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