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.

Coping Profiles and Their Relationship With Self-compassionin Childhood / Perfiles de Afrontamiento del Estrés y su Relación con la Autocompasiónen la Infancia

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

Antecedentes: en línea con la creciente atención hacia lasalud mental y el estrés en la población infantil, en el presente estudio seanalizó la existencia de perfiles diferenciados de afrontamiento del estrésen respuesta a las demandas cotidianas. Asimismo, se determinó si losperfiles identificados diferían en su nivel de autocompasión. Método: en el estudio participaron 487 niños (9 - 12 años), seleccionados medianteun muestreo por conveniencia. Se llevó a cabo un diseño ex post factotransversal. Resultados: se identificaron cuatro perfiles de afrontamiento:perfil con baja utilización de estrategias de afrontamiento (PBA), perfil conpredominio de estrategias aproximativas (PAA), perfil con alta utilizaciónde todas las estrategias (PAAM) y perfil con una utilización moderada detodas las estrategias (PMAM). El PAA y el PAAM evidenciaron los nivelessignificativamente más altos de autocompasión positiva. Asimismo,los perfiles PAAM, BA y PMAM mostraron niveles significativamentemás altos de autocompasión negativa que el perfil PAA. Conclusiones: estos hallazgos permiten determinar los perfiles de niños más y menosfuncionales en cuanto a sus recursos psicológicos para hacer frente alestrés cotidiano infantil. Ello favorecería el desarrollo de intervencionesmás individualizadas en la prevención del estrés infantil.

Defensive pessimism, self-esteem and achievement foals: a person-centered approach / Pesimismo defensivo, autoestima y metas de logro: un enfoque centrado en la persona

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 (AU)

Antecedentes: la relación entre el pesimismo defensivo, la autoestima y las metas de logro constituye una cuestión controvertida. La principal aportación del presente trabajo es la adopción de un enfoque centrado en la persona para explorar la existencia de perfiles diferenciados de estudiantes universitarios que combinen la autoestima y el pesimismo defensivo. Asimismo, se pretende analizar si dichos perfiles se diferencian en sus metas de logro (aprendizaje, aproximación al rendimiento, evitación del rendimiento y evitación del trabajo). Método: 1.028 estudiantes universitarios formaron parte del estudio. Resultados: se identificaron cuatro perfiles de estudiantes: (a) HSE/MDP (alta autoestima y moderado pesimismo defensivo); (b) LSE/LDP (baja autoestima y bajo pesimismo defensivo); (c) HSE/LDP (alta autoestima y bajo pesimismo defensivo); y (d) LSE/HDP (baja autoestima y alto pesimismo defensivo). Estos cuatro perfiles se diferencian significativamente en las metas de logro que adoptan. Conclusiones: la utilización del pesimismo defensivo puede implicar a estudiantes con baja y alta autoestima, aunque ambos perfiles siguen trayectorias motivacionales de logro diferenciadas (AU)