Parent-Child Dyadic Coping and Quality of Life in Chronically Diseased Children.

Different forms of dyadic coping are associated with positive outcomes in partner relationships, yet little is known about dyadic coping in parent-child relationships. The current research explored the association between parent-child dyadic coping and children's quality of life in 12-18-year old children with a chronic disease (i.e., cystic fibrosis, autoimmune diseases, and children post-cancer treatment). In a sample of 105 parent-child dyads, self-reported forms of dyadic coping (i.e., stress communication, problem-oriented, emotion-oriented, and negative dyadic coping) and children's quality of life were assessed. Children reported more stress communication and negative dyadic coping than their parents, while parents reported more problem-oriented dyadic coping and emotion-oriented dyadic coping than their children. More stress communication of the child was associated with more emotion-oriented dyadic coping and less negative dyadic coping of the parent. More negative dyadic coping of the child was associated with less stress communication, problem-oriented dyadic coping and emotion-oriented dyadic coping of the parent. Additionally, both children's and parents' negative dyadic coping were associated with lower self-reported pediatric quality of life and parents' emotion-oriented dyadic coping was associated with higher pediatric quality of life. These findings emphasize that children and their parents mutually influence each other and that dyadic coping is associated with children's quality of life. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

Value Alignment and Public Perceived Legitimacy of the European Union and the Court of Justice.

The present study aims to extend research on the role of values for the perceived legitimacy of legal authorities by focusing on (1) supranational legal authorities and (2) a broad range of values. We examine how (alignment between) people's personal values and their perception of the values of the European Union (EU) are related to perceived legitimacy of the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) and the EU more broadly. Inspired by moral foundations theory, we distinguish between individualizing (i.e., "democracy", "liberty", and "fairness") and binding values (i.e., "rule of law", "respect for national authority", and "respect for tradition"). An online survey was conducted in six EU member states (N = 1,136). A factor analysis confirmed a two-factor model (individualizing vs. binding values) for both personal values and perceived EU values. Four regression models were run for each of the value factors, including personal values, perceived EU values, and their interaction, on each of the outcomes (i.e., perceived CJEU and EU legitimacy). Perceived endorsement by the EU of both individualizing and binding values predicted higher legitimacy perceptions of the CJEU and EU. Furthermore, personal binding values had a negative effect on perceived EU legitimacy when participants perceived the EU to weakly support binding values, but a positive effect when the EU was perceived to strongly support binding values. The results suggest that value alignment plays an important role in perceived legitimacy of the CJEU and EU, and that better representing binding values might be a strategy to improve perceived EU legitimacy.