Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Coping Styles and Defense Mechanisms Mediate Associations Between Exposure to Adverse Childhood Experiences and CPTSD Symptoms in Faroese Adolescents Cover

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

Open Access
|Jun 2024

Figures & Tables

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 weightsEstimates of unstandardized regression weightsBCa 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_

ClusterTest items
PTSD symptomsHTQ 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 symptomsTSC 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_

EventCount (%)
Traffic accident115 (16.7)
Other serious accidents80 (11.6)
Physical assault66 (9.6)
Rape28 (4.1)
Witnessed other people injured or killed66 (9.6)
Came close to being injured or killed87 (12.7)
Threats of violence217 (31.6)
Near-drowning150 (21.8)
Attempted suicide68 (9.9)
Robbery/theft94 (13.7)
Pregnancy /abortion21 (3.1)
Serious illness88 (12.8)
Death of someone close362 (52.7)
Divorce90 (13.1)
Sexual abuse35 (5.1)
Physical abuse50 (7.3)
Severe childhood neglect34 (4.9)
Bullying207 (30.1)
Absence of a parent101 (14.7)
Other events48 (7.0)

Correlation matrix of study variables-

Variables1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.10.
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 stylesDescriptionExample
Emotion-focusedAttempt to escape from the emotional distress associated with the stressor
  • Acceptance

  • Forgiveness

Problem-focused or rationalDeliberate and rational approach, in which individuals make conscious efforts to cope with stressful circumstances
  • Alternative solutions

  • Setting boundaries

EngagementConfrontation of the stressor and/or related emotions/thoughts
  • Planning ahead

  • Searching for instrumental support

DisengagementSeeking 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 weightsEstimates of unstandardized regression weightsBCa 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.432.10(1.76, 2.44).001
Indirect effect via IDM and emotional coping.411.97(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.371.34(1.11, 1.57).001
Indirect effect via IDM and emotional coping.422.07(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 years7 (2.0%)13 (3.9%)20 (2.9%)
  14 years177 (50.1%)179 (53.6%)356 (51.8%)
  15 years167 (47.3%)137 (41.0%)304 (44.3%)
  16 years2 (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 parents290 (82.2%)272 (81.4%)562 (81.8%)
  One of their parents58 (16.4%)53 (15.9%)111 (16.2%)
  Other arrangements*5 (1.4%)9 (2.7%)14 (2.0%)
Father education
  Did not report34 (9.6%)46 (13.8%)80 (11.6%)
  Primary school86 (24.4%)59 (17.7%)145 (32.8%)
  High school42 (11.9%)62 (18.6%)104 (15.1%)
  College112 (31.7%)80 (24.0%)192 (27.9%)
  University79 (22.4%)87 (26.0%)166 (24.2%)
Mother education
  Did not report32 (9.1%)46 (13.8%)78 (11.4%)
  Primary school74 (21.0%)68 (20.4%)142 (20.7%)
  High school121 (34.3%)112 (33.5%)233 (33.9%)
  College81 (22.9%)64 (19.2%)145 (21.1%)
  University45 (12.7%)44 (3.2%)89 (13.0%)
Language: English
Page range: 33 - 46
Published on: Jun 9, 2024
Published by: Psychiatric Research Unit
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 1 issue per year

© 2024 Paulo Ferrajão, Carolina Isabel Batista, Rebeca Rocha, Ask Elklit, published by Psychiatric Research Unit
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.