Although traditional assumptions tend to conceptualize stress as inherently dysfunctional, psychological theory suggests that it is not intrinsically maladaptive. Contemporary models emphasize that the stress response can be differentiated into both negative and positive aspects, known as distress and eustress. Research examining the differential effect of positive and negative stress on adolescent well‐being is limited and has been hindered by a lack of appropriate measurement tools. The aim of the present study was to utilize the recently developed Adolescent Distress‐Eustress Scale to provide a balanced understanding of the impact of stress on positive mental health, holistically considering the effect of both distress and eustress on adolescent well‐being. One thousand eighty‐one Australian adolescents (Mage = 15.14, 54.03% female) completed an online survey composed of the Adolescent Distress‐Eustress Scale alongside measures of well‐being, self‐efficacy, psychological ill‐being, physical activity, and daytime sleepiness. Conditional process analysis suggested that distress exerted no direct influence on well‐being, with the observed negative relationship fully mediated by psychological and behavioural variables. Contrastingly, eustress was both directly related to increased well‐being and exerted an indirect effect through relationships with mediating variables. These results demonstrate that stress can have profoundly positive consequences. Theoretical contributions, implications for practice, and perspectives for future research are discussed.

Lay definitions tend to conceptualize stress as negative, undesirable, and maladaptive. However, contemporary stress models emphasize the differentiation between negative and positive stress responses, known as distress and eustress. Despite prominent theoretical conceptualisations accepting the existence of eustress, the vast majority of stress measures tend to focus exclusively on the distress response. The current study introduces the Adolescent Distress-Eustress Scale (ADES) which holistically captures both aspects of the stress response, bridging the gap between theory and measurement and counteracting the typically negatively focused approach to stress research. The ADES was systematically developed and tested in a socio-educationally diverse sample of 981 adolescents ( Mage = 15.19, 50.62% female). The finalized self-report scale consists of two 5-item subscales, individually indexing distress and eustress. Initial psychometric properties of the ADES are promising, and the scale has the potential to meet the needs of researchers, schools, and organizations.

Objectives A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to determine if children born with cleft lip and/or palate are at increased risk of psychological and peer difficulties, and if so, which difficulties they develop. Methods EMBASE, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO were searched for English language studies published between January 2005 and January 2022 which investigated the psychological outcomes and peer function of children with nonsyndromic cleft lip and palate. Outcomes included internalizing problems, such as anxiety and depression, externalizing problems, such as hyperactivity, conduct disorders, self-concept including self-image and self-esteem, peer problems, resilience, coping, and overall psychological function. A risk of bias assessment was performed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Random effects models were used in the meta-analysis to compare the outcomes for children born with a cleft and those without. Results In total 41 studies met inclusion criteria, with 9 included in the meta-analysis. Children born with a cleft appear to have similar psychological outcomes compared to normative controls when using the strengths and difficulties questionnaire. There are some minor differences between self-report and parent report, with parents generally reporting that their child with a cleft has increased emotional, conduct, and hyperactivity problems. The small differences between the study cohort and control cohorts are unlikely to imply any differences on a clinical level. Conclusions Overall psychological outcomes appear to be similar between children born with a cleft and the nonaffected population, however, some symptoms such as anxiety and depression appear higher in children with cleft lip and/or palate.

No abstract

No abstract