DOES WELL-BEING PREDICT

RESILIENCE IN ADOLESCENTS?

Paul JoseVictoria Univ. of Wellington

New Zealand Association of Positive Psychology conference

Auckland, New Zealand8 June, 2013

USUAL QUESTION: DOES RESILIENCE PREDICT WELLBEING? Resilience is considered to be a

characteristic/process that enables individuals to weather difficult times. Should be predictive of positive outcomes, or at least ‘less negative outcomes’. Considerable evidence of this relationship.

I am turning the equation around and asking the ‘broaden-and-build’ question: does wellbeing lead to greater resilience?

RISK AND RESILIENCE In psychiatric theory and research, there is

a long-standing interest in identifying risk factors in development Risk 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 maladaptation Resilience 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

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 become 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. 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, Successful emotion-regulation, and Social resources

PROCESS MODEL Focus of the present study: Does a sense of

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

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

We measured three constructs that we thought would be related to each other over time: Self-reports of the self as resilient; Positive affect; and Well-being (aspirations; pos relations with others; and

confidence) We 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

self-desc

THE YOUTH CONNECTEDNESS PROJECT Jan Pryor and I received financial

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

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

It is a large scale longitudinal study (once a year for three years) 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

Positive affect (e.g., “I was happy”)

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 idea that resilience is trait-like, and that adolescent positive affect decreases during middle adolescence

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***

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

Next step? A study of mechanisms.

WHAT MEDIATES BETWEEN RESILIENCE AND WB?

SIMPLER DEPICTION

Resilience slope

Social provisions slope

Well-being Slope

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

LATENT GROWTH CURVE MEDIATION Might “social provisions” (Cutrona &

Russell, 1987) (positive aspects of social support) mediate between resilience and well-being

Answer: Yes. We found a significant bootstrapped indirect effect; about 37% of the total effect was mediated through social provisions.

HOW ABOUT THE REVERSE?WB => SOC PROV => RESILIENCE Answer: No. Thus, it seems that well-being does not

promote resilience through increasing social provisions.

WHAT MEDIATES BETWEEN RESILIENCE AND WELL-BEING?

IV Mediator Indirect/Direct ratio

DV

Resilience

Reliable Alliance (+) .54** Well-being

Guidance (+) .38**

Reassurance of Worth (+)

.65**

Lack of self-confidence (-)

.09*

Avoidance (-) .30**

WHAT MEDIATES BETWEEN WELL-BEING AND RESILIENCE?

IV Mediator Indirect/Direct ratio

DV

Well-being

Lack of self-confidence (-)

.07* Resilience

Rumination (-) .30**

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 Not perfectly symmetrical, interesting to note

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.

A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF AN INTERVENTION The YCP dataset is a subject variable

study: nothing is manipulated. Can resilience be fostered? The previous

findings suggest that it can, but how? Olivia Notter and I set out to explicitly

increase resilience in a small group of at-risk 13-yr-olds (key findings from her PhD thesis)

COMPARISON OF TWO INTERVENTIONS Kiwi-Ace: a CBT-based programme

designed to reduce depression by reducing illogical thinking

PAL (Positive Approaches to Life): our own programme designed to encourage the use of various positive psychology techniques:Gratitude Identifying strengths (& using them)Enjoying life (savouring and obtaining flow)Building relationshipsLiking who I am

SMALL GROUPS 27 in Kiwi-Ace, 38 in PAL, and equal

numbers of control individuals Obtained from 9 secondary schools in

the lower North Island Participants were recruited after a mass

screening (over 1,000 students), we approached at-risk adolescents who were mid-range in depressive symptoms on the CDI

PROCEDURE Small groups of 13-yr-olds received

twelve one-hour sessions during class time over twelve consecutive weeks.

Sessions were provided by the in-school guidance counsellor plus an external clinical psychologist specifically trained in the two interventions.

Assessed on all variables immediately after the intervention ended (T2), 6 months later (T3), and 12 months later (T4).

RESULTS: EFFECT OF KIWI-ACE ON DEPRESSION

T1 T2 T3 T49

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

Kiwi-AceControl

RESULTS: EFFECT OF PAL ON DEPRESSION

T1 T2 T3 T49

10

11

12

13

14

15

PALControl

LET’S FOCUS ON PAL We expected that PAL would lead to

increases in a variety of positive outcomes:Psychological well-beingSatisfaction with lifeSubjective happinessGratitudeResilience

Yes to all of these variables at all three subsequent time points

PAL LED TO AN INCREASE IN SELF-REPORTED RESILIENCE

T1 T2 T3 T465

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

PALControl

ANY EVIDENCE FOR WHAT LED TO GREATER RESILIENCE? We performed a set of longitudinal

mediation analyses, and found the following mediators between PAL and subsequent resilience:GratitudeLife satisfactionSubjective happiness

WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED? With both a subject variable and a quasi-

experimental study, we saw that certain variables seem to foster greater resilience

Common thread between the two studies: well-being and happiness seems to “broaden and build” a young person’s ability to weather stressful events

I particularly like gratitude as a mechanism: young people who feel entitled tend to be brittle, whereas young people who appreciate the good things in their lives tend to be more resilient/realistic.

FUTURE DIRECTIONS I think a large-scale replication of the

PAL intervention is merited after these promising preliminary findings

Geelong Grammar School project (with input from Martin Seligman) seeks to do something similar

THANKS FOR YOUR TIME AND ATTENTION For more information:

paul.jose@vuw.ac.nz Thanks to Olivia Notter, the YCP

research team, all participants, schools, and school personnel.