“…This framework distinguishes two orthogonal dimensions: (1) effortful coping versus involuntary reactions; and (2) engagement with versus disengagement from stressors, yielding four stress response categories: effortful engagement (efforts to modify or adapt to stressors; e.g., problem solving, cognitive restructuring), effortful disengagement (efforts directed away from stressors; e.g., avoidance, denial), involuntary engagement (automatic responses involving over-engagement with stressors; e.g., rumination, emotional arousal), and involuntary disengagement (automatic responses involving under-engagement with stressors; e.g., emotional numbing, escape). Consistent with theoretical perspectives on the benefits of active coping responses (Compas et al, 2001), effortful engagement consistently is associated with positive social and emotional well-being (Flynn, & Rudolph, 2011; Wadsworth et al, 2004), whereas involuntary responses are associated with maladjustment (Connor-Smith et al, 2000; Flynn & Rudolph, 2011; Wadsworth et al, 2004) in adolescence. Research on the correlates of effortful disengagement has been inconsistent, yielding a mix of positive (e.g., Troop-Gordon, Rudolph, Sugimura, & Little, 2015), negative (Connor-Smith et al, 2000; Sontag & Graber, 2010), or null associations (Compas et al, 2001; Flynn & Rudolph, 2007).…”