Content uploaded by Giulia Perasso
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Giulia Perasso on Feb 07, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=gwof20
World Futures
The Journal of New Paradigm Research
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gwof20
Training Spherical Resilience in Educators of the
Juvenile Justice System during Pandemic
Patrizio Paoletti, Tania Di Giuseppe, Carmela Lillo, Grazia Serantoni, Giulia
Perasso, Alessandro Maculan & Francesca Vianello
To cite this article: Patrizio Paoletti, Tania Di Giuseppe, Carmela Lillo, Grazia Serantoni,
Giulia Perasso, Alessandro Maculan & Francesca Vianello (2023): Training Spherical
Resilience in Educators of the Juvenile Justice System during Pandemic, World Futures, DOI:
10.1080/02604027.2023.2169569
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/02604027.2023.2169569
© 2023 The Author(s). Published with
license by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.
Published online: 06 Feb 2023.
Submit your article to this journal
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Training Spherical Resilience in Educators of the
Juvenile Justice System during Pandemic
Patrizio Paoletti
a
, Tania Di Giuseppe
a
, Carmela Lillo,
Grazia Serantoni
a
, Giulia Perasso
a
, Alessandro Maculan
b
and
Francesca Vianello
b
a
Fondazione Patrizio Paoletti, Assisi, Italy;
b
University of Padua, Padua, Italy
ABSTRACT
This paper presents the results of a study investigating
both predictors of resilience on a group of educators
of the juvenile justice system and effects of group
training on this construct. Results showed that (a) self-
efficacy in managing positive and negative emotions
and positive attitude are predictors of resilience and
(b) the comparison of pre-post values revealed an
impact of training affecting the balance between self-
efficacy in managing positive and negative emotions
and positive attitude. Ultimately, this study seems to
indicate the need to promote targeted training experi-
ences on emotion management for supporting the
educators in the juvenile justice system.
KEYWORDS
Educators; emotions;
juvenile justice; resilience;
the Sphere Model of
Consciousness
Introduction
In the field of juvenile criminal justice, the current model of intervention
aims at the minors’recovery and therefore not only at their punishment
(Paz
e, 2013). Therefore, the role played by the educators turns out to be
decisive, since they accompany the minors to make sense of their life
path, leading them to empower and reconsider their life perspective
(Mastropasqua, 2020). Working with minors, however, exposes educators
to numerous challenges linked to the complexity of the context
CONTACT Grazia Serantoni grazia.serantoni@gmail.com Fondazione Patrizio Paoletti, Assisi,
Italy.
ß2023 The Author(s). Published with license by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-
NoDerivatives License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use,
distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered,
transformed, or built upon in any way.
WORLD FUTURES
https://doi.org/10.1080/02604027.2023.2169569
(Muschitiello, 2019), and organizational issues (Accordini et al., 2015). It
is fundamental to reflect, from a multidisciplinary perspective, on the
educator’s ability to cope with the context’s adversities, especially in the
light of the Covid-19 pandemic.
Facilities that receive minors respond to a complex heterogeneity of needs
(Mastropasqua, 2020), and the training of professionals working in the
juvenile penal circuit has to strengthen those personal and social skills that
are fundamental in working with minors (Gelana & Hindeya, 2014;
Giordano et al., 2021;Jeanesetal.,2009). In this sense, group training is cru-
cial as it can reduce the isolation of educators in the juvenile penal circuit
and transform it into a more adaptive and productive ‘community of prac-
tice’(Wenger, 1999). A ‘community of practice’is a group, made up of
experienced educators who share practices by creating a relational and pro-
fessional matrix that is capable of developing the potential of all actors in
the field. Even in times of pandemic, it is possible to implement training
and teamwork through new pedagogical techniques (Johnson & Johnson,
2005).Theuseofthetelematicmediumcanbringtheopportunitytofoster:
the creation of a positive and stable learning environment; the sharing of
experiences and the analysis and management of emerging socio-cultural fac-
tors (e.g., limited physical contact, reduced time devoted to relationships,
etc.) ; the assessment of psycho-pedagogical factors (e.g., differences in indi-
vidual learning, specific needs, different educational background, etc.) (Jeanes
et al., 2009;Simonotetal.,2008). Moreover, also in this context, group train-
ing leads educators to share experiences by creating valuable peer support
networks, overcoming isolation (Accordini et al., 2015).
According to these assumptions, an increasing number of studies
(Champe et al., 2013;H
€
ulsheger et al., 2013; Newsome et al., 2012)demon-
strate the effectiveness of group training based on mindfulness and relaxation
techniques in: helping professionals working in challenging contexts such as
the juvenile criminal circuit; maintaining optimal levels of personal and
work-related well-being; learning strategies to take care of themselves and
regulate emotions; managing stress. These skills are critical for structuring an
educational relationship that can guide minors on a path of growth and
improved social skills (Gelana & Hindeya, 2014;Lang,2010).
Key skills for Professionals Working in Challenging Contexts:
Resilience, Coping, and Self-Efficacy in Managing Emotions
Resilience, coping, and self-efficacy in managing emotions are underlying
co-factors in the well-being of educators and indirectly of minors.
The scientific literature has shown that if educators working in
challenging contexts, such as juvenile justice, experience higher levels of
well-being and resilience, they are more supportive of the minors
2 P. PAOLETTI ET AL.
(Hwang et al., 2017). These professionals become, for the minors, true
models of resilience both on an educational level and on a socio-
relational level (Day, 2008; Weare & Nind, 2011).
Specifically, in this paper, resilience is defined as the individual,
group, and community skill underlying effectiveness in coping with
negative and stressful life events, overcoming them, and coming out
stronger (White & McCallum, 2021; Hamby et al., 2018). High levels
of resilience can modulate the impact of adversities, leading to self and
social improvement (O’DoughertyWrightetal.,2012) in accordance
with the interplay of genetic, biological-phenotypic, and contextual
variables (Herrman et al., 2011). Resilience, moreover, can be trained
through educational intervention (O’Dougherty Wright et al., 2012)
and represents a key resource for promoting the well-being of individ-
uals and communities (Richardson, 2002), especially in complex con-
texts (e.g., prison, juvenile penal circuit).
In addition to the resilience construct, scientific studies have also deep-
ened how different coping strategies can affect the prevention of work-related
stress among prison educators (Keinan & Malach-Pines, 2007). Among dif-
ferent coping strategies, having a positive attitude (Sica et al., 2008)maylead
to the ability to cope with stress resiliently. Similarly, previous studies have
identified optimism (Segovia et al., 2012) and positive emotions (Gomez
et al., 2013) as predictors of resilience since they can improve educators’self-
awareness, the ability to appreciate positive moments, introspection, and
sense of responsibility (Gehring & Hollingsworth, 2002).
Moreover, research on youth and adults indicated the existence of a link
between emotional regulation and resilience, pointing out that teachers and
lecturers who are more able to regulate their emotions are also more resilient
in facing the work and relationship challenges of youth education (Arici-
Ozcan et al., 2019; Caprara et al., 2006,1999). Self-efficacy is also implied as
it involves perceiving oneself as able to manage and regulate emotions
(Bandura, 1995; Caprara et al., 2008; Perasso & Velotti, 2020). Self-efficacy in
managing negative emotions refers to the ability to ameliorate emotional
states during adversities, not being overwhelmed by emotions such as anger,
irritation, despondency, and discouragement. Self-efficacy in managing posi-
tive emotions involves being able to experience emotions such as joy, enthu-
siasm, and pride in response to successes or pleasant events, even in
particularly challenging contexts (Caprara et al., 2008).
A Neuro-Psycho-Pedagogical Approach to Education: The Sphere
Model of Consciousness (SMC) and Related Intervention Techniques
The Sphere Model of Consciousness (SMC) (Paoletti, 2002; Paoletti &
Soussan, 2019; Pintimalli et al., 2020) is a representational grid that
WORLD FUTURES 3
describes the phenomenology of experience using the geometric coordi-
nates of the sphere. The model, used in the design of the group training
intervention ‘Envisioning the Future’(EF) (Di Giuseppe et al., in press)
for educators engaged in the juvenile penal circuit in Campania (Italy),
offered a neuro-psycho-pedagogical, theoretical and practical pathway to
develop resilience. The map suggested by the SMC offers the educator a
twofold look: within oneself and outside oneself, to educate oneself and
educate to resilience. The center of the sphere represents the place in the
mind where it is possible to realize a continuous and new narrative of
experience in a proactive way, a cornerstone of the resilient attitude asso-
ciated with self-determination (Paoletti & Soussan, 2019; Paoletti &
Selvaggio, 2013)(Figure 1). Intervention techniques related to SMC have
been encapsulated in the thematic pathway “The 10 Keys to Resilience”:a
path of theoretical-practical contents in which each key constitutes a
training session on the topic, presented from an interdisciplinary perspec-
tive (Di Giuseppe, 2022; Paoletti et al., 2022).
The intersection of the two axes, time (i.e., past and future) and emo-
tion (i.e., pleasant and unpleasant), defines the horizontal dimension of
consciousness. In this dimension, which is flat and repetitive, mental and
emotional processes are automatic sequences stored in memory as a result
of learning (Shiffrin & Schneider, 1977); consequently, the future pro-
jected the past and the present is conditioned by memories and
expectancies.
Overcoming the horizontal dimension is possible through creative
deliberation, graphically represented by the vertical axis grafting in the
sphere plane (Figure 2).
The vertical axis of the model defines a new graft in the mind that is
the basis of the resilient attitude: the choice to improve one’s condition.
The impact of this choice reverses the condition of consciousness and
Figure 1. The Sphere Model of Consciousness (edited from Paoletti & Soussan, 2019).
4 P. PAOLETTI ET AL.
makes the individual from a passive to an active one. In fact, responses
shift from an automatic and reactive dimension to a dimension of con-
sciousness in which it is possible to access more possible answers and in
which the goals are related to the individual’s and his/her community’s
well-being.
The thematic choice of the 10 keys and their sequence follows
an organization referring to the connection between the four neuro-
psycho-pedagogical principles of Observation, Mediation, Translation,
Normalization [basic ideas of the Pedagogy for the Third Millennium
(PTM) method (Paoletti, 2018)] (Paoletti & Selvaggio, 2011a,2011b,2012,
2013) and the three dimensions of the sphere (time, emotion, self-
determination), enlivened by the fourth dimension, the center of the
sphere (Di Giuseppe, 2022).
The 4 dimensions of the sphere correspond to the 4 functions of a
resilient mind: Feeling (to feel), Willingness (to want), Power (to can) and
Being (to be) (Figure 3).
The following paragraph describes the intervention techniques used,
the related neuro-psycho-pedagogical principles and the corresponding
resilience function. The theoretical and practical framework offers the
participant an exploration of the spherical model, inviting him/her to a
path of self-improvement that comprehends 10 keys:
1. Keys 1–2–3: Body-scan, relaxation, guided visualizations, practice
of listening to one’s breath. The neuro-psycho-pedagogical
principle that presides over this first block of techniques is
Figure 2. The axis of self-determination in the Sphere Model of Consciousness
(edited from Paoletti & Soussan, 2019).
WORLD FUTURES 5
‘Observation and Self-observation’(Paoletti & Selvaggio, 2011a)
and involves the exercise of dividing attention between one’s inner
world (e.g., thoughts, emotions, behaviors, postures) and the exter-
nal environment. The person learns again to Feel guided by a pur-
pose and experiences the space-time dimension of the sphere.
2. Keys 4–5–6: Being inspired by stories and models of resilience,
asking what is really important, and cultivating gratitude. These
techniques are developed around the neuro-psycho-pedagogical
principle of Mediation (Paoletti & Selvaggio, 2011b). The individ-
ual trains in Willingness (to want) and experiences the dimension
of the sphere related to emotions, training himself/herself to man-
age emotions in accordance to his/her purposes and values.
3. Keys 7–8: Considering the other a resource to ameliorate oneself
and the community, and training oneself in creative thinking to
access to new points of view to consider events. It is about learn-
ing always and from everything, following the neuro-psycho-
pedagogical principle of Translation (Paoletti & Selvaggio, 2012),
connected to the experience of Power (to can). At this stage, the
person experiences the third axis of the sphere, self-determination,
in which sharing of experiences and the valorization of the group
are central to find oneself in a common, positive, and generative
resilience matrix.
4. Keys 9–10: Exercises to improve the quality of sleep, the daily and
constant practice of intentional silence (Paoletti, 2018), training in
proactive storytelling of the one’s own history, through exercises
in self-programming and foreshadowing of the future. These are
the techniques based on the neuro-psycho-pedagogical principle of
Figure 3. The Sphere Model of Consciousness and the 4 ideas on which the
Pedagogy for the Third Millennium is based (edited from Paoletti & Soussan, 2019).
6 P. PAOLETTI ET AL.
Normalization (Paoletti & Selvaggio, 2013). The individual experi-
ences the possibility of constantly reconnecting with the center of
the sphere: an inner mental and psychophysical state of equanim-
ity, connected to the dimension of Being.
Aims and Hypothesis
The study has two main aims:
1. the exploration of predictors of resilience in educators working
with minors in the context of juvenile penal circuit of Campania
(Italy);
2. the evaluation of the effects of the group training ‘Envisioning the
Future’(EF).
It is hypothesized that the intervention could bring changes in the
educators’levels of self-efficacy in managing emotions.
Results and Discussion
The analysis of the results reveals three main predictors of resilience in
the educators involved in the survey: (a) emotional regulation self-efficacy
and (b) positive attitude and (c) problem solving as coping strategies (for
the complete research data, see the Appendix). As pointed out in the
introductory analysis of the scientific literature, in the juvenile penal cir-
cuit, the three identified predictors contribute to the definition of a spe-
cific profile of educator, able to be a real tutor of resilience (Weare &
Nind, 2011). In fact, an educator who is also a tutor of resilience could
both manage complexity and be a guide and support for minors’learning
at all stages of social reintegration. These characteristics allow minors
mentored by truly resilient educators broader possibilities for effective,
long-term rehabilitation (Day, 2008; Hwang et al., 2017).
Self-efficacy represents a key resource for educators working in the
prison settings both in terms of goal orientation and job satisfaction (Law
& Guo, 2016; Judge & Bono, 2001). In relation to emotional regulation,
self-efficacy also facilitates processes of monitoring, evaluating, and modi-
fying psychophysical states related to emotions (Caprara et al., 2008;
Perasso & Velotti, 2017).
The link between emotional regulation and resilience has been demon-
strated in several scientific studies with different populations and age
groups (Arici-Ozcan et al., 2019). The current scientific literature (del
Mar Salinas-Jim
enez et al., 2011) highlights that educators with greater
WORLD FUTURES 7
emotional regulation self-efficacy can cope more resiliently with profes-
sional and human challenges.
Regarding the coping strategies, the relationship that has emerged
between positive attitude and resilience corroborates previous studies in
which statistical regression models were performed and that have identi-
fied, as predictors of resilience, specific correlated constructs such as opti-
mism (Segovia et al., 2012) and positive emotions (Gomez et al., 2013).
While low self-efficacy predicts lower self-esteem, feelings of helpless-
ness, depression, and anxiety, high self-efficacy predisposes to exploring
possibilities in new contexts and achieving complex goals (Law & Guo,
2016), persisting in the face of failure, deriving satisfaction from profes-
sional successes (Judge & Bono, 2001).
The study also examines the impact of the ‘Envisioning the Future’
(EF) program on the psychological functioning of educators in the juven-
ile penal circuit, taking a novel position compared to previous literature
(Maculan et al., 2022, in press).
In fact, since the 1990s, interventions to support prison staff have
focused purely on reducing work stress through exercise (Kielyl &
Hodgson, 1990), instrumental communication (Lambert et al., 2008), and
mindfulness (Bouw et al., 2019; Davies et al., 2021). EF, focusing on the
10 keys to resilience, used the group device to facilitate moments of reflec-
tion,meta-reflection and cooperative-learning. In such an educational-
methodological framework, the group dimension represented a catalyst
for transforming educators’beliefs (Guarino & Serantoni, 2008; Imel,
1999) and facilitating the shift from reactive to proactive minds (Paoletti,
2008). Comparisons of pre-post intervention means revealed that partici-
pation in EF significantly increases in educators the level of self-efficacy
in managing positive emotions, up to the achievement of high levels in
this life skill that balance with those related to managing negative emo-
tions. In addition, the levels of positive attitude –acoping strategy that
enables an attitude of acceptance, containment and positive reinterpret-
ation of events –also increase. In such a professional context, perceiving
themselves as self-effective in managing both positive and negative emo-
tions is crucial. The scientific literature reports how knowledge of and
voluntary reference to positive emotions (characteristics that distinguish
resilience), in addition to producing an increase in alertness in general
[related to the ability of individuals to respond flexibly to changes in the
environment (Fredrickson, 1998)] enable an improvement in the ability
to control and minimize negative emotional states, helping to overcome
stressful events more effectively, protecting both physical and psycho-
logical health (Tugade & Fredrickson, 2004). This specific characteristic,
moreover, is linked to increased well-being and performance in the pro-
fessional context, implemented by the ability to contain negative emotions
8 P. PAOLETTI ET AL.
and elicitate positive ones, the capacity for emotional regulation. The
emotional regulation, further strengthened by a positive personal attitude
toward problems, helps to improve the relational and operational skills,
crucial in a difficult context such as the juvenile penal circuit (Buruck
et al., 2016; Jeanes et al., 2009).
This study was conducted using the self-report questionnaire method-
ology, an instrument not bias-free (systematic errors) (Dicken, 1963). The
use of convenience sampling and the absence of a comparison group are
also noted as limitations. However, the present exploratory survey lays
the foundation for a better understanding of the specific characteristics of
juvenile penal circuit educators to model effective training programs
(Kazdin, 2008) and usher in EF impact analysis.
Conclusion
The study results reveal that the educator with a highly resilient pro-
file has higher levels of emotional regulation self-efficacy, and coping
strategies such as positive attitude and problem-solving. The found-
ing assumptions of the SMC propose to operate on (1) observation
of automatic dynamics of thinking and behavior to increase self-
determination through the practice of mindfulness and volition; (2)
emotional regulation and encouragement of neutral and positive pur-
pose-directed emotions; and (3) enhancement of proactive and con-
tinuous intentional resignification of experiences. It can, therefore,
be hypothesized that the focal elements of the SMC were crucial in
the impact of the EF educational program, which proved effective in
increasing self-efficacy in managing positive emotions and balancing
it with negative emotions’management. The participation in EF
educational program increased, moreover, the positive attitude of
educators. Such skills are fundamental in the context of pandemic
emergency, which has made the daily work of these professionals
even more complex. In addition, group training facilitates the pro-
motion of educators’well-being through the teaching of specific
techniques, such as relaxation, silence practice, and focusing, to man-
age their emotions physiologically, psychologically, behaviorally, and
socially.
The results obtained can help, therefore, to design increasingly targeted
interventions, articulated within a complex yet flexible model such as the
SMC. The SMC, in fact, takes into account neuro-psycho-pedagogical
functioning of resilience, to train and support the educators in the juven-
ile penal circuit, corroborating their professional profile and job
expectations.
WORLD FUTURES 9
Acknowledgements
Gemma Tuccillo, Head of the Department of Juvenile and Community Justice;
Giuseppe Centomani, executive for the Juvenile Justice Center for Campania;
Maria Gemmabella, former executive for the Juvenile Justice Center for
Campania; Mariangela Cirigliano, Pedagogical Area Officer - Juvenile Justice
Center for Campania; Mariarosaria Sessa, pedagogical area official for Centers of
First Reception - Center of Juvenile Justice for Campania; Paolo Pace, Chief
Inspector of the Penitentiary Police; Mediolanum Foundation, private institution
co-financer of the project.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
References
Accordini, M., Saita, E., & Tramontano, M. (2015). Identit
a in cambiamento: il
ruolo del funzionario della professionalit
a giuridico pedagogica in carcere.
Narrare i Gruppi,10(3), 253–268.
Arici-Ozcan, N., Cekici, F., & Arslan, R. (2019). The relationship between resili-
ence and distress tolerance in college students: The mediator role of cognitive
flexibility and difficulties in emotion regulation. International Journal of
Educational Methodology,5(4), 525–533. https://doi.org/10.12973/ijem.5.4.525.
Bandura, A. (Ed.). (1995). Self-efficacy in changing societies. Cambridge University
Press.
Bouw, N., Huijbregts, S. C. J., Scholte, E., & Swaab, H. (2019). Mindfulness-based
stress reduction in prison: Experiences of inmates, instructors, and prison staff.
International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology,
63(15–16), 2550–2571. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X19856232
Buruck, G., D€
orfel, D., Kugler, J., & Brom, S. S. (2016). Enhancing well-being at
work: The role of emotion regulation skills as personal resources. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology,21(4), 480–493. https://doi.org/10.1037/
ocp0000023
Caprara, G. V., Di Giunta, L., Eisenberg, N., Gerbino, M., Pastorelli, C., &
Tramontano, C. (2008). Assessing regulatory emotional self-efficacy in three
countries. Psychological Assessment,20(3), 227–237. https://doi.org/10.1037/
1040-3590.20.3.227
Caprara,G.V.,Steca,P.,Gerbino,M.,Paciello,M.,&Vecchio,G.M.(2006).
Looking for adolescents’well-being: Self-efficacy beliefs as determinants of positive
thinking and happiness. Epidemiologia e Psichiatria Sociale,15(1), 30–43. https://
doi.org/10.1017/s1121189x00002013
Caprara, G. V. (Ed.). (2001). La valutazione dell’autoefficacia. Costrutti e stru-
menti. Edizioni Erickson.
Caprara, G. V., Scabini, E., Barbaranelli, C., Pastorelli, C., Regalia, C., & Bandura,
A. (1999). Autoefficacia percepita emotiva e interpersonale e buon funziona-
mento sociale. Giornale italiano di Psicologia,26(4), 769–790.
Champe, J., Okech, J. E. A., & Rubel, D. J. (2013). Emotion regulation: Processes,
strategies, and applications to group work training and supervision. The
10 P. PAOLETTI ET AL.
Journal for Specialists in Group Work,38(4), 349–368. https://doi.org/10.1080/
01933922.2013.834403.
Connor, K. M., & Davidson, J. R. (2003). Development of a new resilience scale:
The Connor-Davidson resilience scale (CD-RISC). Depression and Anxiety,
18(2), 76–82. https://doi.org/10.1002/da.10113
Davies, J., Ugwudike, P., Young, H., Hurrell, C., & Raynor, P. (2021). A prag-
matic study of the impact of a brief mindfulness intervention on prisoners and
staff in a Category B prison and men subject to community-based probation
supervision. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative
Criminology,65(1), 136–156. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X20944664
Day, C. (2008). Committed for life? Variations in teachers’work, lives and effect-
iveness. Journal of Educational Change,9(3), 243–260. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10833-007-9054-6.
del Mar Salinas-Jim
enez, M., Art
es, J., & Salinas-Jim
enez, J. (2011). Education as
a positional good: A life satisfaction approach. Social Indicators Research,
103(3), 409–426. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-010-9709-1.
Di Fabio, A., & Palazzeschi, L. (2012). Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale:
propriet
a psicometriche della versione Italiana [Connor-Davidson Resilience
Scale: Psychometric properties of the Italian version]. Counseling: Giornale
Italiano di Ricerca e Applicazioni,5(1), 101–109.
Di Giuseppe, T. (2022). Envisioning the future and the 10 keys for resilience. In
Resilience for the Future. An international roundtable to promote resilience in
times of the COVID-19 pandemic. Fondazione Patrizio Paoletti. https://elearn-
ing.fondazionepatriziopaoletti.org/resilience-for-the-future-in-time-of-pandemic-
da-covid-19-an-international-round-table
DiGiuseppe,T.,Serantoni,G.,Paoletti,P.,&Perasso,G.(inpress).Unsondaggioa
quattro anni da Prefigurare il Futuro, un intervento neuropsicopedagogico post-
sisma [A survey four years after envisioning the future, a post-earthquake neuro-
psychopedagogic intervention]. Orientamenti Pedagogici (in press).
Dicken, C. (1963). Good impression, social desirability, and acquiescence as sup-
pressor variables. Educational and Psychological Measurement,23(4), 699–720.
https://doi.org/10.1177/001316446302300406.
Fredrickson, B. L. (1998). What good are positive emotions? Review of General
Psychology,2(3), 300–319. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.2.3.300
Gehring, T., & Hollingsworth, T. (2002). Coping and beyond: Practical sugges-
tions for correctional educators. Journal of Correctional Education,53(3), 89–
95. https://doi.org/10.2307/41971083.
Gelana, G., & Hindeya, H. (2014). Correctional education teachers’teaching com-
petence and use of adult learning principles: Inmates and teachers’views in
selected correctional institutions. Ethiopian Journal of Education and Sciences,
9(2), 83–98.
Giordano, F., Cipolla, A., & Ungar, M. (2021). Tutor of resilience: A model for
psychosocial care following experiences of adversity. Frontiers in Psychiatry,12,
351. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2021.559154.
Gomez, M., Vincent, A., & Toussaint, L. L. (2013). Correlates of resilience in ado-
lescents and adults. International Journal of Clinical Psychiatry and Mental
Health,1(1), 18–24.
Guarino, A., & Serantoni, G. (2008). Modelli di educazione alla salute. Rapporti
ISTISAN,8(1), 29–42.
WORLD FUTURES 11
Hamby, S., Grych, J., & Banyard, V. (2018). Resilience portfolios and poly-
strengths: Identifying protective factors associated with thriving after adversity.
Psychology of Violence,8(2), 172–183. https://doi.org/10.1037/vio0000135
Herrman, H., Stewart, D. E., Diaz-Granados, N., Berger, E. L., Jackson, B., &
Yuen, T. (2011). What is resilience? Revue Canadienne de Psychiatrie
[Canadian Journal of Psychiatry], 56(5), 258–265. https://doi.org/10.1177/
070674371105600504.
H€
ulsheger, U. R., Alberts, H. J., Feinholdt, A., & Lang, J. W. (2013). Benefits of
mindfulness at work: the role of mindfulness in emotion regulation, emotional
exhaustion, and job satisfaction. The Journal of Applied Psychology,98(2), 310–
325. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031313
Hwang, Y. S., Bartlett, B., Greben, M., & Hand, K. (2017). A systematic review of
mindfulness interventions for in-service teachers: A tool to enhance teacher
wellbeing and performance. Teaching and Teacher Education,64,26–42.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.01.015.
Imel, S. (1999). Using groups in adult learning: Theory and practice. Journal of
Continuing Education in the Health Professions,19(1), 54–61. https://doi.org/
10.1002/chp.1340190107.
Jeanes, J., McDonald, J., & Simonot, M. (2009). Conflicting demands in prison
education and the need for context-specific, specialist training for prison edu-
cators: an account of the work of the initial teacher training project for teach-
ers and instructors in London prisons and offender learning. Teaching in
Lifelong Learning,1(1), 16–20. https://doi.org/10.5920/till.2009.1128
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2005). Training for cooperative group work.
In M. A. West, D. Tjosvold, & K. G. Smith (Eds.), The essentials of teamwork-
ing: International perspectives, 131–147. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2001). Relationship of core self-evaluations traits—
self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability—
with job satisfaction and job performance: A meta-analysis. The Journal of
Applied Psychology,86(1), 80–92. https://doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.86.1.80.
Kazdin, A. E. (2008). Evidence-based treatment and practice: new opportunities
to bridge clinical research and practice, enhance the knowledge base, and
improve patient care. The American Psychologist,63(3), 146–159. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0003-066X.63.3.146.
Keinan, G., & Malach-Pines, A. (2007). Stress and burnout among prison person-
nel: Sources, outcomes, and intervention strategies. Criminal Justice and
Behavior,34(3), 380–398. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854806290007
Kielyl, J., & Hodgson, G. (1990). Stress in the prison service: The benefits of exer-
cise programs. Human Relations,43(6), 551–572. https://doi.org/10.1177/
001872679004300604
Korb, A. (2015). The upward spiral: Using neuroscience to reverse the course of
depression, one small change at a time. New Harbinger Publications.
Lambert, E. G., Hogan, N. L., Paoline, E. A., & Stevenson, M. T. (2008). I want
to know and I want to be part of it: The impact of instrumental communica-
tion and integration on private prison staff. Journal of Applied Security
Research,3(2), 205–229. https://doi.org/10.1080/19361610802135938
Lang, N. C. (2010). Group work practice to advance social competence: A special-
ized methodology for social work. Columbia University Press.
Law, F. M., & Guo, G. J. (2016). Correlation of hope and self-efficacy with job
satisfaction, job stress, and organizational commitment for correctional officers
12 P. PAOLETTI ET AL.
in the Taiwan prison system. International Journal of Offender Therapy and
Comparative Criminology,60(11), 1257–1277. https://doi.org/10.1177/03066
24X15574997
Maculan, A., Di Giuseppe, T., Vianello, F., & Vivaldi, S. (2022). Narrazioni e
risorse. Gli operatori del sistema penale minorile al tempo del Covid-19.
Autonomie locali e servizi sociali,45(2), 349–365.
Mastropasqua, I. (2020). In medio stat virtus. In I. Mastropasqua, L. Pandolfi e,
& F. Palomba (a cura di), Le comunit
a educative nella Giustizia penale minorile
(pp. 11–28). Gangemi Editore.
Muschitiello, A. (2019). Il ruolo dell’educatore professionale socio-pedagogico
nelle comunit
a residenziali per minori. Quali gli orientamenti metodologici?
Pedagogia Oggi,17(1), 557–568. https://doi.org/10.7346/PO-012019-37.
Newsome, S., Waldo, M., & Gruszka, C. (2012). Mindfulness group work:
Preventing stress and increasing self-compassion among helping professionals
in training. The Journal for Specialists in Group Work,37(4), 297–311. https://
doi.org/10.1080/01933922.2012.690832.
O’Dougherty Wright, M., Masten, A. S., & Narayan, A. J. (2012). Resilience proc-
esses in development: Four waves of research on positive adaptation in the
context of adversity. Handbook of Resilience in Children,15–37. https://doi.org/
10.1007/978-1-4614-3661-4_2.
Paoletti, P. (2002). Flussi, Territori, Luogo [Flows, Territories, Place]. M.E.D.
Publishing.
Paoletti, P. (2008). Crescere nell’eccellenza. Armando editore.
Paoletti, P., & Selvaggio, A. (2011a). Osservazione. Quaderni di Pedagogia per il
terzo Millennio. Edizioni 3P.
Paoletti, P., & Selvaggio, A. (2011b). Mediazione. Quaderni di Pedagogia per il
Terzo Millennio. Edizioni 3P.
Paoletti, P., & Selvaggio, A. (2012). Traslazione. Quaderni di Pedagogia per il
Terzo Millennio. Edizioni 3P.
Paoletti, P., & Selvaggio, A. (2013). Normalizzazione. Quaderni di Pedagogia per il
Terzo Millennio. Edizioni 3P.
Paoletti, P. (2018). OMM the one minute meditation. Medidea.
Paoletti, P., & Soussan, T. D. B. (2019). The sphere model of consciousness:
From geometrical to neuro-psycho-educational perspectives. Logica Universalis,
13(3), 395–415. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11787-019-00226-0.
Paoletti, P., Di Giuseppe, T., Lillo, C., Anella, S., Santinelli, A. (2022). Le
Dieci Chiavi della Resilienza.https://fondazionepatriziopaoletti.org/10-chiavi-
resilienza/
Paz
e, P. (2013). Il sistema della giustizia penale minorile in Italia. Rassegna
Italiana di Criminologia,7(4), 277–285.
Perasso, G., & Velotti, P. (2020). Difficulties in emotion regulation scale. In V.
Zeigler-Hill & T. K. Shackelford (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Personality and
Individual Differences. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-
28099-8
Pintimalli, A., Di Giuseppe, T., Serantoni, G., Glicksohn, J., & Ben-Soussan, T. D.
(2020). Dynamics of the sphere model of consciousness: Silence, space, and
self. Frontiers in Psychology,11, 548813. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.
548813.
Richardson, G. E. (2002). The metatheory of resilience and resiliency. Journal of
Clinical Psychology,58(3), 307–321. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.10020.
WORLD FUTURES 13
Segovia, F., Moore, J. L., Linnville, S. E., Hoyt, R. E., & Hain, R. E. (2012).
Optimism predicts resilience in repatriated prisoners of war: A 37-year longitu-
dinal study. Journal of Traumatic Stress,25(3), 330–336. https://doi.org/10.
1002/jts.21691
Shiffrin, R. M., & Schneider, W. (1977). Controlled and automatic human infor-
mation processing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending and a general
theory. Psychological Review,84(2), 127–190. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-
295X.84.2.127.
Sica, C., Magni, C., Ghisi, M., Alto
e, G., Sighinolfi, C., Chiri, L. R., &
Franceschini, S. (2008). Coping orientation to problems experienced-Nuova
Versione Italiana (COPE-NVI): uno strumento per la misura degli stili di cop-
ing.Psicoterapia cognitiva e Comportamentale,14(1), 27.
Simonot, M., Jeanes, J., MacDonald, J., Nicholl, M., & Wilkinson, I. (2008).
Initial teacher training project for teachers and instructors in prison and offender
education. Consultabile presso. https://equalityanddiversity.net/docs/teachers-
instructors-prison.pdf
Tabibnia, G. (2020). An affective neuroscience model of boosting resilience in
adults. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews,115, 321–350. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.neubiorev.2020.05.005.
Tabibnia, G., & Radecki, D. (2018). Resilience training that can change the brain.
Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research,70(1), 59–88. https://doi.
org/10.1037/cpb0000110.
Tugade, M. M., & Fredrickson, B. L. (2004). Resilient individuals use positive
emotions to bounce back from negative emotional experiences. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology,86(2), 320–333. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-
3514.86.2.320.
Wagnild, G. (2009). The Resilience Scale user’s guide for the US English version of
the Resilience Scale and the 14-Item Resilience Scale (RS-14). The Resilience
Center.
Weare, K., & Nind, M. (2011). Mental health promotion and problem prevention
in schools: what does the evidence say? Health promotion International,
26(suppl 1), i29–i69. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/dar075
Wenger, E. (1999). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity.
Cambridge University Press.
White, M. A., & McCallum, F. (2021). Wellbeing and resilience education –
COVID-19 and its impact on education. Routledge, Taylor & Francis.
Appendix
1. Research: Methodology and Procedures
This study is part of the ‘Envisioning the Future’(EF) program, conceived and
conducted by the Patrizio Paoletti Foundation (PPF). The EF educational activ-
ities, in which two groups of educators working in the penal circuit participated,
were carried out with the collaboration of the Juvenile Justice Center of
Campania (Italy) and the University of Padua (Italy) (agreement between PFF
and University of Padua: n. of protocol 5200/16-12-2020). The training was con-
ducted in 2020-2021, at the height of the pandemic emergency. It was led by
experienced trainers using the ‘Pedagogy for the Third Millennium’(PTM) method
(Paoletti, 2008; Paoletti & Selvaggio, 2012), which has been applied to
emergency contexts for more than 15 years. The course lasted 20 weeks: 10 live
14 P. PAOLETTI ET AL.
webinar sessions, with an average duration of 180 minutes each, were held. To
support individual autonomous practices, participants were encouraged to access
a web-platform that contained 11 video-recorded lessons, with an average dur-
ation of 15 minutes each, on ‘The 10 Keys to Resilience’(Paoletti et al., 2022).
Each webinar presented and discussed the findings of recent interdisciplinary
studies on resilience and well-being (Korb, 2015; Paoletti, 2018; Tabibnia, 2020;
Tabibnia & Radecki, 2018) with the focus on the possible recovery from uncer-
tainty and stress by coaching themselves in daily life through practical exercises.
The sessions were interspersed with 5 other webinar meetings, with a duration of
1.5 hours each, in which moments of group interactions were solicited (e.g. with
space for questions and insights regarding the practice of the suggested techni-
ques into the daily life).
2. Participants
The participants volunteered for the survey in a non-clinical, training setting. The
statistical analysis on the psychological variables (aim 1) were conducted on 54
educators working in juvenile penal circuit (mean age ¼43.31 ± 10.68), 74.1%of
whom are female, working in the Juvenile Justice Center services of Campania
(Italy) (45%) or in contracted community institutions of the private social sector
(55%). Of the 54 educators, 78.5%have an educational qualification of a bache-
lor’s degree or higher and 60%have a length of service of 14 years or less.
Regarding the statistical analysis of the impact of training (aim 2), a group of
30 educators (mean age ¼47.33 ± 9.67), 80%of whom are female, working in the
Juvenile Justice Center services of Campania (Italy) (52%) or in contracted com-
munity institutions of the private social sector (48%), participated in the EF train-
ing sessions.
Questionnaires were remotely administered to the experimental group before
and after the training sessions.
3. Measures
The psychological variables were measured through validated psychometric
instruments widely used in the international scientific literature.
Resilience was measured through the following scales:
1. CD-RISC-10 (10-item Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale; Connor &
Davidson, 2003; Di Fabio & Palazzeschi, 2012): a self-report scale with 10
items and answers rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from “Not at all
true ¼1”to “Almost always true ¼5”.
2. RS14 (14-item Resilience Scale; Wagnild, 2009): a self-report scale with 14
items and answers rated on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from “Strongly
disagree ¼1”to “Strongly agree ¼7”.
3. Self-efficacy in managing emotions was measured through the
APEN/A –APEP/A scales (Scales of Personal Self-Efficacy in Managing
Negative and Positive Emotions) (Caprara, 2001) for assessing the level of
personal self-efficacy in managing both negative and positive emotions.
These are self-report scales with 15 items and answers rated on a 5-point
Likert scale ranging from “Not at all able to ¼1”to “Fully able to ¼5”.
WORLD FUTURES 15
4. Coping strategies were assessed through the administration of the
COPE-NVI (Coping Orientation to the Problems Experienced-New Italian
Version) questionnaire (Sica et al., 2008), a self-report questionnaire with 60
items and answers rated on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from “I usually
don’t¼1”to “I almost always do ¼4”.
4. Data Analysis
Multiple linear regression analyses (MLR) were performed in order to explore the
predictors of resilience in a group of educators of the juvenile penal circuit. Analyses
of variance (ANOVA) and Paired Samples t-Tests were conducted for assessing the
impact of the EF program, “before”and “after”the training sessions.
5. Results
5.1. Predictors of Resilience in Juvenile Penal Circuit Educators
Regarding the exploration of the psychological variables of the penal circuit edu-
cators (aim 1), the overall levels of resilience measured on the group of educators
“pre”and “post”training are very high (Table 1), along with the scores related to
emotional regulation self-efficacy and specific coping strategies.
Preliminary analysis of bivariate correlations on the total sample of educators
(N¼54), showed significant and positive linear relationships (p.01) between
the total resilience score (measured with the RS14) and all the investigated varia-
bles except with: coping strategies of social support,turning to religion and avoid-
ance. Significant and positive linear relationships (p.01) emerged between the
total resilience score (measured with the CD-RISC-10) and all dimensions
investigated.
Table 1. Mean scores for the total group of participants (N¼54) and for the
experimental group (Pre-and Post-Training) (N¼30).
Total group of participants: mean scores (N¼54) Mean SD
CD-RISC-10 Total score 28.43 7,691
Flexibility 5.81 1,694
Self-efficacy 9.35 2,208
Emotional regulation 2.65 1,291
Optimism 8.04 2,663
Cognitive focus 2.57 1,159
RS14 Total score 74.69 7,317
Purpose 17.52 2,272
Perseverance 11.72 1,742
Self-reliance 28.35 2,769
Equanimity 9.76 1,893
Authenticity 11.24 1,811
APEN/APEP Self-efficacy in managing negative emotions 29.94 5,243
Self-efficacy in managing positive emotions 28.57 4,475
COPE-NVI Social support 31.07 6,993
Avoidance strategies 22.65 5,587
Positive attitude 32.50 4,967
Problem-solving 32.70 5,000
Turning to religion 16.93 5,365
16 P. PAOLETTI ET AL.
From these initial exploratory results, further investigations were carried out,
using MLR techniques, to reveal significant relationships between the different
psychological variables investigated on the total sample of educators of the juven-
ile penal circuit (N¼54). Resilience levels (measured with both the RS14 and
CD-RISC-10 questionnaires) show a positive relationship with the following inde-
pendent variables: self-efficacy in managing positive emotions,self-efficacy in man-
aging negative emotions, and positive attitude (Table 2).
5.2. The Impact of ‘Envisioning the Future’Program: Comparison of
Pre- and Post-Training Means
The results of statistical analysis on the pre- and post-training scores revealed
three significant differences regarding the variables: self-efficacy in managing nega-
tive emotions, which decreases while remaining high (t(29) ¼2.944, p<.006),
Experimental group (pre-and post-training): mean scores (N¼30) Mean SD (pre) Mean SD (post)
CD-RISC-10 Total score 27.77 7,789 27.17 7,648
Flexibility 5.63 1,629 5.67 1,470
Self-efficacy 9.03 2,266 8.77 2,223
Emotional regulation 2.70 1,291 2.83 1,117
Optimism 7.90 2,657 7.50 2,862
Cognitive focus 2.50 1,253 2.40 1,133
RS14 Total score 73.53 7,314 72.87 9,130
Purpose 17.13 2,270 17.17 2,422
Perseverance 11.57 1,716 11.23 1,924
Self-reliance 28.03 2,846 27.87 4,216
Equanimity 9.43 2,096 9.77 2,315
Authenticity 11.10 1,971 11.00 1,742
APEN/APEP Self-efficacy in managing negative emotions 31.13 4,400 28.40 3,838
Self-efficacy in managing positive emotions 25.97 3,681 30.20 3,845
COPE-NVI Social support 29.77 6,334 30.57 6,658
Avoidance strategies 21.43 2,909 23.60 6,806
Positive attitude 31.90 5,268 33.60 5,500
Problem-solving 32.20 4,909 33.27 4,479
Turning to religion 17.23 5,191 18.47 5,877
Table 2. Multiple linear regression models with resilience as dependent vari-
able (N¼54).
Model Independent variable btp
Participants (N¼54)
Model 1: Resilience total score
(RS14) as dependent variable
a
Self-efficacy in managing
positive emotions
0.415 2,236 p<.05
Self-efficacy in managing
negative emotions
0.490 3,051 p<.01
Positive attitude 0.444 2,420 p<.05
Model 2: Resilience total score
(CD-RISC-10) as dependent variable
b
Self-efficacy in managing
positive emotions
0.434 2,346 p<.05
Self-efficacy in managing
negative emotions
0.737 4,605 p<.01
Model 1
a
¼adjusted R-squared ¼0.537 (F ¼14,731; p<.01)
Model 2
b
¼adjusted R-squared ¼0.494 (F ¼18,231; p<.01)
Only significant results reported.
WORLD FUTURES 17
self-efficacy in managing positive emotions, which increases (t(29) ¼4.605,
p<.000) and positive attitude, which increases (t(29) ¼2.251, p<.032).
The analysis of the cutoff scores of the APEN/A and APEP/A scales indicate a
shift from “very high”to “high”scores relative to the level of perceived self-
efficacy in managing negative emotions and a shift from “medium”to “high”
scores relative to the level of perceived self-efficacy in managing positive
emotions, highlighting the achievement of a balance between these two skills.
This result seems to be supported and strengthened by the concomitant growth
of the positive attitude (Table 3).
Table 3. Paired samples ttests: Pre- and post-training scores differences (N¼30).
Dependent variables:
analyzed pairsMean SD SEM tdf p
95% Confidence
interval of the
difference
Lower Upper
Self-efficacy:
Negative emotions
(pre) –self-efficacy:
Negative emotions (post)
2,733 5,085 0.928 2,944 29 .006 0.835 4.632
Self-efficacy:
Positive emotions (pre)
–self-efficacy:
Positive emotions (post)
4,233 5,036 0.919 4,605 29 .000 6.114 2.353
COPE:
Positive attitude (pre) –COPE:
Positive attitude (post)
1,700 4,137 0.755 2,251 29 .032 3.245 0.155
Only significant results reported.
Holm–Bonferroni adjusted p-values were calculated for all comparisons.
18 P. PAOLETTI ET AL.
