Background: Self-help interventions intended to help nonclinical individuals regulate their emotions can have important social benefits (i.e., mental disorder prevention, wellbeing promotion). However, their mean effect size on wellbeing is generally low, possibly because there are considerable betweenindividual differences in the response to these interventions. The present study examined whether individuals' baseline levels of emotional wellbeing and engagement in emotion regulation strategies moderate the effects on these same variables of a 4-week self-help cognitive-behavioral intervention intended for typical adults.Methods: Data were collected from 158 nonclinical French adults (n = 95 for the control group, n = 63 for the cognitive-behavioral group) using experience sampling. Emotional wellbeing was assessed, as well as the engagement in three emotion regulation strategies (i.e., cognitive reappraisal, problem solving, and appreciation).Results: As expected, the posttest scores on some variables were significantly predicted by the interactions between the intervention and the pretest scores on these same variables. In particular, it was the participants with the most negative baseline levels (i.e., low emotional wellbeing, low engagement in appreciation) who benefitted most from the intervention. Discussion: Results are discussed in the light of current knowledge on between-individual differences in how individuals respond to interventions.

As most adoption studies have focused on adopted children and their vulnerability, with scant research on adult adoptees’ outcomes, the aim of the present study was to compare adult adoptees and nonadoptees on their experiences as parents and to explore more deeply the question of the role among adoptees of the conjugal relationship in the context of parenthood. A total of 268 adoptees matched one to one with 268 nonadoptees responded to several standardized scales (attachment, mental health, resilience, motivations for parenthood, parental stress, dyadic coping, and coparenting). The groups did not differ on the experience of parenthood, thus contradicting most previous studies. They did, however, differ on attachment, mental health and dyadic coping, with adoptees achieving lower scores. Only in the case of adoptees was dyadic coping found to have a mediating role on the relations between psychological characteristics and parental stress. Thanks to our efforts to make our samples as representative as possible, this study sheds new light on adoptees’ experience of parenthood, especially after the birth of their first child. Moreover, it presents adoptees from the perspective of resilience and offers new insights into their functioning as parents. It opens up both theoretical and clinical perspectives.

No abstract