Proactive Coping, Positive Affect, and Well-Being
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Traditionally, psychological research has focused on negative states, their determinants, and consequences. Theoretical conceptions of coping focus on strategies used to diminish distress. This approach is derived from the perspective that coping is mainly reactive, a strategy used once stress has been experienced. In contrast, proactive coping involves goal setting, having efficacious beliefs, and is associated with resources for self-improvement, including social support. In the present research, a theoretical model was developed in which coping and social support were seen in a synergistic relationship and were associated with a positive state that, in turn, was expected to relate to better psychological functioning. The general theoretical model was tested in three different samples: First year university students coping with depression (n = 68), rehabilitation patients mastering independent functioning following major surgery (n = 151), and employee absenteeism (n = 313). Results of path analyses showed that proactive coping was a partial mediator of social support on positive affect and that positive affect was associated with better psychological functioning. In students only, positive affect mediated the relationship between proactive coping and depression. This research represents a contribution within the field of positive psychology by empirically demonstrating how positive constructs contribute to improved psychological functioning. Theoretical and applied implications of the results are discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it