{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02679738562091503, 'fraction_numerical': 0.00784313725490196, 'mean_word_length': 5.896396396396397, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Coping profiles characterize individual flourishing, languishing, and depression

Abstract According to the broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions, negative emotions narrow one's thought–action repertoire. In contrast, positive emotions have a broadening effect, expanding cognitive capacity, increasing potential coping strategies that come to mind, and enhancing decision-making, reaction, and adaptation to adversity. Fredrickson and Losada determined that a positivity ratio – the ratio of experienced positive to negative emotions – at or above 2.9 promotes human flourishing. A ratio below 2.9 is indicative of languishing individuals, whereas a ratio below 1.0 is a marker of depression. This study examined whether adaptive and maladaptive coping profiles differentiated those who flourish, languish, or are depressed in two convenience samples – military spouses (n =367) and public school teachers (n=267). Results were consistent with the theoretical predictions, as coping profiles of the groups differed significantly, with flourishing individuals favoring adaptive coping strategies more than those who were languishing or depressed. Conversely, depressed individuals reported greater use of maladaptive coping strategies than those who were languishing or flourishing. These results provide further empirical support for the mathematical model of Fredrickson and Losada, as the set of positivity criteria were predictive of coping profiles in two samples where successful coping and adaptation are important.