Content uploaded by Petra Hampel
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Petra Hampel
Content may be subject to copyright.
ORIGINAL PAPER
School-based Stress Management Training for Adolescents:
Longitudinal Results from an Experimental Study
Petra Hampel ÆManuela Meier ÆUrsula Ku
¨mmel
Received: 2 May 2007 / Accepted: 28 June 2007 / Published online: 24 July 2007
Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007
Abstract This study aimed to investigate the effective-
ness of a school-based universal preventive stress man-
agement training program for early and middle adolescents
in comparison with a no-treatment control group. The study
examined the intervention effects of age (early versus
middle adolescents) and gender on perceived stress, inter-
personal coping, and self-efficacy prior, immediately after
as well as 3 months after the intervention. Three hundred
and twenty adolescents (ages 10–14 years) participated in
the study. Whereas both experimental conditions did not
differ substantially in baseline scores, the experimental
group scored higher on perceived self-efficacy compared to
the control group at the follow-up assessment. Addition-
ally, the experimental group showed less perceived stress
and more adaptive coping at the post and follow-up
assessment. Age-dependent intervention effects suggested
that early adolescents primarily benefited from the treat-
ment. Although the effects must be replicated using a
randomized design, the current findings reveal that the
program does strengthen important protective factors for
the psychosocial development of adolescents.
Keywords School-based universal prevention
Perceived stress Interpersonal coping Self-efficacy
Adolescents
Introduction
Research has shown that adolescence is characterized by a
significant increase in stress (Ge et al. 1994; Rudolph and
Hammen 1999; Seiffge-Krenke 2000). More specifically,
adaptation in early and middle adolescence is challenged
by a dramatic increase in developmental tasks as well as
normative stressors (Rudolph and Hammen 1999; Seiffge-
Krenke 2000). Studies have demonstrated that interper-
sonal stressors especially increase during adolescence
(Griffith et al. 2000; Hampel and Petermann 2006;
Rudolph and Hammen 1999), and these stressors have been
shown to be associated more strongly with emotional
and behavioral problems than with academic problems
(Compas et al. 1988). Girls particularly are affected
adversely by the transition to adolescence (Compas et al.
1993; Rudolph and Hammen 1999). Overall, early ado-
lescent girls have been found to be more effected by
multiple stressors and to cope more maladaptively with
stressors, which are associated with internalizing problems
(cf. Grant et al. 2006; Hankin and Abramson 2001; Nolen-
Hoeksema 1987). Increasing evidence supports this inter-
action effect of age and gender with a vulnerable period of
stress-related maladjustment during early adolescence
among girls and middle to late adolescence among boys
(Jose and Brown 2007; Seiffge-Krenke 2000).
Growing evidence suggests that internal resources, such
as coping, self-efficacy, and recovery competence, are
important moderators and mediators in the relationship
between stressors and healthy development (Herman-Stahl
and Petersen 1999; for reviews, see Allmer 1996; Compas
et al. 2001; Grant et al. 2006). That evidence has led us to
design a new school-based universal prevention program
aimed to promote psychological adjustment by strength-
ening coping capacities, recovery abilities, and perceived
P. Hampel (&)
Center of Clinical Psychology and Rehabilitation,
University of Bremen, Grazer Str. 6, 28359 Bremen, Germany
e-mail: petra@uni-bremen.de
M. Meier U. Ku
¨mmel
Department of Psychology, Karl-Franzens-University Graz,
Universita
¨tsplatz 2/III, Graz 8010, Austria
123
J Youth Adolescence (2008) 37:1009–1024
DOI 10.1007/s10964-007-9204-4
self-efficacy (Fig. 1). This study evaluated the effects
of our cognitive-behavioral stress management training
program on perceived stress, coping, and perceived self-
efficacy among early and middle adolescents.
Coping
Coping is defined as action-oriented and intrapsychic
efforts to manage environmental and internal demands,
which are appraised to tax or exceed a person’s resources
(cf. Lazarus and Launier 1978, p.311). A more current
approach understands coping as a subset of broader self-
regulatory processes and defines coping as ‘‘regulatory
efforts that are volitionally and intentionally enacted spe-
cifically in response to stress’’ (Compas et al. 2001, p.89).
A dichotomized concept of coping strategies was pre-
dominantly preferred (for review see Compas et al. 2001);
more direct coping modes (i.e., problem-focused, primary
control, or approach coping), which comprise strategies
directed towards modifying the stressful encounter or
individual goals, are distinguished from more indirect
coping efforts (emotion-focused, secondary control, or
avoidance coping). These include strategies directed to-
wards regulating stress-related negative emotions. To avoid
a confounding of adaptive and maladaptive coping strate-
gies, a three-dimensional concept has been established, in
which two adaptive coping styles, such as emotion-focused
or support seeking and problem-focused or active coping,
are differentiated from a maladaptive coping style (Con-
nor-Smith and Compas 2002; Frydenberg and Lewis 1993;
Hampel and Petermann 2005; Seiffge-Krenke 2000).
Overall, adaptive coping operationalized by problem-fo-
cused, (constructive) emotion-focused, primary control,
secondary control, and approach coping relates to better
psychological adjustment. On the other hand, maladaptive
coping strategies, such as self-blame, rumination, catas-
trophizing, aggression, and avoidance relate to unhealthy
psychological adjustment (e.g., Compas et al. 1988;
Hampel and Petermann 2006; Kraaij et al. 2003; Liu et al.
2004; Steinhausen and Winkler Metzke 2001; for a meta-
analysis on active coping, see Clarke 2006).
Recent research has demonstrated age and gender
effects on the relationship among stressor, coping, and
psychopathology. Rumination has been discussed as the
major moderating factor in the interactive model of
depression and rumination provided by Nolen-Hoeksema
(1987). Nolen-Hoeksema et al. (1999, p.1062) noted that
‘‘rumination involves passively and repetitively focusing
on one’s symptoms of distress (...) and on the meanings and
consequences of the distress’’. Her model suggests that the
increased incidence in depression among adolescent girls is
due to heightened ruminative coping in response to
enhanced stress. A low perceived self-efficacy in stressful
situations may prevent them from exerting control of sit-
uations. Current results support this model, showing a
linear combination of enhanced stress and rumination in
early adolescent girls, which is predictive of greater
vulnerability to depression (Jose and Brown 2007). Like-
wise, Hankin and Abramson (2001) integrated ruminative
coping as a major moderator into their elaborated cognitive
vulnerability-transactional stress model of depression and
used a negative inferential style as a further risk factor. In
contrast, boys have been found to employ more destructive
emotion-focused coping than girls, a coping style associ-
ated with externalizing problems (Compas et al. 1993).
This finding was supported by results from Calvete and
Cardenoso (2005), who showed that gender differences in
delinquent behavior were mediated by an impulsive style
of problem solving among boys.
Although adolescence is characterized by a greater
diversity and flexibility in coping abilities (cf. Roecker
et al. 1996), empirical data on age effects suggest curvi-
linear trends of maladaptive coping during early and
middle adolescence compared to childhood and late ado-
lescence. Thus, adolescents aged 11–15 years show higher
levels of maladaptive coping strategies, such as resigna-
tion, rumination, aggression, and avoidance, and lower
levels of adaptive strategies like distraction and seeking for
social support than primary school children and late ado-
lescents (Compas et al. 1988; Donaldson et al. 2000;
Hampel, in press; Hampel and Petermann 2005; Hunter and
Boyle 2004; Kristensen and Smith 2003). With regard to
gender differences, girls predominantly endorse social
support and maladaptive coping strategies, such as emo-
tional venting, rumination, resignation, and avoidance
(Donaldson et al. 2000; Frydenberg and Lewis 1993;
Griffith et al. 2000; Hampel, in press; Hampel and Peter-
mann 2005,2006; Rose and Rudolph 2006). Inconsistent
findings have been reported on externalizing coping, which
was increased in boys (Compas et al. 1993; Kristensen and
Smith 2003) or not different from girls’ way of coping
(Calvete and Cardenoso 2005; Hampel, in press; Hampel
Daily
stressors,
critical life
events
Perceived
stress
Psychological
adjustment
Personal resources
Recovery competence
Adaptive coping pattern
Perceived self-efficacy
Fig. 1 Schematic diagram of the moderating influence of the internal
resources recovery competence, adaptive coping pattern, and per-
ceived self-efficacy on the psychological adjustment
1010 J Youth Adolescence (2008) 37:1009–1024
123
and Petermann 2006). Within the last years, some evidence
has been found that the prevalence rates for externalizing
problems has increased among adolescent girls. These
findings suggest that the gender difference in externalizing
coping, an important risk factor for the development of
externalizing behavior, might disappear (cf. Hampel and
Petermann 2006).
Self-efficacy
Self-efficacy is the central construct of Bandura’s (1977)
social cognitive theory; it refers to the individual’s
expectancy of having the competence to master new or
demanding situations. Current approaches differentiate a
general concept of perceived self-efficacy from domain-
specific self-efficacy beliefs. According to Luszczynska
et al. (2005, p.440), general self-efficacy is a basic belief
and ‘‘reflects to a broad and stable sense of personal
competence to deal effectively with a variety of stressful
situations’’. In contrast, the domain-specific construct
‘‘academic self-efficacy’’ represents the perceived capa-
bility to master school-related demands, whereas ‘‘social
self-efficacy’’ comprises beliefs in their capabilities which
are related to relationships with peers (Bandura et al. 1999;
Muris 2002; Satow and Schwarzer 2003). Researchers also
have distinguished emotional self-efficacy, which reflects
‘‘the perceived capability of coping with negative emo-
tions’’ (Muris 2002, p.340).
Self-efficacy is another internal resource found to be a
significant protective factor against the development of
internalizing problems in adolescence (Bandura et al. 1999;
Muris 2002). It has been shown to buffer adverse effects of
negative life stress on depressive symptoms (Herman-Stahl
and Petersen 1999). Developmental differences suggest
an age-related increase in social self-efficacy. A 2-year-
longitudinal study of academic self-efficacy revealed that it
leveled off among middle and late adolescents (Satow and
Schwarzer 2003). However, Caraway et al. (2003) did not
find age effects on general self-efficacy. These inconsis-
tencies could be partly due to different age ranges of
samples. When late adolescents and emerging adults are
the groups investigated, age differences are diminished
(Caraway et al. 2003).
With regard to gender differences, girls have shown
lower emotional self-efficacy than boys (Bacchini and
Magliulo 2003; Caprara et al. 2003; Muris 2002). Satow
and Schwarzer (2003) have found that girls scored higher
on social and boys on academic self-efficacy. Again, no
significant gender differences were found by Caraway and
colleagues (2003), but this could reflect the possibility that
age and gender differences might disappear in older sam-
ples. Luszczynska et al. (2005) found that adolescent girls
are prone to develop physical and mental malfunctioning
due to their low general self-efficacy, which mediates
negative emotions and abolishes the endorsement of
adaptive coping strategies.
Further interesting results have been provided by Po
¨ssel
et al. (2005). They suggest that self-efficacy is an essential
moderating factor on the effectiveness of prevention pro-
grams. In their randomized and controlled follow-up study,
adolescents with low general self-efficacy benefited more
from the universal preventive program than students with
high self-efficacy. These results reveal that prevention
programs should implement elements aimed to strengthen
this important internal resource during adolescence.
Cognitive-behavioral Preventive Programs
As argued by Grant et al. (2003, p.447) and supported by
the results described above, interventions for enhancing the
coping capacities of children and adolescents are a high
priority. Prior research suggests that multimodal concep-
tualizations seem to be effective in reducing perceived
stress and improving long-term mastery of stressful events
(for reviews, see Boekaerts 1996; Matheny et al. 1993).
These programs include cognitive restructuring, relaxation,
and skills training such as social skills or general and
school-related problem solving training. The stress inocu-
lation training developed by Meichenbaum (1985) often
has been applied (for review, see Maag and Kotlash 1994).
One study has found that, for early adolescents, the stress
inoculation group compared to a control group showed
decreased anxiety and stress-related somatic symptoms
such as sleep problems or headache (Kiselica et al. 1994).
These results are consistent with findings from early
adolescents provided by de Anda (1998), who showed
reduced perceived stress as well as an increased endorse-
ment of problem-solving skills and approach coping after a
10-week stress management training. Clarke (2006), who
found modest effect sizes for the prediction of psychosocial
well-being by active coping, and Pincus and Friedman
(2004) concluded that intervention studies primarily have
focused on problem-oriented coping and that future con-
ceptualizations should simultaneously integrate emotion-
focused coping strategies to increase the flexible repertoire
of adaptive coping. Thus, exercises to improve emotion-
regulating strategies, such as relaxation, recovery, and
distraction, should be incorporated more explicitly into
stress management trainings. Furthermore, in agreement
with Meichenbaum (1985), Clarke (2006) emphasized the
importance of a stressor-dependent use of coping strate-
gies, which should be related to the controllability of
stressors.
Only a few studies have investigated the effectiveness
of programs aimed to strengthen adolescents’ self-efficacy.
A study evaluating a comprehensive school-based
J Youth Adolescence (2008) 37:1009–1024 1011
123
intervention with treatments for both teachers and students
has demonstrated beneficial effects on students’ academic
self-efficacy and learning motivation (Mittag et al. 2002).
Thurber et al. (2007) recently concluded that outward
bounding and camp experiences promote healthy devel-
opment among children and adolescents, showing espe-
cially favorable effects on self-esteem. This is consistent
with earlier findings showing that school-based experiential
education training delivered to early and middle adoles-
cents increase group cohesion, self-efficacy, and self-
esteem (for reviews, see Cason and Gillis 1994; McKenzie
2000).
Our stress management training for children (Anti-
Stress-Training, AST; Hampel and Petermann 2003)
integrated the essential cognitive-behavioral elements
mentioned above. The AST has been shown to reduce
stress substantially and improve coping strategies in
indicative prevention studies (e.g., Hampel et al. 2002). In
addition, pilot studies with an ambulatory universal pre-
ventive version of the AST supported its effectiveness
among school children. Given this success, we adapted the
AST as a school-based preventive program and sought to
optimize our program by focusing on positive-self
instruction to foster perceived self-efficacy. Moreover,
Allmer (1996) has mentioned that recovery competence is
an important internal resource, a resource that has been
widely neglected. He postulated that, in addition to the
ability to cope effectively with daily stressors, the com-
petence to recover in non-stressful periods promotes
healthy development. Thus, active and passive recovery
activities, such as playing sports and relaxing while read-
ing, were included as daily activities for students. Finally,
elements of experiential education were implemented in
the newly developed version of our stress management
training to increase the beneficial effects of the AST.
Hypotheses
This study has two aims. The first was to evaluate the
effects of a school-based universal preventive program on
perceived stress and the internal resources coping and self-
efficacy of early and middle adolescents. More specifically,
intervention effects were examined on perceived academic,
social, and general self-efficacy as well as adaptive coping
strategies (minimization, distraction, situation control, po-
sitive self-instructions, and social support) and maladaptive
coping strategies (passive avoidance, rumination, resigna-
tion, and aggression). We expected the newly developed
training program to enhance all adaptive coping strategies
as well as all domain-specific constructs of perceived self-
efficacy. Moreover, it was hypothesized that the school-
based AST would diminish maladaptive coping strategies
and perceived interpersonal stress. The second aim of this
study was to investigate age and gender differences in
perceived stress, coping, and perceived self-efficacy. We
predicted that middle adolescents would score lower on
distraction and higher on perceived stress than early
adolescents. Additionally, we hypothesized that girls would
show increased perceived stress, higher social self-efficacy
and a maladaptive coping pattern as well as lower general
and academic self-efficacy than boys.
Method
Design and Participants
In this non-randomized evaluation study a four-factorial
design was conducted. The first factor included the
experimental condition with the experimental group par-
ticipating in the stress management training with elements
of experiential education (n= 138), and the no-treatment
control group (n= 182). The second factor consisted of
gender (male, n= 160 vs. female, n= 160) and the third
factor was represented by the age group (fifth and sixth
graders, n= 168 vs. seventh and eighth graders, n= 152).
The fourth factor involved the within-factor with three
sample points; the efficacy of the experimental treatment
was evaluated before (t
0
), immediately after (t
1
), and
3 months after intervention (t
2
). Due to organizational
aspects at the participating schools, a 6-month follow-up
assessment could not be realized.
As a high proportion of male early and middle adoles-
cents in the control group participated in the study, 40
adolescents were excluded randomly from these sample
cells. Thus, the distribution of sample size in the design
was orthogonalized (v
2
(df = 3) = .12, p= .989). The
remaining 320 adolescents were included in the study.
Adolescents ranged in age from 10 years to 14 years
(M= 11.7, SD = 1.18). Participants were recruited from
two junior high schools in rural areas of Graz, Austria. The
experimental treatment was conducted in one school; stu-
dents from the other school served as the control group.
Most of the sample (97.5%) were German native speakers.
Parents described their socioeconomic status as good
(17%), average (35%), or low (48%).
The Nature of the Experimental Treatment
The school-based Anti-Stress-Training (AST), with ele-
ments of experiential education, consisted of a 6-week
training for students, coaching sessions for teachers, and
information sessions for parents. Seventeen teachers were
trained to deliver the AST to their students during class.
Table 1summarizes the elements of the treatment.
1012 J Youth Adolescence (2008) 37:1009–1024
123
Treatment of Students
The AST, as developed by Hampel and Petermann (2003),
formed the basis for the development of the school-based
training; that program is based on the psychological con-
cept of stress according to Lazarus (cf. Lazarus and Folk-
man 1984) and the ‘‘Stress Inoculation Training’’ by
Meichenbaum (1985). The program involves applying
cognitive-behavioral techniques such as cognitive restruc-
turing, self-control techniques, problem solving, modeling,
role play, prevention of relapse, and transfer into daily life.
The model assumes that cognitive restructuring and the
acquisition of emotion-focused coping skills (like relaxa-
tion, recovery or distraction) should enable students to
reduce psychological stress. Moreover, it holds that the
acquisition of problem-focused coping skills (like the
search for social support or active situation control) should
ensure the long-term mastering of daily stressors.
The first session was aimed to get the training well
started; the doctoral students presented the training con-
tents and taught the students progressive muscle relaxation
and information about stress theory. The stress model was
explained using a cardboard model of a stress scale.
According to Lazarus, stress was described as an imbalance
between increased demands (named as ‘‘Stress Situations’’
in the AST) and absent adaptive coping strategies (‘‘Stress
Killers’’) or inappropriate adaptive coping abilities (‘‘Mega
Stressors’’). In this session, children explored their stressful
situations and their adaptive and maladaptive coping
strategies. Moreover, they conducted group plays on
positive self-instructions and getting social support. The
students received a booklet with the main training contents,
information about stress, and homework. They were asked
to work with this booklet after school.
The following 6 weekly sessions were conducted by
teachers. The key components of the intervention were as
follows: increase their treatment motivation by designing
their own booklet; improve the perception of their bodily
responses; explore individual stressors and coping strate-
gies; employ a flexible repertoire of adaptive coping
strategies, which should be adapted to the type of stressor;
practice relaxation and breathing exercises; explore and
practicing recovery activities; practice positive self-
instructions and social skills.
In the last session, the doctoral students summarized the
subject matter, practiced positive self-instruction, guided
imagery, and social skills. The extent to which students
have accepted training was evaluated by questionnaires.
The students then received a certificate and a small gift for
participating.
The school-based AST was accompanied by weekly
sessions, which included elements of experiential educa-
tion such as cooperating tasks, concentration tasks, and
body sensation tasks. These group plays were aimed
to improve body perception, body concept, general and
social self-efficacy, and social behavior. At the end of
each session, they were guided by their teachers to reflect
on their experiences. These exercises were integrated into
physical education and were delivered by their PE
teachers.
Table 1 Overview on the Treatment Periods with Contents, Subjects, and Time Schedule of the Experimental Group
Treatment period Procedure Subject Time schedule
Preparation period Coaching of teachers Solving organizational aspects,
information, and coaching
ca. 6 h
Parental information I
6 weeks-lasting intervention period
Educational phase Introduction session Psychoeducation ca. 90 min
1st week Stress theory ca. 50 min
Rehearsal phase 2nd week Coping ca. 50 min
3rd week Recovery activities ca. 50 min
4th week Positive self-instruction ca. 50 min
Reports on results of coping and self-efficacy –
Application training 5th week Repetition and consolidation ca. 30 min
6th week Transfer into daily life ca. 30 min
Closing session Summarizing and consolidation ca. 90 min
Adjunctive treatment Experiential training Promoting of internal resources ca. 15 min weekly
Post training period no intervention 3 months
Booster session Repetition and consolidation ca. 90 min
Follow-up period Certificate of participation Closing and feedback ca. 4 h
Parental information II
Report for schools
J Youth Adolescence (2008) 37:1009–1024 1013
123
Efforts were made to ensure that students continued to
understand the goals of the intervention. After the fourth
week, the students received their results of the coping and
self-efficacy questionnaires. In addition, 3 months after the
school intervention, the subject matter on stress was
repeated in a booster session. Problem-focused coping
strategies such as problem solving, positive self-instruc-
tion, and social support were applied on role plays. A
guided imagery exercise was conducted.
Coaching of Teachers
After solving organizational problems regarding the pro-
cedure, teachers were given information about the concept
of stress, relaxation exercises, and elements of experiential
education. Teachers also received a booklet. Moreover,
materials for transferring stress management elements into
the curricula were offered. During the intervention, all
teachers were coached by the doctoral students. After the
intervention, the teachers were asked to evaluate the
acceptance and effectiveness of the training.
Parental Information
At the beginning and the end of the intervention parents
attended information sessions, which were conducted by
the doctoral students. Parents were taught about the con-
cept of stress as well as major aspects of the training. A
booklet with a brief explanation of the stress theory and
information about coping and general self-efficacy was
given in order to motivate parents to apply some coping
skills in daily life. Parents were also asked to evaluate the
acceptance and effectiveness of the training for their chil-
dren.
Measures
Training Acceptance
Adolescents evaluated the application of the booklet, the
usefulness of the booklet, whether they applied the book-
let’s advice in daily life, and training acceptance. To assess
these issues, we used single items that indicated ‘‘no’’ (0)
or ‘‘yes’’ (1) (cf. Table 2). Parents and teachers estimated
the differences in coping, self-efficacy, and recovery state
of their children (‘‘Did the way the child deals with stress
improve?’’ ‘‘Did the belief in the child’s own abilities and
strengths improve?’’ ‘‘Did the ability to recover im-
prove?’’). These items were rated on 5-point Likert scale,
ranging from ‘‘not at all’’ (0) to ‘‘strongly’’ (4). Moreover,
parents evaluated the usefulness of the booklet and if they
tried to apply some advice of the booklet in daily life on
single items (0 = ‘‘no’’ , 1 = ‘‘yes’’). Teachers were asked
to evaluate the usefulness of the booklet on a single item
(0 = ‘‘no’’ , 1 = ‘‘yes’’).
Perceived Stress
Perceived stress was assessed by seven items. Adolescents
were asked to report how strongly they felt bothered by
interpersonal (e.g., malicious gossip) and academic stres-
sors (e.g., dealing with too much homework). Items were
evaluated on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from ‘‘not at
all’’ (0) to ‘‘strongly’’ (4). The internal consistency of the
scale measured by Cronbach’s alpha was .70.
Coping
The German Coping Questionnaire for children and
adolescents (Stressverarbeitungsfragebogen fu
¨r Kinder und
Jugendliche, SVF-KJ) developed by Hampel et al. (2001;
cf. Hampel and Petermann 2005) was used to measure the
following nine coping strategies: minimization, distraction/
recreation, situation control, positive self-instructions,
social support, passive avoidance, rumination, resignation,
and aggression. In the original version of the SVF-KJ,
coping responses have to be answered in relation to two
individually generated common stressors: interpersonal and
academic stressors. In the present study, evaluation of
coping responses related to academic stressors was omit-
ted. These responses were omitted because Clarke (2006)
found that interpersonal stressors are the most salient
stressors for youth and adolescents; in addition, coping
with social stressors has been found to be more important
in relation to emotional and behavioral problems than
academic stressors (cf. Compas et al. 1988).
The nine coping strategies were represented by four
items each. Thus, 36 coping responses whose likelihood of
occurrence was rated on a 5-point Likert scale (0 = ‘‘not at
all’’,4=‘‘
in any case’’) were administered. Coping strat-
egies showed sufficient to good internal consistency in the
experimental conditions (median Cronbach a= .70).
The factorial structure of the items of the SVF-KJ has
been validated in Hampel et al. (2001). When performing
factor analyses on subscales, two adaptive coping styles
‘‘emotion-focused coping’’ and ‘‘problem-focused coping’’
resulted, which is in accordance with Lazarus and Folk-
man’s (1984) research. Emotion-focused coping consisted
of minimization (e.g., ‘‘I say to myself: It isn’t serious’’)
and distraction/recreation (e.g., ‘‘I’m reading something
fun’’). Problem-focused coping was represented by situa-
tion control (e.g., ‘‘I try to figure out, what the problem
is’’), positive self-instructions (e.g., ‘‘I say to myself: I
can make it’’), and social support (e.g., ‘‘I’m asking for
1014 J Youth Adolescence (2008) 37:1009–1024
123
somebody’s advice’’). The third coping style ‘‘maladaptive
coping’’ consisted of passive avoidance (e.g., ‘‘I’d like to
stay in bed’’), rumination (e.g., ‘‘the situation rushes into
my mind over and over again’’), resignation (e.g., ‘‘I want
to give up’’), and aggression (e.g., ‘‘I’m getting a bad
temper’’). Finally, moderate correlations with trait anxiety
and personality dimensions, such as neuroticism and
extraversion, indicated the construct validity of the SVF-KJ
(Hampel et al. 2001).
Self-efficacy
Based on a questionnaire developed by Jerusalem and
Mittag (1995) students’ general, academic, and social self-
efficacy was measured by eight items each (e.g., ‘‘I trust in
my abilities and strengths’’ for general, ‘‘I believe in my
academic abilities’’ for academic, and ‘‘I am able to have
good conversations with others’’ for social self-efficacy).
Students were asked to evaluate their self-efficacy on a
5-point Likert scale (1 = ‘‘I do not agree’’,5=‘‘I totally
agree’’). Cronbach’s alphas for all scales were good
(general: .83, academic: .87, social self-efficacy: .87). The
3-dimensional structure was supported by a factor analysis
explaining 51% of the total variance.
Procedure
The study was conducted in accordance with the guidelines
of the Institutional Review Board of the Karl-Franzens-
University of Graz (Austria). We first obtained the consent
of both schools’ inspector and principals. Since both
schools were interested in our study, we did not ask other
schools to participate. Subsequently, all students and their
parents received written information about the goals and
evaluation methods of the study. Students and parents in
the experimental group received further information about
the contents of the training. The parents were asked to
attend the two information sessions and to work with the
booklet. All students and their parents were asked to give
their written informed consent prior to the start of the
study. Five percent of the students or their parents refused
to participate in the study. All adolescents were asked to
complete measures during class time and were supervised
by the trained doctoral students. The follow-up assessment
of the experimental group took place immediately before
the booster session.
Data Analyses
We conducted the following analyses. Analyses of variance
performed on baseline scores revealed that the experi-
mental and control conditions did not differ significantly in
perceived stress, coping, and self-efficacy. A 3-way uni-
variate analysis of variance (ANOVA) with repeated
measurements on perceived stress was performed, using
the experimental condition (experimental versus control
group), gender, and the age group (fifth and sixth graders
versus seventh and eighth graders) as between-subjects
factors. The within-factor was comprised of the three
sample points (pre, post, and 3-month follow-up assess-
ment). To investigate effects on the nine coping strategies
and three scales of self-efficacy, two 3-way multivariate
analyses of variance (MANOVAs) with repeated mea-
surements were conducted. An analysis of proportional
Table 2 Means (M) and standard errors (SE) for training acceptance by age group and gender and summary of ANOVA results for N= 138
students of the experimental group
ANOVA Fifth and sixth graders Seventh and eighth graders Factor
Female Male Female Male Age df (1,134) Gender
df (1,134)
Age x Gender
df (1,134)
Did you use the booklet? M .89 .70 .66 .56 6.150 3.490 .400 F
SE .07 .07 .08 .08 .014 .064 .530 p
.044 .025 .003 g
2
Was the booklet helpful? M .84 .76 .69 .56 5.140 1.840 .080 F
SE .07 .07 .08 .08 .025 .178 .773 p
.037 .014 .001 g
2
Did you apply some advice
in daily life?
M .76 .57 .50 .50 3.790 1.290 1.290 F
SE .08 .08 .09 .09 .054 .258 .258 p
.028 .010 .010 g
2
Did you like the training? M .86 .76 .84 .81 .070 1.100 .340 F
SE .06 .06 .07 .07 .794 .295 .563 p
.001 .008 .002 g
2
Note: Significant ANOVA results (p< .05) are bolded; df = degrees of freedom
J Youth Adolescence (2008) 37:1009–1024 1015
123
scores of coping was preferred to take girls’ response
tendencies in coping into account (Connor-Smith et al.
2000). To identify effects on the nine coping subscales and
three self-efficacy scales, subsequent ANOVAs with re-
peated measurements were carried out. With regard to
multiple tests, the alpha level of multivariate and univariate
analyses of variance was corrected using the Bonferroni
procedure (p< .05/15, i.e. p< .003). To identify depen-
dent and independent mean differences, mean comparisons
by Bonferroni were conducted with p< .05. As we only
formulated hypotheses for main effects of gender and age
as well as interaction effects with time, we interpreted only
these results.
Results
Training Acceptance
We first summarize the results of training acceptance
evaluated by the participants, their parents, and their
teachers. Eighty percent of the adolescents reported high
training acceptance, which did not depend on age or gender
(Table 2, last column). In contrast, early adolescents
worked with the booklet more often than middle adoles-
cents. Additionally, a higher usefulness of the booklet was
estimated by early adolescents compared to middle ado-
lescents. Early adolescents also reported marginally more
transfer of the booklet’s advice into daily life than did
middle adolescents.
Seventy nine percent of the parents rated the booklet as
helpful and 62% applied some of its advice in their daily
lives. The majority of the parents estimated that their
children’s internal resources improved through the training
(83% in coping, 88% in recovery, and 92% in self-effi-
cacy). Fifty seven percent of the teachers considered the
training useful and most of the teachers noted an improved
self-efficacy among their students.
Perceived Stress
The 3-way ANOVA with repeated measurements revealed
a significant experimental condition by time interaction
(see Table 3). Perceived stress increased in the untreated
control group from baseline to the post and follow-up
assessment (p
t0 vs. t1
< .001, p
t0 vs. t2
< .001), but decreased
in the experimental group from baseline to the follow-up
assessment (p
t0 vs. t2
< .001). At the post and follow-up
assessment, the experimental group reported less perceived
stress than the control group (t1: p= .017, t2: p< .001;
EG: M
t0
= 1.32, SE
t0
=.05, M
t1
= 1.23, SE
t1
= .05,
M
t2
= 1.13, SE
t2
= .05; CG: M
t0
= 1.23, SE
t0
= .05,
M
t1
= 1.40, SE
t1
= .05, M
t2
= 1.45, SE
t2
= .05). Moreover,
Table 3 Summary of ANOVA results for main effects of ‘‘experimental condition (EC)’’, ‘‘age’’, ‘‘gender’’, and ‘‘time’’ and interaction effects on perceived stress for N= 320
ANOVA Factor
EC
df(1,312)
Age
(A)
df(1,312)
Gender
(G)
df(1,312)
Time
(T)
df(2,624)
EC ·A
df(1,312)
EC ·G
df(1,312)
EC ·T
df(2,624)
A·G
df(1,312)
A·T
df(2,624)
G·T
df(2,624)
EC x
A·G
df(1,312)
EC ·
A·T
df(2,624)
EC ·
G·T
df(2,624)
A·G·T
df(2,624)
EC ·A·
G·T
df(2,624)
Perceived
stress
5.210 10.090 6.430 .650 .340 8.840 16.97 .880 .630 1.590 1.00 3.460 2.710 .380 2.490 F
.023 .002 .012 .519 .560 .003 <.001 .349 .525 .206 .319 .034 .069 .674 .086 p
.016 .031 .020 .002 .001 .028 .052 .003 .002 .005 .003 .011 .009 .001 .008 g
2
Note: Significant results (p< .003) are bolded; df = degrees of freedom
1016 J Youth Adolescence (2008) 37:1009–1024
123
the main effect of age was significant (Table 3;M
5/6
=1.21,
SE
5/6
=.04;M
7/8
=1.39, SE
7/8
= .04). Middle adolescents
scored significantly higher on perceived stress than early
adolescents.
Coping
The MANOVA with repeated measurements yielded sig-
nificant main effects of age and gender as well as the
interaction effects of the experimental condition by time
and experimental condition by age by time (Table 4).
Experimental Condition by Age by Time
Follow-up ANOVAs with repeated measurements revealed
significant 2-way interaction effects on situation control,
positive self-instructions, and passive avoidance (Table 4).
Means and standard errors for the interaction of experi-
mental condition by age by time are depicted in Table 5.
Early adolescents in the experimental group benefited from
the intervention in all three coping strategies. Middle
adolescents of the experimental group improved in passive
avoidance in the mid-term. In contrast, the control groups
showed no significant changes in coping (for dependent
mean comparisons of significant interactions, see Table 5).
Experimental Condition by Time
ANOVAs with repeated measurements revealed significant
simple interactions for minimization, distraction/recreation,
social support, rumination, resignation, and aggression
(Table 4). The experimental group improved in distraction in
the short and mid-term (p
t0 vs. t1
<.001, p
t0 vs. t2
<.001),
whereas the control group improved in the mid-term (p
t0 vs.
t2
= .034). Rumination decreased in the experimental group
in the short and mid-term (p
t0 vs. t1
<.001,p
t0 vs. t2
<.001),
but the control group did not show significant time effects.
Figure 2illustrates the improvement in minimization, social
support, resignation, and aggression in the experimental
group in the short and mid-term. In the control group, mini-
mization did not change over time, but social support
decreased after the treatment compared to baseline. More-
over, resignation and aggression increased in the short- and
mid-term run. Thus, after the intervention and at the follow-
up assessment, the experimental group reported significantly
improved levels of all six coping strategies in comparison
with the control group (p’s < .05).
Age and Gender Effects
Main effects of age were significant for distraction and
aggression (Table 4), indicating that middle adolescents
scored substantially lower on distraction than early
adolescents (M
5/6
=.13, SE
5/6
=.00; M
7/8
=.11, SE
7/8
=
.00). Additionally, middle adolescents showed higher levels
of aggression than early adolescents (M
5/6
=.07,SE
5/6
=.00;
M
7/8
=.09,SE
7/8
= .00). Finally, a gender main effect was
obtained for rumination (Table 4); girls reported higher
levels of rumination than boys (M
male
=10,SE
male
=.00;
M
female
=.11,SE
female
=.00).
Self-efficacy
A significant main effect of gender and a significant interac-
tion of experimental condition by time were found by the
MANOVA with repeated measurements (see Table 6).
ANOVAs with repeated measurements revealed significant
simple interaction effects for all three scales. As Fig. 3shows,
the experimental group improved in general self-efficacy,
whereas the control group did not show a significant time
course. At the follow-up assessment, the experimental group
scored significantly higher on general self-efficacy than the
control group. Consistent results were found for the other two
scales. In addition, ANOVAs with repeated measurements
resulted in a significant main effect for gender on social
self-efficacy; girls scored higher than boys (M
male
=3.37,
SE
male
=.05;M
female
=3.66,SE
female
=.05).
Discussion
The main purpose of this study was to examine the effec-
tiveness of a school-based universal preventive stress
management training program with elements of experien-
tial education in comparison with a no-treatment control
group. Applying cognitive-behavioral techniques, the
experimental treatment primarily aimed to increase the
perception of emotional and bodily stress responses, to
reduce perceived stress, to establish a flexible repertoire of
coping strategies, and to improve self-efficacy in early and
middle adolescents. The treatment was delivered by trained
teachers during class. Parents participated in information
sessions. Students, teachers, and parents received a booklet
with psychoeducation and homework on stress, coping,
relaxation, and self-efficacy. Treatment effects were eval-
uated prior to, immediately after, and 3 months after
intervention. Self- and parent-proxy reports suggest a very
high training acceptance and good learning progress;
somewhat more than half of the teachers agreed that the
training was useful. Although teachers delivered the
training and could be biased in the evaluation of training
effectiveness, consistent results of different proxy reports
support the validity of these descriptive data. Interestingly,
early adolescents rated the usefulness of training signifi-
cantly higher and worked substantially more with the
booklet than middle adolescents.
J Youth Adolescence (2008) 37:1009–1024 1017
123
Table 4 Summary of MANOVA and ANOVA results for main effects of ‘‘experimental condition (EC)’’, ‘‘age’’, ‘‘gender’’, and ‘‘time’’ and interaction effects on coping strategies for N= 320
Factor
MANOVA EC
df(8,305)
Age
(A)
df(8,305)
Gender
(G)
df(8,305)
Time
(T)
df(16,1232)
EC ·A
df(8,305)
EC ·G
df(8,305)
EC ·T
df(16,1232)
A·G
df(8,305)
A·T
df(16,1232)
G·T
df(16,1232)
EC ·A·G
df(8,305)
EC ·A·T
df(16,1232)
EC ·G·T
df(16,1232)
A·G·T
df(16,1232)
EC ·A·
G·T
df(16,1232)
Coping 4.070 5.420 5.090 5.880 1.750 .880 6.070 2.830 1.730 2.360 1.640 2.650 1.690 .850 1.100 F
<.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 .087 .531 <.001 .005 .035 .002 .112 <.001 .043 .626 .347 p
.096 .124 .118 .071 .044 .230 .073 .069 .022 .030 .041 .033 .021 .011 .014 g
2
ANOVA EC
df(1,312)
Age
(A)
df(1,312)
Gender
(G)
df(1,312)
Time
(T)
df(2,624)
EC ·A
df(1,312)
EC ·G
df(1,312)
EC ·T
df(2,624)
A·G
df(1,312)
A·T
df(2,624)
G·T
df(2,624)
EC ·A·G
df(1,312)
EC ·A·T
df(2,624)
EC ·G·T
df(2,624)
A·G·T
df(2,624)
EC ·A·
G·T
df(2,624)
MIN 11.550 .75 .500 8.850 4.640 .200 11.050 3.540 .010 .270 .920 3.740 3.650 .950 .010 F
.001 .387 .480 <.001 .032 .659 <.001 .061 .993 .761 .338 .024 .027 .386 .989 p
.036 .002 .002 .280 .015 .001 .034 .011 .000 .001 .003 .012 .012 .003 .000 g
2
DIS 10.980 29.310 4.000 20.080 .500 .080 6.860 .210 .250 1.720 .070 1.580 .130 .660 1.520 F
.001 <.001 .046 <.001 .479 .777 .001 .644 .767 .182 .788 .207 .867 .510 .220 p
.034 .086 .013 .060 .002 .000 .022 .001 .001 .005 .000 .005 .000 .002 .005 g
2
STC 1.680 .030 2.920 3.940 3.180 1.580 12.380 6.280 3.360 3.900 1.020 6.780 4.340 1.230 .280 F
.195 .854 .088 .021 .075 .210 <.001 .013 .037 .022 .313 .001 .014 .291 .751 p
.005 .000 .009 .012 .010 .005 .038 .020 .011 .012 .003 .021 .014 .004 .001 g
2
POS 12.940 .720 2.000 3.140 2.410 4.930 15.890 6.560 6.290 8.170 .010 6.830 1.810 .800 2.090 F
<.001 .398 .158 .044 .121 .027 <.001 .011 .002 <.001 .943 .001 .165 .451 .125 p
.040 .002 .006 .010 .008 .016 .048 .021 .020 .026 .000 .021 .006 .003 .007 g
2
SOS 5.320 3.610 7.880 4.170 .040 .290 16.370 .480 1.430 .390 6.980 2.980 .430 .210 2.530 F
.022 .058 .005 .017 .843 .589 <.001 .488 .241 .672 .009 .053 .647 .805 .081 p
.017 .011 .025 .013 .000 .001 .050 .002 .005 .001 .022 .009 .001 .001 .008 g
2
PAV 18.520 .930 .140 22.090 .150 .400 15.680 8.190 1.740 6.830 .100 9.210 2.390 .120 .650 F
<.001 .336 .705 <.001 .697 .528 <.001 .005 .177 .001 .750 <.001 .093 .887 .524 p
.056 .003 .000 .066 .000 .001 .048 .026 .006 .021 .000 .029 .008 .000 .002 g
2
RUM 6.460 3.710 9.690 22.090 .110 1.350 18.850 .020 .750 1.390 .450 3.620 2.160 .340 .060 F
.012 .055 .002 <.001 .742 .246 <.001 .888 .466 .251 .502 .029 .119 .705 .937 p
.020 .012 .030 .033 .000 .004 .048 .000 .002 .004 .001 .011 .007 .001 .000 g
2
RES 11.340 3.590 1.740 1.910 .760 .470 15.950 2.920 5.090 1.330 1.480 2.980 2.420 2.780 .510 F
.001 .059 .188 .150 .385 .495 <.001 .088 .007 .264 .224 .052 .091 .064 .596 p
.035 .011 .006 .006 .002 .001 .049 .009 .016 .004 .005 .009 .008 .009 .002 g
2
AGG 11.760 19.590 5.100 5.100 .670 .940 17.450 .160 2.820 .450 5.490 3.840 .850 .340 .950 F
.001 <.001 .025 .007 .414 .333 <.001 .689 .061 .638 .020 .023 .426 .706 .388 p
.036 .059 .016 .016 .002 .003 .053 .001 .009 .001 .017 .012 .003 .001 .003 g
2
Note: Significant MANOVA and ANOVA results (p< .003) are bolded. Abbreviations of subscales: MIN = Minimization; DIS = Distraction/recreation; STC = Situation control;
POS = Positive self-instructions; SOS = Social support; PAV = Passive avoidance; RUM = Rumination; RES = Resignation; AGG = Aggression; df = degrees of freedom
1018 J Youth Adolescence (2008) 37:1009–1024
123
As expected, perceived stress and self-efficacy improved
in the experimental group, whereas no significant changes
were found in the control group. These results support the
beneficial effects of our new universal preventive program
and are consistent with the assumption that stress reduction
can be induced by these stress management trainings. The
improvement in self-efficacy also concurs with former re-
search, showing that outward bounding or camps and self-
efficacy trainings have favorable effects on self-concepts or
self-esteem (Cason and Gillis 1994; Mittag et al. 2002;
McKenzie 2000; Thurber et al. 2007). In line with Cason
and Gillis (1994), we found that younger participants im-
proved more during our training than older participants.
Future studies should design training elements in ways that
would be better suited for middle adolescents. Further-
more, taking into account that high academic self-efficacy
is related to better academic aspiration and performance
(Bassi et al. 2007), it can be assumed that our treatment
also improves learning motivation and progress. This is
also supported by results provided by Mittag and col-
leagues (2002) who have shown that academic self-efficacy
is significantly associated with school performance. These
outcome measures should be assessed in future studies as
well, in order to ascertain effects on motivation and per-
formance in school settings.
In addition to the above findings, we found that
minimization, distraction, support-seeking, rumination,
resignation, and aggression were ameliorated in the
experimental group. In the control group, distraction was
improved in the mid-term as well, but social support,
resignation, and aggression worsened over time. Clarke
(2006) emphasized the important role of social support,
which may be used for multiple types of stressors,
instead of active coping, which should be endorsed on
controllable stressors only. Taking into consideration that
interpersonal stressors are perceived to be more uncon-
trollable and emotion-focused coping applied on uncon-
trollable stressors associates with fewer psychological
symptoms (Compas et al. 1988), we found some sup-
portive findings for a beneficial effect of our treatment on
situation-specific coping. Students in the experimental
group reported increases in both emotion-focused strate-
Table 5 Means (M) and standard errors (SE) for coping strategies by experimental condition, age, and time
Coping Experimental condition
Experimental group Control group
Fifth and sixth graders Seventh and eighth graders Fifth and sixth graders Seventh and eighth graders
t
0
t
1
t
2
t
0
t
1
t
2
t
0
t
1
t
2
t
0
t
1
t
2
MIN M .12 .14 .14 .11 .10 .11 .11 .10 .11 .11 .12 .11
SE .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .00 .01 .00 .00 .01 .01
DIS M .12 .14 .14 .10 .12 .12 .12 .12 .13 .10 .10 .11
SE .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .00 .00 .01 .00 .01 .01
STC
d
M .13
a,b,c
.15 .16 .15 .15 .15 .16
a,b
.14 .15 .15
a
.14 .14
SE .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .00 .01 .00 .00 .01 .01
POS
d
M .14
a,b
.17 .17 .16 .16 .17 .16
a,c
.14 .16 .15
b,c
.14 .13
SE .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01
SOS M .12 .14 .15 .12 .13 .13 .13 .12 .13 .12 .11 .12
SE .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01
PAV
d
M .11
a,b,c
.08 .06 .09
b
.08 .07 .09
a,c
.11 .09 .11 .10 .10
SE .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01
RUM M .11 .09 .08 .12 .10 .10 .10 .11 .11 .11 .11 .11
SE .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01
RES M .10 .05 .05 .06 .06 .06 .06 .07 .07 .07 .08 .08
SE .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .00 .00 .00 .00 .01 .00
AGG M .09 .06 .05 .09 .08 .08 .07 .09 .07 .09 .10 .10
SE .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01
Note:t
0
= pre, t
1
= post, t
2
= 3-month follow-up
a
pre vs. post
b
pre vs. follow-up
c
post vs. follow-up
d
Dependent mean comparisons of significant interactions p< .05
J Youth Adolescence (2008) 37:1009–1024 1019
123
gies minimization and distraction related to interpersonal
stressors.
Considering that rumination has been found to predict
depressive symptomatology in both genders and to be in-
creased in 12-years-old girls and 15-years-old boys (Jose
and Brown 2007), our results on rumination suggest that
our program facilitated protective factors for the develop-
ment of internalizing symptoms during the vulnerable
developmental phase of early adolescence. With decreases
in rumination and increases in self-efficacy, our program
improves the two essential moderating factors of the
elaborated cognitive vulnerability-transactional stress
model of depression from Hankin and Abramson (2001).
Interestingly, we did not obtain effects for the gender by
experimental condition, but we did find effects for the age
by experimental condition interaction. Coping strategies
improved particularly among early adolescents: in both the
short and mid-term, the adaptive strategies of positive self-
instructions and situation control were ameliorated and the
maladaptive strategy of passive avoidance was reduced.
These results support the view that early adolescents who
participated in our new program showed improvements in
the entire repertoire of coping with interpersonal stress.
Future research is needed to explore whether these effects
can be generalized to academic stressors as well. Thus, our
training might have favorable effects on the capability how
to cope effectively with diverse types of daily stressors
salient to adolescents. However, although middle adoles-
cents improved in coping in the mid-term, it can be as-
sumed that early adolescents were more attracted by the
treatment contents and materials than middle adolescents.
Thus, future conceptualizations should be revised so as to
better address the needs and communication styles of
middle adolescents.
The second aim of this study was to examine age and
gender effects on perceived stress, coping, and self-effi-
cacy. Unlike findings provided by Satow and Schwarzer
(2003), no age main effect on self-efficacy was found,
which can partly be due to the small age range investigated
in the present study. Importantly, this inconsistency cannot
be attributed to a different assessment instrument, as the
scale for the measurement of general self-efficacy derived
by Jerusalem and Mittag (1995) which was used in the
present study to examine the construct validity of our scale
did not show age effects either. As we had expected,
middle adolescents showed heightened perceived stress.
This finding is in line with results from other researchers
who have found increases in stressful events during
0
0,1
0,2
t0 t1 t2
0
0,1
0,2
t0 t1 t2
0
0,1
0,2
t0 t1 t2
0
0,1
0,2
t0 t1 t2
CG
EG
p<.001
p<.001
p<.001
p<.001 p<.001
p=.007
Aggression
Experimental Condition x Time
F2,624 = 17.45, p < .001, 2 = .053
p<.001
p<.001
p=.003
p<.001
p<.001
Social Support
Experimental Condition x Time
F2,624 = 16.37, p < .001, 2 = .050
p<.001 p<.001
p<.001
p<.001
p<.001
p<.001
Resignation
Experimental Condition x Time
F2,624 = 19.95, p < .001, 2 = .049
p<.001
p<.001
p<.001
p=.001
Minimization
Experimental Condition x Time
F2,624 = 11.05, p < .001, 2 = .034
Fig. 2 Mean outcome in
minimization (left above),
social support (right above),
resignation (left below), and
aggression (right below) prior to
(t
0
), after (t
1
), and 3 months
after intervention (t
2
) for the
experimental group (EG) and
the control group (CG)
1020 J Youth Adolescence (2008) 37:1009–1024
123
Table 6 Summary of MANOVA and ANOVA results for main effects of ‘‘experimental condition (EC)’’, ‘‘age’’, ‘‘gender’’, and \time’’ and interaction effects on self-efficacy for N= 320
Factor
MANOVA EC
df(3,310)
Age
(A)
df(3,310)
Gender
(G)
df(3,310)
Time
(T)
df(6,1242)
EC ·A
df(3,310)
EC ·G
df(3,310)
EC ·T
df(6,1242)
A·G
df(3,310)
A·T
df(6,1242)
G·T
df(6,1242)
EC ·A·G
df(3,310)
EC ·A·T
df(6,1242)
EC ·G·T
df(6,1242)
A·G·T
df(6,1242)
EC ·A·
G·T
df(6,1242)
Self-efficacy 1.830 .260 16.320 6.89 .240 2.080 7.840 1.770 .720 1.970 3.510 1.04 .960 1.450 .630 F
.142 .856 <.001 <.001 .871 .102 <.001 .154 .635 .068 .016 .400 .455 .332 .703 p
.017 .002 .136 .032 .002 .020 .036 .017 .003 .009 .033 .005 .005 .006 .003 g
2
ANOVA EC
df(1,312)
Age
(A)
df(1,312)
Gender
(G)
df(1,312)
Time
(T)
df(2,624)
EC ·A
df(1,312)
EC ·G
df(1,312)
EC ·T
df(2,624)
A·G
df(1,312)
A·T
df(2,624)
G·T
df(2,624)
EC ·A·G
df(1,312)
EC ·A·T
df(2,624)
EC ·G·T
df(2,624)
A·G·T
df(2,624)
EC ·A·
G·T
df(2,624)
General 3.200 .240 .960 15.110 .210 3.140 11.200 3.580 1.400 3.66 .220 .520 1.730 .210 .260 F
.075 .627 .327 <.001 .650 .077 <.001 .060 .248 .027 .638 .591 .180 .808 .770 p
.010 .001 .003 .046 .001 .010 .035 .011 .004 .012 .001 .002 .005 .001 .001 g
2
Academic 5.510 .700 2.490 .250 .000 5.730 14.820 1.900 .940 2.710 .850 .990 .560 1.260 1.050 F
.020 .403 .116 .767 .994 .017 <.001 .169 .385 .072 .358 .367 .559 .282 .346 p
.017 .002 .008 .001 .000 .018 .045 .006 .003 .009 .003 .003 .002 .004 .003 g
2
Social 1.910 .140 17.600 3.570 .320 .550 13.540 .040 .810 .350 7.540 2.870 1.770 .800 .590 F
.168 .706 <.001 .030 .570 .658 <.001 .845 .445 .701 .006 .059 .171 .449 .550 p
.006 .000 .053 .011 .001 .002 .042 .000 .003 .001 .024 .009 .006 .003 .002 g
2
Note: Significant MANOVA and ANOVA results (p< .003) are bolded
J Youth Adolescence (2008) 37:1009–1024 1021
123
adolescence (Ge et al. 1994; Rudolph and Hammen 1999;
Seiffge-Krenke 2000). Also consistent with earlier find-
ings, middle adolescents scored lower on the emotion-fo-
cused coping strategy distraction than early adolescents
(Compas et al. 1988; Donaldson et al. 2000; Hampel, in
press; Hampel and Petermann 2005; Kristensen and Smith
2003). Higher levels of aggressive coping among middle
adolescents in comparison with early adolescents comport
with findings revealing that prevalence rates of external-
izing behavior increase during early and middle adoles-
cence (cf. Hampel and Petermann 2006).
Consistent with prior research, girls showed increased
rumination (Donaldson et al. 2000; Frydenberg and Lewis
1993; Griffith et al. 2000; Hampel, in press; Hampel and
Petermann 2005,2006; Rose and Rudolph 2006). Similar to
earlier results, girls tended to report more perceived stress
and social support and less distraction, but these effects failed
to reach the Bonferroni-corrected significance level of
p< .003. Although showing increased social self-efficacy,
coping results reveal that early adolescent girls are prone to
cope maladaptively with interpersonal stressors. Heightened
rumination has been discussed as a major risk factor for
depression among adolescent girls (Compas et al. 1993;
Hankin and Abramson 2001; Nolen-Hoeksema 1987).
However, age and gender main effects suggest that age- and
gender-specific interventions should be applied in order to
match effectively the needs of age groups and both genders.
Limitations and Final Conclusions
Although conforming with many previous results, this
study does have limitations. A major concern is the non-
randomized design of the present study. This questions the
internal validity of our design, but the comparability of
baseline scores in both the experimental and control group
lends support to the assumption that no significant selection
bias was present and our new program accounted for the
effects (cf. Kazdin 2003). Furthermore, only a no-treatment
control group was investigated. Future research should
explore the effectiveness of our combined program, real-
izing a randomized control group design with diverse
control groups such as stress management only, experien-
tial education only, and reflecting individual’s profile in
coping and self-efficacy only. Second, our intervention
effects are limited to short and mid-term changes and fu-
ture evaluation studies should incorporate 6–12-month
follow-up assessments. Thirdly, future studies should
investigate the impact of moderating personal and envi-
ronmental variables on treatment effects. For instance,
Po
¨ssel and colleagues (2005) have shown that adolescents
with low levels of self-efficacy benefited more from their
universal primary prevention program than adolescents
with high levels of self-efficacy. Environmental factors
such as social networks or socioeconomic factors should be
considered in future studies. Finally, the effects are limited
to early and middle adolescents, but earlier results suggest
that universal preventive stress management trainings
should be applied during late childhood and adolescence as
well (Bodisch Lynch et al. 2004; Pincus and Friedman
2004; for self-efficacy, see also Jerusalem and Mittag
1995).
In conclusion, our results suggest that our program
had beneficial effects on perceived stress, coping, and self-
efficacy. In a prior study evaluating a selective preventive
program, effects were restricted only to non-productive
coping (Hayes and Morgan 2005). This study adds to the
prior study in that it found improvements in adaptive
coping strategies as well. Thus, it can be assumed that, in
accordance with Meichenbaum (1985), a flexible repertoire
of coping strategies could be established, which enables
adolescents to cope effectively with diverse stressors. Our
program offers the possibility to strengthen important
internal resources in early and middle adolescence, a time
period which includes a critical transition from elementary
to junior high school and a substantial increase in risk
factors contributing to students’ problematic psychosocial
development.
References
Allmer, H. (1996). Erholung und Gesundheit. Grundlagen,
Ergebnisse und Maßnahmen [Recovery and health. Fundamen-
tals, results, and interventions].Go
¨ttingen: Hogrefe.
Bacchini, D., & Magliulo, F. (2003). Self-image and perceived self-
efficacy during adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence,
32, 337–350.
General Self-Efficacy
Experimental Condition x Time
F
2,624
= 11.20, p < .001,
2
= .035
3
3,5
4
t0 t1 t2
EG
CG
p<.001 p=.044
p=.001
p<.001
Fig. 3 Mean outcome in general self-efficacy prior to (t
0
), after (t
1
),
and 3 months after intervention (t
2
) for the experimental group (EG)
and the control group (CG)
1022 J Youth Adolescence (2008) 37:1009–1024
123
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of
behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191–215.
Bandura, A., Pastorelli, C., Barbaranelli, C., & Caprara, G. V. (1999).
Self-efficacy pathways to childhood depression. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 258–269.
Bassi, M., Steca, P., Delle Fave, A., & Caprara, G. V. (2007).
Academic self-efficacy beliefs and quality of experience in
learning. Journal of Youth and Adolescence,36, online available.
Bodisch Lynch, K., Geller, S. R., & Schmidt, M. G. (2004). Multi-
year evaluation of the effectiveness of a resilience-based
prevention program for young children. Journal of Primary
Prevention, 24, 335–353.
Boekaerts, M. (1996). Coping with stress in childhood and adoles-
cence. In M. Zeidner, & N. S. Endler (Eds.), Handbook of
coping: Theory, research, application (pp. 452–484). New York:
Wiley.
Calvete, E., & Cardenoso, O. (2005). Gender differences in cognitive
vulnerability to depression and behavior problems in adoles-
cents. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 33, 179–192.
Caprara, G. V., Steca, P., Cervone, D., & Artistico, D. (2003). The
contribution of self-efficacy beliefs to dispositional shyness: On
social-cognitive systems and the development of personality
dispositions. Journal of Personality, 71, 943–970.
Caraway, K., Tucker, C., Reinke, W. M., & Hall, C. (2003). Self-
efficacy, goal orientation, and fear of failure as predictors of
school engagement in high school students. Psychology in the
School, 40, 417–427.
Cason, D., & Gillis, H. L. L. (1994). A meta-analysis of outdoor
adventure programming with adolescents. The Journal of
Experiential Education, 17, 40–47.
Clarke, A. T. (2006). Coping with interpersonal stress and psycho-
social health among children and adolescents: A meta-analysis.
Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 35, 11–24.
Compas, B. E., Connor-Smith, J. K., Saltzman, H., Harding Thomsen,
A., & Wadsworth, M. E. (2001). Coping with stress during
childhood and adolescence: Problems, progress, and potential in
theory and research. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 87–127.
Compas, B. E., Malcarne, V. L., & Fondacaro, K. M. (1988). Coping
with stressful events in older children and young adolescents.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56, 405–411.
Compas, B. E., Orosan, P. G., & Grant, K. E. (1993). Adolescent
stress and coping: Implications for psychopathology during
adolescence. Journal of Adolescence, 16, 331–349.
Connor-Smith, J. K., & Compas, B. E. (2002). Vulnerability to social
stressors: Coping as a mediator or moderator of sociotropy and
symptoms of anxiety and depression. Cognitive Therapy and
Research, 26, 39–55.
Connor-Smith, J. K., Compas, B. E., Wadsworth, M. E., Harding
Thomsen, A. H., & Saltzman, H. (2000). Responses to stress in
adolescence: Measurement of coping and involuntary stress
responses. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68,
976–992.
de Anda, D. (1998). The evaluation of a stress management program
for middle school adolescents. Child and Adolescent Social
Work Journal, 15, 73–85.
Donaldson, D., Prinstein, M., Danovsky, M., & Spirito, A. (2000).
Patterns of children’s coping with life stress: Implications for
clinicians. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry,70, 351–359.
Frydenberg, E., & Lewis, R. (1993). Boys play sport and girls turn to
others: Age, gender and ethnicity as determinants of coping.
Journal of Adolescence, 16, 253–266.
Ge, X., Lorenz, F. O., Conger, R. D., Elder, G. H., & Simons, R. L.
(1994). Trajectories of stressful life events and depressive
symptoms during adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 30,
467–483.
Grant, K. E., Compas, B. E., Stuhlmacher, A. F., Thurm, A. E.,
McMahon, S. D., & Halpert, J. A. (2003). Stressors and child and
adolescent psychopathology: Moving from markers to mecha-
nisms of risk. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 447–466.
Grant, K. E., Compas, B. E., Thurm, A. E., McMahon, S. D., Gipson,
P. Y., Campbell, A. J., Krockock, K., & Westerholm, R. I.
(2006). Stressors and child and adolescent psychopathology:
Evidence of moderating and mediating effects. Clinical
Psychology Review, 26, 257–283.
Griffith, M. A., Dubow, E. F., & Ippolito, M. F. (2000). Develop-
mental and cross-situational differences in adolescents’ coping
strategies. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 29, 183–204.
Hampel, P. (in press). Perceived stress and coping among Austrian
children and adolescents. Journal of Adolescence.
Hampel, P., & Petermann, F. (2003). Anti-Stress-Training fu
¨r Kinder
[Anti-Stress-Training for children] (2nd ed.). Weinheim:
BeltzPVU.
Hampel, P., & Petermann, F. (2005). Age and gender effects on
coping in children and adolescents. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 34, 73–83.
Hampel, P., & Petermann, F. (2006). Perceived stress, coping, and
adjustment in adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 38,
409–415.
Hampel, P., Petermann, F., & Dickow, B. (2001). Stressverarbei-
tungsfragebogen von Janke und Erdmann angepasst fu
¨r Kinder
und Jugendliche (SVF-KJ) [The German Coping Questionnaire
by Janke and Erdmann adapted for children and adolescents].
Go
¨ttingen: Hogrefe.
Hampel, P., Rudolph, H., Stachow, R., & Petermann, F. (2002).
Multimodal patient education program with stress management
for childhood and adolescent asthma. Patient Education and
Counseling, 49, 59–66.
Hankin, B. L., & Abramson, L. Y. (2001). Development of gender
differences in depression: An elaborated cognitive vulnerability-
transactional stress theory. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 773–
796.
Hayes, C., & Morgan, M. (2005). Evaluation of a psychoeducational
program to help adolescents cope. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 34, 111–121.
Herman-Stahl, M. A., & Petersen, A. C. (1999). Depressive symp-
toms during adolescence: Direct and stress-buffering effects of
coping, control beliefs, and family relationships. Journal of
Applied Developmental Psychology, 20, 45–62.
Hunter, S. C., & Boyle, J. M. E. (2004). Appraisal and coping strategy
use in victims of school bullying. British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 74, 83–107.
Jerusalem, M., & Mittag, W. (1995). Self-efficacy stressful life
transitions. In A. Bandura (Ed.), Self-efficacy in changing
societies (pp. 177–201). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Jose, P. E., & Brown, I. (2007). When does the gender differences in
rumination begin? Gender and age differences in the use of
rumination by adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence,
36, online available.
Kazdin, A. E. (2003). Research design in clinical psychology
(4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Kiselica, M. S., Baker, S. B., Thomas, R. N., & Reedy, S. (1994).
Effects of stress inoculation training on anxiety, stress, and
academic performance among adolescents. Journal of Counsel-
ing Psychology, 41, 335–342.
Kraaij, V., Garnefski, N., de Wilde, E. J., Dijkstra, A., Gebhardt, W.,
Maes, S., & ter Doest, L. (2003). Negative life events
and depressive symptoms in late adolescence: Bonding and
cognitive coping as vulnerability factors? Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 32, 185–193.
J Youth Adolescence (2008) 37:1009–1024 1023
123
Kristensen, S. M., & Smith, P. K. (2003). The use of coping strategies
by Danish children classed as bullies, victims, bully/victims, and
not involved, in response to different (hypothetical) types of
bullying. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 44, 479–488.
Lazarus, R. S., Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal and coping. New
York: Springer.
Lazarus, R. S., Launier, R. (1978). Stress-related transactions between
person and environment. In L. A. Pervin, & M. Lewis (Eds.),
Perspectives in interactional psychology (pp. 287–327). New
York: Plenum.
Liu, X., Tein, J. Y., & Zhao, Z. (2004). Coping strategies and
behavioral/emotional problems among Chinese adolescents.
Psychiatry Research, 126, 275–285.
Luszczynska, A., Scholz, U., & Schwarzer, R. (2005). The general
self-efficacy scale: Muticultural validation studies. The Journal
of Psychology, 139, 439–457.
Maag, J. W., & Kotlash, J. (1994). Review of stress inoculation
training with children and adolescents. Behavior Modification,
18, 443–469.
Matheny, K. B., Aycock, D. W., & McCarthy, J. (1993). Stress in
school-aged children and youth. Educational Psychology Re-
view, 5, 109–134.
McKenzie, M. D. (2000). How are adventure education program
outcomes achieved? A review of the literature. Australian
Journal of Outdoor Education, 5, 19–28.
Meichenbaum, D. (1985). Stress inoculation training. New York:
Pergamon Press.
Mittag, W., Kleine, D., & Jerusalem, M. (2002). Evaluation der
schulbezogenen Selbstwirksamkeit von Sekundarschu
¨lern [Eval-
uation of academic self-efficacy among high school students].
Zeitschrift fu
¨rPa
¨dagogik, 44, 145–173.
Muris, P. (2002). Relationships between self-efficacy and symptoms
of anxiety disorders and depression in a normal adolescent
sample. Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 337–348.
Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (1987). Sex differences in unipolar depression:
Evidence and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 259–282.
Nolen-Hoeksema, S., Larson, J., & Grayson, C. (1999). Explaining
the gender differences in depressive symptoms. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1061–1072.
Pincus, D. B., & Friedman, A. G. (2004). Improving children’s coping with
everyday stress: Transporting treatment interventions to the school
setting. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 7, 223–240.
Po
¨ssel, P., Baldus, C., Horn, A. B., Groen, G., & Hautzinger, M.
(2005). Influence of general self-efficacy on the effects of a
school-based universal primary prevention program of depres-
sive symptoms: A randomized and controlled follow-up study.
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 46, 982–994.
Roecker, C. E., Dubow, E. F., & Donaldson, D. (1996). Cross-situational
patterns in children
´s coping with observed interpersonal conflict.
Journal of Clinical Child Psychology,25, 288–299.
Rose, A. J., & Rudolph, K. D. (2006). A review of sex differences in
peer relationship processes: Potential trade-offs for the emotional
and behavioral development of girls and boys. Psychological
Bulletin, 132, 98–131.
Rudolph, K. D., & Hammen, C. (1999). Age and gender as
determinants of stress exposure, generation, and reactions in
youngsters: A transactional perspective. Child Development, 70,
660–677.
Satow, L., & Schwarzer, R. (2003). Entwicklung schulischer und
sozialer Selbstwirksamkeitserwartung: Eine Analyse individuel-
ler Wachstumskurven [Development of perceived self-efficacy
in academic and social domains. An analysis of individual
growth curves]. Psychologie in Unterricht und Erziehung, 50,
168–181.
Seiffge-Krenke, I. (2000). Causal links between stressful events,
coping style, and adolescent symptomatology. Journal of
Adolescence, 23, 675–691.
Steinhausen, H.-C., & Winkler Metzke, C. (2001). Risk, compensa-
tory, vulnerability, and protective factors influencing mental
health in adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 30,
259–280.
Thurber, C. A., Scanlin, M. M., Scheuler, L., & Hendersen, K. A.
(2007). Youth development outcomes of the camp experience:
Evidence for multidimensional growth. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 36, 241–254.
Author Biographies
Petra Hampel is Professor of Rehabilitation Psychology, Center of
Clinical Psychology and Rehabilitation, University of Bremen, Ger-
many. She received her Ph.D. from the Free University of Berlin in
1994. Major research interests are stress, coping, and stress man-
agement in children and adolescents. To whom correspondence
should be addressed at the Center of Clinical Psychology and Reha-
bilitation, University of Bremen, Grazer Str. 6, D-28359 Bremen,
Germany; e-mail: petra@uni-bremen.de.
Manuela Meier was a doctoral student at the Karl-Franzens-Uni-
versity of Graz, Austria. She received her Ph.D. from the Karl-
Franzens-University of Graz, Austria, in 2006 and her major research
interests are stress, coping, self-efficacy, and recovery in adolescents.
Ursula Ku
¨mmel was a doctoral student at the Karl-Franzens-
University of Graz, Austria. She received her Ph.D. from the Karl-
Franzens-University of Graz, Austria, in 2006 and her major research
interests are stress, coping, self-efficacy and experiential training in
adolescents.
1024 J Youth Adolescence (2008) 37:1009–1024
123
