Q2. What are the future works mentioned in the paper "A closer look at co-rumination: gender, coping, peer functioning and internalizing/externalizing problems" ?
Second, as their sample was a community sample, future studies should examine coping processes, including co-rumination, within clinical samples to understand the extent to which they may buffer or exacerbate early symptoms. Future longitudinal studies that incorporate sociometric assessments promise to enhance their understanding of whether co-ruminating youth have fewer reciprocal friends because they are less socially competent ( which might suggest few friendship nominations from others, and provide social problems on which to co-ruminate with their limited network ), or because they choose to have a small, close-knit friendship network of individuals ( which might suggest they are selective in their reciprocal friendship nominations or that they have a small but highly reciprocal group of friends ). Future studies, particularly those that are longitudinal in nature and include measures across multiple domains of peer functioning, promise to enhance their understanding of the ways that co-rumination impacts peer relations more broadly. Given that co-rumination is a dyadic process, future research will benefit from the inclusion of self and peer reports of co-rumination in the relationship and the modeling of actor and partner effects on outcome.
Q3. What is the main reason why co-rumination is associated with negative peer outcomes?
It may be that while the self-disclosing nature of co-rumination enhances intimacy and closeness within adyad, the repetitive and negative focus instigates other friendship processes (e.g., selection, influence) that diminish the peer network size leaving the friends who are most similar in terms of internalizing problems and/or the tendency to co-ruminate.
Q4. What would have been a benefit of inclusion of a measure of friendship quality?
the study would have benefited from inclusion of a measure of friendship quality to replicate past findings of adjustment benefits in an older adolescent sample, while concurrently documenting adjustment costs in other peer domains.
Q5. What is the role of anger rumination in peer relationships?
Dynamics of the individual or relationship may influence the tendency for contagion and amplification of negative affect or the withdrawal and rejection of a co-ruminating friend.
Q6. What are the three variables that were used to reduce the number of predictors?
To reduce the number of predictors given the small sample size and multicollinearity problems associated with the use of a set of proportion scores, the three variables most similar to the engagement/approach dimension of co-rumination were selected.
Q7. What was the effect of gender on internalizing symptoms?
Consistent with past research,disengagement coping and involuntary coping responses were positively associated with both internalizing and externalizing symptoms, although relationships with externalizing problems were generally weaker (see Table 2).
Q8. What was the relationship between self-reported number of friends and internalizing behavior?
Self-reported number of friends was not significantly associated with internalizing or externalizing behavior, but was positively associated with teacher reports of social acceptance and negatively related to co-rumination.