Self-fulfilling Versus Self-destructive Adolescents: Exploration of Relations among Resilience, Well-Being, and Life Satisfaction

This study examined the differences between adolescents with a self-fulfilling profile and those with a self-destructive profile in resilience, well-being, and satisfaction with life. The Resiliency Attitudes and Skills Profile (De Caroli and Sagone, 2014) was used to measure sense of humor, competence, adaptability, control, and engagement; the Life Satisfaction Scale (Di Fabio and Gori, 2016), the Psychological Well-Being Scale (Ryff and Keyes, 1995) was used to explore general psychological well-being; the Positive (PA) and Negative (NA) Affect Scale (Di Fabio and Bucci, 2015) was applied to measure the two opposite affective profiles, self-fulfilling (high PA and low NA) and self-destructive profile (low PA and high NA). Results showed that adolescents with a self-fulfilling profile reported higher resilience, life satisfaction, psychological well-being than those with a self-destructive profile. Future research could deep protective factors of self-fulfilling profile and risk factors of self-destructive profile in adolescence.


Introduction
The current study aimed to explore levels of resilience (De Caroli and Sagone, 2014) and well-being (Ryff, 2013) in a group of Italian adolescents with a self-fulfilling profile, compared to those with a self-destructive profile (Archer et al., 2007;Di Fabio and Bucci, 2015;Garcia and Siddiqui, 2009a;Garcia and Moradi, 2013;Watson et al., 1988). The scientific interest in the topic of resilience during adolescence and the deepening of its psychological correlates represented the focus of this paper. Resilience is defined as the ability to overcome hardships and flourish in the face of them (Ryff and Singer, 2003;Wagnild and Young, 1993), to restore from stressful events or preserve equilibrium under significant pressures (Smith et al., 2008), and to bounce back from difficulties adopting positive strategies of coping (Masten et al., 1999). Recently, Fletcher and Sarkar (2013) reviewed the different approaches to the analysis of resilience, considering this phenomenon an adaptive response to various adversities, ranging from ongoing daily hassles to major life events, or on the side as the results deriving from the interactive influence of psychological characteristics within the context of the stress process. In this analysis, protective and risk factors act simultaneously to cope with the critical events (Ungar, 2013).
Referring to the skills typically noticeable in the resilient individuals, according to the Hurtes and Allen (2001), De Caroli and Sagone (2014) defined the strength-oriented psychological dimensions as follows: 1) "the ability to read and interpret situations, people, and subtle nuances of both verbal and nonverbal communication" (insight); 2) "a balance between being true to oneself and accommodating to the concerns of others" (independence); 3) the ability to "generate options and alternatives to cope with the challenges of life" (creativity); 4) "the ability to laugh at oneself and to find joy in one's surroundings" (sense of humor); 5) "the desire and determination to take proactively charge of one's own life" (initiative); 6) the ability to "seek out and maintain fulfilling and healthy relationships with peers, family members, and other individuals" (supportive relationships); finally, 7) the need to "identify what is morally just and appropriate, independently from one's own desires" (values orientation) (De Caroli and Sagone, 2014). In a validation study of Italian Resiliency Attitudes and Skills Profile (Italian-RASP), carried out with a large sample of middle and late adolescents, De Caroli and Sagone (2014) applied the analysis proposed by Hurtes and Allen (2001); the authors modified the labels of almost all factors, grouping together some of these factors (for example, "creativity" and "insight" into the single/unique factor named "adaptability"). They maintained the same content to adapt the resilient profile to the Italian contexts. According to this modified structure of resilience, highly resilient individuals try to figure out things they don't understand (engagement), to deal with the consequences of their actions and can modify their behaviors to match them with the situation (adaptability), to avoid situations where evidence in this topic, Archer et al. (2007) observed that Swedish high school students with a self-fulfilling profile scored higher in the traits of energy, optimism, and psychological well-being and lower in stress than selfdestructive, high affective, and low affective ones. In addition, Archer et al. (2008) found that self-fulfilling individuals reported high self-esteem, optimism, and internal locus of control, while self-destructive individuals revealed low self-esteem, pessimism, and external locus of control. Garcia et al. (2016) discovered that Swedish individuals with a self-fulfilling profile were characterized by a balanced time perspective and higher well-being than individuals with a self-destructive profile. More recently, Di Fabio and Bucci (2015) observed that Italian high school students with a self-fulfilling profile scored higher on life satisfaction, self-esteem, life meaning, and optimism than the others. Garcia and Siddiqui (2009b) explored the differences among the four affective profiles in Swedish students in relation to life satisfaction, well-being and ability to recall positive and negative life events, observing that selffulfilling, high affective, and low affective individuals reported a higher degree of life satisfaction, psychological well-being and recalled more positive than negative events than the self-destructive ones. In addition, Garcia et al. (2014) have investigated the differences between affective profiles in psychological well-being and harmony and explored the relations between well-being and harmony within the affective profiles. The authors found that selffulfilling individuals scored higher in the psychological well-being than the other profiles, and self-destructive individuals reported the lowest levels of psychological well-being and harmony compared to the other profiles. Finally, Garcia and Moradi (2013) compared the affective profiles of Swedish and Iranian adolescents, discovering that across cultures the self-fulfilling participants reported greater life satisfaction and psychological well-being.
The most part of recent literature considered life satisfaction and positive and negative affect as two dimensions of the bifactor model of subjective well-being rather than of a tripartite model (Daniel-González et al., 2020;Jovanović, 2015), defined by Diener et al. (2002) as "the personal perception and experience of positive and negative emotional responses and global and (domain) specific cognitive evaluations of satisfaction with life. It has been defined as "a person's cognitive and affective evaluations of his or her life" (p.63). Furthermore, since not enough evidence exists to approve the goodness of the tripartite model, a huge controversy has dealt with the relation between the cognitive component and two affective components of subjective well-bein (Jovanović, 2015). According to this last idea (Diener et al., 2018), subjective well-being has three components: life satisfaction (LS), referred to the explicit and conscious evaluations that individuals do about their own life (cognitive component) and positive affect (PA), concerning pleasant and desirable emotional feelings and moods, and negative affect (NA) for defining unpleasant and undesirable emotional feelings (affective components). For the main goal of our study, we decided to test the differences in affective profiles using life satisfaction as a separate and dependent variable together with resilience and psychological well-being.

Purpose of Study
The main rationale of this exploratory study was to: 1) examine the differences for affective profiles in resilience, dimensions of psychological well-being, and life satisfaction in a sample of Sicilian adolescents; 2) analyze the relations between resilience and psychological well-being, resilience and life satisfaction, and well-being and life satisfaction both for adolescents with a self-fulfilling profile and for those with a self-destructive profile. The originality of this analysis concerns the choice exclusively referred to the two opposite profiles (self-fulfilling vs. self-destructive profile) emerging from the application of the Affective Profile Model. We hypothesized that: H 1 : adolescents with a self-fulfilling profile will report higher resilience than those with a self-destructive one, as proposed in Sagone and Indiana's research (2017) with Italian adolescents; H 2 : adolescents with a self-fulfilling profile will show higher psychological well-being than those with a selfdestructive one, as found in De Caroli and Sagone's research with middle and late Italian adolescents (2016) and in Garcia and Archer' study (2012) with Sweden adolescents; H 3 : adolescents with a self-fulfilling profile will obtain higher satisfaction with life than those with a selfdestructive one, as found in Garcia and Siddiqui' study (2009a); H 4a : positive correlations between life satisfaction and psychological well-being, as well as between life satisfaction and resilience, will be confirmed both in total sample and in the two separate profiles; H 4b : positive correlations between psychological well-being and resilience will be corroborated both in total sample and in the two separate profiles.

Participants
A convenience sample of 260 Sicilian adolescents (131 boys and 129 girls) was recruited from three Public High Schools sited in Sicily, Italy. Their age range is from 14 to 18 years (M=16,01, sd=1,5). Parental consent for the adolescents' participation to this research was requested and obtained in accordance with the requirements of privacy and anonymity laid down by Italian Law (Law Decree DL. 196/2003). Adolescents were invited to participate voluntarily, providing the corresponding informed consent. After explaining the purpose of the study and giving the relevant instructions, the questionnaire was applied. Respondents received no economic or academic compensation for participating in this study.

Measures
The Italian version of Resiliency Attitudes and Skills Profile (RASP: De Caroli and Sagone (2014)) is a questionnaire composed by 30 statements rated with a 6-point Likert scale, from 1 (corresponding to strongly disagree) to 6 intervals (corresponding to strongly agree), and grouped in five dimensions of resilient profile: (a) sense of humor (e.g., "Laughter helps me deal with stress") (b) competence (e.g., "I know when I am good at something") (c) adaptability (α=.67; e.g., "I can change my behavior to match the situation") (d) engagement (e.g. "I try to figure out things I do not understand") (e) control (e.g., "I avoid situations where I could get into trouble") The internal consistency of RASP was satisfactory (α=.88). The Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS: Diener et al. (1985)); Italian version by Di Fabio and Bucci (2015) is a self-report measure to assess the global life satisfaction. It consists of 5 items (e.g., "In most ways, my life is close to my ideal." or "So far I have gotten the important things I want in my life"), usually rated on a seven-point Likert scale, from 1 (equal to strongly disagree) to 7 (equal to strongly agree). We used the Italian version in this study and it showed a good internal consistency (α = .84), confirming the good psychometric properties of the scale in a sample of adolescents.
The short version of Psychological Well-Being Scale (PWB: Sagone and De Caroli (2014a) Zani and Cicognani (1999)) is a measure formed by 18 statements, each valuable on a 6-point Likert scale from 1 (anchored with "strongly disagree") to 6 intervals (anchored with "strongly agree") and clustered in six subscales (three items for each subscale): autonomy ("I have confidence in my opinions, even if they are contrary to the general consensus"); environmental mastery ("I am quite good at managing the many responsibilities of my daily life"); purpose in life ("I am an active person in carrying out the plans I set for myself"); positive relations with others ("I know that I can trust my friends, and they know they can trust me"); personal growth ("I have the sense that I have developed a lot as a person over time"); self-acceptance ("I like most aspects of my personality"). Participants were asked to indicate the extent to they agreed with the mentioned statements. The internal consistency of PWB was good (α=.82).
The Positive Affect (PA) and Negative Affect (NA) Schedule (PANAS: Di Fabio and Bucci (2015) Terracciano et al. (2003)) is used to explore the affective profiles, consisting of 20 adjectives-descriptors, 10 referred to positive affect (PA: e.g., excited, interested) and 10 to negative affect (NA: e.g., afraid, distressed); participants were asked to indicate the intensity of the affect that they experienced in a specified time frame (e.g., at the present moment) on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (equal to very slightly or not at all) to 5 (equal to extremely). Four different combinations of affective profiles originate from the PANAS using the median as reference: 1) self-fulfilling (high PA and low NA), 2) low affective (low PA and low NA), 3) high affective (high PA and high NA), and 4) selfdestructive profile (low PA and high NA). The procedure to create the affective profiles has been developed by Norlander et al. (2002) and, subsequently, applied by Di Fabio and Bucci (2015) by dividing self-reported positive affect and negative affect median scores in high and low. The distribution of affective profiles is as follows: n=62 self-fulfilling (23,8%), n=76 low affective (29,2%), n=51 high affective (19,6%), and n=71 self-destructive profile (27,3%). For this case, Cronbach's alphas were satisfactory (.77 for PA and .76 for NA).
From the total sample of 260 Sicilian adolescents, we selected only two types of affective profiles for the principal aim of this study: self-fulfilling versus self-destructive profile. So, the final composition of sample was as follows: n=62 self-fulfilled adolescents with 38 boys and 24 girls, and n=71 self-destructive adolescents with 29 boys and 42 girls.
Data analyses were performed by means of SPSS 20 using t-tests. A p-value of .05 is used to determine statistical significance in all analyses. Type of profile was used as independent variable to compute the differences in resilience (RASP), well-being (PWB), and satisfaction with life (LSS).

Fig-1. Correlations between LS and PWB for total sample
Furthermore, separately for each type of profile, we found that: 1) For adolescents with a self-fulfilling profile, life satisfaction was positively related both with purpose in life (r = .35, p = .005) and self-acceptance (r = .34, p = .007); 2) For adolescents with a self-destructive profile, life satisfaction was positively related with self-acceptance (r = .52, p< .001) and personal growth (r = .32, p = .006), but negatively with relations with others (r = -.29, p = .013).
For the relations between life satisfaction and resilience (H 4a ), linear correlations have showed that (see Fig.2):

Fig-2. Correlations between LS and RASP for total sample
In addition, separately for each type of profile, we reported that: 1) For adolescents with a self-fulfilling profile, life satisfaction was positively related only with selfengagement (r = .24, p = .05); 2) For adolescents with a self-destructive profile, life satisfaction was positively related only with adaptability (r = .28, p = .017).
With reference to the relations between resilience and psychological well-being (r for total sample = .42, p < .001) (H 4b ), linear correlations have pointed out that: 1) For adolescents with a self-fulfilling profile, sense of humor was positively related with purpose in life (r = .26, p = .040); adaptability was positively related with self-acceptance (r = .36, p = .005); engagement was positively related with purpose in life (r = .36, p = .004) but negatively with relations with others (r = -.40, p = .001); 2) For adolescents with a self-destructive profile, sense of humor was positively related with purpose in life (r = .36, p = .002); competence was positively related with autonomy (r = .39, p = .001) and purpose in life (r = .27, p = .024); adaptability was positively related with self-acceptance (r = .42, p< .001); engagement was positively related with purpose in life (r = .31, p = .009).

Discussion
Replicating some of the results of past studies, obtained in different contexts, this research revealed that adolescents with a self-fulfilling profile are more resilient than those with a self-destructive profile, confirming the initial hypothesis and the empirical evidence observed by Di Fabio and Bucci (2015). It means that the adolescents with high PA and low NA are more likely to bounce back difficulties using the sense of humor, dealing with the consequences of their actions and changing their behaviors to match them with the stressful situations, and being efficiently prone to know when they are good at something. These results are consistent with the findings of Tugade and Fredrickson (2004) and Ong et al. (2006) in relation to the association between positive affect and resilience: so, positive affect is positively related to high resilience as previously found in Sagone and Indiana (2017).
For the second hypothesis, adolescents with a self-fulfilling profile report higher psychological well-being than those with a self-destructive profile, except for the environmental mastery and personal growth: these adolescents are highly autonomous and independent in their life choices, engaged in positive relationships with others and show a positive image of themselves. These results are in line with those provided by Norlander et al. (2005), Archer et al. (2007), Garcia and Siddiqui (2009a), and, more recently, by Sagone and De Caroli in the Italian context (in press): so, psychological well-being is higher among self-fulfilling adolescents than all other profiles.
For the third hypothesis, satisfaction with life is higher in adolescents with a self-fulfilling profile compared to those with a self-destructive profile. As found by Huebner and Dew (1996) and by Garcia and Archer (2012), selfdestructive adolescents reported lower life satisfaction and psychological well-being than the other three profiles.
The relevant results catching our attention are the negative correlations that emerged between life satisfaction and relations with the others in adolescents with a self-destructive profile, as well as the negative correlations between engagement (one dimension of resilience) and relations with the others in adolescents with a self-fulfilling profile. Instead of looking for an explanation to these results, the authors believe these relations could be deepen using other measures regarding social relationships or friendships in adolescence.