Skip to Content
MDPIMDPI

Advanced

AdolescentsAdolescents
PDF
  • Article
  • Open Access

15 September 2026

13 Pages

Psychosocial Resources and Adolescent Well-Being: Reassessing the Explanatory Role of Vulnerability

,
,
,
,
,
and
1
Doctorado en Educación y Sociedad, Facultad de Educación y Humanidades, Universidad Andrés Bello, Santiago 7591538, Chile
2
Facultad de Ciencias Sociales, Universidad Andrés Bello, Santiago 7591538, Chile
3
Facultad de Economía y Negocios, Universidad Andrés Bello, Santiago 7591538, Chile
4
Facultad de Educación y Humanidades, Universidad Andrés Bello, Santiago 7591538, Chile
Adolescents2026, 6(5), 76;https://doi.org/10.3390/adolescents6050076
Version Notes
Order Reprints

Abstract

This study examined the relative contribution of structural vulnerability and individual psychological resources in explaining subjective well-being among Chilean adolescents. From an ecological perspective, it assessed whether resilience and perseverance, or grit, mediate the relationship between school vulnerability and subjective well-being. A cross-sectional, non-experimental correlational design was used with a sample of 3774 secondary school students in Chile. Subjective well-being, resilience, and perseverance were measured using self-report instruments, whereas school vulnerability was operationalized through the School Vulnerability Index (SVI). Results indicated that school vulnerability was negatively associated with subjective well-being, although with a small effect size. In contrast, resilience and perseverance showed stronger positive associations, with resilience emerging as the strongest predictor in multivariate models. Hierarchical regression analyses showed that SVI and age explained only a small proportion of variance in well-being, whereas adding resilience and perseverance substantially increased explained variance. Bootstrapped mediation analyses indicated significant but small indirect effects, suggesting partial mediation. Resilience accounted for the largest indirect effect. Overall, findings suggest that adolescent subjective well-being is more strongly explained by psychological resources than structural vulnerability alone. These results challenge deterministic interpretations of school vulnerability and highlight the importance of strengthening socioemotional competencies in educational settings.

1. Introduction

Subjective well-being in adolescence constitutes a central indicator of psychosocial development, insofar as it reflects individuals’ cognitive and affective evaluations of their lives. In educational contexts, subjective well-being has been consistently associated with key outcomes such as academic achievement, social adjustment, and mental health, positioning it as a critical construct in contemporary educational research [1,2,3,4]. Studying these processes specifically in Chile is relevant because the country combines high aggregate development with persistent socioeconomic and educational inequalities, a segmented school system, and documented declines in adolescent life satisfaction, which makes it a strategic setting to disentangle the relative weight of structural disadvantage and individual psychological resources [3,5].
Traditionally, a substantial body of literature has emphasized the role of structural conditions—particularly socioeconomic vulnerability—as primary determinants of adolescent well-being [3,5,6,7,8]. From this perspective, it is commonly assumed that higher levels of social disadvantage are systematically associated with lower levels of subjective well-being. In Chile, this premise has been operationalized through the School Vulnerability Index (SVI), a widely used indicator that integrates socioeconomic, family, and territorial dimensions to estimate students’ level of social risk [9]. In the present study, subjective well-being is understood mainly through its cognitive component, that is, global life satisfaction, which is the dimension captured by the self-report measure employed here; the affective components of subjective well-being were not assessed and are therefore treated as beyond the scope of this study [2,10].
Empirical evidence has consistently reported negative associations between vulnerability and both educational and psychosocial outcomes, supporting the expectation that greater vulnerability is linked to lower subjective well-being [3,6,7]. Accordingly, it is hypothesized that school vulnerability will be negatively associated with subjective well-being (H1).
However, a closer examination of the empirical literature suggests that these effects, although statistically significant, tend to be modest in magnitude [3,7,11]. This pattern raises a relevant question: although vulnerability matters, to what extent does it actually explain adolescent well-being compared with other factors? This issue is particularly pertinent in contexts where high levels of inequality coexist with individual trajectories of positive adaptation. This is precisely the pattern observed in Chile, where marked inequality coexists with considerable heterogeneity in adolescent well-being, suggesting that structural indicators alone may be insufficient to account for individual differences in life satisfaction [3,6].
In parallel, research has increasingly begun to focus on individual psychological resources as key explanatory factors of well-being. Among these, resilience and perseverance, or grit, have received considerable attention. Resilience, broadly defined as the capacity to adapt positively in the face of adversity, has been consistently associated with higher levels of subjective well-being among adolescents, even in contexts of social disadvantage [12,13,14,15]. Moreover, resilience is increasingly conceptualized as a dynamic process that emerges from the interaction between individuals and their environments, including social support and school experiences [16,17]. Based on this evidence, higher levels of resilience are expected to be positively associated with subjective well-being (H2). Although resilience and grit are related, they are conceptually distinct: resilience refers primarily to positive adaptation and recovery in the face of adversity, whereas grit denotes sustained perseverance and consistency of effort toward long-term goals. Recent work has nonetheless cautioned that the perseverance-of-effort facet of grit overlaps substantially with resilience, a distinction that is addressed explicitly in the present study [18,19].
Similarly, perseverance—commonly operationalized as grit—refers to sustained effort and consistency in the pursuit of long-term goals [20]. Research has demonstrated robust associations between grit and subjective well-being across diverse cultural contexts [21,22]. Along these lines, recent evidence based on structural equation modeling has shown that grit is not only positively associated with psychological well-being among adolescents but also functions as a relevant explanatory mechanism in this relationship, mediating the influence of motivational variables on well-being [23]. From a complementary perspective, recent theoretical developments have proposed integrative models that articulate different psychological resources in the promotion of adolescent adaptation, highlighting the role of life skills in strengthening grit and resilience [24]. Because these two resources are theoretically and empirically close, a central question of this study is whether they contribute differentially to adolescent well-being once structural vulnerability is taken into account.
Among adolescent populations, higher levels of grit have been linked to lower school burnout and fewer psychosocial problems, supporting its role as a protective resource in demanding educational environments [25]. Likewise, recent studies suggest that grit may influence life satisfaction indirectly through mechanisms such as academic adjustment and self-efficacy [26,27]. In the educational field, recent evidence suggests that grit not only acts as a predictor of adaptive outcomes but may also be targeted through intervention. For example, an experimental study with adolescents showed that a brief intervention aimed at strengthening beliefs about ability and perseverance produced significant increases in levels of grit, particularly among male students [28]. Therefore, it is hypothesized that higher levels of perseverance will be positively associated with subjective well-being (H3).
Beyond their direct effects, both resilience and perseverance have been proposed as mechanisms through which adverse conditions influence well-being. In particular, resilience has been identified as a mediator between negative experiences—such as victimization or stress—and subjective well-being [29]. Similarly, grit has been associated with the capacity to maintain adaptive functioning under challenging conditions, including contexts characterized by socioeconomic disadvantage [30,31]. Recent empirical evidence has shown that both grit and resilience are positively associated with psychological well-being among students and are also significant predictors of it [32]. In the same vein, studies based on structural equation modeling have shown that grit may act as a mediating mechanism through which other psychological resources, such as resilience, influence well-being and burnout [33]. Within this framework, it is plausible to propose that school vulnerability influences subjective well-being indirectly through these psychological resources.
Accordingly, it is hypothesized that resilience will mediate the relationship between school vulnerability and subjective well-being (H4), and that perseverance will also mediate this relationship (H5). Given prior evidence suggesting differential effects, resilience is further expected to explain a greater proportion of the variance in well-being compared with perseverance.
Importantly, existing research suggests that the magnitude of the associations between structural vulnerability and well-being is usually smaller than that observed for individual psychological resources [3,4]. This opens the possibility that resilience and perseverance not only mediate the effects of vulnerability but also exert stronger direct effects on subjective well-being. Therefore, it is hypothesized that resilience and perseverance will show stronger associations with subjective well-being than school vulnerability (H6).
Despite these advances, an important limitation remains in the literature: the scarcity of integrative models that simultaneously examine structural and individual factors in explaining adolescent well-being, particularly in Latin American contexts [8]. In Chile, research has largely focused on contextual explanations, paying less attention to the relative contribution of psychological resources [3].
In this regard, the present study proposes a resource-based perspective aimed at assessing the extent to which school vulnerability explains subjective well-being in comparison with individual adaptive capacities. From an ecological approach, well-being is understood as the result of interactions between contextual conditions and personal resources, rather than as a direct consequence of structural factors alone.
Specifically, this study evaluates a model in which school vulnerability is negatively associated with subjective well-being, whereas resilience and perseverance emerge as key explanatory factors that directly predict well-being and partially mediate the relationship between vulnerability and well-being. Finally, given consistent evidence that adolescent girls tend to report lower life satisfaction than boys, and that well-being and psychological resources vary with age across the secondary school years, age and gender were considered in the analyses in order to control for their potential confounding role and to explore possible differences [34,35].

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Design

A quantitative, non-experimental, cross-sectional design with a correlational-explanatory scope was employed. This approach made it possible to examine: (a) the association between school vulnerability and subjective well-being (H1), (b) the relationships between resilience and perseverance, or grit, and subjective well-being (H2–H3), (c) the relative contribution of these predictors in a multivariate model (H6), and (d) the mediating role of resilience and perseverance in the relationship between school vulnerability and subjective well-being (H4–H5). Given the cross-sectional nature of the data, the findings are interpreted in terms of associations rather than causality.

2.2. Participants

The sample consisted of 3774 secondary school students in Chile, enrolled in grades 9 to 12. The mean age was 15.90 years (SD = 1.09). Due to differences in data availability, the age variable included 2893 valid cases, whereas the School Vulnerability Index (SVI) was available for 3635 participants. The psychological variables, namely resilience, perseverance, and subjective well-being, were available for the full sample. Participants were recruited through non-probability sampling, based on the voluntary participation of schools and students. Schools with different levels of vulnerability were included to ensure sufficient variability in the main independent variable. Regarding gender composition, the sample included both boys and girls; because a small number of cases had missing information on this variable, the sex breakdown is reported on the basis of valid cases, and any discrepancy between the text and the descriptive table reflects this differential availability rather than an inconsistency in the data.

2.3. Instruments

2.3.1. Subjective Well-Being

Subjective well-being was assessed using an abbreviated version of the Students’ Life Satisfaction Scale (SLSS) [36,37], composed of four items aimed at measuring global life satisfaction among adolescents. The items included statements such as “My life is going well” and “The things in my life are excellent” and were selected from the original version of the scale, prioritizing those that represent global evaluations of life. Responses were recorded on a 0-to-10 Likert-type scale, with higher scores indicating higher well-being. The scale showed high internal consistency in the sample (α = 0.92). This abbreviated four-item version was adapted from the original validated SLSS; the four items were retained because they capture global, context-free evaluations of life while minimizing respondent burden in a large-scale school application, a strategy consistent with brief life-satisfaction measures used in adolescent research [37]. The high internal consistency obtained supports the reliability of this short form in the present sample.

2.3.2. Perseverance/Grit

Perseverance was assessed using a four-item subscale of the Short Grit Scale (Grit-S) [20], focused on the perseverance of effort dimension. The items included statements such as “Setbacks do not discourage me” and “I finish whatever I begin.” Responses were recorded on a 0-to-10 Likert-type scale, with higher scores indicating greater perseverance. The observed internal consistency was adequate (α = 0.74). Only the perseverance-of-effort subscale was used, adapted from the validated Short Grit Scale; the consistency-of-interest facet was not included because perseverance of effort is the component most directly relevant to adaptation under adversity and least confounded with personality traits [20].

2.3.3. Resilience

Resilience was measured using an eight-item scale designed to assess the capacity for adaptation and coping in the face of adverse situations, based on the theoretical model of the Connor–Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC) [38]. The items included statements such as “I am able to adapt to change” and “I can handle unpleasant feelings.” Responses were recorded on a 0-to-10 Likert-type scale, with higher scores indicating greater perceived resilience. The scale showed high internal consistency in the sample (α = 0.91). This eight-item measure was adapted from the CD-RISC model for use with Chilean adolescents; the high internal consistency observed supports its reliability in this population.

2.3.4. School Vulnerability/SVI

School vulnerability was operationalized through the School Vulnerability Index (SVI), an indicator used in the Chilean educational system that integrates socioeconomic and family dimensions [9]. In this study, the SVI was treated as a continuous variable, expressed as a percentage, with higher values indicating higher levels of vulnerability. It should be noted that the SVI is an aggregate socioeconomic and family index rather than a direct measure of individual disadvantage; it is therefore interpreted here as a structural indicator of school-level social risk [9].
Age was included as a control variable due to its potential association with subjective well-being and psychological resources. Gender was also examined, given well-documented gender differences in adolescent life satisfaction, and was tested as a covariate and through group comparisons [34].

2.4. Procedure

Data were collected through self-report questionnaires administered in classroom settings. The questionnaires were administered collectively during the school day under standardized conditions.
Participation was voluntary, anonymous, and confidential. A passive consent procedure was used, whereby parents or legal guardians were informed about the study and were given the opportunity to exclude their children from participation.

2.5. Data Analysis

Data analysis was conducted in four stages. First, descriptive statistics, including means, standard deviations, and skewness, as well as internal consistency coefficients, using Cronbach’s alpha, were calculated for all study variables. Second, Pearson bivariate correlations were estimated to examine preliminary associations among the variables. Third, a hierarchical linear regression analysis was conducted using ordinary least squares (OLS) estimation. In Model 1, age and the School Vulnerability Index (SVI) were included as predictors. In Model 2, resilience and perseverance were added to assess their incremental contribution to the explanation of subjective well-being (H6). Fourth, a parallel mediation model was estimated using bootstrapping with 5000 resamples to analyze the indirect effects of the SVI on subjective well-being through resilience and perseverance (H4–H5). The statistical significance of the indirect effects was determined using 95% confidence intervals.
Missing data were handled using pairwise deletion for correlational analyses and listwise deletion for regression and mediation models. This approach allowed differences in the effective sample size across analyses to be considered. Multicollinearity was assessed using the variance inflation factor (VIF), with all values below 2, indicating the absence of collinearity problems. A significance level of p < 0.05 was used across all analyses. All statistical analyses were carried out using IBM SPSS Statistics (version 27), and the mediation models were estimated with the PROCESS macro for SPSS (Model 4).

3. Results

3.1. Descriptive Statistics

Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics for the main study variables. Overall, the means indicate relatively high levels of psychological resources, particularly resilience (M = 7.33, SD = 2.12) and subjective well-being (M = 7.28, SD = 2.28), whereas perseverance showed a mean of 6.65 (SD = 2.05). The mean age of participants was 15.90 years (SD = 1.09), and the School Vulnerability Index (SVI) showed a mean of 66.96% (SD = 21.34), reflecting substantial variability in levels of vulnerability. Skewness values ranged from −1.09 to 0.15, indicating distributions that were acceptable for parametric analyses. Internal consistency was acceptable for perseverance (α = 0.74) and high for resilience (α = 0.91) and subjective well-being (α = 0.92).
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics and Reliability of the Study Variables.

3.2. Correlations

Table 2 presents the bivariate correlations among the study variables. Perseverance and resilience showed a moderate correlation (r = 0.61, p < 0.001), and both were moderately and positively associated with subjective well-being (r = 0.45 and r = 0.51, respectively; both p < 0.001). In contrast, the associations between the SVI and the psychological variables were negative but trivial in magnitude: perseverance, r = −0.03, p < 0.05; resilience, r = −0.04, p < 0.05; and subjective well-being, r = −0.09, p < 0.001. Age showed a small negative association with subjective well-being (r = −0.05, p < 0.01). Taking together, these results indicate that psychological resources are more strongly associated with subjective well-being than structural vulnerability. Consistent with the international literature, exploratory analyses by gender indicated that, on average, girls tended to report somewhat lower subjective well-being than boys, although this difference was small; the associations of resilience and perseverance with well-being held for both groups, indicating that the main findings are not attributable to gender composition.
Table 2. Correlation Matrix.

3.3. Hierarchical Regression

A hierarchical linear regression analysis was conducted to examine the effects of school vulnerability and psychological resources on subjective well-being, as presented in Table 3. In Model 1, the SVI (β = −0.086, p < 0.001) and age (β = −0.042, p = 0.025) were negatively associated with subjective well-being, explaining a very small proportion of the variance (R2 = 0.009, F(2, 2766) = 12.70, p < 0.001). In Model 2, the inclusion of perseverance and resilience substantially increased the explained variance (R2 = 0.330; ΔR2 = 0.321, p < 0.001). In this model, resilience emerged as the strongest predictor (β = 0.408, p < 0.001), followed by perseverance (β = 0.215, p < 0.001). The effect of the SVI remained significant but was reduced in magnitude (β = −0.068, p < 0.001), indicating a pattern consistent with partial mediation.
Table 3. Hierarchical Regression Predicting Subjective Well-Being.

3.4. Mediation Analysis

A parallel mediation analysis using bootstrapping with 5000 resamples was conducted to examine the indirect effects of the SVI on subjective well-being through perseverance and resilience. In the model without age included as a covariate (N = 3635), the total effect of the SVI on subjective well-being was significant (β = −0.087, p < 0.001) and decreased in the model including the mediators (β = −0.066, p < 0.001). The indirect effects were statistically significant, although small in magnitude. The indirect effect through perseverance was β = −0.007, 95% CI [−0.014, −0.0002], and the indirect effect through resilience was β = −0.014, 95% CI [−0.026, −0.0017]. The total indirect effect was β = −0.021, 95% CI [−0.038, −0.004]. These results indicate a small partial mediation effect, with resilience accounting for the largest proportion of the indirect effect.

3.5. ANOVA by Level of Vulnerability

An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to compare subjective well-being across levels of school vulnerability, as presented in Table 4.
Table 4. Subjective Well-Being by Level of SVI.
The results indicated statistically significant differences between groups, F(2, 3632) = 16.06, p < 0.001, although with a small effect size, η2 = 0.009. Mean subjective well-being was highest among students with low vulnerability (M = 7.73), followed by those with moderate vulnerability (M = 7.26) and high vulnerability (M = 7.15).

4. Discussion

This study examined the relative contribution of structural vulnerability and individual psychological resources in explaining subjective well-being among Chilean adolescents. Three main findings stand out.
First, school vulnerability, as measured by the SVI, was negatively associated with subjective well-being, although with a small effect size. This suggests that, although structural conditions are relevant, their direct explanatory capacity is limited. This finding is consistent with evidence indicating that socioeconomic factors, while important, tend to show modest associations with subjective well-being when analyzed jointly with psychological variables [3,4].
Second, resilience and perseverance were positively and significantly associated with subjective well-being, with resilience emerging as the strongest predictor in the multivariate model. This pattern supports the growing literature highlighting the central role of adaptive capacities in adolescent well-being [12,17]. In particular, resilience appears to capture individuals’ capacity to cope effectively with adversity, which may explain its stronger association with well-being compared with perseverance [15].
Third, both resilience and perseverance partially mediated the relationship between school vulnerability and subjective well-being [33]. However, the magnitude of the indirect effects was small, indicating that these variables explain only a limited part of this relationship. Notably, resilience accounted for a larger proportion of the indirect effect than perseverance, reinforcing its role as a key mechanism of adaptation. Interpreted in the Chilean context, this pattern is theoretically meaningful: in a highly unequal and segmented educational system, the limited direct weight of school vulnerability suggests that many adolescents attending high-vulnerability schools nonetheless sustain adequate life satisfaction through personal adaptive resources. This does not minimize the role of inequality, but it indicates that structural disadvantage operates alongside, rather than overriding, individual capacities, a finding that resonates with evidence from other Latin American settings [8].
From a developmental perspective, adolescence is a stage marked by identity formation, increasing autonomy, heightened sensitivity to social comparison, and the consolidation of self-regulatory capacities. These features help explain why psychological resources such as resilience and perseverance are particularly consequential during this period: adolescents who can adapt to change and sustain effort toward goals appear better equipped to preserve their well-being amid academic and social demands. For educators, this implies understanding resilience and perseverance not as fixed traits but as competencies that can be scaffolded through supportive relationships and school climates during a formative developmental window [17].
Taken together, these findings suggest that adolescent subjective well-being is more strongly associated with individual psychological resources than with structural vulnerability alone. Rather than supporting a deterministic view of vulnerability, the results point to a more complex perspective in which contextual factors interact with individual capacities. From an ecological approach, well-being can be understood as the result of these dynamic interactions, rather than as a direct consequence of structural disadvantage [8,17]. Along these lines, recent longitudinal evidence suggests that the relationship between well-being and resources such as grit may be bidirectional, whereby well-being also contributes to the development of these capacities [39].
It is important to note that these results do not imply that structural conditions are irrelevant. Rather, they suggest that their effects may be indirect, context-dependent, or mediated by other processes not captured in the present study. This interpretation contributes to ongoing debates on the relative weight of structure and agency in explaining developmental outcomes [8].

5. Practical Implications

The findings have relevant implications for educational policy and practice. Although structural interventions aimed at reducing socioeconomic inequalities remain fundamental, the results highlight the importance of complementing these efforts with strategies designed to strengthen students’ psychological resources [40].
In particular, resilience emerges as a key target for intervention. Programs focused on socioemotional learning, the development of coping skills, and adaptive functioning could play a significant role in promoting well-being, especially in contexts of vulnerability. School-based interventions that foster supportive environments and strengthen students’ capacity to face adversity could generate meaningful impacts on levels of well-being [41,42]. Concretely, curricular and extracurricular spaces such as physical education can be leveraged to strengthen these resources; structured school-based programs, including physically active and cooperative activities, have been shown to improve psychosocial functioning and self-regulation in students, offering an accessible and inclusive avenue for well-being promotion [43].
Perseverance also contributes to well-being, suggesting that promoting goal setting, persistence, and self-regulation may be beneficial. However, the stronger role of resilience indicates that interventions should prioritize adaptive coping and emotional regulation rather than focusing exclusively on effort and persistence [44].

6. Limitations

Several limitations should be considered. First, the cross-sectional design prevents causal inferences from being established. Although the proposed model is theoretically grounded, it is not possible to determine with certainty the directionality of the observed relationships.
Second, all variables were assessed using self-report instruments, which may introduce biases such as social desirability or common method variance.
Third, the sample was non-probabilistic, which limits the generalizability of the findings. Although variability in levels of school vulnerability was ensured, the findings should be interpreted with caution when extrapolated to the general population.
Additionally, differences in the valid sample size across variables, resulting from missing data, may have affected the stability of some estimates, particularly in the mediation analyses.
Finally, the study did not include other potentially relevant variables, such as family support, school climate, or emotional regulation strategies, which could contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of adolescent well-being. In addition, the model did not incorporate other relevant psychological resources, such as positive affect, emotion regulation, or optimism, nor risk factors such as depressive or anxiety symptoms and aggressive behaviors, which future studies could integrate. A further limitation concerns the conceptual and empirical overlap between perseverance and resilience; although they were modeled as distinct constructs, their moderate intercorrelation warrants caution when interpreting their separate contributions [18]. Finally, the use of a brief four-item life-satisfaction measure, while efficient, captures only the cognitive component of subjective well-being.

7. Directions for Future Research

Several avenues emerge from these findings. First, longitudinal designs are needed to establish the temporal ordering between vulnerability, psychological resources, and well-being, and to test whether these relationships are reciprocal, as recent evidence on well-being and grit suggests [39]. Second, future studies should incorporate a broader set of variables, including positive affect, emotion regulation, optimism, and relevant risk factors, to specify more comprehensive explanatory models. Third, analyses should systematically examine gender and age as moderators, given documented differences in adolescent life satisfaction. Fourth, cross-national comparisons, particularly across Latin American countries, would help determine which findings are specific to the Chilean context and which generalize more broadly. Finally, research should further clarify the conceptual boundaries between resilience, perseverance, and grit, using measurement models that can adequately separate these overlapping constructs.

8. Conclusions

This study provides evidence that school vulnerability is negatively associated with subjective well-being among adolescents, but that its explanatory capacity is limited compared with individual psychological resources. Resilience and perseverance showed stronger associations with well-being, with resilience emerging as the most robust predictor.
Although both variables partially mediated the relationship between vulnerability and well-being, the magnitude of these indirect effects was small. These findings suggest that adolescent well-being is more strongly determined by adaptive psychological capacities than by structural vulnerability itself. Given the cross-sectional design, these conclusions are framed in terms of associations and explained variance rather than causal effects, and should not be read as implying that reducing structural inequality is less important than fostering individual resources.
Overall, the results contribute to a resource-based perspective for understanding adolescent well-being, highlighting the need to integrate structural and individual factors in both research and intervention. Strategies aimed at promoting well-being should consider not only contextual conditions but also the strengthening of key psychological resources, especially resilience.

Author Contributions

A.H. was responsible for study design, conceptualization, development of the introduction, and drafting of the discussion and conclusions. C.C.-C., A.R. and D.R. contributed to data collection, data organization, and data analysis. S.F.-U. and F.C.-N. contributed to the introduction, discussion, and conclusions. J.C.O. led the methodology, data analysis, and writing of the discussion. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by SCIA ANID CIE160009.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study adhered to ethical guidelines and was approved by the Bioethics Committee of the Pontificia Universidad Católica de Valparaíso, as evidenced by resolution BIOEPUCV-H 427-2021 issued in April 2017. Prior to the self-report application, an informed consent was obtained from each participant and their guardians, and these records were collected by the researchers. The confidentiality and privacy of each participant’s data were ensured, and participation in the study was completely voluntary.

Data Availability Statement

The data supporting the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. Access to the dataset may be granted for academic and non-commercial purposes, in accordance with applicable ethical and data protection considerations.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank all participants for their contribution to this study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Cabieses, B.; Obach, A.; Molina, X. La oportunidad de incorporar el bienestar subjetivo en la protección de la infancia y adolescencia en Chile. Rev. Chil. Pediatr. 2020, 91, 183–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  2. Casas, F.; Sarriera, J.C.; Alfaro, J.; González, M.; Figuer, C.; Abs da Cruz, D.; Bedin, L.; Valdenegro, B.; Oyarzún, D. Satisfacción escolar y bienestar subjetivo en la adolescencia: Poniendo a prueba indicadores para su medición comparativa en Brasil, Chile y España. Suma Psicol. 2014, 21, 117–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  3. Marín-Gutiérrez, M.; Avalos-Tejeda, M.; Caqueo-Urízar, A. Indicadores de posición socioeconómica y salud mental en adolescentes chilenos. Rev. Psicol. Salud 2025, 13, 166–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  4. OECD. Beyond Academic Learning: First Results from the Survey of Social and Emotional Skills; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  5. UNICEF. Análisis de la Situación de la Niñez y Adolescencia en Chile (SITAN 2025); Fondo de las Naciones Unidas para la Infancia: Santiago, Chile, 2025. [Google Scholar]
  6. Alfaro, J.; Melipillán, R.; Varela, J.; Reyes-Reyes, F.; Aspillaga, C.; Benavente, M.; Carrillo, G.; Rodríguez-Rivas, M. Trayectorias del Bienestar en la Infancia y Adolescencia en Chile: Estudio Longitudinal de Predictores Individuales y Escolares del Bienestar Subjetivo; Universidad del Desarrollo: Santiago, Chile, 2024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  7. de Souza-Lima, J.; Ferrari, G.; Parra-Saldías, M.; Godoy-Cumillaf, A.; Mahecha Matsudo, S.; Farias-Valenzuela, C.; Valdivia-Moral, P. Analyzing health inequality among adolescents in Chile: Physical activity, socioeconomics, and play environments across genders. Public Health Pract. 2025, 10, 100666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  8. Sánchez-Castro, J.C.; Caliz Romero, N.E.; Pilz González, L.; Stock, C.; Heinrichs, K. Adolescent mental health and social inequality in the aftermath of COVID-19 in Bogotá, Colombia: A qualitative study using a critical ecological model. BMC Public Health 2026, 26, 347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  9. Junta Nacional de Auxilio Escolar y Becas (JUNAEB). Imprescindibles Para Realizar un Análisis de las Comunidades Educativas del País: JUNAEB Publica Índices de Vulnerabilidad Escolar April 2024. Available online: https://www.junaeb.cl/imprescindibles-para-realizar-un-analisis-de-las-comunidades-educativas-del-pais-junaeb-publica-indices-de-vulnerabilidad-escolar-2024/ (accessed on 26 March 2026).
  10. Diener, E.; Oishi, S.; Tay, L. Advances in subjective well-being research. Nat. Hum. Behav. 2018, 2, 253–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  11. Fragozo Vergara, K.J.; Salcedo Pacheco, M.d.C.; Pérez Turizo, L.F.; López Castellanos, N.; Fernanda Dávila, M. Impacto de los Determinantes Sociales en la Salud Mental: Una Revisión Sistemática. Arandu UTIC 2025, 12, 3488–3533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  12. Azpiazu-Izaguirre, L.; Esnaola, I.; Fernández-Zabala, A. Adolescent life satisfaction explained by social support, emotion regulation, and resilience. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12, 694183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  13. Goodwin, J.; Hawkins, A.; Naughton, C.; O’Donovan, A.; Connolly, A.; Hurley, E.J.; Behan, L. Adolescents’ mental well-being, resilience, and attitudes towards help-seeking during COVID-19: A cross-sectional study. Int. J. Community Well-Being 2025, 8, 435–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  14. Puig-Lagunes, Á.A.; Varela-Castillo, G.Y.; Germán-Ponciano, L.J.; Ortiz-Cruz, F.; Rosas-Sánchez, G.U.; Ramírez-Rodríguez, R. Resilience as a protective factor to academic burnout in adolescents during COVID-19. J. Affect. Disord. Rep. 2025, 20, 100899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  15. Llistosella, M.; Castellví, P.; García-Ortiz, M.; López-Hita, G.; Torné, C.; Ortiz, R.; Guallart, E.; Uña-Solbas, E.; Martín-Sánchez, J.C. Effectiveness of a resilience school-based intervention in adolescents at risk: A cluster-randomized controlled trial. Front. Psychol. 2024, 15, 1478424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  16. Yang, L.; Xiong, Y.; Gao, T.; Li, S.; Ren, P. A person-centered approach to resilience against bullying victimization in adolescence: Predictions from teacher support and peer support. J. Affect. Disord. 2023, 341, 154–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  17. Sahib, A.; Chen, J.; Reynolds, K.J.; Cárdenas, D. The curative effect of schools: A longitudinal study of the impact of school climate, school identification, and resilience on adolescent mental health. Sch. Psychol. 2025, 40, 13–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  18. Cheng, E.H.; Kam, C.C.S.; Cui, T. Revisiting grit: How much does it overlap with resilience? Int. J. Educ. Res. Open 2023, 5, 100299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  19. Roslan, N.S.; Yusoff, M.S.B.; Morgan, K.; Ab Razak, A.; Ahmad Shauki, N.I. Evolution of resilience construct, its distinction with hardiness, mental toughness, work engagement and grit, and implications to future healthcare research. Educ. Med. J. 2022, 14, 99–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  20. Duckworth, A.L.; Quinn, P.D. Development and validation of the Short Grit Scale (Grit–S). J. Pers. Assess. 2009, 91, 166–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  21. Hou, X.L.; Becker, N.; Hu, T.Q.; Koch, M.; Xi, J.Z.; Mõttus, R. Do grittier people have greater subjective well-being? A meta-analysis. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 2022, 48, 1701–1716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  22. Datu, J.A.D.; Buenconsejo, J.U.; Shek, C.Y.C.; Choy, Y.L.E.; Sou, K.L.E. Grit, academic engagement in math and science, and well-being outcomes in children during the COVID-19 pandemic: A study in Hong Kong and Macau. Sch. Psychol. Int. 2023, 44, 489–512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  23. Wang, W.; Jia, S.; Zhang, L.; Li, Y. The relationship between growth mindset and adolescent psychological well-being: The parallel mediating roles of grit and learning engagement. BMC Psychol. 2025, 13, 1298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  24. Singh, D.; Soni, R. The role of life skills education and grit in adolescent resilience in the digital age. Discov. Psychol. 2026, 6, 60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  25. Tang, X.; Upadyaya, K.; Salmela-Aro, K. School burnout and psychosocial problems among adolescents: Grit as a resilience factor. J. Adolesc. 2021, 86, 77–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  26. Noronha, A.P.P.; Dias-Viana, J.L.; Cavallaro, A.P.O. The influence of grit on life satisfaction of Brazilian undergraduate students: Academic adaptation as a mediator. Front. Psychol. 2024, 15, 1331259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  27. Ekinci, N.; Koç, H. Grit, general self-efficacy, and life satisfaction: The mediating role of hope. J. Community Psychol. 2023, 51, 1288–1299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  28. Sigmundsson, H.; Hauge, H.; Leversen, J.S.R.; Haga, M. I CAN intervention to increase grit and growth mindset: Exploring the intervention for 15-year-old Norwegian adolescents. Front. Educ. 2024, 9, 1438280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  29. Seon, Y.; Smith-Adcock, S. Adolescents’ meaning in life as a resilience factor between bullying victimization and life satisfaction. Child. Youth Serv. Rev. 2023, 148, 106875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  30. Altıntaş, G.; Kutluca Canbulat, A.N. An examination of immigrant primary school students’ attitudes towards learning the target language: The role of subjective well-being at school and academic grit. Int. J. Intercult. Relat. 2024, 98, 101929. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  31. Huang, Y.; Wu, X.; Tamim, M.; Jin, X.; Ma, L.; Xu, J. How does family economic background shape adolescents’ present- and future-oriented well-being? Roles of perceived discrimination and grit. BMC Psychol. 2025, 13, 628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  32. Andales, R.C.; Capuno, R.M.; Cerbas, M.K.; Mulit, J.; Embradora, K.J.; Bacatani, J. Grit and resilience as predictors of psychological well-being among students. Eur. J. Public Health Stud. 2025, 8, 77–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  33. Asheghi, M.; Mousavinia, S.; Naami, A. Hope, resilience and grit: A mediation model to predict burnout and psychological well-being. Aust. J. Psychol. 2026, 78, 2616975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  34. Eriksson, K.; Strimling, P. Gender differences in competitiveness and fear of failure help explain why girls have lower life satisfaction than boys in gender equal countries. Front. Psychol. 2023, 14, 1131837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  35. Marquez, J.; Long, E. A global decline in adolescents’ subjective well-being: A comparative study exploring patterns of change in the life satisfaction of 15-year-old students in 46 countries. Child. Indic. Res. 2021, 14, 1251–1292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  36. Huebner, E.S. Initial development of the Students’ Life Satisfaction Scale. Sch. Psychol. Int. 1991, 12, 231–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  37. Huebner, E.S.; Suldo, S.M.; Valois, R.F. Psychometric properties of two brief measures of children’s life satisfaction: The Students’ Life Satisfaction Scale (SLSS) and the Brief Multidimensional Students’ Life Satisfaction Scale (BMSLSS). In Proceedings of the Indicators of Positive Development Conference, Washington, DC, USA, 12–13 March 2003; Available online: http://www.childtrends.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Child_Trends-2003_03_12_PD_PDConfHSVP.pdf (accessed on 26 March 2026).
  38. Connor, K.M.; Davidson, J.R.T. Development of a new resilience scale: The Connor–Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC). Depress. Anxiety 2003, 18, 76–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  39. Zhang, T.; Park, D.; Tsukayama, E.; Duckworth, A.; Luo, L. Sparking virtuous cycles: A longitudinal study of subjective well-being and grit during early adolescence. J. Youth Adolesc. 2024, 53, 331–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  40. Rodríguez-Rivas, M.E.; Valdebenito, S.; Benavente, M.; Alfaro, J.; Villacura, P.; Chuecas, J.; Ditzel, L.; Galdames, A. Technology-based interventions for promoting well-being in childhood and adolescence: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psicothema 2025, 37, 61–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  41. Cefai, C.; Camilleri, L.; Bartolo, P.; Grazzani, I.; Cavioni, V.; Conte, E.; Ornaghi, V.; Agliati, A.; Gandellini, S.; Tatalovic Vorkapic, S.; et al. The effectiveness of a school-based, universal mental health programme in six European countries. Front. Psychol. 2022, 13, 925614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  42. Cai, C.; Mei, Z.; Wang, Z.; Luo, S. School-based interventions for resilience in children and adolescents: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Front. Psychiatry 2025, 16, 1594658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  43. Carraro, A.; Gobbi, E.; Moè, A. Brief report: Play fighting to curb self-reported aggression in young adolescents. J. Adolesc. 2014, 37, 1303–1307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  44. Fuentealba-Urra, S.; Céspedes-Carreno, C.; Rubio, A.; Roy-Sadradín, D.; Oyanedel, J.C.; Martínez-Líbano, J.; Leigh-González, C.; González-Carrasco, M.; Zapata, S.M.; Arellano-Correa, S.; et al. The adaptive role of emotional self-regulation in adolescents’ well-being: Evidence from Chilean public schools. Front. Educ. 2026, 11, 1733490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Journal Statistics
Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.
The Psychological Impact of Cystic Fibrosis and Primary Ciliary Dyskinesia in Adolescence: A Systematic Review
Previous
Psychometric Properties and Depressive Symptomatology in School Samples from Spain and Morocco: A Preliminary Validation
Next