Coping Profiles and their Relationship with Self-compassion in Childhood.

INTRODUCTION: In line with the growing attention to mental health and stress in children, the present study analyzed the existence of differentiated profiles of coping in response to everyday stressors. The study also examined whether the identified profiles differed in levels of self-compassion. METHOD: 487 children (9 - 12 years old), selected by convenience sampling, participated in the study. A cross-sectional, ex post facto design was used. RESULTS: Four coping profiles were identified: a profile with low use of coping strategies (LCP), a profile with predominantly approach coping strategies (ACP), a profile with high use of all coping strategies (HMP) and a profile with moderate use of all strategies (MMP). The ACP and HMP profiles demonstrated significantly higher levels of positive self-compassion, whereas the HMP, LCP and MMP profiles demonstrated significantly higher levels of negative self-compassion than the ACP profile. CONCLUSIONS: These findings make it possible to determine the profiles of children who are more and less functional in terms of their psychological resources for coping with day-to-day stress. This may encourage the development of more individualized interventions in order to prevent childhood stress.

Defensive pessimism, self-esteem and achievement goals: A person-centered approach.

BACKGROUND: The relationship between defensive pessimism, self-esteem, and achievement goals is a controversial issue. The main contribution of this research is the adoption of a person-centered approach to explore the existence of differentiated profiles of university students, which combine self-esteem and defensive pessimism. In addition, we analyze whether these profiles differ in their achievement goals (learning, performance-approach, performance-avoidance, and work-avoidance). METHOD: 1,028 university students took part in the study. RESULTS: Four student profiles were identified: (a) HSE/MDP (high self-esteem and moderate defensive pessimism); (b) LSE/LDP (low self-esteem and low defensive pessimism); (c) HSE/LDP (high self-esteem and low defensive pessimism); and (d) LSE/HDP (low self-esteem and high defensive pessimism). These four profiles differ significantly in their achievement goals. CONCLUSIONS: The use of defensive pessimism may involve students with either low or high self-esteem, although the two profiles follow differentiated motivational achievement trajectories.