during adolescence. Here, items focused more directly on the reduction of the stressor and were not confounded with items additionally measuring problem-focused coping. At least, two studies demonstrated lower accommodative coping in adolescence than in early adolescence and late childhood (for detailed information about the involved studies, see Zimmer-Gembeck & Skinner, 2011, p. 11). Studies within the emotion regulation framework, mainly focusing on reappraisal strategies (Gross, 1998a, 1998b; Gross & John, 2003), also reportmixed findings. For instance, Gullone, Hughes, King, and Tonge (2010) longitudinally investigated cognitive reappraisal strategies in 1,128 participants between 9 and 15 years and found reappraisal relatively stable and little individually varying over time. Deeper analyses showed a negative relationship between the reappraisal intercept and age, indicating a greater use of reappraisal strategies by younger compared to older participants. Moreover, no age differences between a sub-sample of 13 to 15-years olds and a sample of young adults between 18 and 20 years were found. In sum, under the perspective of coping and emotion regulation research, empirical evidence on developmental trends of strategies related to flexible goal adjustment also paint a mixed and inconsistent picture. Possibly, the contradictory findings are due to a lack of comparability of the studies, as all of them investigate heterogeneous (ranges of) age groups, use distinct questionnaires and examine various coping and emotion regulation strategies (e.g. cognitive restructuring, acceptance, minimization) that might be developed with different quality and quantity over childhood and adolescence.
Concerning possible gender differences, studies reveal inconsistent results: While most studies show no gender effects (De Boo & Wicherts, 2009; Hampel & Petermann, 2006; Hsieh & Stright, 2012), there are also studies reporting gender differences in different directions (Connor-Smith et al., 2000; Hampel & Petermann, 2006). Certainly, the heterogeneous results could also be due to the lack of comparability of the studies, age groups, or coping strategies, however, as developmental pathways are different under different conditions and depend on individual constellations, it is also not surprising that the results on gender effects, as a proxy for different developmental conditions, reveal a mixed picture.
Aims and Hypotheses of the Present Study
The lack of knowledge on the structure and the development of flexible goal adjustment during childhood and adolescence make further research reasonably important, especially if we understand the ability of flexibly adjusting goals as an important resource to maintain subjective life quality, well-being and health. If we, in the long run, aim to promote functional regulation resources, it is inevitable to gather further information on their constitution and developmental patterns in childhood and adolescence. Thus, the present study with N = 815 pupils from late childhood to late adolescence has two mainobjectives:
First, developmental differences in flexible goal adjustment and its related cognitive coping and emotion regulation strategies in childhood and adolescence are investigated in more detail. Albeit research on age differences in flexible goal adjustment is sparse and the few existing results are mixed, it is supposed here that the ability to adjust goals flexibly should improve in the period from late childhood to late adolescence. Research on the underlying neural mechanisms of cognitive emotion regulation supports this hypothesis, as it gives evidence that developmental changes in brain structure and function, especially in the prefrontal cortex, are connected to improvements in cognitive control abilities, executive function and (meta)-cognitive skills (Barnea-Goraly et al., 2005; Bunge & Wright, 2007; Lewis & Stieben, 2004; McRae et al., 2012; Perlman & Pelphrey, 2011). Moreover, research has shown that cognitive processes are involved in flexible goal adjustment (e.g. abstract and divergent thinking, Greve & Thomsen, 2013; Thomsen & Greve, 2013). Since flexible goal adjustment is primarily described by cognitive regulation (e.g. reframing, finding positive meanings, downgrading goals), it should grow when prefrontal regions grow. Here, a linear increase is expected, expressed by young adolescents showing the lowest levels of flexible goal adjustment, followed by middle adolescents with medium levels and late adolescents with the highest levels. The same developmental patterns are expected for the associated cognitive coping and emotion regulation strategies. Moreover, due to the fact that puberty is a continuous process occurring between late childhood and late adolescence and temporally differs between girls and boys (Dorn, Dahl, Woodward, & Biro, 2006) it might be possible that girls and boys show different patterns in the development of flexible goal adjustment and its related strategies. Thus, the role of gender is additionally examined as an explorative factor.
Second, as there is no empirical evidence that flexible goal adjustment consists of concrete coping and emotion regulation strategies, their association is examined in more detail. Here, it could be supposed that specific cognitive coping and emotion regulation strategies are more predictive for flexible goal adjustment than others. In particular, positive reappraisal or optimistic thinking could be one of the key processes in adjusting goals flexibly, as, according to the three major approaches of life-span psychology, flexible goal adjustment requires a change of the perspective on the blocked goal through a positive viewpoint at the situation. Moreover, under a developmental perspective, it could additionally be supposed that specific cognitive coping and emotion regulation strategies could be more (or less) associated with flexible goal adjustment at different developmental stages. For instance, cognitively easier strategies (e.g. optimistic thinking) could possibly be more predictive for flexible goal adjustment in younger than in older age groups, whereas cognitively more challenging strategies (e.g. coping humor) could be more predictive in older than in younger ages. Due to the lack of evidence, these questions are investigated exploratory. At least, it could be assumed that there are gender-specific preferences of strategies related with flexible goal adjustment (e.g. boys prefer coping humor in order to flexibly adjust their goals compared to girls). Thus, the role of gender in the relation between strategies and flexible goal adjustment is also examined exploratory.
Method
Procedure
To test the abovementioned hypotheses, a cross-sectional questionnaire study was conducted. Participants were recruited in six schools in Northern Germany, covering the four main educational levels academic-track (“Gymnasium”), intermediate-track (“Realschule”), base-level-track (“Hauptschule”), and primary-track (“Grundschule”). After parental consent was obtained, data collection took place in school during one regular school lesson (45 minutes).
Participants
In sum, N = 815 students between 10 and 20 years (M = 13.63, SD = 2.60; N = 28 students did not specify their age) participated in the study. N = 413 (51.5%) students were female and N = 389 (48.5%) were male (N = 13 participants did not specify their sex). Twenty classes from the academic-track (grades 5 to 12, n = 452; 55.5%), 7 classes from the intermediate-track (grades 5 to 10, n = 156; 19.1%), 5 classes from the base-level-track (grades 6 to 10, n = 76; 9.3%) and 8 classes from the primary-track (grade 4, n = 131; 16.1%) participated. For a subsequently conducted, detailed age-group analyses, participants were divided into groups that indicate their developmental level. Skinner and Zimmer-Gembeck (2007) point out that theory and research indicate specific transition points during childhood and adolescence “during which structure, organization, and flexibility in coping processes are likely to undergo significant qualitative and quantitative shifts” (p. 128). Accordingto their suggestions, three age groups were build: Late childhood to early adolescence (ages 10 to 11), early to middle adolescence (ages 12 to 15), and middle to late adolescence (ages 16 to 20). 1
Measures
Flexible goal adjustment
Flexible goal adjustment was assessed by the Flexible Goal Adjustment Scale (FGA, Brandtstädter & Renner, 1990). Because the scale was originally constructed for adults, a linguistically adapted version for adolescents (Thomsen & Greve, 2013) was used. In the introduction, some ordinary situations of blocked goals are exemplary given (e.g. the receipt of an unexpected bad mark in school; a subjectively important trip with friends did not get realized). Then participants are asked to think about how they would generally cope in situations in which goals can not be achieved or wishes remain unfulfilled by means of the following 15 items. Each item has to be answered on a five-point Likert scale (from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree; e.g. “Sometimes things in life don’t go the way you want them to, but I still find it easy to see the good in the unpleasant things in life”, or: “Sometimes I am disappointed or sad about a mishap, for instance a poor grade or the misbehavior of a friend. Yet, I don’t think too much about it. Rather I start with a new task.”). Following detailed item analyses, five items showed a low part-whole correlation (r it < 0.20) and were deleted. For further analyses a general score of the new ten-item scale was constructed by calculating the mean across the items; its internal consistency according to Cronbach’s Alpha was α= 0.75. Compared to other studies that investigate flexible goal adjustment in young age groups, the reliability coefficient is relatively high: Studies with samples between late childhood and middle adolescence consistently report Cronbach’s Alphas between α= 0.67 and 0.73 (Greve & Thomsen,2013; Thomsen et al., 2015; Thomsen & Greve, 2013). Missing data on the flexible goal adjustment scale is very low (0.25%).
Cognitive coping and emotion regulation
Six ways of cognitive coping and emotion regulation were assessed. Here, participants are asked to indicate by the following items what they generally do or think, when they experience negative or unpleasant events. Acceptance (1), positive refocusing (2), positive reappraisal (3), and putting into perspective (4) were assessed by the Cognitive Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (CERQ, Ehring, et al., 2008; Garnefski et al., 2007). Each scale consists of 4 items that have to be answered on a five-point Likert scale (from 1 = almost never to 5 = almost always; sample items for acceptance: “I think that I have to accept it”; positive refocusing: “I think of nice things that have happened to me”; positive reappraisal: “I think that there are good sides to it as well”; putting into perspective: “I think that worse things happen to others”). For further analyses, a general score for each scale was built by calculating the mean across each scale; Cronbach’s Alphas were α= 0.67 for acceptance (one item was deleted because of a low part-whole correlation of r it = 0.20), α= 0.76 for positive refocusing, α= 0.69 for positive reappraisal, and α= 0.69 for putting into perspective. Compared to other studies, these internal consistencies between α= 0.67 and α= 0.76 are typical for this young age group: For the four subscales, Cronbach’s Alphas between α= 0.62 and α= 0.79 in a sample of 9 to 11 year old children Garnefski et al. (2007) and between α= 0.63 and α= 0.80 in a sample of 12 to 18 year old adolescents (Garnefski, Koopman, Kraaij, & ten Cate, 2009) are reported. Each of the four scales shows 0.25% missing data. Optimistic thinking (5) was assessed by the optimistic thinking scale from the Children’s Coping Strategies Checklist (CCSC, Ayers & Sandler, 1999). The scale consists of 4 items that need to be answered on a five-point Likert scale (from 1 = almost never to 5 = almost always, e.g., “You told yourself that things would get better”). Again, a mean score for each scale was constructed; its internal consistency according to Cronbach’s Alpha was α= 0.66, the same coefficient reported by the authors. The scale contains 0.37 % missing data. Coping Humor (6) was assessed with the coping humor scale from Martin and Lefcourt (1983). The scale consists of seven items that are answered on a five-point Likert scale (from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree; e.g. “I have often found that my problems have been greatly reduced when I tried to find something funny in them”). After item analysis, one item with a low part-whole correlation of r it = –0.01 was deleted. Again, a mean score for the new six-item scale was constructed; its internal consistency according to Cronbach’s Alphas was α= 0.63. A similar coefficient has been reported by the authors (α= 0.61, Martin & Lefcourt, 1983) and by other studies (between α= 0.60 and α= 0.70, Führ, 2002). The coping humor scale shows acceptable missing data of 3.07%.
Plan of Statistical Analyses
Initially, all study variables were analyzed for possible gender or educational differences, using t-tests and one-way analyses of variance (ANOVA).
Developmental and gender differences in flexible goal adjustment were tested by a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with age group and gender as factors and flexible goal adjustment as outcome. The hypothesized linear trend was investigated by the calculation of polynomial contrasts, possible age group and gender differences were located with Bonferroni post-hoc tests. Age and gender differences in cognitive coping and emotion regulation strategies were tested by a two-way multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) with age group and gender as factors and the six cognitive coping and emotion regulation as outcomes. Subsequently, two-way analyses of variance (ANOVA) were calculated to locate significant effects. Again, polynomial contrasts and Bonferroni post-hoc tests were conducted.
The association between cognitive coping and emotion regulation strategies and flexible goal adjustment over the whole sample and within the subsamples (age groups and gender) and the question if specific strategies are more (or less) indicative for flexible goal adjustment were investigated by correlation and regression analyses. In order to compare if the association between the strategies and flexible goal adjustment differed between the subsamples (age groups or gender), further regression analyses, predicting flexible goal adjustment by dummy-coded age-group (or gender), each of the coping strategies, and the age-group (or gender) by coping interaction, tested if the slopes differed significantly from each other.
Results
Descriptives and Preliminary Analyses
Descriptive information on all study variables for the whole sample as well as by age group and gender are shown in Table 1. t-tests revealed that boys showed higher scores in flexible goal adjustment, t(798) = –3.78, p < 0.01, acceptance, t(798) = –2.32, p < 0.05, positive reappraisal, t(798) = –3.25, p < 0.01, and coping humor, t(778.546) = –2.00, p < 0.05. For educational level, single one-way ANOVAs showed a significant group difference for optimistic thinking, F(3,808) = 6.56, p < 0.01, η2 = 0.02. The effect size can be interpreted as small (Cohen, 1988). Bonferroni post-hoc tests indicated that children attending the primary-track (M = 3.13) do not significantly differ from adolescents attending the base-level-track (M = 2.84), but from adolescents attending the intermediate-track (M = 2.82, p < 0.01) and the academic-track (M = 2.77, p < 0.01). For flexible goal adjustment and all other coping and emotion regulation strategies no educational differences could be found.
Age and Gender Differences in Flexible Goal Adjustment
Single ANOVA for flexible goal adjustment (Figure 1) showed a non-, but almost-, significant main effect of age group, F(2,777) = 2.81, p = 0.06, η2 = 0.01. The contrast analysis revealed no significant age trends. Moreover, ANOVA revealed a significant main effect of gender, F(1,777) = 12.27, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.02. As t-tests had already shown, boys scored higher on flexible goal adjustment than girls. At least, the interaction between age group and gender turned out to be significant, F(2,777) = 4.06, p < 0.05, η2 = 0.01. Detailed analyses of the simple main effects indicated that female participants do not differ over age groups, but male participants significantly (p < 0.05) differ between early / middle adolescence (M = 3.23) and middle / late adolescence (M = 3.41), indicating an increase of flexible goal adjustment in boys. Moreover, male participants scored significantly higher than females in the group of early to middle adolescents (M = 3.23 vs. M = 3.01, p < 0.05) and in the group of middle / late adolescence (M = 3.41 vs. M = 3.10, p < 0.01). All effect sizes can be interpreted as small.
Age and Gender Differences in Cognitive Coping and Emotion Regulation Strategies
Using Pillai’s trace, MANOVA for all strategies revealed a significant effect of age group, V = 0.08, F(12, 1510) = 5.1, p < 0.01, a significant effect of gender, V = 0.02, F(6, 754) = 2.3, p < 0.05, and a non-significant interaction effect, V = 0.02, F(12, 1510) = 1.5, p < 0.05.
Single ANOVAs showed significant main effects for age group for acceptance, F(2,776) = 5.22, p < 0.01, ηp2 = 0.01, positive reappraisal, F(2,777) = 4.48, p < 0.05, ηp2 = 0.01, optimistic thinking, F(2,790) = 3.82, p < 0.01, ηp2 = 0.05, and coping humor, F(2,759) = 10.329, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.02 with small effect sizes. Contrast analyses only showed a significant linear decreasing trend, t(776) = –2.15, p < 0.05, for optimistic thinking. Bonferroni post hoc analyses revealed that acceptance was significantly lower in the late childhood / early adolescence group than in the middle / late adolescence group (p < 0.01); positive reappraisal was significantly lower in the early / middle adolescence than in the middle / late adolescence group (p < 0.01); optimistic thinking was significantly higher in the late childhood / early adolescence group than in the early /middle adolescence group (p < 0.05); and coping humor was significantly lower in the late childhood /early adolescence group (p < 0.001) and in the early / middle adolescent group (p < 0.001) than in the middle adolescence / late adolescence group. Summarized, except for optimistic thinking, younger participants generally scored lower on regulation variables than older participants (for means, see Table 1). For putting into perspective and positive refocusing no age group differences were found.
For gender, a significant main effect for positive reappraisal was found, F(1,777) = 8.22, p < 0.01, ηp2 = 0.01, indicating that boys score significantly higher than girls. The effect size, however, was small.
A significant interaction effect with a small effect size was found for optimistic thinking, F(2,776) = 3.15, p < 0.05, ηp2 = 0.01. Detailed analyses of the simple main effects for optimistic thinking show that female participants differed significantly (p < 0.05) between late childhood / early adolescence and (M = 2.99) and middle / late adolescence (M = 2.72), indicating a decrease of optimistic thinking in girls. Male participants also differed significantly over age groups (p < 0.05), however, they showed an increase between early / middle adolescence (M = 2.74) and middle / late adolescence (M = 2.99). Moreover, male participants scored significantly higher than females in the group of middle / late adolescence (M = 2.99 vs. M = 2.72, p < 0.05). For coping humor, a significant interaction effect with a small effect size was also found, F(2,759) = 3.83, p < 0.05, ηp2 = 0.01. Detailed analyses showed that male participants (M = 3.52) differed significantly from females (M = 3.21) in the group of middle / late adolescents (p < 0.01).
Associations between Cognitive Coping and Emotion Regulation Strategies and Flexible Goal Adjustment for the Whole Sample
Correlation analyses (Table 2) showed significant positive associations between flexible goal adjustment and all cognitive coping and emotion regulation strategies. The highest correlation coefficient was found for positive reappraisal, the lowest for positive refocusing. Furthermore, all cognitive coping and emotion regulation strategies correlated significantly positively with one another.
The prediction of flexible goal adjustment through the six cognitive coping and emotion regulation strategies over the whole sample showed that positive reappraisal, β= 0.28, t(782) = 7.17, p < 0.01, acceptance, β= 0.13, t(782) = 3.76, p < 0.01, coping humor, β= 0.12, t(782) = 3.58, p < 0.01, and optimistic thinking, β= 0.10, t(782) = 2.57, p < 0.05, significantly contributed to flexible goal adjustment. The strategies putting into perspective, β= 0.04, t(782) = 0.98, ns., and positive refocusing, β= 0.05, t(782) = 1.36, ns., did not contribute to flexible goal adjustment. All variables explained a significant proportion of variance in flexible goal adjustment, R2 = 0.27, F(6,782) = 47.25, p > 0.01.
Associations between Cognitive Coping and Emotion Regulation Strategies and Flexible Goal Adjustment by Age Group
Within age groups, correlation coefficients diverge to a different degree from each other (Table 3). In the late childhood / middle adolescence group the highest correlation coefficient was found for optimistic thinking, whereas in the early / middle adolescence group the highest coefficients were found for positive reappraisal, putting into perspective and acceptance. In the middle / late adolescence group positive reappraisal, acceptance, coping humor and optimistic thinking showed the highest correlations to flexible goal adjustment. Regression analyses testing if the slopes differed significantly between age groups show that the slope for reappraisal in the late childhood / middle adolescence group differed significantly from the slope in the early / middle adolescence, t(777) = 2.44, p < 0.05, and the middle / late adolescence group, t(777) = 3.95, p < 0.01. Moreover, the slope for coping humor in early / middle adolescence differed significantly from the slope in the middle / late adolescence group, t(760) = 2.04, p < 0.05.
The prediction of flexible goal adjustment through the six cognitive coping and emotion regulation strategies by age group (Table 4) revealed particular strategies to be more predictive for flexible goal adjustment depending on age: In the late childhood to early adolescence group only optimistic thinking significantly predicted flexible goal adjustment, whereas in the group of early to middle adolescents reappraisal, acceptance and putting into perspective; and in the group of middle to late adolescents acceptance, reappraisal, and coping humor were most indicative for flexible goal adjustment. Again, regression analyses were conducted to test if the slopes differed significantly between age groups. Results indicate that the slope for reappraisal in the late childhood / middle adolescence group differed significantly from the slope in the early / middle adolescence t(745) = 2.63, p < 0.01 and the middle / late adolescence group t(745) = 3.84, p < 0.01. Additionally, the slope for optimistic thinking in the late childhood / middle adolescence group differs significantly from the slope in the early / middle adolescence group t(745) = 2.68, p < 0.01.
Associations between Cognitive Coping and Emotion Regulation Strategies and Flexible Goal Adjustment by Gender
Correlation analyses show the highest coefficients for reappraisal and optimistic thinking in girls and positive reappraisal and acceptance in boys (Table 3). Regression analyses, testing if the slopes differed significantly, only show a significant difference for optimistic thinking, t(793) = –2.29, p < 0.05, indicating that optimistic thinking is more strongly connected to flexible goal adjustment in girls than in boys.
The prediction of flexible goal adjustment through the six cognitive coping and emotion regulation strategies by gender (Table 4) revealed particular strategies to be more predictive for flexible goal adjustment regarding gender: While positive reappraisal, optimistic thinking and coping humor were indicative for flexible goal adjustment in girls, boys flexible goal adjustment consisted of acceptance, reappraisal and coping humor. Regression analyses show a significant differences between the slopes for acceptance, t(766) = 2.39, p < 0.05, and optimistic thinking, t(766) = –0.14, p < 0.05.
Discussion and Implications
Results of the present study give new insights into the constitution of flexible goal adjustment in childhood and adolescence: No age effects were found for flexible goal adjustment, but for acceptance, positive reappraisal, optimistic thinking, and coping humor. Here, except for optimistic thinking, younger age groups generally show lower scores than older age groups. Analyses by gender revealed that boys generally score higher on flexible goal adjustment and positive reappraisal. Moreover, significant interaction terms indicate an increase in boys’ flexible goal adjustment and optimistic thinking during middle and late adolescence and a decrease of girls’ optimistic thinking between late childhood and middle adolescence. Regarding the association between flexible goal adjustment and cognitive coping and emotion regulation strategies, in particular positive reappraisal, coping humor, acceptance and optimistic thinking played a role in flexible goal adjustment. Under a developmental perspective, specific cognitive coping and emotion regulation strategies were more associated with flexible goal adjustment at different age levels: For the youngest age group optimistic thinking seemed to play a bigger role in flexible goal adjustment than in the other age groups. In those, particularly positive reappraisal and coping humor were more indicative for flexible goal adjustment. Analyses by gender revealed that optimistic thinking was more indicative for girls and acceptance was more indicative for boys, positive reappraisal and coping humor, however, were representative for flexible goal adjustment in both sexes. The following section reflects the results of the present study in more detail.
First, it is remarkable that no age differences were found for flexible goal adjustment, but for acceptance, positive reappraisal, coping humor, and optimistic thinking. Here, although all of the first three mentioned strategies imply an increasing tendency, age groups differed at varying stages: Acceptance differed between late childhood and middle adolescence, reappraisal between early and late adolescence, and coping humor between late childhood / middle adolescence and late adolescence. Optimistic thinking even showed a decreasing trend over time and no age trend could be found for putting into perspective or positive refocusing. These results suggest that the assessed strategies seem to be differently in their cognitive complexity, possibly require different cognitive prerequisites and thus, possibly develop at different points of time. Coping humor and positive reappraisal seem to be the most complex strategies as they require the ability of perspective taking, metacognitive skills and cognitive control abilities, connected to complex ongoing developmental changes in brain structure and function during adolescence (Barnea-Goraly et al., 2005; Bunge & Wright, 2007; Falkenberg, 2010; McGhee, 1983; McRae et al., 2012; Perlman & Pelphrey, 2011; Wicki, 2000). Acceptance, however, seems to be a cognitively easier strategy, as it does not require a complex reframing of a situation. For the other three strategies, it can rather be supposed that their initial development seems to begin earlier in life: Optimistic thinking might be one of the more easier (childish or perhaps naïve) strategies that decreases between childhood and adolescence when self-concept and own competence beliefs become more realistic (Cole et al., 2001; Eccles, Wigfield, Harold, & Blumenfeld, 1993; Eccles et al., 1989; Robins & Trzesniewski, 2005). Positive refocusing could be interpreted as a kind of cognitive distraction, which is already found during late childhood (Zimmer-Gembeck &Skinner, 2011) and putting into perspective might also be easily applied in childhood when children become familiar with comparisons with one another (e.g., in primary school, in sports). Thus, for these two strategies, an increase might rather have been expected between early and late childhood (probably about ages 6 to 10; Compas et al., 2001; Losoya, Eisenberg, & Fabes, 1998), resulting in the lack of age effects in this sample.
Interestingly, exactly the four cognitive coping and emotion regulation strategies that showed significant age effects (acceptance, positive reappraisal, coping humor, and optimistic thinking) were also significantly indicative for flexible goal adjustment in the whole sample. Taking a deeper insight in the constitution of flexible goal adjustment through adding a developmental perspective, the strategies were also differently indicative for flexible goal adjustment: While optimistic thinking played a significant bigger role in flexible goal adjustment in younger adolescents, positive reappraisal and coping humor were significantly more indicative in older adolescents (also acceptance played a role in older adolescents’ flexible goal adjustment, however, it was not significantly stronger associated to flexible goal adjustment than in younger adolescents). These results not only point out that flexible goal adjustment seems to be constituted by different cognitive coping and emotion regulation strategies, but also that it indeed has to be considered under a developmental perspective. Especially in middle and older adolescents, more complex strategies – as positive reappraisal and coping humor – play a significant role in flexible goal adjustment, as both strategies require a change of the perspective on the blocked goal through adding a positive or a humorous viewpoint at the situation. For younger adolescents, however, flexible goal adjustment is rather constituted by less complex cognitive strategies – as optimistic thinking – that only requires the ability to add positive thoughts to the situation but not involves complex reframing processes. If flexible goal adjustment is thus indeed constituted by different coping and emotion regulation strategies that develop differently at different stages during childhood and adolescence, this also could at least explain the lack of age differences in flexible goal adjustment.
At least, differences between boys and girls were detected in flexible goal adjustment and positive reappraisal. On both scales, boys scored higher than girls. Moreover, for flexible goal adjustment and optimistic thinking, data revealed an increase only for boys during adolescence, whereas girls’ optimistic thinking decreased between childhood and adolescence. Moreover, boys in middle adolescence scored higher in flexible goal adjustment, optimistic thinking, and coping humor. One possible explanation for boys scoring generally higher and showing different developmental pathways than girls could be a different socialization of coping strategies(Frydenberg & Lewis, 2000). Possibly girls and boys are taught or learn to use different strategies when confronted with stressors, thus resulting in significant gender effects (e.g. girls are using more social support; De Boo & Wicherts, 2009; Vierhaus & Lohaus, 2009). Another explanation could be due to the hint that girls tend to use more maladaptive coping strategies in adolescence than boys (Hampel & Petermann, 2005; Seiffge-Krenke, 1993). As both flexible goal adjustment and the assessed cognitive coping and emotion regulation strategies rather belong to the category of adaptive strategies (Aldao, Nolen-Hoeksema, & Schweizer, 2010; Garnefski et al., 2009; Garnefski, Legerstee, Kraaij, Van Den Kommer, & Teerds, 2002; Thomsen et al., 2015),a decline or at least lower scores in the assessed strategies for girls seems plausible. At least, the differences could also be due to a gender bias regarding response behavior. Although the study lacks detailed information necessary for a more differentiated analysis here, the findings underscore the necessity for further investigations of inter-individual differences in intra-individual changes: Obviously, different developmental conditions do make a difference here.
Certainly, some limitations of our study need to be mentioned. First, we exclusively used self-report questionnaires that might be vulnerable to response characteristics (Compas et al., 2001). Moreover, questions concerning flexible goal adjustment and cognitive coping and emotion regulation strategies require a strong introspective ability that especially participants in childhood and early adolescence possibly might not yet have developed completely (Harter, 1999). The moderate internal consistencies of some of the scales could be seen as an indicator for this limitation. Moreover, it is hard to detect age differences by using scales from questionnaires, as it reduces the identification of changes by suppressing individual variations. Further longitudinal research over a longer time period, with younger participants, with multiple informants (teacher, parents, or implicit measures), and other assessment methods (e.g. observation methods) is needed to gain more and deeper information on the developmental pathways and developmental shifts of flexible goal adjustment and its associated strategies. Here, other developmental markers as e.g. pubertal maturation should be assessed to display adolescent development more precise (Dorn et al., 2006). Future studies should also go deeper into the association of flexible goal adjustment and cognitive coping and emotion regulation strategies in order to clarify if the empirically associated strategies are components, correlates or developmental precursors of flexible goal adjustment. Moreover, they should not only clarify how gender (and other developmental) differences in flexible goal adjustment evolve, but also how they interact with the development of the self (e.g. self-esteem, self-concept, health) at different stages of age. At the same time, they should also focus on the development of goal engagement (Haase et al., 2013) in childhood and adolescence. Finally, another important topic for future studies are the developmental and neural conditions for flexible goal adjustment (Greve & Thomsen, 2013; Thomsen & Greve, 2013). If we want to understand how to promote adaptive regulation competencies in individuals, it is not only important to know how they individually differ and develop over time, it also necessary to understand what exactly contributes to the successful development of regulation mechanisms. Once we have understood what leads to the development of adaptive regulation, we will be able to design methods for prevention and intervention of stress and psychological disorders.
Despite of the limitations mentioned above, the present study gives first insights into developmental differences in flexible goal adjustment in childhood and adolescence. Additionally, it offers first empirical hints that flexible goal adjustment contains heterogeneous cognitive coping and emotion regulation strategies that develop differently and, thus, constitute flexible goal adjustment differently, depending on particular developmental stages. The present study not only extends the current state of research on flexible goal adjustment but also provides information on the constitution and development of adaptive resources that help to maintain well-being and health, even under stressful circumstances. Gathering more information on topics like these is inevitable if we want to promote functional regulation resources and contribute to individuals’ health in future.
Footnotes
1
Statistical procedures that involve the analysis of age group differences are calculated with a maximum of N = 787 participants, due to the fact that 28 pupils did not specify their age and thus, could not be assigned to an age group.