Coping and its association with psychological adjustment: Differences between first‐, second‐, and third‐plus generation adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Adolescents with an immigrant background, whether first-generation (born abroad) or second-generation (at least one parent born abroad), face challenges that could compromise their psychological adjustment compared to their third-plus generation peers. Yet, many are developing positively despite the presence of adversity. To understand what contributes to these adolescents' resilience, it can be useful to study the coping strategies they use. METHODS: = 12.9; 56% females; 26% first-generation; 34% second generation; 39% third-plus generation). Coping strategies (coping orientation to problems experienced inventory) were assessed and their differentiated associations with self-esteem, anxiety (Screen for Child Anxiety Related Emotional Disorders), and depressive symptoms (Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale) were analyzed through path analysis and invariance testing. RESULTS: First-generation adolescents reported more acceptance/reinterpretation and substance use than second- and third-plus generation adolescents. First- and second-generation adolescents reported using religion more than third-plus generation adolescents. First-generation adolescents used self-distraction more often than second-generation adolescents, who used it more often than third-plus generation. The use of humor was more prevalent in second-generation adolescents compared with their third-plus generation peers. In addition, some associations between coping strategies and psychological adjustment differed across generations. In first-generation adolescents, behavioral disengagement was significantly associated with fewer anxiety symptoms. The same trend was observed in second-generation adolescents who used self-distraction. These avoidant strategies are generally associated with poor psychological adjustment. CONCLUSIONS: This study adds new knowledge about differences across generations in the coping strategies used by adolescents to deal with stress. Further practical implications 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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".