Well-being and Coping with Stress Among Russian Adolescents in Different Educational Environments

Background The school environment influences a child’s well-being in different ways, not only by education but also by forming social roles, habits, and stress responses. It provides the sources of stress as well as the sources of resilience. Objective This study examines the variety of coping strategies of adolescents attending different educational institutions and the different trajectories in the adaptation process in different educational environments. Design This paper examined the coping strategies, optimism, and subjective well-being of students in different educational environments. Three schools were represented, and 646 adolescents between 12–17 years old participated in the study. The measures included the Ways of Coping Checklist, The Life Orientation Test, and The Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale. Results Coping strategies used by students attending different schools significantly differ in their intensiveness of use and age distribution. However, optimism and subjective well-being are higher among older adolescents and do not depend on the educational environment. Conclusion The differences in the coping strategies preferred by the adolescents in different types of schools reflect their adaptation to the different environmental demands, which is confirmed by the same level of subjective well-being and optimism in different environments. However, their repertoires of coping strategies are not analogous: the students in high-rated schools use more various and more constructive coping strategies than students in low-rated schools. We may assume that their resilience and ability to cope with stress outside of school may also differ, which, in turn, can influence their further life trajectories and ability to cope with difficulties in life, perpetuating existing social inequality. Early and middle adolescents in all types of schools show a lower level of well-being and optimism than older students, which may indicate their higher psychological vulnerability and need for adult attention and support compared to older adolescents.


Introduction
tal adaptive process integrates the development of stress reactivity with the emotional, motivational, behavioral, and other forms of regulation that are mobilized by stressful events. Resilience may be viewed as a dynamic adaptation process to a risk setting that involves interaction between a range of risk and protective factors, from the individual to the social (Olsson et al., 2003). It results from the interaction between a child's stress reaction and the environmental response to this reaction (Zimmer-Gembeck & Skinner, 2016). We suppose that in di erent environments, di erent coping strategies may be supported and termed as socially acceptable behaviour.
Although many studies focus on school-related stress and coping (e.g., Yuan, Zhang & Fu, 2017;Warren, 2000;Paul, Smith & Blumberg, 2012;Harper et al., 2012;Ganim, Frydenberg, 2006), they predominantly focus on coping with an event or phenomenon including exams, bullying, cyberbullying, and switching to remote learning. ere is clearly insu cient data on how school characteristics themselves relate to coping strategies preferred by students.
is study aims to explore how the characteristics of the school environment, summarized in the uni ed city school ranking, are related to both the coping strategies used by students and their psychological well-being. We used the psychological well-being scale to measure the level of subjective well-being as a direct indicator and optimism as an indirect indicator of well-being, re ecting con dence towards the world and the predominance of positive expectations (e.g., Scheier, Carver, & Bridges, 2001). Our hypotheses are as follows: 1) different preferred coping strategies are typical for students in different educational environments; 2) in different educational environments, the level of well-being of students differs.

Proced ure
To compare the students' characteristics in di erent educational environments, we organized a sample in a special way 2 . When choosing schools for research, we relied on the Moscow Department of Education ranking position. is ranking is based on a range of criteria that include the results of the uni ed state exam and statenal attestation of students, success in subject and cross-curriculum tests, participation in academic competitions, and the event of non-performance o enses. We were interested in schools from the top 25% of the ranking, from the bottom 25%, and schools that occupy the middle 20%. Despite the Department of Education's attempts to reduce educational inequality and make all schools uniform, each school usually has its own unique history and reputation. ey di er in the level of selectivity, socioeconomic characteristics of school students' families, the quali cations of teachers, and the strategies of intra-school psychological services. e three basic strategies of school psychological services function may be described as follows: 1) "Disaster recovery": psychological rescue actions usually follow incidents such as ghts, substance use, and crimes, in collaboration with the police, medical personnel, the commission for juvenile a airs and protection of their rights.
is is commonly associated with the schools from the bottom 25%; 2) "Caring for the future": di erent prevention programs are conducted and demanded from external specialists, but the current psychological problems are not always addressed. is strategy is used in schools that occupy the middle 20%; and 3) "System approach": multidirectional psychological work includes training, counselling, prevention programs, and education and support for the teachers and the parents. It is implemented by the schools from the top 25% of the ranking. ese indicators are mostly directly or implicitly re ected in the school's ranking. Children who study in schools with di erent ratings are in distinctly di erent social conditions, with di erent norms and requirements.
Nine educational institutions were chosen as platforms for the research, and they were combined into three groups of three institutions.
1 st group. A school with a low ranking and two institutions of secondary special education (colleges), characterized by low educational achievement and unsafe behaviour among the students (N = 222 students).
2 nd group. ree schools with an average ranking (N = 161 students). 3 rd group. ree schools with a high ranking (N = 263 students).
Questionnaires e participants completed three questionnaires in the Russian adaptation: (  (Kryukova & Kuftyak, 2007). The responses to items were presented on a Likert scale from 0 to 3; (2) The Life Orientation Test by Carver & Scheier (Gordeeva, Sychev, & Osin, 2010). We use the scale of optimism in our study (Chronbach's α = 0.78, Mc-Donald's ω = 0.79 in our sample). The responses to items were presented on a Likert scale from 0 to 4; (3) The Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale (Tennant et al., 2007, Chronbach's α = 0.88, McDonald's ω = 0.88 in our sample). The responses to items were presented on a Likert scale from 1 to 5.
For the analysis of coping strategies, a two-way MANOVA analysis was conducted (we used age group and school group as factors, and all scales of the Ways of Coping Checklist as outcomes). To analyze the separated e ects of age and school groups on various scales, a series of ANOVA's were used.

Results
In Table 2, the general results of the MANOVA are presented. ere is only one signi cant e ect of school groups. e coping strategies, in general, are more pronounced in the 3rd group.  Besides this general e ect, more interesting and meaningful are the e ects of age and school groups on separate coping strategies. Table 3 presents signi cant di erences in adolescents' coping strategies with stress situations from di erent educational environments (see also Figure 1). As we conducted a series of ANOVA's, we included raw p-value and adjusted p-values (we used the FDR method, Benjamini, Hochberg, 1995) in the table. Below we discuss unadjusted p-values since we want to estimate general tendencies that can be investigated in detail in further studies.
In the institutions of the 3 rd group, the strategies of Planning of Problem Solving, Positive Reappraisal, Taking Responsibility, and Self-Control (sub signi cantly) have a stronger representation compared to the other groups. ese strategies are very important for both coping functions: stress situation transformation and emotional regulation.
In the institutions of the 1 st group, Confrontation (among younger teenagers) has a higher representation. e 2 nd group shows a medium level of coping strategies. ere are no di erences between groups on the scales of Distancing, Escape-Avoidance, and Social Support Seeking strategies. Escape-Avoidance coping is predominantly discussed as disengagement coping and typically related to the higher number of internalizing problems (Compas et al., 2001). Distancing and Social Support Seeking is usually classi ed as emotional-focused coping, which is aimed at emotional expression and doesn't change the problem situation. However, social support may have di erent forms and functions (Compas et al., 2001).   Table 4. Results, depicted in Figure 2 and Figure 3, demonstrate a signi cant increase in optimism (see Figure 2) and mental well-being (see Figure 3) among respondents over time, with no di erence between school types.

Discussion
e data show several important results. Our rst hypothesis is con rmed: there are signi cantly di erent coping strategies preferred by students in di erent types of schools and, contribute to their well-being as optimal for the environmental demands. In the 1st group, Confrontational behaviour is higher among the younger and lower among the older adolescents; such coping strategies as Problem Solving, Positive Reappraisal, Self-Control, and Accessing Responsibility are signi cantly more frequently presented in the 3rd group. ese di erences con rm that students' adaptation to di erent environments is diverging. In the 3rd group, the coping strategy repertoire is broader, indicating that these students are more competent in problem-solving (which is steadily associated with lower externalizing and internalizing problems) (Compas et al., 2001), self-regulation (Self-Control scale), rethinking their experiences (Positive Reappraisal scale), and responsible perception of the situation (Accepting Responsibility scale), than in the institutions of the 1st and 2nd groups. Confrontation coping is more widely used by younger adolescents in the institutions of the 1st group, but the older students of the 3rd group use it more intensively than in the 1st group. e schools of the 2nd group occupy the middle position between the 1st and 3rd groups.
Since coping behaviour is sensitive to environmental responses, we can assume that di erent behavioral patterns are supported in schools of di erent groups through observational social learning, adult encouragement, and norms of socially acceptable behaviour realized in the school. Seemingly, in the 1st group, the predominantly obedient, manageable behaviour with the external locus of control among the students is supported. Partly, it may be related to the characteristics of the students contingent (children with low academic achievement and motivation, and externalizing behaviour problems may provoke stricter responses by the teachers). Still, it is remarkable that neither aggression nor awareness are supported. e behavioural repertoire increases slightly, but students' manageability and controllability seem to develop and get support.
In the 3rd group, we can assume the positive environmental response towards variable behaviour, particularly with a high level of self-control and problem-solving planning. Environmental tolerance to adolescents' confrontational behaviour (the Confrontation scores is higher in older students), in combination with the support of responsibility, the ability to plan their actions and predict the consequences, along with self-control, may promote personal autonomy development. e schools of the 2nd group have a position between the 1st and 3rd groups; in gures 1, 2, and 3, their pro le looks closer to the pro le of the 1st group, but there is no statistical con rmation now, and this similarity requires further studies.
ese results partly correspond with the previous studies of coping within the school environment. For example, academic stress-coping strategies may be predicted by students' thinking styles (Yuan, Zhang & Fu, 2017). ese may be developed di erently in di erent environments; positive attitudes to school are predicted by a low level of school-related stress, a high level of well-being, and di erent constellations of the coping strategies for males and females (Ganim, Frydenberg, 2006). Harper et al. (2012) showed that coping e ectiveness suppresses the e ects of peer victimization on perceived school safety. However, there is a lack of research on the coping behaviour of schoolchildren in the context of di erent educational environments. is explains the novelty of this work, but at the same time, it makes the work less complete and requires further research.
Surprisingly, the second hypothesis isn't con rmed. ere are no signi cant differences in well-being and optimism in educational environments. However, there are di erences associated with age: between the ages of 12-15 years old, the adoles-cents demonstrate a signi cantly lower level of well-being than older students, which means that this age group is especially vulnerable to the di erent stressors. An increase of the mental well-being and optimism from younger to older adolescence is shown in other studies (e.g., Salmela-Aro & Tuominen-Soini, 2010;Sanders et al., 2015), and this tendency may re ect maturation processes and an increase of adjustment to the present conditions and successful coping with stress that manifests, for instance, in improving well-being. e ndings show the splitting of the educational strategies and results. In the educational environments where the lower educational level is dominant, and harder psychological problems are noticed (the 1st group), obedience and manageability among students are fostered. In environments with higher academic achievements and attention paid to the psychological problems (the 3rd group), more complex and versatile behaviour is supported.

Conclusion
Our results show that adolescents adapt to their environment over time and build up their resilience in various conditions. Early and middle adolescence seems to be the period of higher vulnerability among adolescents and requires the most attention and support provided by the social environment.
Despite a key feature of adolescence being a growing autonomy, our ndings show that, in only certain schools, personal autonomy was encouraged and fostered. Alternatively, in other schools, obedience, but not personal autonomy, is encouraged. ese di erences in schools indirectly support the di erent patterns of adaptation towards complicated social conditions. ey foster and increase social inequality and a split in the prospective personal maturity in students graduating from the di erent school groups.
According to the demands-resource model, the environment provides resources and simultaneously imposes demands on students, including e ort and usually have physical and psychological costs. e resources can help to diminish the stress induced by this e ort and aid the individuals in ful lling their personal needs and boost their positive adjustment. A mismatch between the students' developmental needs and the school environment can provoke di erent psychological and mental health problems (Symonds et al., 2016;Cadime et al., 2016). Our study shows some directions in the di erences in the e orts made by students to cope with stress, but many questions require further research. In particular, in the future, it is important to make a deeper assessment of the school climate, norms and values within each organization, as well as to study the coping strategies used by students in a long-term study.

Limitations
In this study, there is an uncontrollable factor of individual di erences between age groups. e formal rating criterion chosen for the sample formation does not give a complete picture of the features of the educational environment. Future research should include a longitudinal study to avoid these limitations and pay more attention to the students' individual di erences and school environment assessment.

Ethics Statement
e study was previously discussed and approved by the Ethics Committee of the Institute of Social Sciences of the RANEPA. Written informed consent to participate in this study was provided by the participants' parents and legal guardians.

Author Contributions
Kirill Khlomov and Alexandra Bochaver conceived of the idea. Alexey Korneev developed the theory and performed the computations. All authors discussed the results and contributed to the nal manuscript.

Con ict of Interest
e authors declare no con ict of interest.