RESUMO
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: This study examined the role of different psychological coping mechanisms in mental and physical health during the initial phases of the COVID-19 crisis with an emphasis on meaning-centered coping. METHOD: A total of 11,227 people from 30 countries across all continents participated in the study and completed measures of psychological distress (depression, stress, and anxiety), loneliness, well-being, and physical health, together with measures of problem-focused and emotion-focused coping, and a measure called the Meaning-centered Coping Scale (MCCS) that was developed in the present study. Validation analyses of the MCCS were performed in all countries, and data were assessed by multilevel modeling (MLM). RESULTS: The MCCS showed a robust one-factor structure in 30 countries with good test-retest, concurrent and divergent validity results. MLM analyses showed mixed results regarding emotion and problem-focused coping strategies. However, the MCCS was the strongest positive predictor of physical and mental health among all coping strategies, independently of demographic characteristics and country-level variables. CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that the MCCS is a valid measure to assess meaning-centered coping. The results also call for policies promoting effective coping to mitigate collective suffering during the pandemic.
ANTECEDENTES/OBJETIVO: Este estudio examinó el papel de diferentes estrategias de afrontamiento psicológico en la salud mental y física durante las fases iniciales de la crisis de COVID-19. MÉTODO: 11,227 personas de 30 países representando todos los continentes participaron en el estudio y completaron medidas de malestar psicológico (depresión, estrés y ansiedad), soledad, bienestar, salud física, medidas de afrontamiento centrado en el problema y en la emoción, y una medida denominada Escala del Afrontamiento Centrado en el Sentido (MCCS) que fue desarrollada en este estudio. El análisis de validación de la MCCS se realizó en todos los países, y los datos se evaluaron mediante un modelo multinivel. RESULTADOS: La MCCS mostró una estructura unifactorial en 30 países con buenos resultados de validez test-retest, concurrente y divergente. Los análisis mostraron resultados mixtos en cuanto a las estrategias de afrontamiento centradas en la emoción y en el problema. La MCCS fue el predictor positivo más fuerte de salud física y mental, independientemente de las características demográficas y las variables a nivel de país. CONCLUSIONES: Los resultados sugieren que la MCCS es un insrumento fiable para medir afrontamiento centrado en el sentido. Estos resultados pueden servir para dirigir políticas que promuevan un afrontamiento eficaz con el fin de mitigar el sufrimiento colectivo durante la pandemia.
RESUMO
A basic human right of all children is protection from physical punishment in all settings. Yet, corporal punishment remains common place within families, at home, at school, and elsewhere. In Thailand, cultural beliefs and values might preserve its use. This research sought to explore the use of corporal punishment in Thai homes. It also aimed to investigate young adult retrospective accounts of parent use of corporal punishment and their associations with psychological attributes and the acceptance of certain myths that might perpetuate its use. Two hundred and fifty young people (Mage = 20.26 years, SD = 1.19) recounted their parent's disciplining strategies related to when they were 10 years old. They also completed the Personality Assessment Questionnaire (Rohner, 1999), the Corporal Punishment Myth Scale (Kish & Newcombe, 2015) and responded as parents to a number of child misbehavior scenarios. Overall, 80.4% reported some instance of corporal punishment as a 10-year-old with lifetime prevalence at 85.5%. Receiving corporal punishment was related to poorer psychological outcomes as a young adult. Myths about corporal punishment significantly predicted the use of that discipline strategy in the scenarios. The results are discussed in relation to Thai cultural values and beliefs and the need to gather further evidence to support further policy and legislative changes.
