Coping‐Related Insight as a Mechanism of Resilience Capacity Development in Emerging Adulthood: A Registered Report

ABSTRACT

The Systematic Self‐Reflection Model of Resilience Strengthening (Crane, Searle, et al., 2019) proposes that coping self‐reflection on everyday stressors can generate coping‐related insights that refine modifiable capacities for resilience (e.g., coping beliefs, coping adjustment, and coping‐enabling resources), thereby increasing the likelihood of resilience. However, reflective engagement and insight generation may be constrained by individual and contextual factors, raising the possibility that externally modeled coping insights could scaffold subsequent self‐reflection and strengthen downstream adaptation. This preregistered study tests whether narrative exposure that explicitly models coping‐related insights enhances the effects of structured self‐reflection among emerging adults (18–25 years). Participants (target final N = 400; recruited from Australia and the United Kingdom) will be randomly assigned to one of three conditions: (1) high‐insight priming story + reflection, in which short video stories explicitly convey a coping‐related insight; (2) low‐insight priming story + reflection, in which the same stories omit explicit meaning‐making; or (3) reflection‐only. Participants complete five weekly tasks, with assessments at baseline (T1), post‐intervention (T2), and 3‐month follow‐up (T3). Primary outcomes include coping‐related insight (self‐report and blind‐coded written insights), resilient capacities (coping self‐efficacy, coping adjustment, support‐seeking intentions, perceived social support), and mental ill‐health symptoms (depression and anxiety). Resilience is operationalized as stressor reactivity, symptom levels relative to stressor exposure, calculated as residualised symptoms after accounting for adversity and daily hassles, at each time point. We hypothesize that high‐insight priming narratives will increase insight and resilient capacities and reduce stressor reactivity over time. Mediation analyses will test underlying mechanisms.

1. Introduction

Emerging adulthood (ages 18–25 years; Arnett ²⁰⁰⁰) is a distinct and heterogeneous developmental period marked by identity exploration, increasing independence, new financial challenges, and changes in romantic relationships. These novel stressors can disrupt established routines, creating both vulnerability and opportunities for growth while prompting reflection on the self, relationships, and successful adulthood (Crane et al. 2025; Masten et al. ²⁰⁰⁶; Paquette et al. ²⁰²⁵). Emerging adults often seek guidance from family, peers, social media, and mass media to identify and socially test coping strategies (e.g., Al‐Jbouri et al. ²⁰²⁴). Socialization theory suggests that individuals acquire norms, expectations, and behavioral scripts from such sources (Bandura and Walters 1977). Building on this perspective, the present study conceptualizes insight‐focused peer stories as a structured, developmentally relevant source of information that uses relatable narratives and reflective meaning making to model how common stressors can be interpreted, managed, and learnt from.

The Systematic Self‐Reflection Model of Resilience Strengthening (Crane, Boga, et al. ²⁰¹⁹) proposes that developmentally normative stressors can generate coping‐related insights when individuals reflect on their stress and coping experiences. Coping‐related insights are conceptualized as the metacognitive bridges through which reflections on past stress and coping experiences guide the development and refinement of future capacities for resilience (Crane, Boga, et al. ²⁰¹⁹). Capacities for resilience are defined as modifiable psychosocial resources and protective factors that enhance the likelihood of resilient outcomes. Such capacities include the flexible use of coping strategies, access to and use of coping‐enabling resources, and coping beliefs, which together facilitate effective adaptation to current and future stressors. Capacities for resilience are thought to be developed and refined throughout life but particularly during transitional life stages as novel stressors are encountered.

Research has demonstrated the effectiveness of reflection‐based interventions on supporting mental health during difficult military training transitions (Crane, Boga, et al. ²⁰¹⁹; Falon, Karin, et al. ²⁰²¹), while greater insight is associated with better mental health, emotion regulation, and perceived resilience (Bucknell et al. 2022; Crane et al. ²⁰²⁴; Harrington and Loffredo ²⁰¹⁰). Although existing models and intervention trials suggest that individuals can generate resilience‐enhancing insights via structured reflective writing, reflective engagement and insight quality may depend on individual and contextual factors (Crane et al. 2025; Maxwell et al. ²⁰²⁶). For the first time, we experimentally test whether exposure to relatable stories modeling coping‐related insights enhances the effects of reflective writing on mental health and resilience capacity development.

1.1. Emerging Adulthood: A Key Period for the Development of Capacities for Resilience that Support Resilience in Later Adulthood

Emerging adulthood involves novel adult‐like demands that challenge coping and adaptive capacities, creating opportunities for learning and adjustment as individuals navigate uncertainty and change (Arnett 2000). Furthermore, many stressors that initially occur during emerging adulthood are likely to persist into later adulthood (Matud et al. 2020). During this period, emerging adults take on responsibilities related to work, finances, relationships, and health that reflect the core challenges of adult life. Further, the nature and structure of resources change alongside evolving demands. Unlike adolescence, emerging adulthood is less structured by secondary schooling and parental dependence; unlike later adulthood, it often lacks the stability of established work and family roles (Arnett 2007, 2000). Reliance on parental guidance, for example, may support adolescents but become less sufficient as emerging adults tackle new challenges and are expected to engage in independent problem‐solving and decision‐making (Hartup and Stevens 1999). The transition into adulthood may require emerging adults to revise assumptions and coping habits that are less suited to greater independence and responsibility. Consistent with this, coping strategies and support structures have been shown to change from late adolescence into young adulthood (Jenzer et al. 2019; Wingo et al. ²⁰¹⁵).

Moreover, the consequences of effective coping during emerging adulthood can be substantial as a period that coincides with key developmental tasks, including higher education and vocational training. Decisions made during this stage can have lasting implications, such as career disruptions that generate enduring effects (Chauvel 2010). Although these transitions often involve stress and instability, they also create opportunities for psychological growth and resilience capacity development (Masten et al. 2006). Thus, emerging adulthood is a formative stage in which coping skills, beliefs, and resources may shape longer‐term adaptation.

This developmental rationale aligns with lifespan accounts of wisdom development, which identify adolescence and emerging adulthood as periods when core capacities emerge, including self‐reflection, openness to experience, perspective‐taking, and reasoning about uncertainty and complex life problems (Kunzmann and Baltes 2005; Richardson and Pasupathi ²⁰⁰⁵). These capacities map to the processes targeted by an insight‐based intervention, which require individuals to reflect on stressful experiences, generate self‐relevant knowledge, and consider how lessons from prior coping may expand and inform future responses. Emerging adulthood also coincides with ongoing cognitive maturation in self‐regulatory capacities relevant to reflection, abstract reasoning, and emotion regulation (D’Argembeau et al. ²⁰⁰⁷; Jung‐Beeman ²⁰⁰⁵; Kounios et al. ²⁰⁰⁶; Northoff et al. ²⁰⁰⁶), further supporting the view that emerging adulthood may be a key period for self‐reflective learning and insight formation.

Emerging adulthood may also be especially relevant for insight development because experiences from adolescence and early adulthood occupy a privileged place in autobiographical memory. Research on the reminiscence bump shows that adults recall a disproportionate number of self‐defining memories from this period, likely because these years involve identity formation, novel role transitions, and emotionally significant first experiences (D. C. Rubin and Schulkind ¹⁹⁹⁷). Stressors encountered during emerging adulthood may therefore be more likely to become incorporated into individuals' developing life narratives and self‐understanding. Structured reflection may help determine whether these stressors are encoded primarily as disruptions or as sources of coping‐related insight about coping capacities, agency, and supportive resources. Thus, the conditions and nature of emerging adulthood may therefore be an important period of heighten reflective activity and coping‐related insight development.

1.2. Understanding the Development of Capacities for Resilience

Resilience is commonly defined as the maintenance or rapid recovery of psychological functioning following exposure to stress or adversity (Kalisch et al. 2017). Accordingly, resilience is often operationalized as low mental health symptoms despite adversity or elevated psychological risk (e.g., Bonanno ²⁰⁰⁴). Research has identified a range of modifiable psychosocial resources, strategies, and protective beliefs that increase the likelihood of resilient outcomes over time, referred to here as capacities for resilience (e.g., Good et al. ²⁰²⁵).

The Systematic Self‐Reflection Model of Resilience Strengthening (Crane, Boga, et al. ²⁰¹⁹) proposes that moderate intensity life disruptions can foster subsequent capacity development, when exposure to stressors is accompanied by individual insights that emerge from coping self‐reflection on these experiences. The model proposes that a personalized suite of capacities for resilience is shaped and refined over time across three domains: resilient coping beliefs (e.g., coping self‐efficacy), flexible application of coping strategies, and coping‐enabling resources (e.g., social supports). Specifically, the model suggests that coping self‐reflection on moderate stressors, common during life transitions, generates coping‐related insights that guide the refinement and expansion of these resilience capacities.

Coping self‐reflection refers to an individual‐level cognitive process in which a person deliberately examines and evaluates their stress and coping experiences, including their stress reactions, stressor interpretations, coping responses, coping resources, coping beliefs, and the fit or effectiveness of these responses for the situation (Crane, Boga, et al. ²⁰¹⁹; Falon et al. ²⁰²¹). Coping self‐reflection is multidimensional and reflective practices are targeted at achieving greater awareness of one's initial reactions to stressors, understanding why events elicit stress, considering what can be learnt from an experience, evaluating the effectiveness of one's coping response, and considering alternatives for future events. This coping self‐reflection process is coping‐specific and may occur during or after stressor exposure. From a meaning making perspective, coping self‐reflection can be understood as a specific, coping‐focused form of meaning‐making activity. However, coping self‐reflection differs from accounts of meaning making that emphasize reducing discrepancies between an event's appraised meaning and global meaning systems, such as beliefs, goals, and life purpose (Park 2010). Rather, coping self‐reflection is directed towards monitoring, evaluating, and refining one's coping processes in context.

Coping‐related insight refers to an individual's metacognitive understandings of their stress and coping experiences that are an outcome of coping self‐reflection (Falon et al. 2021). It concerns an individual's awareness of their stress reactions, coping responses, interpretations of the stressor, and evaluations of coping effectiveness, including ideas about whether coping responses or resources should be maintained, modified, or replaced to support more effective future coping. While general insight may involve broad self‐understanding and internal state awareness across performance contexts, life domains, and goals (Grant et al. 2002), coping‐related insight is coping‐specific. Coping‐related insight is multidimensional and may include understanding one's emotional responses to stress, coping repertoire, strategies that may be helpful in the future, and resources. Coping‐related insights are also open to change across time through an iterative process of stressor exposure and coping self‐reflection practices. In this way, stress responses and coping attempts provide the basis for self‐reflection, which builds self‐knowledge about coping (coping‐related insights) and guides subsequent adjustments in modifiable capacities for resilience.

1.3. The Nature of Coping‐Related Insights

Early conceptual work identified numerous insight categories relevant to strengthening resilience capacities. These coping‐related insights were articulated in the Self‐Reflection and Coping Insight Framework (Falon et al. 2021) and originally proposed 13 (Falon et al. 2021) and later 14 (Falon et al. 2022) coping‐related insights specific to the enhancement of resilience capacities. Broadly, these include awareness of stress responses, understanding stress triggers, evaluation of coping effectiveness, recognition of growth through stress, and insight into when and why particular coping strategies are effective.

This study focuses on five domains of coping‐related insight drawn from the original framework and operationalized using a self‐report measure (Crane et al. 2024). The five domains of coping‐related insight identified explained the greatest variance in key outcomes including lower mental health symptoms, rumination, and fewer difficulties in emotion regulation (Crane et al. 2024). First, insight into the time course of reactions reflects an understanding that distressing thoughts and emotions change over time rather than remaining fixed. This awareness may support future adaptive appraisals when a new event is encountered, foster later coping self‐efficacy, and promote future persistence in coping efforts. Second, insight into one's resilience capacity repertoire involves recognizing available regulatory options, which may facilitate future effective selection and coping strategy adjustment. Third, insight into the relationships between reactions reflects awareness of how emotions, thoughts, and behaviors interact, enabling individuals to identify maladaptive patterns that may recur and consider alternative responses in future stressful situations. Fourth, insight into the anticipated efficacy of resilient capacities reflects an understanding that coping resources can be developed or accessed over time, encouraging later experimentation with alternative responses to stress. Finally, insight into stress as a potential opportunity for growth reflects an awareness that stressful experiences can contribute to positive development, shaping how future demands and opportunities are appraised (Falon et al. 2021; Maxwell et al. ²⁰²⁶). These insights are not strategies, resources, or coping beliefs in themselves. Rather, they are metacognitive understandings that may broaden interpretive frameworks, make alternative coping possibilities more accessible, and guide the consideration of new strategies or resources when future stressors arise.

1.4. Post‐Processing of Stressor Experiences

Although coping self‐reflection may occur during stressful encounters, the Systematic Self‐Reflection Model of Resilience Strengthening primarily emphasizes retrospective processing of past stressors, coping responses, and resources. This post‐event process may generate coping‐related insights that shape later appraisals, coping beliefs, strategy selection, and resource mobilization. Therefore, coping‐related insights are a possible mechanism for temporal learning. This is distinct from coping and self‐regulatory models that focus primarily on moment‐to‐moment stress appraisals or coping adaptation. Existing coping and self‐regulation theories explain how people select from existing strategies, monitor their application of strategies, and modify coping responses when current responses are ineffective (Bonanno and Burton 2013; Kato ^{2012, 2020}), but provide less specification of how experiences from one stressful encounter are transformed into metacognitive knowledge that changes the capacities applied to subsequent encounters. For example, regulatory models describe how people monitor their strategy application, but the unanswered question is what is retained in that process that guides the on‐going refinement of resilient capacities when that stressor has passed. Coping‐related insights are the metacognitive representation of that information derived from experience. Similarly, traditional coping theories such as the Transactional Model of Stress and Coping (Lazarus and Folkman 1984) are useful for explaining how appraisals affect the response and coping process as stressors unfold. These models are concerned with in‐the‐moment coping responses and adaptation. In contrast, coping self‐reflection and insights are not processes through which in‐the moment coping adjustments occur, but as mechanisms through which prior stressor experiences are carried forward to influence coping with later stressors. Coping‐related insight is a candidate mechanism in which reflection on events may translate into changes in capacities.

A second contribution of the Systematic Self‐Reflection Model of Resilience Strengthening (Crane, Boga, et al. ²⁰¹⁹) is that, although resilience theories identify multiple modifiable protective factors, they provide less specification of how these capacities may be modified via stressor experiences. The model addresses this gap by positioning coping‐related insight as a metacognitive learning product of reflection on stress and coping experiences. By reshaping interpretations of past stressors or highlighting alternative future coping responses, such coping‐related insights can inform future coping beliefs (e.g., positive appraisal, perceived coping efficacy) even when previous coping attempts were self‐appraised as ineffective (Crane, Boga, et al. ²⁰¹⁹). For example, identifying strategies that may be more effective in future situations may help preserve or strengthen agency, hope, and optimism despite initial setbacks.

Third, several theories, such as psychophysiological toughness, stress inoculation, and steeling accounts propose that manageable adversity can strengthen later responses to stress (Dienstbier 1989, 1992; Lyons and Parker ²⁰⁰⁷; Rutter ²⁰⁰⁶). However, these accounts have primarily emphasized the effects of stressor exposure itself, including physiological conditioning that may shape subsequent appraisals, while providing less specification of how individuals psychologically process coping experiences, extract meaningful learning from them, and carry that learning forward to future stressors. The Systematic Self‐Reflection Model of Resilience Strengthening extends this literature by proposing that manageable stressor exposure creates opportunities for learnings that are the content of coping‐related insights. These insights may then update expectations, appraisals, coping beliefs, and perceived coping options that are carried forward to subsequent stressors. Thus, coping‐related insights provide an alternative psychological mechanism for future adaptation, beyond physiological mechanisms.

1.5. What We Know: Existing Evidence for Coping Self‐Reflection and Coping‐Related Insight

Although coping self‐reflection and coping‐related insight are relatively recent constructs, they build on the broader literature on systematic self‐reflection, insight, and meaning making. However, self‐reflection is not uniformly adaptive. A recent meta‐analysis found no significant overall association between self‐reflection and positive mental health indicators, such as subjective well‐being, life satisfaction, or self‐esteem, and found that many measures of general reflective tendency were positively associated with negative mental health outcomes, including anxiety and depression (He and Gan 2025). An exception was wisdom‐related reflection, which was associated with better mental health, possibly because it captures more adaptive reflective qualities such as perspective‐taking, consideration of multiple viewpoints, and reduced self‐centered interpretation (i.e., Three‐Dimensional Wisdom Scale; Ardelt ²⁰⁰³). However, this finding should be interpreted cautiously because the reflective subscale includes emotionally valenced items that overlap with mental health and well‐being, which may partly explain its more favorable associations.

These mixed findings are consistent with the Systematic Self‐Reflection Model of Resilience Strengthening, which proposes that adaptive outcomes arise not from reflection itself, but from the coping‐related insights generated through reflection (Falon et al. 2021). A similar distinction appears in the meaning making literature. Meaning making efforts are not consistently associated with adjustment and may instead reflect unresolved discrepancy or distress, whereas adjustment depends more on whether adaptive meanings are made (Park 2010). Continued meaning making efforts may reflect unresolved distress rather than adaptive processing, resulting in maladaptive rumination. Although coping self‐reflection does not necessarily seek to resolve discrepancies in global meaning, the two processes are similar in that reflection itself is not the adaptive endpoint; its value depends on whether it produces coping‐related insights that can guide subsequent resilient capacity development.

General self‐insight has a demonstrated association with positive functioning (Harrington and Loffredo 2010; Silvia et al. ²⁰²³) and has been shown to mediate the relationship between self‐reflection and wellbeing outcomes including perceived resilience (Bucknell et al. 2022; Stein and Grant ²⁰¹⁴). However, other work suggests that it may depend on the nature and quality of the insights. For example, a mixed‐methods study found that coping‐related insights generated through reflective journaling showed differential associations with perceived resilience 6 months later (Bucknell et al. 2024). Insights concerning the time course of reactions, stress as an opportunity for growth, and personal coping strengths were positively associated with later perceived resilience, whereas insights highlighting coping limitations, interpersonal effects, or discrepant short‐ and long‐term coping outcomes were negatively associated with perceived resilience. However, these findings should be interpreted cautiously, as the outcome was perceived rather than observed resilience, and awareness of coping limitations may temporarily reduce perceived resilience without reducing actual adaptive capacity. Having noted this, in a review of the meaning making scholarship, Park (2010) points out that although meanings made are generally more consistently associated with better adjustment than meaning making efforts, this association is not uniform and appears to depend on the type and quality of the meaning that is made. Thus, the available evidence suggests that reflection and insight are distinct, and that reflection is more likely to be beneficial when it generates useful, coping‐related insight rather than unresolved discrepancy or rumination.

1.6. Evidence From Guided Coping Self‐Reflection Studies

Previous work has highlighted the use of systematic self‐reflection as a process through which individuals analyze their past behavior and evaluate how different components contributed to performance outcomes, thereby supporting learning from experience and behavioral change (Ellis et al. 2014; Ellis and Davidi ²⁰⁰⁵). This learning does not arise automatically from success or failure, but requires deliberate reflection on what occurred, why it occurred, and what the experience implies for future coping (Ellis et al. 2014; Ellis and Davidi ²⁰⁰⁵). By reflecting on previous coping attempts, individuals can develop hypotheses about when and why particular strategies are effective, which resources are available or underutilized, and which capacities may need development. These understandings may guide future decisions to maintain helpful strategies, adapt existing responses, try new approaches, or discontinue ineffective strategies (Crane et al., in review). Similarly, via coping self‐reflection, individuals may experience insights about the role others played in past coping efforts, identify underused sources of support, or notice gaps in resource mobilization. Recent qualitative work has shown that reflection on past stressors can generate insights about the availability and usefulness of social support during stressful events, but also guide adjustments to coping strategies (Crane et al. 2026), indicating that insight from reflection on stress and coping experiences may support concrete changes in coping behavior and resource use across contexts. Through repeated cycles of reflection, insight, and adaptive adjustment, this process operates as an iterative growth model, progressively strengthening coping adaption, resource use, and coping beliefs over time.

To date, resilience intervention studies have demonstrated that structured coping self‐reflective writing can reduce symptoms of anxiety and depression during stressful periods (Bucknell et al. 2022; Crane, Boga, et al. ²⁰¹⁹; Falon, Karin, et al. ²⁰²¹; Falon et al. ²⁰²²). Recent qualitative work provides evidence of coping‐related insights in structured coping self‐reflective journalling (Bucknell et al. 2024; Falon et al. ²⁰²²). Although guided coping self‐reflection can, under optimal conditions, generate valuable insights about coping, several barriers to both reflection and insight have been observed. Barriers to coping self‐reflection include emotional overwhelm and situational demands (Crane et al. 2025), whereas barriers to insight include ruminative thought (Bucknell et al. 2022) and depressive symptoms (Maxwell et al. 2026). Thus, guided self‐reflection may not always generate resilience‐enhancing coping‐related insights. Interventions that explicitly prime such insights may therefore complement self‐reflection‐based approaches by more reliably supporting adaptive learning and future coping.

1.7. The Role of Story Telling

Narrative approaches may provide a useful way to scaffold coping‐related insight. From a narrative identity perspective, individuals interpret stressful experiences through culturally available stories, personal life narratives, and shared frameworks for understanding the self (McAdams ^{1989, 2019}; McAdams and McLean ²⁰¹³). Thus, coping‐related insight may be shaped not only by private reflection, but also by personally relevant narratives. Peer stories may offer socially recognizable examples of coping‐related insights, consistent with research on the adaptive value of vicarious memories for understanding, problem solving, and well‐being (Pillemer et al. 2015; Pillemer et al. ²⁰²⁴). Narratives that depict stressors as manageable, dynamic, and potentially growth‐promoting may help emerging adults identify similar patterns in their own stress and coping experiences, including links between thoughts, emotions, behaviors, coping strengths, and opportunities for change (Crane et al. 2025). Unlike a reliance on structured self‐reflective (Crane, Boga, et al. ²⁰¹⁹; Falon, Karin, et al. ²⁰²¹) or expressive writing paradigms alone (McAdams ²⁰⁰¹; Pennebaker and Seagal ¹⁹⁹⁹), insight‐embedded stories may provide a relatable interpretation of experience that helps participants to organize and interpret their own coping experiences.

1.8. The Present Study

Building on evidence that guided self‐reflective writing can strengthen resilience, the present study will test whether exposure to relatable peer narratives that explicitly model coping‐related insights enhances the effects of structured self‐reflection in emerging adults. We will examine whether priming coping‐related insights previously associated with mental health and emotion regulation outcomes increases insight generation and subsequent resilience‐related outcomes. Participants will be randomly assigned to one of three conditions: (1) a high‐insight priming condition, in which narratives explicitly model coping‐related insights; (2) a low‐insight priming condition, in which the same narratives are presented without explicit insight priming; or (3) a reflection‐only condition, involving structured self‐reflection without narrative exposure. All participants will complete weekly reflective writing tasks across five consecutive weeks. By comparing the high‐insight priming condition with both the low‐insight priming and reflection‐only conditions, the design isolates the incremental effects of explicit insight priming beyond structured reflection alone.

The intervention format is intended to provide a scalable, self‐paced, and feasible approach to resilience capacity development for emerging adults. Brief online video narratives and reflection tasks support standardised delivery across geographically dispersed participants. Each video narrative and reflection activity takes approximately 20 minutes, resulting in a total intervention exposure time of between 1.5 and 2 hours. Thus, the intervention provides repeated engagement across 5 weeks while minimizing the logistical and time burden associated with longer, face‐to‐face, or clinician‐delivered programs. The duration of the present intervention is briefer than many existing resilience interventions (Ang et al. 2022; Liu et al. ²⁰²⁰). Moreover, meta‐regression analyses indicated that intervention length, number of sessions, and session duration were not significant predictors of resilience outcomes (Ang et al. 2022). These findings suggest that brief interventions may be viable when theoretically targeted and designed to fit participants' everyday constraints.

Consistent with our definition, resilience is operationalized not simply as lower symptom levels, but as stressor reactivity, that is, individuals' mental ill‐health symptoms relative to their level of stressor and adversity exposure (Metts et al. 2025). Within this framework, resilience reflects lower‐than‐expected psychological distress given exposure, rather than the absence of distress itself. Using a three‐wave longitudinal design, we will examine whether high‐insight priming increases coping‐related insights, assessed via self‐report and behavioral coding, and if these increases translate into growth in coping self‐efficacy, positive appraisals, coping adjustment, support‐seeking intentions, and perceived social support. Table 1 provides the study hypotheses.

TABLE 1.

Specification of hypotheses.

H#	Purpose	Conditions/predictor	Outcome(s)	Time points	Primary test and expected effect
H1	Manipulation check	High‐insight priming versus low‐insight priming	Message generalizability; clarity of ideas about stress or difficult emotions; number of insights identified in open‐text responses.	5 weekly tasks	The high‐insight priming condition is expected to produce higher generalizability and clarity ratings and more identified insights, than the low‐insight priming condition.
H2a	Effects of narrative condition on coping‐related insights	Reflection‐only, low‐insight priming, and high‐insight priming	Coping self‐insight	T1, T2, T3	Condition × time interaction
H2b	Effects of narrative condition on coping‐related insights	Reflection‐only, low‐insight priming, and high‐insight priming	General insight	T1, T2, T3	Condition × time interaction
H2c	Planned contrasts for H2a–H2b	High‐insight priming versus low‐insight priming; high‐insight priming versus reflection‐only	Coping self‐insight and general insight	T1, T2, T3	The high‐insight priming condition is expected to show greater increases from T1 to T2, maintained at T3, compared with participants in the low‐insight priming and the reflection‐only conditions.
H3	Effects of narrative condition on behavioral indicator of coping‐related insight	Reflection‐only, low‐insight priming, and high‐insight priming	Average number of coping‐related insights in the written self‐reflection activities	5 weekly tasks	A greater number of coping‐related insights will be identified in the high‐insight priming condition compared to participants in the low‐insight priming and reflection‐only conditions.
H4a	Effects of narrative condition on resilience capacities	Reflection‐only, low‐insight priming, and high‐insight priming	Coping beliefs: Coping self‐efficacy and positive appraisals	T1, T2, T3	Condition × time interaction
H4b	Effects of narrative condition on resilience capacities	Reflection‐only, low‐insight priming, and high‐insight priming	Coping‐enabling resources: Support‐seeking intentions and perceived support	T1, T2, T3	Condition × time interaction
H4c	Effects of narrative condition on resilience capacities	Reflection‐only, low‐insight priming, and high‐insight priming	Coping adjustment: Coping abandonment and coping adoption	T1, T2, T3	Condition × time interaction
H4d	Planned contrasts for H4a‐H4c	High‐insight priming versus low‐insight priming; high‐insight priming versus reflection‐only	All resilience‐capacity outcomes	T1, T2, T3	Participants in the high‐insight priming condition will show greater increases in these outcomes from baseline (T1) to post‐intervention (T2) and whether these gains are maintained at follow‐up (T3), compared with participants in the low‐insight priming and the reflection‐only conditions.
H5a	Effects of narrative condition on stressor reactivity	Reflection‐only, low‐insight priming, and high‐insight priming	Stressor reactivity	T1, T2, T3	Condition × time interaction
H5b	Planned contrasts for H5a	High‐insight priming versus low‐insight priming; high‐insight priming versus reflection‐only	Stressor reactivity	T1, T2, T3	Participants in the high‐insight priming condition will show greater reductions in stressor reactivity from T1 to T2, with this effect maintained at T3, compared with participants in the low‐insight priming and the reflection‐only conditions.
H6	Indirect effects	Insight priming condition as predictor; coping‐related insight as mediator (weekly written coping‐related insights and/or self‐reported coping‐related insight)	Three latent constructs for (a) coping beliefs; (b) coping‐enabling resources; (c) coping adjustment.	5 weekly tasks and T1, T2, T3	High‐insight priming is expected to increase coping‐related insight, which is expected to predict stronger resilience capacities.

Abbreviations: T1 = baseline; T2 = immediate follow‐up; and T3 = 3‐month follow‐up.

1.8.1. Research Question

Does perceived stress intensity and stressor status (past vs. ongoing) moderate the effects of condition (reflection‐only, low‐insight priming, high‐insight priming) on coping‐related insight and subsequent coping outcomes?

2. Methods

2.1. Participants and Sample Size Justifications

Based on the power simulations described in supplemental materials, we aim to recruit a final sample of N = 400 emerging adults (18–25 years). Allowing for 40% attrition across the study, we will recruit an initial sample of approximately N = 629 participants. Ethics approval has been granted by the Macquarie University Human Research Ethics Committee (protocol: 520251949064083). Participants will be paid the equivalent of $12 AUD for each (30‐min longitudinal survey) and $7AUD for each weekly task with a $5 bonus for participants who complete all study parts.

Participants will be recruited from Australia and the United Kingdom via the Prolific Academic platform (https://www.prolific.com/) and via Australian industries that employ emerging adults. These countries were selected to enhance generalizability across comparable Western contexts while minimizing large cross‐cultural variability. Both are English‐speaking, Western, industrialized democracies with similar higher education systems and labor market pathways (Mahony 1994). Although emerging adulthood varies cross‐culturally (Arnett 2011), Australia and the United Kingdom share comparable cultural values related to individualism, self‐expression, and personal agency, as well as similar institutional expectations regarding education and career progression. In both contexts, emerging adulthood is characterized by extended engagement in tertiary education or vocational training, delayed transition to full‐time employment, and increasing autonomy from family structures (Ribar and Wong 2022; Robinson ²⁰¹⁵).

Exclusion criteria include being outside the eligible age range of 18–25 years, not currently residing in the United Kingdom or Australia, insufficient English proficiency to engage with the narrative and written reflection tasks, or inability to provide informed consent.

2.2. Design

This study employs a longitudinal, three‐arm experimental design. Participants will be randomly assigned (1:1:1 allocation) in equal proportion to one of three conditions: (1) high‐insight priming + reflection, (2) low‐insight priming + reflection, or (3) reflection‐only (no narrative exposure). Random assignment to one of the experimental conditions will occur automatically using the Qualtrics randomizer. Randomization will occur after all determinations of eligibility (e.g., consent, age) to preserve sample composition, but prior to commencing the main part of the study. To ensure an even allocation of participants to condition, the randomizer can be set up so that it will evenly allocate the conditions (XM Support ²⁰²⁶). Allocation will be concealed because condition assignment is generated by the Qualtrics survey platform after enrollment, meaning that neither participants nor researchers can know, foresee, influence, or alter the next assignment. We will use a double‐blind procedure; participants will be unaware that they are being randomised to a condition, and researchers will be unaware of condition allocation until after data collection is completed.

Participants will complete the study via the Qualtrics survey platform. In all conditions, participants will complete a structured weekly reflection task focused on a personally relevant stressor each week for five consecutive weeks. In the two narrative conditions, the reflection task will be preceded by a brief, relatable story. In the high‐insight priming condition, stories explicitly prime a coping‐related insight. In the low‐insight priming condition, the same stories are presented without explicit insight priming. In the reflection‐only condition, participants complete the same reflection task without any narrative material. This design allows us to isolate the incremental effect of explicit insight modeling. Longitudinal assessments will be conducted at: baseline (T1), immediately following the five reflective writing tasks (T2), and at a 3‐month follow‐up (T3). These repeated assessments enable examination of short‐term change (T1→T2) and maintenance of effects (T2→T3). Figure 1 illustrates the data collection points.

FIGURE 1.

Illustration of procedure. W = week.

2.3. Procedure

At T1, participants will complete an online survey including demographic information (age, gender, ethnic background, education level, current occupational or student status [e.g., university student, full‐time employment]) and baseline study measures. One week later, participants will begin five weekly reflection tasks completed over five consecutive weeks. Participants will then complete the T2 survey, which includes the same measures as T1, excluding demographics. Three months after T2, participants will complete a final survey identical to the T2 battery.

2.4. Longitudinal Measures

At T1, participants will complete an online survey including demographic information (age, gender, ethnic background, education level, current occupational or student status [e.g., university student, full‐time employment]). At T1, we will also measure potentially influential individual‐level differences including trait‐level reflectivity and rumination using subscales from the ruminative‐reflection questionnaire (Trapnell and Campbell 1999) and emotion regulation difficulties (Bjureberg et al. 2016). At each longitudinal time point, we will measure possible confounding variables including the use of concurrent mental health treatments or other interventions (e.g., Are you currently receiving any professional mental health treatment or participating in any other intervention intended to improve your mental health, coping, or resilience?), journalling activities (e.g., How frequently do you currently take time to reflect on your feelings and experiences through journaling?), and perceived personal relevance of the stories. Core measures listed below will be administered at T1, T2 and T3.

2.4.1. Coping‐Related Insight

Insight will be measured using two scales. The first is the Coping Self‐Insight Scale (Crane et al. 2024), a 27‐item self‐report instrument which captures understanding of thoughts, feelings, and behaviors related to coping across five dimensions grounded in the experience of a recent stressor (i.e., ‘Looking back and reflecting on my stressors in the past 2 months I have realised or noticed ..’). The dimensions are anticipated efficacy of resilient capacities (e.g., ‘… the coping resources that I must maintain to help me cope with future stressors’), time course of reactions (e.g., ‘…that negative thoughts are temporary’), stressors as growth opportunities (e.g., ‘…that even the most difficult events can contribute to who I am in positive ways’), resilience capacity repertoire (e.g., ‘…the coping resources I use during stressful events’), and relationships between reactions (e.g., ‘…that the way I think can affect the way I feel’). Participants respond to items using a 5‐point Likert scale 1 (Not at all true of me) to 5 (Definitely true of me). The Coping Self‐Insight scale has previously demonstrated strong internal consistency across all sub‐dimensions and has undergone psychometric assessment (Crane et al. 2024).

To address the risk that explicit modeling of coping‐related principles produces demand‐driven item endorsement, insight will be assessed using multiple methods. Alongside a measure of specific coping‐related insights, we will include the eight‐item Insight subscale of the Self‐Reflection and Insight Scale as a broader measure of general insight that does not directly mirror the narrative content (Grant et al. 2002; e.g., ‘I usually know why I feel the way I do’), measured on a six‐point scale from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 6 (Strongly agree). This measure has been extensively used in previous work (e.g., Bucknell et al. ²⁰²²), demonstrated strong internal reliability (Haga et al. 2009) and undergone psychometric assessment (Grant et al. 2002).

We will also code weekly insight expression in participants' reflections. This multi‐method approach reduces reliance on proposition‐matched self‐report items, which may be susceptible to content priming. Accordingly, self‐reported coping‐related insight will be treated as supportive but not definitive evidence of change, with greater weight given to blind‐coded written insights and convergent effects on broader metacognitive and coping outcomes.

2.4.2. Mental Ill‐Health

Mental ill‐health symptoms will be assessed using two self‐report measures: the Patient Health Questionnaire‐9 (PHQ‐9; Kroenke et al. ²⁰⁰¹) and the Generalized Anxiety Disorder–7 (GAD‐7; Spitzer et al. ²⁰⁰⁶). Both measures assess symptom frequency over the previous 2 weeks using a four‐point scale from 0 (Not at all) to 3 (Nearly every day). PHQ‐9 scores range from 0 to 27, and GAD‐7 scores from 0 to 21, with higher scores indicating greater depressive and anxiety symptom severity, respectively.

2.4.3. Adversity

Recent adversity will be assessed using a 23‐item potentially traumatic and adverse life events checklist. Based on the Life Events Checklist (Gray et al. 2004) and adversities reported by emerging adults in previous work (Crane et al. 2025). Participants indicate whether each event, such as the death of a close family member, occurred in the past 2 months using No (0) or Yes (1) responses.

2.4.4. Daily Hassles

We will measure daily hassles using a validated self‐report microstressor scale (Chmitorz et al. 2020). Daily hassles (termed microstressors) are defined as the ‘irritating, frustrating, distressing demands that to some degree characterize everyday transactions with the environment’ and are conceptually distinguished from major life events and subjective emotional reactions. Participants will complete the 58‐item checklist by reporting the occurrence of a range of daily hassles over the past seven days.

2.4.5. Operationalization of Stressor Reactivity

Stressor reactivity will be used to quantify participants' mental‐health outcomes relative to their exposure to adversity and stressors, following an outcome‐based resilience approach (Kalisch et al. 2020; Metts et al. ²⁰²⁵). Stressor reactivity will be calculated separately at T1, T2, and T3. At each time point, mental health symptoms will be indexed by the combined total of depression and anxiety scores, and stressor exposure will be indexed by the combined total of adversity and daily hassles. Linear regression will then be used to estimate the association between stressor exposure and mental health symptoms at each time point. Individual stressor reactivity scores will be derived from the residuals of these regressions, such that higher residual scores indicate greater mental health symptoms than expected given the participant's level of stressor exposure.

$$\text{SR}it={\text{Symptoms}}_{it}-\left({\beta }_{0t}+{\beta }_{1t}{\text{Adv}+\text{DH}}_{it}\right)$$

where SR refers to stressor reactivity, $i$ indexes participants, $t$ indexes time, and $\text{Adv}+\text{DH}$ adversity and days of daily hassle exposure. Lower stressor reactivity values indicate better‐than‐expected stressor reactivity given adversity, corresponding to higher resilience.

2.4.6. Coping Beliefs

2.4.6.1. Coping Self‐Efficacy

The 13‐item Coping Self‐Efficacy Scale (Chesney et al. 2006) will be used to assess participants' confidence in using coping strategies when facing life challenges. The measure asks participants to rate their confidence in performing specific coping activities (e.g., ‘Find solutions to your most difficult problems’) on a 10‐point scale ranging from 1 (Cannot do at all) to 10 (Certain can do). The scale has demonstrated strong internal consistency and good test‐retest reliability (Chesney et al. 2006).

2.4.6.2. Positive Appraisal Style

The Positive Appraisal Style Scale (PASS‐C; Petri‐Romão et al. ²⁰²⁴) will be used the assess the tendency to appraise potential stressors positively. This 14‐item self‐report instrument measures the degree to which participants endorse positive appraisals of emotional events on a scale from 1(Never) to 4 (Almost always). This measure has shown good internal consistency in previous studies (Notebaert et al. 2026).

2.4.7. Self‐Regulation Capacity

2.4.7.1. Coping Adjustment

The Coping Flexibility Scale‐Revised (Kato 2020) includes three 4‐item subscales assessing abandonment (discontinuing ineffective coping), adoption (implementing alternative coping), and meta‐coping (monitoring and evaluating coping effectiveness). Adoption and abandonment will serve as the primary indicators of behavioral coping adjustment. Participants rate each item in relation to the past 2 months on a four‐point scale from 0 (Not applicable) to 3 (Very applicable). The scale has demonstrated acceptable validity and internal consistency across subscales (Kato 2020).

2.4.8. Coping‐Enabling Social Resources

2.4.8.1. Support Seeking Intentions

The General Help Seeking Questionnaire (Wilson et al. 2005) asks participants to indicate how likely it is that they would seek help from the following people if they were having a problem right now (e.g., a friend, partner, parent, teacher or trainer, colleague at work, doctor). Respondents indicate their response on a 7‐point scale ranging from 1 (Extremely unlikely) to 7 (Extremely likely) for each help source option. The scale has demonstrated satisfactory internal reliability and test‐retest reliability (Wilson et al. 2005).

2.4.8.2. Perceived Social Support

Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS) will be used to assess perceived social support (Zimet et al. 1988). This 12‐item measure is designed to evaluate support sources from family, friends, and significant others. The scale consists of three subscale scores: Family (e.g., My family really tries to help me), Friends (e.g., ‘I can count on my friends when things go wrong’), and the significant other (e.g., ‘There is a special person who is around when I am in need’). It is a 7‐point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Very strongly disagree) to 7 (Very strongly agree). Higher scores indicate greater perceived support resources. The scale demonstrates strong psychometric properties (Zimet et al. 1988).

2.4.9. Coping Self‐Reflection Scale

The Coping Self‐reflection Scale (Bucknell et al. 2022) consists of 5‐items and uses the following stem: ‘There are many ways that people think about the way they cope with difficulty. Using the scale below, please indicate the extent to which each of the statements is true of you for the stressors that you have experienced in the past 2 months’. Participants respond to the statements (e.g., ‘I thought about how the stressors in my life made me feel’, ‘I thought about the strategies I used to cope with the stressors in my life’) on a 5‐point scale (Not at all true of me) to 5 (Definitely true of me). Previous work demonstrates the scale has satisfactory internal reliability (Bucknell et al. 2022; Maxwell et al. ²⁰²⁶). We will use a modified version appropriate for the weekly surveys.

2.4.10. Attention Checks

Participants will complete two directed query attention checks at each time point: ‘To show you are paying attention, please select the ‘strongly agree’ response option to this question’.

2.5. Weekly Exposure Narrative (Story + Reflection) Conditions

In the two narrative conditions, each task involves a brief story‐based activity in which the salience of a coping‐related insight is experimentally manipulated. In the high‐insight priming condition, participants watch a short, relatable video that explicitly conveys a coping‐related insight (e.g., that negative thoughts and feelings change over time), including an explicit understanding about the character's stress and coping experiences. In the low‐insight priming condition, participants watch the same stories, but the coping‐related insight is removed. These narratives describe emotional and situational experiences without an explicit insight.

All stories are based on real‐world scenarios drawn from interviews with emerging adults from previous research (Crane et al. 2025) and adapted for the present study to ensure consistency across conditions. The story format includes: (i) an emerging adult character, (ii) a problem situation (e.g., discrepancy in what is expected or desired), (iii) a coping effort or action, and (iv) the experience of an insight [high‐insight priming condition only]. The systematic difference between the story + reflection conditions is the salience of coping‐related insight primes conveyed in the narrative content. Each of the five high‐insight priming stories communicates an insight centered on a single theme. For example, the time course of reactions insight story reflects an understanding that distressing thoughts and emotions change over time rather than remaining fixed. The following is an example of a high‐insight priming story: ‘Liam, 25, had recently gone through his first serious relationship breakup. The relationship had been a big part of his life, when the relationship ended, it felt overwhelming. Liam had expected the relationship to last, or at least to end in a way that made sense. Instead, the breakup felt sudden and unresolved. At the time, it seemed to affect everything; his mood, his confidence, and how he imagined the future. In those first weeks, the pain felt intense and Liam found it hard to think about much else, and it was difficult to imagine that the situation would ever feel less serious than it did then. Sometime later, Liam found himself telling the story of the breakup to a new friend. As he spoke, he noticed how differently he felt. The words came more easily, without the same tightness in his chest. [explicit insight] Liam realised that while the breakup had once felt enormous, its emotional weight had changed. What once seemed all‐consuming now felt more distant, less defining. What stood out to him was that this shift had not required closure or a clear resolution, it had happened gradually, as time passed. Looking back, Liam could see that the pain he experienced had not stayed fixed. The breakup still mattered, but it no longer carried the same intensity. What stayed with him was the understanding that some experiences feel overwhelming initially but over time they become less and less intense’.

The low‐insight priming version of the story would include the first half of the story not in italics. Each story will be converted into an AI‐generated 2–3‐min video to enhance participant engagement using HeyGen (https://app.creatify.ai/home) and edited using Adobe Premiere Pro (v.26.3). Subtitles will be included to increase accessibility and support comprehension. Because the videos and narratives constitute the experimental manipulation, public release before data collection could expose participants to the materials and compromise manipulation integrity. To mitigate this risk while maintaining methodological transparency, the full narrative scripts, prompts, and video materials have been provided to reviewers as embargoed supplemental materials and will be made publicly available after data collection is complete.

After viewing the video, participants will complete a brief set of questions. First, they will respond to an open‐text item: ‘Was there anything in the story that stood out to you? If so, describe what stood out. If not, write “nothing in particular.”’ Responses will be coded to identify reported coping insights. Two items will serve as manipulation checks: (i) ‘The story highlighted an idea that could be applied beyond the specific situation’ and (ii) ‘The story contained clear ideas about stress or difficult emotions’, rated from 1 (Not at all) to 4 (Very much). Finally, story relevance will be assessed with: ‘To what extent did the story remind you of something you experienced?’ rated from 1 (Not at all) to 4 (Very much).

2.5.1. Coping Self‐Reflective Writing

Next participants will be asked to complete a reflective writing activity based on their own stressor experience. The writing‐prompts are based on those previously used in trial research (Crane, Boga, et al. ²⁰¹⁹; Falon, Karin, et al. ²⁰²¹) and are designed to promote engagement with coping self‐reflection while avoiding explicit prompts for meaning making or insight generation. Participants will describe a personally relevant stressful experience, without explicit prompting of lessons or insights. This approach allows coping‐related insights to emerge spontaneously in the high‐insight priming condition while minimizing the unintended induction of insight in the low‐insight priming condition. The self‐reflective writing prompts will be as follows:

[Self‐Awareness]: Briefly describe a stressful experience from the past 3 months that feels personally meaningful or relevant right now. What were your thoughts, feelings, and actions in that situation? What did you do at the time to deal with the experience?

[Self‐evaluation]: During the situation, what were you hoping would happen or what outcome were you trying to achieve? Looking back, what (if anything), did you do that worked well? What (if anything), that you did, was unhelpful?

[Self‐development]: Is there anything you might keep in mind if you encountered a similar situation again? What, if anything, might you do similarly or differently in the future?

After the reflective writing, participants will answer questions about the stressor reflected on: (i) Is the stressor 1(In the past) or 2(On‐going)? and (ii) To what extent is this stressor currently causing stress or tension for you? 0 (None at all) to 4 (A great deal). Participants will also rate the extent to which they have been previously reflecting on the stressor they wrote about using the Coping Self‐reflection Scale (Bucknell et al. 2022) modified to refer to a single stressor (e.g., ‘I have previously noticed the strategies I used to cope with this stressor’). Figure 2 provides a flow diagram of the weekly procedure.

FIGURE 2.

Flow diagram of weekly insight narrative procedure.

2.6. Weekly Reflection Only Condition

Participants in the reflection‐only condition will receive the self‐reflective writing prompts as in the other conditions and not the video narrative materials. They will also complete the measures of whether the stressor is past or ongoing, the extent of current tension caused by the stressor, and the same measure of coping‐related self‐reflection with respect to that stressor.

2.7. Pilot of the Self‐Insight Stories

We conducted a two‐stage pilot process to evaluate and refine the insight stories used in the experimental manipulation. The pilot assessed whether the stories were perceived as representing their intended coping‐related insight category and whether they were relevant, thought‐provoking, clear, and easy to understand. An initial pool of 20 brief stories was developed, with four stories written for each of the five coping‐related insight categories. Stories were designed to be brief, relatable narratives depicting common stressors experienced by emerging adults and to prime a specific coping‐related insight.

Twenty participants from the United Kingdom and Australia, drawn from the intended main‐study population, evaluated the stories (10 per country; 65% male; Mage = 22.5, SD = 2.19). For each story, participants rated the extent to which it reflected each of the five insight categories from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree). They also rated story relevance, thought‐provoking quality, clarity of stress‐related ideas, and readability. Relevance, thought‐provoking quality, and clarity were rated from 1 (Not at all) to 4 (Very much), while readability was rated from 1 (Not at all readable) to 5 (Very readable).

In the first round, responses were examined descriptively to assess the proportion of participants who selected the intended insight category, patterns of misclassification, and ratings of relevance, thought‐provoking quality, clarity, and readability. Stories that were frequently misclassified or received comparatively lower ratings for relevance or clarity were discarded or revised to strengthen the salience and distinctiveness of the intended insight.

Following revision, a reduced set of 15 stories (three per insight category) was retained for further evaluation. A new sample of 20 respondents (55% female, Mage = 22.5; SD = 2.19) from the United Kingdom and Australia completed the same evaluation procedure used in Pilot Study 1. In the second round, stories were again evaluated descriptively based on correct category identification, relevance, thought‐provoking quality, clarity of stress‐related ideas, and readability.

These results were used to select the final five stories, with one story retained for each insight category. For each story, we examined whether the intended insight category received the highest endorsement and the degree of endorsement across non‐target categories. Because the primary objective was to ensure that each story successfully elicited its intended insight, we prioritized high endorsement of the target insight category over minimal endorsement of non‐target categories.

Across the 15 stories, ratings of relevance, thought‐provoking quality, clarity, and readability were consistently high: (i) Relevance: M = 2.95 (range = 2.35–3.35), (ii) Thought‐provoking: M = 3.12 (range = 2.85–3.35), Clarity of stress‐related ideas: M = 3.43 (range = 3.20–3.65) and readability: M = 4.59 (range = 4.35–4.80). These findings indicate that the revised stories were perceived as clear and easy to understand and were generally rated as moderately to highly relevant and engaging. For each insight category, one story was selected to maximize both conceptual fidelity and narrative engagement. Stories were first required to demonstrate elicitation of the intended insight category, operationalized as the intended category receiving the highest endorsement (out of 100) relative to the other four insight categories. Among stories meeting this criterion, selection was based on comparatively higher ratings of relevance, thought‐provoking quality, clarity, and readability, to prioritize stories that were not only conceptually aligned but also engaging and comprehensible. For example, within the time‐course of reactions insight category (Stories 1–3), Stories 1 and 2 demonstrated the highest endorsement for the intended category (Story 1 = 97 and Story 2 = 91). Of these, Story 2 was selected as it showed comparatively stronger ratings of relevance and thought‐provoking quality while maintaining high clarity and readability. This same decision rule was applied to all other stories in the four other insight categories resulting in a clear story preference to be used in the final study.

2.8. Analyses

2.8.1. Coding of Insights

In line with a positivist approach, we will use a deductive thematic analytic approach to code the frequency of coping‐related insights in each weekly reflection. Occurrences of coping‐related insights will be coded in line with our operational definition of coping‐related insight as an individual's coping‐specific understanding of their coping or stress experience. Mere reports of what happened, how the participant felt, or what they did will not be coded as coping‐related insight unless the response also includes an evaluative, interpretive, explanatory, or future‐oriented understanding. We will use established coding manuals for coping‐related insight developed in previous research. These manuals include operational definitions and examples of coping‐related insight derived from the Self‐Reflection and Coping Insight Framework and prior empirical work (Bucknell et al. 2024; Falon et al. ²⁰²²).

Each weekly stressor reflection will be segmented at the sentence level. Coders will identify and count each distinct coping‐related insight expressed within a participant's response for that week. Multiple insights may be coded within a single response where they represent conceptually distinct instances of insight, consistent with previous research (Bucknell et al. 2024). The primary outcome will be the weekly frequency of coping‐related insights per participant.

2.8.1.1. Coding Manual Refinement

Prior to formal reliability assessment, initially coders will complete a calibration phase using a small subset of reflections (5% of reflections, sampled across conditions) separate from the formal reliability sample. Consistent with recommendations, coders will initially code these responses independently and then compare coding decisions to identify ambiguities or differences in interpretation (O’Connor and Joffe ²⁰⁰⁰). Because the coding framework is based on pre‐existing manuals, the calibration phase will focus on clarifying the application of existing definitions and decision rules, and the addition of representative examples drawn from this sample, rather than inductively developing new codes. Thus, the coding manual used for the first formal reliability assessment will be finalized following this calibration phase.

2.8.1.2. Coder Training and Blinding

Coders will be trained using a detailed coding manual containing operational definitions, decision rules, and multiple examples of insight and non‐insight statements. Training will involve independently coding a practice set of responses and discussing discrepancies until consensus is reached. All coders will have a background in psychology and will be familiar with relevant theoretical work, coping, psychological resilience, and the Self‐Reflection and Coping Insight Framework. The second coder providing the coding framework and training will be a senior team member with experience coding coping‐related insights. Coders will be blind to participants' Condition.

2.8.1.3. Sampling and Reliability Assessment

Two coders, blind to condition, will independently code 30% of reflections to establish reliability. The 30% double‐coded subset will be selected by randomly sampling approximately 30% of reflections from each condition at each week (∼40 reflections per condition per week). This subset will be sampled after reflections have been de‐identified and assigned participant codes, but before coding begins. Coders will identify and count each distinct coping‐related insight expressed within a participant's response for that week.

Inter‐rater reliability will be assessed separately for each week using an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for insight counts, calculated with a two‐way mixed‐effects model for absolute agreement (i.e., coders must give very similar counts for each week). ICC values of ≥ 0.75 will be interpreted as good agreement and values of ≥ 0.90 as excellent agreement.

2.8.1.4. Management of Inadequate Reliability

If the ICC for a given week falls below 0.75, coders will review discrepancies, clarify coding rules, and re‐code that week's data. Discrepancies will be resolved through discussion, with a third coder consulted when consensus cannot be reached.

2.8.1.5. Distinguishing Insight From Narrative Recall

To address the possibility that story‐content echoing in the high‐insight priming condition may reflect recall rather than genuine metacognitive outcomes, we will define this distinction a priori within the coding framework. Verbatim or near‐verbatim reproduction of narrative content that does not reference the participant's own stressor, experience, or evaluative processing will not be coded as insight. In contrast, statements that apply, elaborate, reinterpret, or integrate narrative principles into the participant's personal experience (e.g., by linking them to their own thoughts, emotions, behaviors, or future intentions) will be coded as insights. Echoed narrative content will be recorded but excluded from the primary insight count. Sensitivity analyses will examine whether including such statements alters the results.

2.8.2. Randomization Check

Baseline characteristics, including trait reflective ability, journalling tendency, rumination, age, gender, and education, will be summarized descriptively across conditions. To assess the success of randomization, we will examine whether there are any baseline (T1) differences between conditions on possible confounding variables and pre‐experimental measures. Group equivalence at T1 will be evaluated using analysis of variance (ANOVA).

2.8.3. Power Analysis

We based our power analysis on the most demanding preregistered effects: (i) the Condition × Time interaction (H2a‐b, H4a‐c, H5a) and (ii) the indirect effects in the mediation model (H6). Under our design assumptions and resource constraints, we plan to recruit approximately N ∼ 400, which provides ∼86%–100% power to detect a moderate‐to‐large Condition × Time interaction effects and indirect (mediated) effects. Full details of power analysis provided in supplemental materials (Supporting Information S1: Methods S1) and Supporting Information S1: Tables S1/S2.

2.8.4. Missing Data Analysis

We will first conduct Little's Missing Completely at Random (MCAR) test (Little 1988) to examine whether missing data are missing completely at random. Missing item‐level data will be replaced using participants' scale means when fewer than 50% of items are missing (Parent 2013). Attrition patterns will be assessed via backward stepwise logistic regression predicting follow‐up participation from all baseline variables, with non‐significant predictors removed sequentially (Groenwold et al. 2012). The results will indicate the proportion of missingness explained by baseline characteristics, informing whether attrition is systematic (D. B. Rubin ¹⁹⁷⁶).

2.8.5. Manipulation Check Analysis (H1)

A manipulation check will compare participants' ratings of: (a) the extent of perceived generalizability of the story's message beyond the specific situation, (b) the clarity of ideas about stress or difficult emotions, (c) the number of insights identified in open‐text responses about what ‘stood out’ in the story across the weeks. Self‐reported responses or insight number will be averaged across the 5 weeks to three average scores (a)‐(c). We will then estimate a between‐groups model with Condition (0 = low‐insight priming, 1 = high‐insight priming) as the predictor. The primary test of H1 will be the main effect of Condition, with the assertion that participants in the high‐insight priming condition will report higher mean ratings of (a) message generalizability, (b) clarity of ideas, and (c) number of insights. Models will be estimated using a one‐way ANOVA (equivalent to an independent‐samples t‐test for a two‐level condition factor). We will report estimated marginal means (or group means), mean differences with 95% confidence intervals, standardised effect sizes (e.g., Cohen's d), and two‐sided p‐values (α = 0.05).

2.8.6. Primary Hypotheses: Effects of Narrative Condition (H2, H4, H5)

We will test H2a‐c, H4a‐d and H5a‐b using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) to account for correlated, repeated observations across three time points (T1, T2, T3) nested within participants. Condition (reflection only = −1, low‐insight priming = 0, high‐insight priming = 1) will be entered as a between‐participants predictor, Time as a within‐participants factor (categorical), and the Condition × Time interaction as the focal effect. We will test discrete outcomes using separate models (H2a: Coping Self‐Insight; H2b: General Self‐Insight; H4a: Coping beliefs; H4b: Coping‐enabling resources; H4c: Coping adjustment; H5a: stressor reactivity). When multiple outcomes are tested within the same outcome family (e.g., two insight outcomes), we will apply a within‐family Bonferroni adjustment to control the family‐wise error rate (adjusted per‐test αFWER = 0.025). GEE is preferred over mixed‐effects linear models because we are interested in average condition effects on outcomes and not in modeling individual random intercepts or slopes. Repeated observations are clustered within participants, and within‐person dependence is accommodated using a working correlation structure with robust standard errors.

Prespecified baseline covariates, including trait‐level reflectivity, rumination, and difficulties with emotion regulation, will be included in adjusted sensitivity analyses where they are theoretically relevant. Additional sensitivity analyses will explore whether findings are robust to intervention exposure and contextual factors, including number of weeks completed, weekly ratings of narrative relevance, journalling activities, and concurrent psychological treatment. These analyses will be considered secondary to the primary unadjusted randomised‐group analyses.

Planned contrasts (H2c, H4d, and H5b) will be used to test (a) whether change from T1 to T2 differs by Condition, and (b) whether any between‐condition difference observed at T2 is maintained at T3 (i.e., not smaller at T3 than T2). Maintenance is operationalized as the contrast comparing the between‐condition difference at T3 with the corresponding between‐condition difference at T2 (ΔT3 − ΔT2). Maintenance (non‐diminution) will be indicated by this contrast being ≥ 0 in the predicted direction. The maintenance contrast will be evaluated as a secondary confirmatory test only if the corresponding T1→T2 contrast is significant at the adjusted α level. All other contrasts and outcomes will be treated as exploratory and interpreted based on effect estimates and confidence intervals. Planned contrasts will be implemented as one‐sided tests aligned with the directional hypotheses. If a two‐sided test is required, we will still interpret maintenance based on whether the confidence interval is consistent with non‐diminution. For each outcome we will report estimated marginal means for each Condition x Time cell, planned contrast estimates (with 95% confidence intervals), and standardised effect sizes based on the model‐implied marginal means (and associated SEs).

Outcome distributions will be examined before analysis. Based on our previous work, the primary continuous outcomes, including stressor reactivity, are expected to be approximately normally distributed and will initially be modeled using a Gaussian distribution with an identity link. Where this specification is inappropriate, an alternative suitable distribution and link function will be used, such as a gamma distribution with a log link for positively skewed outcomes.

H3 tests the main effect of Condition (reflection‐only, low‐insight priming, high‐insight priming) on the average number of coping‐related insights identified within the written self‐reflection activities generated across the 5‐week programme. Insight count (0+) will be modeled using a GEE with a negative binomial distribution and log link function because it is expected to be non‐normally distributed (e.g., > = 0, many low counts, increasing variance), counts of 0 and 1 will be most frequent with a positively skewed tail of less frequent insight counts between 2 and 5, with a limited range as it is likely that there will be no more than a maximum of five insights at each week.

2.8.7. Testing the Mediation Model (H6)

To test H6, we explore whether the association of insight narrative Condition (low‐insight priming vs. high‐insight priming) on the latent coping beliefs, coping‐enabling resources, and coping adjustment is mediated by coping‐related insight (operationalized as average written insight counts and/or average self‐reported insight). Outcomes for each latent category will be used if appropriate to simplify modeling, alternatively the separate scale indicators will be used. We will initially determine whether insight narrative Condition (X _i ) predicts average weekly written insight count/self‐reported insight (Mi) across weeks 1–5, with T1 self‐reported insight as a covariate (M _T1,i): Path a: M _i  = α0 + αX _i  + α1 M _T1,i + ε _Mi​ . Then we will model outcomes at both T2 and T3 controlling for outcomes at T1 where $Y_{T2,i}$ and $Y_{T3,i}$ are T2/T3 outcomes, and $Y_{T1,i}$ is the T1 outcome for path b:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill Y_{T2,i}& \hfill =\hfill & {\beta }_{20}+b_2{M}_i+{\beta }_{21}{Y}_{T1,i}+{\zeta }_{2i}\hfill \\ \hfill Y_{T3,i}& \hfill =\hfill & {\beta }_{30}+b_3{M}_i+{\beta }_{31}{Y}_{T1,i}+{\zeta }_{3i}\hfill \end{array}$$

and calculate the indirect effect to T2 and T3 ($a\times b_2$ and $a\times b_3$). We will use the Lavaan package in R within a Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) framework. Figure 3 provides an example diagram of the mediation model.

FIGURE 3.

Example conceptual diagram of mediation model using a SEM framework.

2.9. Timeline for Completion of the Study and Data Availability

We aim to complete the study in approximately 7 months after the initial submission is accepted. Data from this study and related materials will be available via the lead university repository.

Funding

This work was supported by the Australian Research Council Discovery Project Grant (DP240100422).

Conflicts of Interest

All authors have support from their respective institutions for the submitted work. The authors have no relationships with any companies that might have an interest in the submitted research. The authors have no financial or non‐financial interests that may be relevant to the submitted work. Moreover, the spouses, partners, or children have no financial relationships or otherwise that may be relevant to the submitted work.

Supporting information

Supporting Information S1

Data Availability Statement

Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.