El acceso a la versión del editor puede requerir la suscripción del recurso Access to the published version may require subscription Dear Author,Here are the proofs of your article.• You can submit your corrections online, via e-mail or by fax.• For online submission please insert your corrections in the online correction form. Always indicate the line number to which the correction refers.• You can also insert your corrections in the proof PDF and email the annotated PDF.• For fax submission, please ensure that your corrections are clearly legible. Use a fine black pen and write the correction in the margin, not too close to the edge of the page.• Remember to note the journal title, article number, and your name when sending your response via e-mail or fax.• Check the metadata sheet to make sure that the header information, especially author names and the corresponding affiliations are correctly shown.• Check the questions that may have arisen during copy editing and insert your answers/ corrections.• Check that the text is complete and that all figures, tables and their legends are included. Also check the accuracy of special characters, equations, and electronic supplementary material if applicable. If necessary refer to the Edited manuscript.• The publication of inaccurate data such as dosages and units can have serious consequences. Please take particular care that all such details are correct.• Please do not make changes that involve only matters of style. We have generally introduced forms that follow the journal's style. Substantial changes in content, e.g., new results, corrected values, title and authorship are not allowed without the approval of the responsible editor. In such a case, please contact the Editorial Office and return his/her consent together with the proof.• If we do not receive your corrections within 48 hours, we will send you a reminder.• Your article will be published Online First approximately one week after receipt of your corrected proofs. This is the official first publication citable with the DOI. Further changes are, therefore, not possible.• The printed version will follow in a forthcoming issue. Please noteAfter online publication, subscribers (personal/institutional) to this journal will have access to the complete article via the DOI using the URL: http://dx.doi.org/ [DOI]. If you would like to know when your article has been published online, take advantage of our free alert service. For registration and further information go to: http://www.link.springer.com.Due to the electronic nature of the procedure, the manuscript and the original figures will only be returned to you on special request. When you return your corrections, please inform us if you would like to have these documents returned. Abstract Fatalism has been a core construct in the study of psychological and social processes related to well-being and life quality in social sciences. The objective of the present research is to develop a new instrument, the Social Fatalism Scales (SFS), which allows us to study t...

No abstract

BackgroundThe effect of indirect (versus direct) exposure to a traumatic event on the quality of life of terrorist attack victims has received considerable attention in the literature. However, more research is required to examine whether the symptoms and underlying processes caused by both types of exposure are equivalent. Our main hypothesis is that well-being plays a different role depending on indirect vs. direct trauma exposure.MethodsIn this cross-sectional study, eighty direct victims of 11-M terrorist attacks (people who were traveling in trains where bombs were placed) and two-hundred indirect victims (individuals highly exposed to the 11-M terrorist attacks through communications media) voluntarily participated without compensation. To test our hypothesis regarding the mediating role of indirect exposure, we conducted a biased corrected bootstrapping procedure. To test our hypothesis regarding the moderating role of direct exposure, data were subjected to a hierarchical regression analysis.ResultsAs predicted, for indirect trauma exposure, well-being mediated the relationship between post-traumatic dysfunctional cognitions and trauma symptoms. However, for direct trauma exposure, well-being moderated the relationship between post-traumatic dysfunctional cognitions and trauma symptoms.ConclusionsThe results of our study indicate that the different role of well-being found between indirect (causal factor) and direct exposure (protective factor) should be taken into consideration in interventions designed to improve victims’ health.

Few studies have analyzed emotional educational experiences through physical education interventions. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effects on socio-emotional competencies of a physical education intervention (i.e., the MooN program) based on the instructional model known as the sports education model (SEM), compared to a physical education intervention based on the traditional model of direct instruction (TM-DI) in preadolescents. The sample consisted of 170 students between 10 and 13 years old (mean age: M = 10.76; standard deviation: SD = 0.73). Participants were randomly assigned to the experimental group (SEM; n = 87) and the active control group (TM-DI; n = 83). In the experimental group, the SEM-based intervention was applied, while in the active control group, an intervention based on the TM-DI was developed. A quasi-experimental design with repeated pre-test and post-test measures and an active control group was used. The self-efficacy inventory for multiple intelligences (IAMI-40) was used to assess the children’s socio-emotional competencies. The child perfectionism inventory was applied to evaluate the self-demand perfectionist efforts. The results confirmed that the MooN program (SEM intervention) promoted significant improvements in socio-emotional competencies. These findings support the potential of this physical education instructional model as an emotional education pathway for the socio-emotional improvement of preadolescent students.

Background The effect of COVID-19 on Health-Care Professionals’ mental health has received increased attention in the last year’s literature. However, previous studies essentially evaluated psychopathological symptoms and not the presence of positive mental health. Therefore, the first objective of the present research is to evaluate health-care professionals’ mental illness (i.e., anxiety and traumatic intensity) and positive mental health (i.e., well-being) using the Complete State Model of Health. Our second objective is to study the effect of Personal Protection Equipment availability on professionals’ mental health. Methods Two-hundred and thirty-two health-care professionals working in Spain in the first line of COVID-19 patient care participated in the study. To measure anxiety, traumatic intensity and well-being participants completed the State Trait Anxiety Inventory, the Davidson Trauma Scale, and the Mental Health Continuum-Short Form. Pearson correlations were used to examine the relationships between all scales. In order to test the two continua model of mental health, we used parallel analysis and exploratory factor analysis. To analyze anxiety, traumatic intensity, and well-being differences between health-care professionals with and without Personal Protection Equipment availability we conducted different ANOVAS. To test our hypothesis regarding the moderating role of Personal Protection Equipment availability in the effect of mental illness on positive mental health, data were subjected to a hierarchical regression analysis. Results As in previous studies, health-care professionals showed high levels of anxiety and traumatic intensity. They also presented low levels of well-being indicators. According to our hypothesis, results of parallel analysis and exploratory factorial analysis indicated that the measures of mental illness and positive mental health loaded on separate but correlated factors. Finally, Personal Protection Equipment availability moderated the effects of state anxiety and traumatic intensity on professionals’ well-being. Conclusions Health-care professionals’ mental illness and positive mental health reflect distinct continua, rather than the extreme ends of a single spectrum. Therefore, it is essential to measure both psychopathology and the presence of positive health to comprehensively evaluate professionals’ mental health. Finally, our results indicated that Personal Protection Equipment availability is essential not only for professionals’ physical health, but also for their mental health.