Uneingeschränkter Zugang

Coping Styles and Defense Mechanisms Mediate Associations Between Exposure to Adverse Childhood Experiences and CPTSD Symptoms in Faroese Adolescents


Zitieren

FIGURE 1.

A multiple mediational model for PTSD symptoms by defense styles and coping styles. Rectangles indicate measured variables. Standardized maximum likelihood parameters are used. Unidirectional arrows depict hypothesized directional links. Bold estimates are statistically significant and dashed lines are nonsignificant. Unstandardized regression coefficients are presented. *p <.05, ***p <.01, ***p <.001.
A multiple mediational model for PTSD symptoms by defense styles and coping styles. Rectangles indicate measured variables. Standardized maximum likelihood parameters are used. Unidirectional arrows depict hypothesized directional links. Bold estimates are statistically significant and dashed lines are nonsignificant. Unstandardized regression coefficients are presented. *p <.05, ***p <.01, ***p <.001.

FIGURE 2.

A multiple mediational model for DSO symptoms by defense styles and coping styles. Rectangles indicate measured variables. Standardized maximum likelihood parameters are used. Unidirectional arrows depict hypothesized directional links. Bold estimates are statistically significant and dashed lines are nonsignificant. Unstandardized regression coefficients are presented. *p <.05, ***p <.01, ***p <.001.
A multiple mediational model for DSO symptoms by defense styles and coping styles. Rectangles indicate measured variables. Standardized maximum likelihood parameters are used. Unidirectional arrows depict hypothesized directional links. Bold estimates are statistically significant and dashed lines are nonsignificant. Unstandardized regression coefficients are presented. *p <.05, ***p <.01, ***p <.001.

FIGURE 3.

A serial mediational integrated model for PTSD symptoms and DSO symptoms by defense styles and coping styles. Rectangles indicate measured variables. Standardized maximum likelihood parameters are used. Unidirectional arrows depict hypothesized directional links. Bold estimates are statistically significant and dashed lines are nonsignificant. Unstandardized regression coefficients are presented. *p <.05, ***p <.01, ***p <.001.
A serial mediational integrated model for PTSD symptoms and DSO symptoms by defense styles and coping styles. Rectangles indicate measured variables. Standardized maximum likelihood parameters are used. Unidirectional arrows depict hypothesized directional links. Bold estimates are statistically significant and dashed lines are nonsignificant. Unstandardized regression coefficients are presented. *p <.05, ***p <.01, ***p <.001.

Bootstrapped point estimate for direct and indirect effects and 95% confidence intervals for predicting PTSD and DSO symptoms by sums of exposure to adverse childhood experiences through defense mechanisms levels and coping styles dimensions.

Estimates of standardized regression weights Estimates of unstandardized regression weights BCa 95% CI (lower, upper) p
PTSD symptoms
  Direct effect of exposure to ACEs .30 .44 (.34, .54) .001
  Indirect effect via mature defense mechanisms .04 .02 (−.26, .30) .28
  Indirect effect via neurotic defense mechanisms .04 .02 (−.02, .06) .26
  Indirect effect via immature defense mechanisms .06 .24 (−.09, .57) .16
  Indirect effect via rational coping .17 .33 (.19, .47) .001
  Indirect effect via emotional coping .31 .55 (.42, .68) .001
  Indirect effect via detachment coping −.13 −.17 (−.27, −.07) .01
  Indirect effect via avoidance coping .07 .05 (−.02, .12) .14
DSO symptoms
  Direct effect of exposure to ACEs .24 .33 (.25, .41) .001
  Indirect effect via mature defense mechanisms −.02 −.04 (−.26, .18) .70
  Indirect effect via neurotic defense mechanisms .04 .02 (−.02, .06) .26
  Indirect effect via immature defense mechanisms .26 .44 (.17, .71) .001
  Indirect effect via rational coping .04 .03 (−.03, .09) .39
  Indirect effect via emotional coping ,45 .35 (.30, .40) .001
  Indirect effect via detachment coping −.08 −.10 (−.19, −.01) .04
  Indirect effect via avoidance coping .02 .02 (−.03, .07) .57

Items representing PTSD and DSO symptoms.

Cluster Test items
PTSD symptoms HTQ 2. Feeling as though the event is happening again
HTQ 3. Recurrent nightmares
HTQ 6. Being jumpy or easily startled
HTQ 9. Feeling on guard
HTQ 11. Avoiding activities that remind you of the traumatic or hurtful event
HTQ 15. Avoiding thought or feelings associated with the traumatic or hurtful events
DSO symptoms TSC 16. Temper outburst that you could not control
TSC 14. Crying easily
TSC 28. Feelings of inferiority or insecurity
TSC 29. Blaming yourself
TSC 6. Feeling isolated from other people
HTQ 27. Feeling that you have no one to rely upon

Adverse childhood events according to exposure.

Event Count (%)
Traffic accident 115 (16.7)
Other serious accidents 80 (11.6)
Physical assault 66 (9.6)
Rape 28 (4.1)
Witnessed other people injured or killed 66 (9.6)
Came close to being injured or killed 87 (12.7)
Threats of violence 217 (31.6)
Near-drowning 150 (21.8)
Attempted suicide 68 (9.9)
Robbery/theft 94 (13.7)
Pregnancy /abortion 21 (3.1)
Serious illness 88 (12.8)
Death of someone close 362 (52.7)
Divorce 90 (13.1)
Sexual abuse 35 (5.1)
Physical abuse 50 (7.3)
Severe childhood neglect 34 (4.9)
Bullying 207 (30.1)
Absence of a parent 101 (14.7)
Other events 48 (7.0)

Correlation matrix of study variables-

Variables 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.
1. Exposure to ACE - –.03 –.04 .22*** .12** .28*** .08 .08 .36*** .37***
2. MDM - .48*** .49*** .44*** .08* .35*** .36*** .13** .08*
3. NDM - .41*** .36*** .18*** .20*** .34*** .20*** .20***
4. IDM - .35*** .42*** .19*** .37*** .33*** .41***
5. Rational coping - .35*** .55*** .48*** .28*** .26***
6. Emotional coping - .09* .42*** .45*** .65***
7. Detachment coping - .39*** .06 .05
8. Avoidance coping - .28*** .29***
9. PTSS - .54***
10. DSOS -

Description of coping styles and defense mechanisms.

Coping styles Description Example
Emotion-focused Attempt to escape from the emotional distress associated with the stressor

Acceptance

Forgiveness

Problem-focused or rational Deliberate and rational approach, in which individuals make conscious efforts to cope with stressful circumstances

Alternative solutions

Setting boundaries

Engagement Confrontation of the stressor and/or related emotions/thoughts

Planning ahead

Searching for instrumental support

Disengagement Seeking to avoid the threat and/or related emotions/thoughts

Avoidance

Detachment

Bootstrapped point estimate for direct and indirect effects and 95% confidence intervals for predicting PTSD and DSO symptoms by sums of exposure to adverse childhood experiences through immature defense mechanisms levels and coping styles

Estimates of standardized regression weights Estimates of unstandardized regression weights BCa 95% CI (lower, upper) p
PTSD symptoms
Direct effect of exposure to ACEs .29 .43 (.20, .66) .02
Indirect effect via IDM .10 .35 (.07, .63) .02
Indirect effect via rational coping .06 ,12 (−.01, .25) .08
Indirect effect via emotional coping .26 .21 (.14, .28) .001
Indirect effect via detachment coping −.04 −.04 (−.12, .04) .31
Indirect effect via avoidance coping .02 .04 (−.09, .17) .50
Indirect effect via IDM and rational coping .43 2.10 (1.76, 2.44) .001
Indirect effect via IDM and emotional coping .41 1.97 (1.67, 2.27) .001
Indirect effect via IDM and detachment coping −.13 −.18 (−.29, −.07) .01
Indirect effect via IDM and avoidance coping .08 .06 (−.01, .13) .07
DSO symptoms
Direct effect of exposure to ACEs .23 .32 (.24, .40) .001
Indirect effect via IDM .17 ,58 (.34, .82) .001
Indirect effect via rational coping .04 .04 (−.01, .09) .13
Indirect effect via emotional coping .23 .34 (.29, .39) .001
Indirect effect via detachment coping .04 .04 (−.08, .16) .18
Indirect effect via avoidance coping .04 .03 (−.02, .08) .25
Indirect effect via IDM and rational coping .37 1.34 (1.11, 1.57) .001
Indirect effect via IDM and emotional coping .42 2.07 (1.77, 2.37) .001
Indirect effect via IDM and detachment coping −.10 −.10 (−.19, −.01) .04
Indirect effect via IDM and avoidance coping .02 .04 (−.02, .08) .50

Sample demographic characteristics

Female (n= 353) Male (n = 334) Total (N = 687)
Age
  13 years 7 (2.0%) 13 (3.9%) 20 (2.9%)
  14 years 177 (50.1%) 179 (53.6%) 356 (51.8%)
  15 years 167 (47.3%) 137 (41.0%) 304 (44.3%)
  16 years 2 (0.6%) 5 (1.5%) 7 (1.0%)
  Mean (SD) 14.5 (SD=0.5) 14.4 (SD=0.6) 14.4 (SD=0.6)
Living with
  Both parents 290 (82.2%) 272 (81.4%) 562 (81.8%)
  One of their parents 58 (16.4%) 53 (15.9%) 111 (16.2%)
  Other arrangements* 5 (1.4%) 9 (2.7%) 14 (2.0%)
Father education
  Did not report 34 (9.6%) 46 (13.8%) 80 (11.6%)
  Primary school 86 (24.4%) 59 (17.7%) 145 (32.8%)
  High school 42 (11.9%) 62 (18.6%) 104 (15.1%)
  College 112 (31.7%) 80 (24.0%) 192 (27.9%)
  University 79 (22.4%) 87 (26.0%) 166 (24.2%)
Mother education
  Did not report 32 (9.1%) 46 (13.8%) 78 (11.4%)
  Primary school 74 (21.0%) 68 (20.4%) 142 (20.7%)
  High school 121 (34.3%) 112 (33.5%) 233 (33.9%)
  College 81 (22.9%) 64 (19.2%) 145 (21.1%)
  University 45 (12.7%) 44 (3.2%) 89 (13.0%)
eISSN:
2245-8875
Sprache:
Englisch
Zeitrahmen der Veröffentlichung:
Volume Open
Fachgebiete der Zeitschrift:
Medizin, Vorklinische Medizin, Grundlagenmedizin, andere