do increased levels of wellbeing lead to increased levels of resilience in adolescents, paul jose

DO INCREASED LEVELS OF WELLBEING LEAD

TO INCREASED LEVELS OF RESILIENCE IN

ADOLESCENTS?

Paul Jose

Victoria Univ. of Wellington

Paper presented at NZPS conference,

Wellington, April 21, 2012

RISK AND RESILIENCE In psychiatric theory and research, there is

a long-standing interest in identifying risk factors in developmentRisk factors are influences that heighten the

odds of greater maladaptation, i.e., an alcoholic parent is predictive of poorer outcomes in children

Similarly, research has tried to identify factors that protect against maladaptationResilience factors lessen the odds of greater

maladaptation, i.e., social resources like intact families as well as internal characteristics such as a sense of humour

A BRIEF HISTORICAL TOUR Norman Garmezy originated the study of

resilient children in the early 1970s, using an epidemiological approach: who gets sick and who doesn’t?

Emmy Werner in the early 1980s wrote a book on poor children growing up in Kauai, an island in Hawai’i. Some children at risk did not do poorly = “resilient children”.

Anthony, E.J. (1987). Risk, vulnerability, and resilience: An overview. In E.J. Anthony & B.J. Cohler (Eds.), The invulnerable child (pp.3-48). New York: Guilford Press.

PERSON-CENTRED TO PROCESS-ORIENTED Initial formulations of resilience located

the “good stuff” in the person, i.e., “the invulnerable child”

But following Bronfenbrenner’s emphasis on the interactions between person and their multiple contexts, resilience research has evolved to be more process-oriented

Today, we believe that resilient children and adolescents possess certain qualities that allow them to interact with their contexts well

TYPICAL DEFINITION Resilience is imputed when one sees:

good outcomes regardless of high-risk status, constant competence under stress, recovery from trauma, and using challenges for growth that makes future

hardships more tolerable (post-traumatic growth).

The emphasis, you will note, is on doing well in the face of hardship.

Growing consensus that resilient individuals are successful because of: Adaptive coping strategies and Social resources

WHERE DOES IT COME FROM? Previously it was thought that resilience

was primarily genetically based, but research does not support the view that it is mostly determined in this way;

And Bronfenbrenner’s ecological theory would argue that social influences should account for a significant proportion. Focus of the present study: Does a sense of

greater well-being or positive affect foster or increase resilient tendencies one year later?

B. Fredrickson’s “broaden-and-build” theory states that higher positive affect fosters great competence and striving (resilience?)

MY PROCESS MODEL I measured three constructs that I

thought would be related to each other over time:Resilient cognitions about the self;Positive affect; andWell-being (aspirations; pos relations with

others; and confidence) I sought to test the particular process

model presented on the next page

DO HAPPY, WELL-ADJUSTED ADOLESCENTS EVIDENCE GREATER RESILIENCE OVER TIME?

Positive Affect

Well-being

Resilient cognitio

ns

DIRECTION OF RELATIONSHIPS? We proposed that positive affect and

positive adjustment would lead to greater resilience over time

But these three variables are likely to be related to each other in interesting and complicated ways. We also thought it possible that:Resilience Well-being Resilience Positive affect

Secondary hypothesis: there may be supportive bi-directional relationships among these three variables over time

THE YOUTH CONNECTEDNESS PROJECT Jan Pryor and I received financial

support from the FRST Foundation to study adolescent development over three years

Focus of this research endeavour was to study the function of social connectedness in promoting better adjustment in adolescents

It was a large scale longitudinal (once a year for three years) study largely representative of NZ youth

SAMPLE 1,774 New Zealand adolescents (10-15

years at Y1) participated in a self-report study annually for three years

Recruited from about 100 schools scattered around the North Island

Almost a nationally representative sample: fewer rural kids, overrepresentation of Maori, no South Island participants

All measures yielded Cronbach’s alphas > .80.

MEASURES Wagnild and Young’s Resilience Scale (1993).

The four items were: “I keep myself busy and interested in things”, “I try not to take things too seriously”, “My belief in myself gets me through hard times”

and “I can find a way to fix my problems”.

Well-being consisted of three subscales of 3 or 4 items each adapted from the Ryff Wellbeing Scales (Ryff & Keyes, 1995): aspirations, positive relations with others, and confidence.

MEASURES Positive Affect: 3 items from the CES-D

(Radloff, 1977):I enjoyed life. I was happy. I felt hopeful about the future.

METHODOLOGY Lap-top computers were used to present

the questionnaires in an interactive fashion to adolescents

Quiet room at school, up to 30 computers

Teacher and researcher always present About 350 questions were asked but we

used skips and branches to minimise the amount of time involved

RESULTS A repeated-measures MANOVA showed

that:Positive affect and well-being decreased

slightly over 3 years, butResilience did not change much

These results are generally supportive of the views that: resilience is trait-like, and that adolescent positive affect decreases

during middle adolescence But this doesn’t tell us how these

variables are related to each other

LATENT VARIABLE LONGITUDINAL PATH MODELS: PROPOSED MODEL

Well-being T1

Positive Affect T3

Positive Affect

T2

Positive Affect

T1

Well-being T2

Well-being T3

ResilienceT2

Resilience T3

Resilience T1

OBTAINED MODEL

Well-being T1

Positive Affect

T3

Positive Affect

T2

Positive Affect

T1

Well-being T2

Well-being T3

ResilienceT2

Resilience T3

Resilience T1

.24***

.15***

.20***

.07*

.13****.16***

KEY FINDINGS Well-being predicted increases in

resilience over time, however Positive affect did not predict increases

in resilience over time Resilience and well-being manifested a

bi-directional relationship with each other over time

WHAT IS IMPORTANT HERE? It seems that we obtained some support

for Fredrickson’s broaden-and-build theory in that an adolescent with higher well-being at a given point in time is likely to report higher resilience at a later point in time (residualised: change in resilience).

Positive affect (being happy) seems to be an outcome, not a driver of later states

Resilience fosters greater well-being, and well-being in turn fosters greater resilience

UNPACKING THESE RELATIONSHIPS SEM is a good method for examining

mediational relationships across time Did we find any mediational

relationships?

Well-being T1

Positive Affect T3

Positive Affect T2

Positive Affect T1

Well-being T2

Well-being T3

ResilienceT2

Resilience T3

Resilience T1

.24***

.15***

.20***

.07*

.13****.16***

OTHER MEDIATORS? We would like to know how well-being

leads to greater resilience: what is the “mechanism”?

And we would like to know how resilience leads to greater well-being

INTERVENING VARIABLES?

Well-beingT1

?????? T2

Resilience T3

One can examine these relationships in SEM(longitudinal mediation), but there is anothertechnique which I think is more flexible and powerful:mediation with latent growth curve modeling (LGCMs),described by David MacKinnon.

LOOKS COMPLICATED

SIMPLER DEPICTION

Resilience slope

Mediatorslope

Well-being slope

“Slope” refers to change in the variable over the three timesof measurement.

LATENT GROWTH CURVE MEDIATION Two basic relationships, given our

previous findings, were probed:

Well-being Resilience, and

Resilience Well-being

I examined numerous potential mediators, and some proved to yield significant mediation and some did not

WHAT MEDIATES BETWEEN RESILIENCE AND WELL-BEING?

IV Mediator Indirect/Direct ratio

DV

Reliable Alliance (+) .54**

Guidance (+) .38**

Resilience

Reassurance of Worth (+)

.65** Well-being

Lack of self-confidence (-)

.09*

Avoidance (-) .30**

WHAT MEDIATES BETWEEN WELL-BEING AND RESILIENCE?

IV Mediator Indirect/Direct ratio

DV

Lack of self-confidence (-)

.07*

Well-being

Rumination (-) .30** Resilience

Avoidance (-) .79**

WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED? Resilience seems to lead to both increased

positive attributes AND decreased negative attributes, which in turn lead to greater well-being Higher social provisions (Cutrona & Russell) Lower lack of self-confidence, avoidance

Well-being seems to lead to greater resilience only through reductions in negative dynamics Lower lack of self-confidence, rumination, and

avoidance The bi-directional relationship may be due

to the reduction in negative processes

FUTURE DIRECTIONS We need to separate the hedonic (being

happy) from the eudaimonic (meaning of life) better so that we can identify how each contributes to resilience separately

How do these variables relate to coping strategies (problem-solving, reframing, etc.), social support, and social connectedness?

We intend to investigate moderators as well: age, gender, ethnicity, rural/urban, etc.

TAKE HOME MESSAGE Resilience may be at least partly

promoted by experiencing well-being Resilience and well-being seem to

support each other Perhaps we can teach strategies that

will support or promote resilience and well-being?

THANKS FOR LISTENING For more information, please

write me at:paul.jose@vuw.ac.nz