Mocanu, Maria Nicoleta (2024), An Integrative Research Study on Changing Coping Mechanisms and Personality Traits for Adults, Cunoașterea Științifică, 4:1, 19-43, DOI: 10.58679/CS96443, https://www.cunoasterea.ro/an-integrative-research-study-on-changing-coping-mechanisms-and-personality-traits-for-adults/

 

Abstract

The study of stress is of high importance for the development of new and innovative strategies of learning for adults. This study aimed to change / improve of coping mechanisms and personality traits of the adult through specific integrative interventions, as a result of participation in the psychological intervention program, in relation to a series of variables, such as: cognitive emotional coping, behavioural coping and personality traits. The sample was made up of 24 adults aged between 22 – 44 years old, split into two equal groups: one experimental group and one control group. The data collection was carried out by the survey method based on questionnaires: CERQ (cognitive emotional coping), SACS (behavioural coping) and ZKPQ (Alternative Five Factor Personality Questionnaire). The data analysis was carried out through Wilcoxon test and U Mann Whitney test. Compared to the control group, we managed to significantly decrease in the experimental group: self-blame, rumination, catastrophizing, blaming others and to increase acceptance, positive refocusing, refocusing on planning, re-evaluation positive, putting into perspective (cognitive emotional coping). Also, for behavioural coping, we significantly decreased in the experimental group: seeking support, impulsive action, avoidance, antisocial action, indirect action, aggressive action and increased assertiveness, social relationship and cautious action. Also, for the five personality traits impulsivity, aggressiveness, neuroticism anxiety and desirability scores are significantly lower and sociability and activity scores in the experimental group augmented. Performing integrative psychological group sessions makes it possible to improve/change cognitive, emotional and behavioural coping mechanisms in adulthood and personality traits.

Keywords: personality change, coping mechanisms, integrative group intervention, adulthood

Un studiu de cercetare integrativă privind schimbarea mecanismelor de coping și a trăsăturilor de personalitate pentru adulți

Rezumat

Studiul stresului este de mare importanță pentru dezvoltarea unor strategii noi și inovatoare de învățare pentru adulți. Acest studiu a urmărit schimbarea/îmbunătățirea mecanismelor de coping și a trăsăturilor de personalitate ale adultului prin intervenții integrative specifice, ca urmare a participării la programul de intervenție psihologică, în raport cu o serie de variabile, precum: coping cognitiv emoțional, coping comportamental și trăsături de personalitate. Eșantionul a fost alcătuit din 24 de adulți cu vârsta cuprinsă între 22 – 44 de ani, împărțiți în două grupuri egale: un grup experimental și un grup de control. Colectarea datelor a fost realizată prin metoda sondajului bazat pe chestionare: CERQ (cognitive emotional coping), SACS (behavioural coping) și ZKPQ (Alternative Five Factor Personality Questionnaire). Analiza datelor a fost efectuată prin testul Wilcoxon și testul U Mann Whitney. În comparație cu grupul de control, am reușit să scădem semnificativ în grupul experimental: autoînvinovățirea, ruminarea, catastrofizarea, blamarea pe ceilalți și creșterea acceptării, reorientarea pozitivă, reorientarea pe planificare, reevaluarea pozitivă, punerea în perspectivă (coping emoțional cognitiv). De asemenea, pentru coping comportamental am scăzut semnificativ în grupul experimental: căutarea sprijinului, acțiune impulsivă, evitare, acțiune antisocială, acțiune indirectă, acțiune agresivă și asertivitate crescută, relație socială și acțiune precaută. De asemenea, pentru cele cinci trăsături de personalitate, scorurile de impulsivitate, agresivitate, nevroticism anxietate și dezirabilitate sunt semnificativ mai mici, iar scorurile de sociabilitate și activitate din grupul experimental au crescut. Efectuarea sesiunilor de grup psihologic integrativ face posibilă îmbunătățirea/modificarea mecanismelor de coping cognitive, emoționale și comportamentale la vârsta adultă și a trăsăturilor de personalitate.

Cuvinte cheie: schimbarea personalității, mecanismele de coping, intervenția integrativă în grup, vârsta adultă

 

CUNOAȘTEREA ȘTIINȚIFICĂ, Volumul 4, Numărul 1, Martie 2025, pp. 19-43
ISSN 2821 – 8086, ISSN – L 2821 – 8086, DOI: 10.58679/CS96443
URL: https://www.cunoasterea.ro/an-integrative-research-study-on-changing-coping-mechanisms-and-personality-traits-for-adults/
© 2025 Maria Nicoleta MOCANU. Responsabilitatea conținutului, interpretărilor și opiniilor exprimate revine exclusiv autorilor.

 

An Integrative Research Study on Changing Coping Mechanisms and Personality Traits for Adults

Maria Nicoleta MOCANU[1]
paris_maria_nicoleta@yahoo.com

[1] PhD student 4th year Doctoral School of Psychology Ion Creanga State Pedagogical University, Chisinau, Moldova, ORCID ID 0000-0003-0235-3646

 

Introduction

Stress is an adaptive response of the body to the environment and presents itself in a variety of forms, from behavioral to physical symptoms, symptoms of health outcomes (not only mental health, but also as a risk factor in a number of physical conditions). When the pressure exceeds the individual’s ability to cope, the first symptoms are behavioral (loss of sense of humor, constant irritability with people, constant fatigue, suppressed anger, difficulty making decisions, difficulty concentrating), followed by the physical display of symptoms (insomnia, lack of appetite or excessive appetite, headache, nausea, frequent indigestion or heartburn, non-specific pain). If the original sources of stress persist and an individual’s coping strategies do not work effectively, they can become risk factors for a number of illnesses (depression, anxiety, heart disease, chronic fatigue syndrome, impaired immune system).

The concept of coping is an important concept in psychology. At the most general level, coping focuses on how people detect, appraise, react to, and cope with the real demands, stressors, and obstacles they face in their daily lives. The purpose of research on coping is to provide detailed descriptions of these processes and to specify how they work together to influence each other and how they contribute to physical and mental health or disorder. For example, current research examines how characteristics of a stressor, such as severity, chronicity, and controllability, influence how people react to, perceive, and cope with it. Current studies look at people’s appraisals of a stressful event, that is, their view of whether it is a challenge or threat and whether they can do something to avoid or counter it, and then examine how such appraisals influence physiological and psychological individuals and their reactions. (Skinner & Zimmer-Gembeck, 2016).

Regarding the associations between personality and coping, there is a link between the Big Five traits and individuals’ coping strategies. Thus, openness was positively associated with emotion-oriented approach (social support, reinterpretation, and positive growth) and negatively with avoidance-oriented approach, conscientiousness was positively associated with emotion and negatively with avoidance, and finally, neuroticism was positively related to avoidance-oriented coping. Therefore, personality explains the variation in both coping strategies and psychological distress (Sica et al., 2021). Similar patterns of coping and resilience help emotionally manage responses to natural disasters such as earthquakes, hurricanes and floods, or health crises.

In psychotraumatology, the following personality-dependent defense and coping mechanisms are differentiated: instrumental coping, expressive coping, cognitive restructuring (can be positive or negative) and coping capable of resistance (Fischer & Riedesser, 2001). Researchers studying coping across ages focus largely on individual differences, looking at the personal and social factors that contribute to responses to stress and examining how different responses are connected to each other.

About twenty years ago, a group of researchers met to try to conceptualize the development of coping mechanisms (Sandler, 2001). Research has focused on factors contributing to coping mechanisms, considering multilevel processes here, situating coping in the theoretical and empirical space between emotional regulation and resilience. Coping is therefore not only an episodic process, but is also an interactive and adaptive process, related to both resilience and emotional self-regulation.

The primary function of coping is that of an „adaptive process that serves to detect, evaluate, and address challenges and threats and enables people to recover from and learn from them” (White, 1959).  Coping focuses on how these reactive and regulatory subsystems (emotional, behavioral, motivational, attentional, cognitive, and social processes) work together when individuals experience emotional distress.

We propose to consider the following strategies for researching and understanding the development of coping mechanisms. According to these principles, coping is seen as a dynamic system that integrates multiple levels, from development to resilience (Cicchetti, 2007; Luther, 2006; Masten, 2021).

• The coping system in its entirety – this includes fight-or-flight mechanisms from the limbic brain, stress, emotional reactivity, emotional self-regulation, coping responses. Since the development of coping mechanisms is the product of bottom-up changes (limbic system – motivational system – neocortex) in response to stressful events, as well as top-down (neocortex – limbic brain), having the ability to shape them, it is important to we view coping mechanisms as a system with certain properties.
• Coordination of actions – the point of contact between man and the environment are his actions, which can be adaptive or maladaptive. The attention of the researcher on the actions of children, adolescents, adults in situations involving a higher level of stress must exceed the perspective of the activation of coping mechanisms for solving problems, but as an area of ​​proximal development where self-regulatory resources can be exercised and where from the perspective of types of attachment, the internal working model can be experienced.
• Integration of levels – The coping system integrates several levels: neurophysiological, behavioral, representational, social and contextual. From this point of view it is important to consider the objective stressors that individuals face, as well as their neurophysiological, psychological and social equipment to cope with them (Murphy, 1975).
• Integration of time intervals – the study of coping mechanisms from the perspective of transforming contact with stressors into strengths of development. Through our own methodology for probing these episodes (interviews, observations, reports), we can identify the beginning, middle and end of a process of emotional self-regulation or resilience.
• Reorganization – each development niche of the coping system, starting from the neurophysiological part and ending with the metacognitive problem, is mediated or limited by the previous level, but at the same time reorganizes this level. (Zimmer & Skinner, 2011).

To understand how coping mechanisms work and to understand how we can act adaptively according to the demands of the external environment it is important to understand how the human brain works. Research in the neurosciences, in full swing during this period, is beginning to develop more and more pertinent conclusions regarding hitherto unseen aspects of cerebral functioning by the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis.

Daniel Siegel (2021) proposes the palm model to understand the structure of the human brain. Basically, if we put the thumb in the palm, then bend the fingers over it, we will have a model of the brain at hand. The person’s face is in front of the knuckles, and the back of the hand, the back of the hand. The wrist represents the spinal cord, rising from the spine, above which is the brain.

The brain is complexly made up, following its mapping more than 50 areas were discovered, as Brodmann called them, each area having a specific role. But for simplicity we will describe the brain by its three big parts, namely:

1. The brainstem (the reptilian brain) developed millions of years ago. It receives information from the body and relays it back from the body to it, to regulate basic processes such as the functioning of the heart, lungs, etc. The brainstem not only controls the energy levels of the body (regulating breathing, heart rate), it also modulates the levels of the brain areas above it, i.e. the limbic areas. The brain stem controls the range of fight, flight or freeze reactions, which are transposed into the behavioral plan through specific coping mechanisms (attack, avoidance or blocking), practically come into play when certain conditions require the rapid mobilization of energy in the body and brain. It also controls states of arousal, whether we are asleep or awake, whether we are hungry or full. And it is also part of the so-called motivational systems, which help to satisfy basic needs: food, shelter, reproduction and safety.
2. The limbic area – located deep inside the brain, it evolved when small mammals first appeared, about two hundred million years ago. This „ancient mammalian brain” (Siegel, 2021, p.43), works in close connection with the brainstem and the body as a whole, or by creating not only our basic impulses but also our emotions, the states of feeling charged with meaning. The limbic brain evaluates the current situation „is it good or bad?” and contribute to the creation of emotions. It is the essential part of the brain that contributes to the formation of relationships, to how we emotionally attach to others, as we are programmed to connect with each other (inheritance from mammals). The limbic area is also an endocrine control center, playing an important regulatory role through the hypothalamus, through the pituitary gland, transmitting and receiving hormones in and out of the entire body. And also through the limbic brain, various forms of memory are created: of facts, specific experiences, of emotions that gave depth and color to these experiences, this memorization process being mediated by the hippocampus and the amygdala. The hippocampus is represented by a group of neurons, in the shape of a seahorse, which functions as a „puzzle master” (Siegel, 2021, p.45), connecting very distant brain areas, from perceptual regions, to the centers the language, to the warehouses of facts. The hippocampus develops gradually in the early years of life, continuing to develop new connections throughout life, as we mature it weaves together elementary forms of emotional and perceptual memory into autobiographical and factual memories. And the amygdala, which is almond-shaped, is important in the fear reaction and the control of this reaction, it can trigger a series of instant survival reactions; there are times when emotional states are formed without the conscious part being present (for example we see a snake on our hike through the forest and our body jumps a few meters back because we associate the snake with danger and fear and the body reacts instinctively). But to be aware of and understand our feelings, we need to connect these emotional states, of subcortical origin, with the cortex.
3. Cortex – The “bark” or outer layer of the brain, or neocortex, developed greatly with the emergence of primates, especially humans. The cortex creates more complicated patterns by which it represents the world beyond somatic functions and survival reactions mediated by subcortical regions (brainstem and limbic area). In humans, the frontal part of the cortex is more elaborate and allows us to have ideas, concepts, allows us to actually think, and also develop observational maps of the mind, giving us insight into the inner world. We humans have, through the cortex, new capacities to think: to imagine, to create, to combine facts and experiences. The cortex is the master cartographer of our physical experience, generating, through the five senses, perceptions of the external world, recording the position and movements of our physical body.

The researchers divided the cortex into lobes: the frontal lobe (the front part of the cortex) – which allows us to produce representations of the environment, it contains distinct groups of neurons responsible for the motor area, controlling voluntary movements of the hands, legs, fingers, facial muscles; these neural groups extend into the spinal cord, where they cross, so that the muscles on the left side are activated by the right motor area. The second lobe is the parietal lobe, or the somato-sensory area, which allows us to plan motor actions, this part being closely connected with the physical world, helping us to interact with the environment in which we live. There is also the occipital lobe, along with the parietal and temporal lobes, being responsible for mapping our physical experience.

It is also important to mention the prefrontal cortex which is just behind the forehead, this being an area specific only to humans, the area where we create our representations, concepts (sense of self, time, moral judgments).

In the medial prefrontal region, one synapse away from the neurons in the cortex, limbic area and brain stem, the signals from all these areas are connected, together with those received from the social world, thus creating links between the three areas. It is what Siegel (2021) calls psychological integration, a process by which distinct elements are aggregated together to form a functional whole. This process of integration is preceded by differentiation (the process of becoming independent and viable).

Coping mechanisms and resilience, like any other human capacity, develop as the brain develops and begins to integrate experience by encoding this learning into neural circuits. Experiential learning and the neural encoding of that learning occurs through two mechanisms that work together: conditioning (the way the brain learns and neurally stabilizes patterns through repetition) and neuroplasticity (the way the brain remains flexible and changes neural circuits), allows neurogenesis and rewrites patterns (Graham, 2013).

From the point of view of neuroscience, personality is given by the prefrontal cortex, responsible for consciousness, behavior and the decision-making part of man. Personality is the main difference between individuals, representing the general profile or a combination of psychological characteristics that comprise the unique nature of a person and that influence the way that person reacts and interacts with other people or the environment. Personality is the dynamic organization within the individual, of those psycho-physical systems that determine his characteristic thinking and behavior. Personality includes a set of mental characteristics that reflect how a person thinks, acts and feels. From a practical point of view, personality is the main guide in the concrete modeling of man. Personality is a term derived from the term „person”, to which a value note is associated. It expresses the higher organization of the person. The person refers to the fundamental form of the human being and must be studied by general psychology. Personality refers to individual psychic peculiarities, to what distinguishes and sets a person apart from others. Someone is a personality only in comparison to others. Essential, therefore, in this context is the fact that the notion of personality tends to be linked to the existence of a component and an axiological dimension, of value (as opposed to the person).

Despite the differences regarding the definition of the term personality, we can identify some of its characteristics (Dafinoiu, 2002):

▪ Globality – personality is made up of a series of characteristics that allow the description and identification of a certain person, these characteristics transforming it into a unique entity;

▪ Temporal stability – personality, represents a functional system, by virtue of its coherence generating certain laws of organization whose action is permanent. The human being has sentimental continuity, personal identity, the consciousness of existence, despite the transformations he goes through during his life;

▪ Coherence – the existence of an organization of the component elements of the personality. Personality is not a set of juxtaposed elements, but a functional system made up of interdependent elements.

Sub-personalities are formed when we present different parts of our personality, different desires, different qualities, when our inner world (own thoughts, feelings, needs, own nature) came into contradiction with our outer world (parents, relationships with those around, the kindergarten, etc.) these sub-personalities were born, right from our early childhood The solid foundation of these sub-personalities generated the so-called „normal behavior”.

The concept of subpersonality was introduced into science within psychosynthesis by Roberto Assagioli, a contemporary of Freud and Jung and the first psychoanalyst in Italy (1888-1978). According to Assagioli (2000), the Self is a transpersonal center, a „unifying and controlling Principle of our life” (Assagioli, 2000, p. 21). The deep knowledge of one’s own personality is considered in psycho-synthesis only the first stage of investigations, oriented towards the reconstruction of the whole personality of man, after which follows: the establishment of control over its various elements; the conception of his true „I” – the revelation or creation of a unifying center; psycho-synthesis proper – the formation or modification of the personality around a new center. Sub-personalities are the semi-autonomous parts of the personality that, organizing around a certain need, tend towards an independent existence (Assagioli, 1965). For their self-expression, sub-personalities use the body, emotions, thinking as tools.

Analyzed from this point of view, the coping mechanisms are subpersonalities, having as their center a specific need that directs the behavior of the person to satisfy it, but also having their own beliefs, which can become maladaptive in relation to the environment in which the person lives. Thus, the destructuring of maladaptive coping mechanisms and their restructuring into adaptive coping requires a restructuring of the deep structure of the personality, namely that of one’s own needs and beliefs.

Research methodology

Research purpose and objectives

The purpose of the present investigation was to explore changing / improving the adult’s coping mechanisms and personality traits through specific integrative interventions, as a result of participating in the psychological intervention group program. It takes into account the following aspects:

• improving the adult’s dysfunctional coping mechanisms: cognitive emotional coping – self-blame, rumination, catastrophizing, blaming others; behavioral coping: instinctive action, avoidance, indirect action, antisocial action, aggressive action;
• development of coping mechanisms, cognitive emotional coping (acceptance, positive refocusing, refocusing on planning, positive reevaluation, putting into perspective); behavioral coping (assertive action, social relationship, seeking social support, cautious action);
• significant change in personality traits from the psychological profile since adulthood.

The general objectives of the formative experiment were:

O1. Development of the program of psychological interventions in order to have a positive influence on the development of adaptive coping mechanisms and the significant decrease of maladaptive coping mechanisms, as well as personality traits;

O2. Carrying out the training program with subjects from the experimental group;

O3. Verification of the effectiveness of the program within the control experiment;

O4. Delineation of general conclusions and elaboration of recommendations for specialists in the field.

Research methods and instruments

The data were collected through the survey method, using a set of questionnaires. The diagnostic tools used in the formative intervention program are represented by two questionnaires for the assessment of coping, namely:

• Cognitive-Emotional Coping Questionnaire (CERQ): The test measures the frequency with which the person applies strategies, in general, in negative life situations. Typically, a low score indicates that the person uses a particular strategy less often, while a high score indicates that the person uses that strategy frequently. The usefulness of a particular strategy to deal with negative events is judged according to the circumstances, the context and the nature of the problem. However, we can say that the excessive use of any strategy can indicate the presence of certain emotional problems – self-blame, acceptance, rumination, positive refocusing, planning refocusing, positive reappraisal, putting into perspective, catastrophizing, blaming others.
• Strategic Approach to Coping Scale (SACS): This questionnaire assesses how people react behaviorally when faced with a stressful problem/situation. Next, nine different ways of dealing with stressful situations (coping strategies) are presented: assertive action, social relationship, seeking social support, cautious action, instinctive action, avoidance, indirect action, antisocial action, aggressive action.

At the same time, for the personality assessment we used a personality inventory, as follows:

• ZKPQ questionnaire: The questionnaire evaluates through the 99 items a series of personality traits, focusing on temperamental characteristics: sociability, impulsive sensation seeking, activity, neuroticism – anxiety, aggressiveness – hostility, social desirability.

Participants

The formative research was carried out with the participation of 24 adults: 12 males and 12 females. The average age of the subjects for both groups is 29 years, with a minimum age of 22 years and a maximum of 44 years.

– The experimental group (GE) consisted of 12 adults (6 males and 6 females). Members of this group participated in the group psychological intervention program for a period of 10 months (period May 2023 – February 2024).

– The control group (GC) – is statistically comparable (age, gender) with the experimental group and was also made up of 12 adults (6 males and 6 females), who, however, did not participate in the psychological intervention program by group.

Procedure

The groups were formed respecting the criterion of homogeneity: the results obtained on the coping and personality questionnaires from the ascertainment experiment. To verify the homogeneity, we compared the results obtained by the adults in the experimental group with those obtained by those in the control group in the coping and personality tests by means of the administration of the non-parametric Mann-Whitney U test. When comparing the results of all administered tests and for all their scales, no statistically significant differences were obtained at the significance threshold p < 0.05.

The selection criteria for participating in the group were those of belonging to the adult age category (22-65 years); willingness and approval to participate in the training program for 20 sessions; the motivation to change the way of thinking, behaving and feeling.

Research hypothese

The hypothesis of the formative experiment is the assumption that by specially organized psychological interventions (group intervention plan) it is possible to reduce maladaptive coping mechanisms and develop adaptive coping mechanisms, as well as significantly change personality traits.

Data analysis

The processing of the obtained data was carried out in the SPSS Statistics 17.0 program.

To evaluate the effectiveness of our intervention program we performed a comparative analysis of the results obtained by adults in the experimental group (GE) at the initial test and retest, the results of adults in the control group (GC) at the initial test and retest, as well as the results of adults in the experimental group at retest compared with the results of adults in the control group at retest. This analysis will allow us to assess the impact of our program and determine whether there are significant differences between the intervention and control groups in terms of the evolution of outcomes over time.

By comparing the initial and retest results, we will be able to assess whether there is a significant improvement in the behavior and results of the participants in the experimental group after the intervention. We will also be able to assess whether this improvement is greater than that seen in the control group. This will give us important information about the impact of our program and the effectiveness of the intervention.

Therefore, through this comparative analysis, we aim to gain a more complete and detailed picture of how our intervention program affects participant outcomes and determine whether there are significant differences between the intervention and control groups. This information will be valuable in evaluating the effectiveness and relevance of our program and making further recommendations.

The impact of the training program developed in order to improve/change the coping mechanisms and personality traits of the adult was verified in the training experiment by applying tests on 12 subjects from the experimental group and 12 from the control group.

The results obtained in the control experiment, after the implementation of the developed training program, were processed by means of the Mann-Whitney U test (comparison of the experimental group and the control group) and the Wilcoxon statistical test (for the comparison of the experimental group in the test and re-test and of the control group in the test and re-test).

The participants were split into two equal groups of 12 persons and were aged between 22 and 44 years old, the basic structure of the sample is shown in Table 1.

Table 1 Sample structure

N            Min            Max                         Mean     Standard deviation

Experimental group age     12            22               44                29.1667      6.68558   Control group age              12            24                38               29.3333      4.45856

Table 1 presents the structure of the sample of the two groups that participated in the present study. The first group is the experimental group (M = 29.1667, SD = 6.68)  who participated in the intervention group program , the sencond group is the control group (M = 29.3333, SD = 4.45)  who did not participate in the intervention group program.

Results

The first stage carried out by us was to compare the results of the subjects in the experimental group with those of the control group after the formative experiment. For this purpose we administered the non-parametric U Mann – Whitney statistical test. The data presented reflect the impact of the psychological intervention on the experimental group (GE) and the control group (GC). The analysis was carried out by comparing the scores obtained on the retest of the different dimensions of coping and personality traits.

Figure 1 The control experiment. Gr. Experimental/Gr. Of control. CERQ questionnaire

In the formative experiment, the following retest results were obtained when administering the CERQ questionnaire: Self-Blame scale GE =8.88; GC = 16.12; GE Acceptance scale =16.62; GC = 8.38; GE Rumination scale = 7.33; GC = 17.67; GE Positive Refocus scale = 17.29; GC = 7.71; scale Refocusing on planning GE =16.38; GC = 8.62; scale Positive Reappraisal GE = 16.75; GC = 8.25; GE Perspective scale =17.67; GC = 7.33; GE Catastrophe scale = 7.67; GC = 17.33; scale Blaming others GE =9.21; GC = 15.79.

On all the scales in this questionnaire, statistically significant differences were obtained in the results of the subjects in the experimental group compared to those in the control group, through the U Mann Whitney test: self-blame (U=28.5, p= 0.01), rumination (U=10, p=0.0001), catastrophizing (U=14, p= 0.001), blaming others (U= 32.5, p = 0.02) and to increase in the experimental group compared to the control group the following coping mechanisms: acceptance (U=22.5, p= 0.004), positive refocusing (U=14.5, p = 0.001), refocusing on planning (U=25.5, p = 0.006), positive reappraisal (U=21, p = 0.003), putting into perspective (U= 10, p = 0.0001).

In some of the scales of the CERQ questionnaire, we find a decrease in the quantitative results for the subjects in the experimental group, and in others an increase in the scores, a fact that allows us to talk about the positive impact of the training program that we developed and carried out. We managed to decrease significantly (p= 0.0001): self-blame, rumination, catastrophizing, blaming others and significantly increase in the experimental group compared to the control group the following coping mechanisms (p=0.0001): acceptance, refocusing positive, refocusing on planning, positive reappraisal, putting into perspective.

Following the application of the SACS behavioral coping questionnaire and the retest comparison of the GE results against the GC, the following results emerged, as shown in figure 2.

Figure 2 The control experiment. Gr. Experimental/Gr. Of control. The SACS questionnaire

In the formative experiment, the following results were obtained when retesting the SACS questionnaire: GE Assertive Action scale = 18.08; GC = 6.92; scale Social Relationship GE = 16.75; GC = 8.25; GE Support Seeking scale =8.75; GC = 16.25;  scale Prudent Action GE =16.92; GC = 8.08; scale Instinctive Action GE = 6.50, GC = 18.50; GE Avoidance scale =6.62; GC = 18.38; scale Indirect Action GE = 6.79, GC =18.21 ; Antisocial Action scale GE =6.58, GC =18.42; Aggressiveness scale GE =6.50, GC = 18.50.

For all scales of this questionnaire we obtained significant differences for subjects in the experimental group compared to adults in the control group by the Mann Whitney U test (p=0.0001), we decreased the dysfunctional behavioral coping mechanisms: seeking support (U=27, p = 0.009), impulsive action (U= 0, p= 0.0001), avoidance (U=1.5, p =0.0001), antisocial action (U=1, p = 0.0001), indirect action (U= U=3.5, p =0.0001 ), aggressive action (U=0, p=0.0001) and increased the functional behavioral coping mechanisms: assertiveness (U=5, p=0.0001), social relationship (U=21, p=0.003), action cautious (U=19, p=0.002).

Following the application of the ZKPQ questionnaire and the retest comparison of the results of GE versus GC, the following results emerged, as shown in figure 3.

Figure 3 The control experiment. Gr. Experimental/Gr. Of control. ZKPQ questionnaire

On all the scales in this questionnaire, statistically significant differences were obtained in the results of subjects in the experimental group compared to those in the control group for all personality traits in this questionnaire.

Next, the retest results when administering the ZKPQ questionnaire: sociability scale GE = 17.83; GC = 7.17; impulsive sensation seeking scale GE =7.33; GC = 17.67; GE activity scale =16.17; GC = 8.83; GE neuroticism anxiety scale =6.67; GC = 18.33; aggression hostility scale GE = 7.67; GC =17.33, desirability scale GE = 7.75; GC = 17.25.

On the scales of the ZKPQ questionnaire, we find a significant difference in the scores through the U Mann Whitney test (p=0.0001), a fact that allows us to talk about a positive impact of the program we have created, for the scales impulsivity, aggressiveness, neuroticism, anxiety and desirability scores are significantly lower in the experimental group than in the control group. At the same time, we managed to increase the sociability and activity scores in the experimental group: impulsivity (U=10, p= 0.0001), aggression (U=14, p= 0.0001), neuroticism anxiety (U=2, p=0.0001) and desirability (U=15, p=0, 0001) scores are significantly lower in the experimental group than in the control group. At the same time, we managed to increase the scores for sociability (U=8, p=0.0001) and activity (U=28, p=0.01) in the experimental group.

Step number 2 in the formative experiment refers to the experimental group, namely the results of the subjects in the experimental group obtained in the ascertainment experiment and in the control experiment. This statistical comparison was performed by means of the non-parametric Wilcoxon statistical test (for paired samples).

Figure 4 The control experiment. Gr. Experimental test – retest. CERQ questionnaire, mean values

The values obtained by the subjects of the experimental group in the pre- and post-test are the following: self-blame: pre-test = 6.75, post-test = 5.83; acceptance: pre-test = 3, post-test = 6.67; rumination: pre-test = 6.5, post-test = 0; positive refocusing: pre-test = 0, post-test = 6.5; refocusing on planning: pre-test = 3.75, post-test = 6.67; positive reappraisal: pre-test = 3, post-test = 4.71; putting into perspective: pre-test = 0, post-test = 5; catastrophizing: pre-test = 8.5, post-test = 6.32; blaming others: pre-test = 7.5, post-test = 5.28.

In some of the scales of the CERQ cognitive emotional coping questionnaire, we find a significant decrease in the quantitative results for subjects in the experimental group in the post-test (scales self-blame W=-1.746, p= 0.008, rumination W= -3.065, p= 0.002, catastrophizing W= -2.445, p=0.01, blaming others W= -2.080, p= 0.03), and in others a significant increase (acceptance W=-2.404, p=0.01, positive refocusing W=-3.069, p =0.002, refocusing on planning W=-1.280, p= 0.02, positive reappraisal W= -2.111, p= 0.03, putting into perspective W= -2.675, p=0.007), which allows us to talk about the positive impact of the training program that we carried out.

Figure 5 The control experiment. Gr. Experimental test – retest. SACS questionnaire, mean values

The values obtained by the subjects of the experimental group in the pre- and post-test of behavioral coping (SACS) are as follows: assertive action: pre-test = 0, post-test = 6.5; social relationship: pre-test = 2.5, post-test = 7.83; search for support: pre-test = 7.61, post-test = 3.17; prudent action: pre-test = 4.5, post-test = 6.15; impulsive action: pre-test = 6.5, post-test = 0; avoidance: pre-test = 6.5, post-test = 0; indirect action: pre-test = 6.5, post-test = 0; antisocial action: pre-test = 6.5, post-test = 0; aggression: pre-test = 6.5, post-test = 0.

For most of the scales of the SACS behavioral coping questionnaire, we find a significant decrease in the quantitative results for subjects in the experimental group in the post-test (the scales seeking support W =-2.320, p = 0.02, impulsive action W = -3.063, p = 0.02 , avoidance W = -3.063 , p = 0.002, indirect action W = -3.071, p = 0.002, antisocial action W = -3.062 , p = 0.002 , aggressive action W =-3.074, p = 0.002) and a significant increase in other scales (assertiveness W = -3.068, p = 0.002, social relationship W = -2.482, p = 0.01, cautious action W = -2.561, p = 0.1), a fact that allows us to talk about the positive impact of the program formative that we made, because all the scales were significantly modified.

Figure 6 The control experiment. Gr. Experimental test – retest. ZKPQ questionnaire, mean values

The values obtained by the subjects of the experimental group in the pre- and post-test are the following: sociability: pre-test =0, post-test =6.5; impulsive search for sensations: pre-test =6.5, post-test =0; activity: pre-test = 1.5, post-test = 5.94; neuroticism anxiety: pre-test = 4.5, post-test = 1; aggression hostility: pre-test = 5, post-test = 0; social desirability: pre-test = 3.5, post-test =0.

For some of the scales of the ZKPQ questionnaire, we find a significant decrease in the scores for subjects from the experimental group in the post-test (scales impulsivity W=-3.103, p= 0.002, neuroticism anxiety W=-2.213, p= 0.02, aggression W= -2.680, p= 0.007, desirability W=-2.264, p= 0.02), and in others a significant increase in post-test results (sociability W= -3.071, p= 0.002, activity W= -2.655, p= 0.008).

This fact allows us to talk about the effectiveness of the training sessions that allowed the reduction of dysfunctional coping mechanisms and the development of functional ones in the experimental group, as well as the significant modification of the studied personality traits.

Step number 3 consists in performing the third comparison in the statistical analysis of the results of the control group subjects obtained in the finding experiment and in the control experiment. This statistical comparison was performed by means of the non-parametric Wilcoxon statistical test.

Figure 7 The control experiment. Gr. Control test – retest. CERQ questionnaire, mean values

The values obtained by the subjects of the control group in the pre- and post-test are the following: self-blame: pre-test = 5.62, post-test = 4.5; acceptance: pre-test = 4.71, post-test = 8.25; rumination: pre-test = 5.5, post-test = 7.5; positive refocusing: pre-test = 6.42, post-test = 5.5; refocusing on planning: pre-test = 5.33, post-test = 4; positive reappraisal: pre-test = 5.25, post-test = 4.8; putting into perspective: pre-test = 6.43, post-test = 5.25; catastrophizing: pre-test = 4.75, post-test = 4.25; blaming others: pre-test = 7, post-test = 3.67.

For all the scales of the CERQ questionnaire, we find close results as quantitative values ​​for the subjects from the control group in the pre and post test, the significance threshold being statistically insignificant, which allows us to talk about the fact that there were no changes in the subjects from the control group in pre and post test for cognitive emotional coping: self-blame: W = 0, p = 1; acceptance: W = 0, p =1; rumination: W = -0.472, p =0.637; positive refocusing: W = -0.491, p =0.623; refocus on planning: W = -0.284, p =0.776; positive reappraisal: W = -0.179, p = 0.858; perspective: W = -1.073, p = 0.283; catastrophizing: W = -0.142, p =0.887; blaming others: W = -0.567, p =0.571. The differences are statistically insignificant for all CERQ questionnaire scales.

Figure 8 The control experiment. Gr. Control test – retest. SACS questionnaire, mean values

The values obtained by the subjects of the control group in the pre- and post-test are the following: assertive action: pre-test = 6.25, post-test = 5.86; social relationship: pre-test = 4, post-test = 7.14; support seeking: pre-test = 5.88, post-test = 5.25; prudent action: pre-test = 5.17, post-test = 4.1; instinctive action: pre-test = 6.12, post-test = 5.93; avoidance: pre-test = 5.38, post-test = 5.58; indirect action: pre-test = 5.17, post-test = 6; antisocial action: pre-test = 6.38, post-test = 5.79; aggression: pre-test = 5.5, post-test = 6.6.

For all the scales of the SACS questionnaire, we find close results as quantitative values ​​for the subjects from the control group in the pre and post test, the threshold of significance being statistically insignificant, which allows us to talk about the fact that there were no changes in the subjects from the control group in pre and post test for behavioral coping: assertive action: W=-0.722, p= 0.470; social relationship: W=-1.530, p= 0.126; support seeking: W= -0.411, p=0.681; prudent action: W= -0.356, p= 0.722; instinctive action: W=-0.760, p= 0.448; avoidance: W=-0.615, p= 0.538; indirect action: W= -0.359, p= 0.720; antisocial action: W= -0.669, p= 0.504; aggressiveness: W=0, p=1.

Figure 9 The control experiment. Gr. Control test – retest. ZKPQ questionnaire, mean values

The values ​​obtained by the subjects of the control group in the pre- and post-test are the following: sociability: pre-test = 8.08, post-test = 4.92; impulsive sensation seeking: pre-test = 6.33, post-test = 4.25; activity: pre-test = 5.25, post-test = 6.5; neuroticism anxiety: pre-test = 11, post-test = 5.5; aggression hostility: pre-test = 5.38, post-test = 5.58; social desirability: pre-test = 7, post-test = 4.

For all the scales of the ZKPQ questionnaire, we find close results as quantitative values ​​for the subjects in the control group in the pre and post test, the threshold of significance being statistically insignificant, which allows us to talk about the fact that there were no changes in the subjects in the control group in pre and post test for alternative Big Five personality traits: sociability: W = -0.762, p = 0.446; impulsive sensation seeking: W = -1.074, p = 0.283; activity: W = -1.490, p = 0.136; neuroticism anxiety: W =-1.980, p = 0.058; aggression hostility: W = -0.622, p = 0.534; social desirability: W = -0.187, p =0.852.

As a conclusion for step 3, comparing the results obtained by the subjects of the control group in the ascertainment experiment and the control experiment for all administered samples allow us to talk about the fact that there were no changes in the studied characteristics, the adults in this group keeping their constants cognitive, emotional and behavioral coping mechanisms, as well as the level of development of personality traits from the initial profile, because they did not participate in the group training program.

Discussions

The first step of the formative experiment involves the comparison between GE and GC in the retest of the results of the questionnaires of cognitive emotional coping (CERQ), behavioral coping (SACS), as well as for personality traits from the Big Five alternative model, the ZKPQ questionnaire.

For cognitive-emotional coping (CERQ): We managed to significantly decrease as can be ascertained by the U Mann Whitney test: self-blame, rumination, catastrophizing, blame others and to increase in the experimental group compared to the control group the following coping mechanisms: acceptance, positive refocus, planning refocus, positive reappraisal, perspective. We were therefore able to reduce in the experimental group compared to the control group the level of adults to make processes of consciousness and to think constantly, repetitively about dysfunctional aspects of life, as well as to give exaggerated connotations to them in relation to reality or to attribute the negative effects to other people. At the same time, in the same experimental group we significantly raised the level of acceptance and cognitive and emotional reorganization in relation to the control group by finding new positive solutions in relation to reality, new perspectives, as well as reanalyzing life situations from a positive perspective.

For behavioral coping (SACS) we managed, through the training program, to change the quantitative values ​​of the subjects in the experimental group compared to the control group, so to reduce the dysfunctional behavioral coping mechanisms: seeking support, impulsive action, avoidance, antisocial action, indirect action, aggressive action and to increase the functional behavioral coping mechanisms: assertiveness, social relation, prudent action, as can be ascertained by the U Mann Whitney test. We therefore managed to decrease in the experimental group compared to the control group the level of adults to rely on others than on themselves and to always look for external validation, the tendency to react in the moment without weighing the consequences, the tendency to postpone the solution with responsibility for problems or resorting to manipulative or aggressive behavior in dealing with life situations. At the same time, we managed to significantly increase in the experimental group compared to the control group the assertiveness in interpersonal relations, the ability to relate more easily and to make calculated decisions.

For the scales of the ZKPQ questionnaire impulsivity, aggressiveness, neuroticism anxiety and desirability the scores are significantly lower in the experimental group than in the control group. At the same time, we managed to increase the sociability and activity scores in the experimental group, as can be ascertained by the U Mann Whitney test. We were therefore able to reduce in the experimental group compared to the control group the level of adults reacting or making decisions in the moment, without weighing the consequences, acting in a behaviorally or verbally aggressive manner, as well as the level of anxiety and the tendency to offer in certain facade responses. We were able to increase the level of relating easily and feeling a higher level of energy in relation to the tasks to be performed.

For step 2, when comparing the results (Wilcoxon test) obtained by the subjects of the experimental group in the ascertainment experiment and the control experiment, we can state that through the training sessions we managed to achieve changes for all cognitive, emotional and behavioral coping mechanisms, as well as for all personality traits studied.

This fact allows us to talk about the effectiveness of the training sessions that allowed the reduction of dysfunctional coping mechanisms and the development of functional ones in the experimental group, as well as the significant modification of the studied personality traits.

For step 3, comparing the results (Wilcoxon test) obtained by the subjects of the control group in the ascertainment experiment and the control experiment allow us to talk about the fact that there were no changes in the studied characteristics, the adults in this group keeping – and constant cognitive, emotional and behavioral coping mechanisms, as well as the level of development of personality traits from the initial profile, because they did not participate in the group training program.

Conclusions

The hypothesis of the formative experiment was confirmed, in which we assumed that by means of integrative psychological intervention sessions it is possible to improve/change cognitive, emotional and behavioral coping mechanisms in adulthood and personality traits.

Coping mechanisms, both cognitive-emotional, behavioral, and personality traits can be modified through group psychological interventions using an integrative work plan, which includes cognitive-behavioral, psychosomatic, NLP, experiential, psychodrama, art therapy, elements of bilateral EMDR desensitization and modern neuroscience techniques (mind movie, heart-brain coherence).

The fact that the coping mechanisms can be modified and as a consequence the personality traits can also be modified, is part of the homeostasis characteristic of the personality (the natural tendency to maintain its balance), of the personality flexibility characteristic (we can change aspects of the personality our own if we want and intend it), but also by the principle of neuroplasticity (we can build new neural pathways at any age). Beyond the diversity of techniques and methods applied in the group, a key changing aspect is the person’s motivation to renounce of old patterns of thinking, feeling and behaving and voluntarily directing attention to new ways of dealing with reality.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper.

References

1. Agbaria, Q. (2021). Coping with Stress Among Israeli–Palestinian High School Students: The Role of Self-Control, Religiosity, and Attachment Pattern. J Relig Health60, 692–708. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10943-020-01164-8
2. Berndt, C. (2016). Resilience. How do we become resilient to stress. Bucharest: Ed All Educational.
3. Cicchetti D, & Rogosch FA. (2009). Adaptive coping under conditions of extreme stress: Multilevel influences on the determinants of resilience in maltreated children. New Dir Child Adolesc Dev. 2009(124):47-59. doi: 10.1002/cd.242.
4. Crosswell, A. D., & Lockwood, K.G. (2020). Best practices for stress measurement: How to measure psychological stress in health research. In Health Psychology Open, 7(2), p.1-11.
5. Dafinoiu, I. (2002). Personality. Iasi: Ed Polirom,.
6. Davidson, R., & Begley, S. (2013). The brain and emotional intelligence. Bucureşti: Litera.
7. de la Fuente, J, Paoloni, P, Kauffman, D, Yilmaz , S.,  M, Sander, P, & Zapata, L. (2020) Big Five, Self-Regulation, and Coping Strategies as Predictors of Achievement Emotions in Undergraduate Students. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(10):3602. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17103602
8. Dispenza, J. (2019). Train your brain! Mental transformation strategies and techniques. Bucureşti: CurteaVeche.
9. Fu C.H.Y., Steiner, H., & Costafreda, S.G. (2013). Predictive neural biomarkers of clinical response in depression: a meta-analysis of functional and structural neuroimaging studies of pharmacological and psychological therapies. Neurobiology, 52, 75–83.
10. Fischer, G., & Riedesser, P., (2001). Psychotraumatology. Bucharest: Ed
11. Graham, L. (2013). Bouncing Back. California: New World Library. Kindle Edition
12. Horn, S. R., & Feder, A. (2018). Understanding Resilience and Preventing and Treating PTSD. In President and Fellows of Harvard College, 26 (3), pp. 158-166.
13. Jakobsen, A, V, & Elklit, A. (2021). Self-control and coping responses are mediating factors between child behavior difficulties and parental stress and family impact in caregivers of children with severe epilepsy. In Epilepsy & Behavior, Vol. 122, 108-224, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yebeh.2021.108224
14. Kain, L., K., & Terrell, S., J. (2018). Nurturing Resilience. Berkeley, California: North Atlantic Books.
15. Lombard CA. (2017) Psychosynthesis: A Foundational Bridge Between Psychology and Spirituality. In Pastoral Psychol.; 66(4):461-485. doi: 10.1007/s11089-017-0753-5.
16. Luther E.H., Canham D.L., & Cureton V.Y. (2005). Coping and Social Support for Parents of Children with Autism. In The Journal of School Nursing, 21(1):40-47. doi:10.1177/10598405050210010901
17. Masten, A. S. (2021). Resilience in developmental systems: Principles, pathways, and protective processes in research and practice. In M. Ungar (Ed.), Multisystemic resilience: Adaptation and transformation in contexts of change (pp. 113–134). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190095888.003.0007.
18. Murph, T. (2007). Passive aggressive. How you recognise it and control it. Bucharest: Ed Trei.
19. Polizzi, C., Lynn, S. J., & Perry, A. (2020). Stress and Coping in the Time of COVID-19: Pathways to Resilience and Recovery. In Clinical Neuropsychiatry, 17 (2), pp. 59-62.
20. Sandler IN, Tein JY, Mehta P, Wolchik S, & Ayers T. (2000). Coping efficacy and psychological problems of children of divorce. In Child Dev. ;71(4):1099-1188. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00212. PMID: 11016569.
21. Sica, C., Latzman, R. D., Caudek, C., Cerea, S., Colpizzi, I., Caruso, M., Giulini, P., & Bottesi, G. (2021). Facing distress in Coronavirus era: The role of maladaptive personality traits and coping strategies. In Personality and Individual Differences, 177, 59-62 .
22. Siegel, D. J. (2021). Mindsight: the new science of personal transformation. Bucureşti: Herald.
23. Sinring, Ab, & Nurfadhilah, A. (2022) Examining the Effect of Self-Regulation and Psychological Capital on the Students’ Academic Coping Strategies during the Covid-19 Pandemic. In International Journal of Instruction, 15 (2). pp. 487-500.
24. Skinner, E. A., & Zimmer-Gembeck, M. J. (2016). The Development of Coping. Stress, Neurophysiology, Social Relationship, and Resilience during Childhood and Aolescence. Switzerland : Springer International Publishing.
25. Vedhara,K., & Irwin, M.,R. (coord). (2017). Human psychouroimmunology. Bucureşti: Trei.
26. Vinkers, C. H., Amelsvoort, T., Bisson, J., Branchi, I., Cryan, J. F., Domschke, K., Manchia, M., Pinto, L., de Quervain, D., Schmidt, M. V., & van der Wee, N. (2020). Stress and resilience during the coronavirus pandemic. In European Neuropsychopharmacology, 35, pp.12-16.
27. White, A., (1999). Stres and Anxiety. New York: Godsfield Press.