University of Denver, Denver, CO, USA.
University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.
J Youth Adolesc. 2021 Apr;50(4):693-710. doi: 10.1007/s10964-021-01398-z. Epub 2021 Jan 25.
Coping that is adaptive in low-stress environments can be ineffective or detrimental in the context of poverty. Identifying coping profiles among adolescents facing varying levels of stress can increase understanding of when and for whom coping may be most adaptive. The present study applied latent profile analysis (LPA) to identify coping profiles in two distinct samples of adolescents: a community sample of youth aged 11-16 years (N = 374, M = 13.14, 53% girls), and a low-SES sample of youth aged 12-18 years (N = 304, M = 14.56, 55% girls). The ten coping subscales of the Responses to Stress Questionnaire were included as indicators in the LPAs (problem solving, emotion regulation, emotion expression, acceptance, positive thinking, cognitive restructuring, distraction, denial, wishful thinking, and avoidance). Five profiles were identified in the community sample: Inactive, Low Engagement, Cognitive, Engaged, and Active Copers. All but the Low Engagement Copers profile were also identified in the low-SES sample, suggesting that adolescents employ similar coping strategies across contexts, but fewer low-SES adolescents engage in lower levels of coping. Profiles differed by gender and symptoms of internalizing psychopathology. Inactive copers in both samples were more likely to be male. Engaged Copers reported the lowest symptom levels whereas Active Copers reported higher symptoms. Cognitive Copers reported higher levels of anxious and depressive symptoms in the low-SES sample only, suggesting that this pattern of coping may be protective only in less stressful contexts. Elucidating within-person coping patterns is a promising avenue for targeting interventions to those most likely to benefit.
在低压力环境下适应性的应对方式在贫困环境下可能是无效或有害的。在面临不同程度压力的青少年中确定应对方式的特征,可以更好地理解何时以及对谁来说应对方式最具适应性。本研究应用潜在剖面分析(LPA)在两个不同的青少年样本中确定应对方式的特征:一个是 11-16 岁的社区青少年样本(N=374,M=13.14,53%为女孩),另一个是 SES 较低的青少年样本(N=304,M=14.56,55%为女孩)。应激反应问卷的十个应对子量表被作为 LPA 的指标(问题解决、情绪调节、情绪表达、接受、积极思考、认知重构、分心、否认、幻想和回避)。在社区样本中确定了五个特征:不活跃、低参与、认知、参与和积极应对者。除了低参与应对者特征外,在 SES 较低的样本中也确定了所有特征,这表明青少年在不同环境中采用相似的应对策略,但 SES 较低的青少年参与的应对策略较少。特征因性别和内化心理病理学症状而有所不同。在两个样本中,不活跃的应对者更可能是男性。参与应对者报告的症状水平最低,而积极应对者报告的症状水平较高。认知应对者仅在 SES 较低的样本中报告了更高的焦虑和抑郁症状,这表明这种应对模式可能只在压力较小的环境中具有保护作用。阐明个体内的应对模式是针对最有可能受益的人群进行干预的一个有前途的途径。