El objetivo de este estudio fue probar un modelo integrado de resiliencia, de tal forma de establecer relaciones predictivas y de moderación entre factores protectores a nivel individual ‒autoestima‒ y factores protectores a nivel psicosocial ‒apoyo social familiar y entre pares‒. Todo ello en una muestra de 195 adolescentes, entre 14 y 19 años, quienes viven y estudian en contextos de alta vulnerabilidad socioeconómica en la comuna de Puente Alto, en la ciudad de Santiago. El diseño fue no experimental de corte transversal. Los resultados obtenidos mostraron que el apoyo social familiar y de las amistades resultaron ser significativos para explicar los niveles de resiliencia; sin embargo, el apoyo social percibido a nivel familiar resultó ser más importante que el apoyo social percibido a nivel de las amistades. Al indagar en los mecanismos específicos, se pudo observar que el apoyo social familiar juega un rol moderador en la relación entre la autoestima y la resiliencia. En ese sentido el apoyo social tendría un efecto diferencial importante: en los adolescentes con bajos niveles de autoestima podría actuar como un "amortiguador" de los eventos estresantes, en ausencia de un autoconcepto y autovaloración elevados; en cambio en los adolescentes con altos niveles de autoestima el apoyo social percibido tendría un menor peso relativo, puesto que el individuo sería capaz de hacer frente a las adversidades confiando en sus recursos personales.

No abstract

ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to compare academic achievement, cognitive performance, playtime, bullying, and discrimination in adolescents according to traditional uniforms (TUs) and sports uniforms (SUs) worn at school, while simultaneously exploring the influence of the school vulnerability index.MethodsA total of 988 Chilean adolescents (52.6% boys) aged 10–14 years participated in this cross-sectional study. Academic achievement was evaluated by the average grade in maths, language, and science grades, while cognitive performance was assessed through eight cognitive tasks. TUs affecting physical activity, playtime, bullying, and discrimination were queried. Mixed model analyses were performed.ResultsNo differences were observed in academic achievement (TU: 5.4 ± 0.1 vs. SU: 5.5 ± 0.2, p = 0.785) or in cognitive performance (TU: 99.6 ± 0.8 vs. SU: 98.9 ± 1.8, p= 0.754) according to the school uniformtype. Moreover, 64.1 % of participants declared that wearing TU affects their physical activity (traditional uniforms: + 8 min and sports uniforms: + 20 min), and those who believed so spent more time playing than those who answered negatively (14.5 min, p = 0.012). Finally, adolescents wearing SU displayed a lower feeling of bullying and discrimination; this finding depended mainly on the school's vulnerability.ConclusionIt is concluded that wearing TU does not show an educational advantage at an academic and cognitive level that justifies its obligation. In addition, it could be suggested that schools consider adolescents' opinions in adopting a more comfortable uniform, such as the SU. This feasible and low-cost measure would help to increase adolescents' physical activity during the school day, and, contrary to belief, it would not be related to increased feelings of bullying and discrimination.

No abstract