Do increased levels of wellbeing lead to increased levels of resilience in adolescents ?

1. 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

2. 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

3. 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.

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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?)

7. 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; and • Well-being (aspirations; pos relations with others; and confidence) • I sought to test the particular process model presented on the next page

8. Do happy, well-adjusted adolescents evidence greater resilience over time? Well-being Resilient cognitions Positive Affect

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. Measures • Positive Affect: 3 items from the CES-D (Radloff, 1977): • I enjoyed life. • I was happy. • I felt hopeful about the future.

14. 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

15. results • A repeated-measures MANOVA showed that: • Positive affect and well-being decreased slightly over 3 years, but • Resilience 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

16. Latent variable longitudinal path models: proposed model Positive Affect T1 Positive Affect T2 Positive Affect T3 Well-being T2 Well-being T3 Well-being T1 Resilience T1 Resilience T2 Resilience T3

17. Obtained model Positive Affect T1 Positive Affect T2 Positive Affect T3 .16*** .13**** Well-being T2 Well-being T3 Well-being T1 .20*** .24*** .07* .15*** Resilience T1 Resilience T2 Resilience T3

18. 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

19. 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

20. Unpacking these relationships Positive Affect T1 Positive Affect T2 Positive Affect T3 .16*** .13**** • SEM is a good method for examining mediational relationships across time • Did we find any mediational relationships? Well-being T2 Well-being T3 Well-being T1 .20*** .24*** .07* .15*** Resilience T1 Resilience T2 Resilience T3

21. 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

22. Intervening variables? Well-being T1 ?????? T2 Resilience T3 One can examine these relationships in SEM (longitudinal mediation), but there is another technique which I think is more flexible and powerful: mediation with latent growth curve modeling (LGCMs), described by David MacKinnon.

23. Looks complicated

24. Simpler depiction Resilience slope Well-being slope Mediator slope “Slope” refers to change in the variable over the three times of measurement.

25. 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

26. What mediates between resilience and Well-being?

27. What mediates between well-being and resilience?

28. 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

29. 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.

30. 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?

31. Thanks for listening • For more information, please write me at: paul.jose@vuw.ac.nz