Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 30 (2009) 53–60

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology

Moderating effects of dispositional resilience on associations between

hassles and psychological distress
Martin Pinquart ⁎
Department of Psychology, Philipps University, Germany

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Available online 10 November 2008 Resilience has been conceptualized in several ways, including a disposition that promotes
positive outcomes in general and successful adaptation in the face of challenging or stressful
Keywords: circumstances. Using Wagnild and Young's [Wagnild, G. M., & Young, H. M. (1993).
Resilience Development and psychometric evaluation of the Resilience Scale. Journal of Nursing
Psychological health Measurement, 1, 165–178.] framework, this study of 1221 German adolescents tested
Distress whether minor stressors (daily hassles) are associated with higher psychological distress and
Stressors
an increase in distress over time, whether dispositional resilience is associated with a lower
Hassles
level of daily hassles and distress and a decrease in both variables over time, and whether
Adolescence
Longitudinal study dispositional resilience buffers the effects of daily hassles on psychological distress and residual
change in distress over a two-year interval. All hypotheses were supported at the first time of
measurement. However, dispositional resilience scores were not predictive of number of
stressors and psychological distress over time. Wagnild and Young's scale assesses a
psychological resource that may have positive short-term effects but is of limited value for
predicting change in positive psychological outcomes over time.
© 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Nearly half of the adolescents from Western countries experience a lot of minor stressors in their day-to-day living (daily
hassles), such as disagreements with teachers, academic difficulties, disappointments by friends, conflicts with parents, and
problems with mastering the school-to-work transition. For example, Lohaus (1990) found that 71% of 12–18 year old Germans
reported daily stressors, most often with regard to school (e.g., difficult class exercises and home work), but also with regard to
conflicts with parents or siblings and problems with peers. A recent study with 12–16 year olds replicated these results (Lohaus,
Beyer, & Klein-Heßling, 2004). Research indicates that daily hassles affect psychological adjustment, such as depressive symptoms
and externalizing behavior (e.g., Chang & Sanna, 2003; Lohaus et al., 2004), and that these effects are often even larger than the
effects of critical life events (e.g., DuBois, Felner, Brand, Adan, & Evans, 1992). This may be based on the fact that a) daily hassles are
more frequent than critical life events and affect a larger proportion of individuals, and b) intervals between the occurrence of daily
hassles and the measurement of psychological distress are, on average, shorter than intervals between the occurrence of critical life
events and measurement of psychological distress. As effects of many stressors on psychological distress decline over time, effects
of daily hassles can be identified more easily. In addition, c) effects of critical life events on psychological distress are often
mediated through daily hassles (Johnson & Sherman, 1997).
Nonetheless, some of these studies may have overestimated the association between daily hassles and psychological distress as
many daily hassles scales measure the level of psychological distress resulting from hassles rather than the frequency of daily
hassles (e.g., Sim, 2000). In addition, most studies did not collect longitudinal data and could not test whether daily hassles affect
psychological outcomes and/or vice versa (e.g., Chang & Sanna, 2003; Hampel & Petermann, 2006; Lohaus et al., 2004; Sim, 2000).

⁎ Department of Psychology, University of Marburg, Gutenbergstrasse 18, D-35032 Marburg, Germany. Tel.: +1149 6421 2823626; fax: +1149 6421 2823685.
E-mail address: pinquart@staff.uni-marburg.de.

0193-3973/$ – see front matter © 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2008.10.005
54 M. Pinquart / Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 30 (2009) 53–60

Thus, the first goal of the present study was to analyze whether the frequency of daily hassles predicts adolescents' concurrent
level of psychological health and residual change in psychological health over time.
As internalizing and externalizing problems usually tend to increase during adolescence (e.g., Moffitt, 1993; Wichstrom, 1999),
an important goal of applied developmental psychology is to identify factors that may protect young people from developing
psychological problems. A relevant theoretical approach is the concept of resilience. Although this concept has often been applied
to people in serious adverse circumstances, such as victims of child maltreatment, recent research has applied this concept to
coping with daily hassles (e.g., Almeida, 2005).
Resilience has been defined as resource that facilitates overcoming adversity, surviving stress, and rising above disadvantage
(Cicchetti & Garmezy, 1993). Other authors defined resilience as a resource that can promote psychological health and positive
development in general, irrespective of the levels of stressors faced by an individual (e.g., Wagnild & Young, 1993). This resource
may include the confidence in one's capacity to overcome stressors, the availability of coping abilities, self-esteem, emotional
stability, and personal characteristics that increase the availability of social support (e.g., Werner & Smith, 1992). According to the
definition by Cicchetti and Garmezy, this resource could be expected to reduce the number of stressors (e.g., Baruth & Carroll, 2002)
and buffer the effects of stressors on psychological outcomes (e.g., Werner & Smith, 1992). Buffering effects would mean that the
association between stressors and psychological outcomes is weakened or not found in individuals with high levels of this
resource. According to Wagnild and Young's (1993) view, this resource should also have a main effect on psychological outcomes.
Integrating both views suggests that resilience is a resource that would a) reduce the levels of stressors the individuals face, b)
have a main effect on psychological health, and c) buffer the effects of stressors on psychological health. The second goal of the
present study, therefore, was to analyze whether dispositional resilience, as measured with the widely used Wagnild and Young
(1993) scale, would show an association with the frequency of daily hassles and with the level of psychological distress, and
whether it would have a stress-buffering effect on adolescent psychological health. Because the concurrent association of
dispositional resilience with stressors and psychological health could mean that dispositional resilience affects the level of
stressors and psychological health or vice versa, longitudinal analyses were conducted to obtain information about the direction
of the observed associations. Answering these research questions helps clarifying the utility and limitations of measures of
dispositional resilience for predicting concurrent psychological health and residual change in psychological health over time.

1.1. Hypotheses

Associations of dispositional resilience with the frequency of daily hassles are the topic of the first research question. We start
with this topic because the other research questions are focused on predictors of psychological distress and will, therefore, be
tested together. Resilient individuals are characterized as possessing high levels of self-efficacy, internal locus of control, ego-
strength, optimism, confidence, perseverance, problem-solving skills, and flexibility, and scales of dispositional resilience include
related items (e.g., Biscoe & Harris, 1994; Wagnild & Young, 1993). Thus, individuals with higher levels of dispositional resilience
might experience fewer stressors as they would be more competent in avoiding or overcoming them (Baruth & Carroll, 2002). In
fact, Klass (1989) and Cooley (1990) observed a negative concurrent association between dispositional resilience and the level of
perceived stressors, although Pesce, Assis, Santoz, and de Oliveira (2004) could not find such an association. Whether dispositional
resilience would predict a decline of the frequency of stressors over time has not as yet been tested. Hypothesis 1, therefore, states
that higher levels of dispositional resilience would be associated with a lower concurrent frequency of daily hassles and with a
stronger decline in the frequency of daily hassles over time.
Higher levels of daily hassles must be associated with higher levels of psychological distress and with an increase in
psychological distress over time before stress-buffering effects of dispositional resilience on the association between daily hassles
and psychological distress can be demonstrated. Daily hassles may affect psychological distress by causing negative feelings,
adopting problem behavior as way of coping with stressors (e.g., substance abuse), detracting from normative ways of solving the
age-associated developmental tasks, and through physiological pathways (Aldwin, 2006). In fact, cross-sectional studies have
found that individuals reporting a larger number of daily hassles show more psychological and behavioral problems (e.g., Chang &
Sanna, 2003; Hampel & Petermann, 2006; Lohaus et al., 2004; Sim, 2000). As daily hassles show moderate correlational stability
(Vollrath, 2000) it is also likely that they have some long-term effects and predict residual change of psychological distress over
time. Thus, Hypothesis 2 states that higher levels of daily hassles would be associated with higher concurrent levels of
psychological distress and with an increase in distress over time.
The third research question focuses on associations between dispositional resilience and psychological distress. Studies on
depressive symptoms (Aroian, Schappler-Morris, Neary, Spitzer, & Tran, 1997; Heilemann, Lee, & Kury, 2003; Humphreys, 2003;
Wagnild & Young, 1993) and somatic symptoms (Leppert, Gunzelmann, Schumacher, Strauss, & Brähler, 2005; Schumacher,
Leppert, Gunzelmann, Strauß, & Brähler, 2005) suggest that high levels of dispositional resilience are associated with lower levels
of psychological distress. As previous studies showed high levels of correlational stability of dispositional resilience (Killien &
Jarrett, 1993), it could also be expected that effects of dispositional resilience cumulate over time and that people with high levels
of dispositional resilience would show a stronger decrease of psychological distress. This assumption has not yet been tested
empirically. Thus, Hypothesis 3 states that individuals with higher levels of dispositional resilience will report lower concurrent
levels of psychological distress and a stronger decrease of psychological distress over time.
Stress-buffering effects of dispositional resilience are the focus of the fourth research question. Resilience has been suggested to
facilitate the ability to identify stressors, to appraise one's coping capacities realistically, and to solve problems that would cause
psychological distress (Beardslee, 1989; Rutter, 1985). Nonetheless, so far there is no empirical evidence that dispositional
 M. Pinquart / Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 30 (2009) 53–60 55

resilience has this stress-buffering effect. Based on these theoretical considerations, Hypothesis 4 states that dispositional resilience
would buffer the effects of daily hassles on psychological distress and on residual change in distress.

2. Method

2.1. Participants

Data were from the first follow-up (1996/1997) and second follow-up (1998/99) of the Early Developmental Stages of
Psychopathology study (EDSP; Lieb, Isensee, Sydow, & Wittchen, 2000). The EDSP study gathered data on the prevalence, risk
factors, co-morbidity and course of mental and substance-use disorders in a representative sample of German adolescents and
young adults. A baseline sample of 1395 14–17-year-old respondents who were randomly selected from the 1994 government
population registry of metropolitan Munich and its surroundings took part in the first assessment in 1994/95 (T0). About 88% of the
original sample (N = 1228 individuals) provided data at the first follow-up (T1). After the exclusion of 7 persons with missing values
of the study variables, we included 1221 participants in the present analyses.
At T1, participants' mean age was 16.7 (SD = 1.2, range 15–20) years, and 48.2% were female. Germany has a tripartite school
system, and students who have completed the lowest school-track (after 9th grade; Hauptschule) and the middle school-track (after
10th grade; Realschule) usually enter vocational training, whereas most of the completers of the highest school track (after 12th or
13th grade depending on Federal States; Gymnasium) start studying at universities. Students from the highest school track are more
likely to come from middle class families without a history of migration, and usually have higher cognitive abilities than their peers
from lower school tracks (Zinnecker & Stecher, 2006). Approximately 13.6% of the participants currently attended or had completed
the lowest school-track, 28.0% the middle school-track, and 53.4% the highest school-track. An additional 1.1% had left school before
passing their final exams. Based on parental educational attainment and occupational status, about 13% were classified with a low
socioeconomic status, 60% had a middle socioeconomic status, and 32% with an upper middle socioeconomic status (Lieb et al.,
2000). The percentage of students in the highest school track and a middle and upper middle socioeconomic status is consistent
with the demographics of the Munich population (Lieb et al., 2000). Unfortunately, no data on ethnic background were available.
Longitudinal data were available for 993 of the respondents (76% of the T1 participants; M = 18.5 years, SD = 1.16; 48.2% women).
Participants of the longitudinal study were more likely to come from the highest school track than dropouts (t = 4.42, p b .001; 8.6% of
the respondents from the highest school track as compared to 13.5% of students from the middle school track and 24.5% of those from
the lowest school track did not take part in the follow-up). However, those lost to the longitudinal data sample (235 participants) did
not differ from those in the longitudinal sample with regard to age, sex, daily hassles, or dispositional resilience at T1.

2.2. Measures and procedures

Participants provided information about age, sex, and education using single-item indicators in face-to-face computer-assisted
interviews administered by professional health interviewers and clinical psychologists. Furthermore, they completed a separate
response booklet with questionnaires. These questionnaires assessed daily stressors, psychological distress, and resilience.

2.2.1. Daily hassles

Self-reports of retrospective occurrence of minor stressors over the previous 12 months were assessed with the Daily Hassles
Scale (Perkonigg & Wittchen, 1995). Participants rated the frequency of 14 daily hassles (1 = never, 2 = seldom, 3 = frequently, 4 =
always). This occurred for the first follow-up in 1996–1997 and for the second follow-up in 1998–1999. The content includes daily
hassles in areas of school/occupation, relationships with parents and siblings, peer relations, housing, finance, and leisure
activities, with higher values indicating more frequent hassles. The topics of the items were identified in previous studies with
German adolescents (e.g., Lohaus, 1990). Sample items include “How often have you faced stressors in school (e.g., low grades, time
pressures, high demands)?” and “How often have you had conflicts with your friends?”. In the present study, the scale yielded
Cronbach's alphas of .68 and .77, and the two-year stability was r = .56. In support of the predictive validity of the measure, the
scale has been found to predict regular cannabis use (Höfler et al., 1999) and premenstrual dysphoric disorders (Perkonigg,
Yonkers, Pfister, Lieb, & Wittchen, 2004).

2.2.2. Dispositional resilience

Wagnild and Young's (1993) Resilience Scale, the most widely used scale for measuring dispositional resilience in the world, was
used to assess resilience. The measure consists of 25 items, each of which is rated as true using a four-point Likert-type scale (1 =
disagree, 2 = somewhat disagree, 3 = somewhat agree, 4 = agree). Sample items include “When I make plans I follow through with
them” and “My belief in myself gets me through hard times,” “I can usually look at a situation in a number of ways”, “My life has
meaning.” Responses to items were summed, with higher values indicating greater dispositional resilience. Although two separate
subscales were originally presented for measurement of personal competence and of acceptance of life and self, these scales have been
shown to be highly correlated (e.g., r = .67, Aroian et al., 1997; r = .62, Schumacher et al., 2005), causing recent studies to sum across all
items as a single measure of resilience. In the present study, the sum measure yielded a Cronbach's α of .78. Killien and Jarrett (1993)
reported stability coefficients of rtt =.67 to .84 across intervals of up to 18 months. In support of the validity of the scale, Schumacher
et al. (2005) found high positive correlations with a measure of self-efficacy (r = .68–.70), which is suggested to promote resilience, and
Aroian et al. (1997) found a positive correlation with perceived ability to cope with stressors (r = .51).
56 M. Pinquart / Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 30 (2009) 53–60

Table 1
Correlations of study variables

Variable Age Sex Education Daily hassles at T1 Daily hassles at T2 Resilience at T1 GSI at T1 GSI at T2
Age – .01 .01 .05 −.04 .07⁎ .08⁎⁎ −.04
Sex (women = 2, men = 1) – – .11⁎⁎⁎ .08⁎ .05 .00 .11⁎⁎⁎ .03
Education – – – .03 .04 −.05 .01 −.05
Daily hassles at T1 – – – – .56⁎⁎⁎ −.26⁎⁎⁎ .47⁎⁎⁎ .42⁎⁎⁎
Daily hassles at T2 – −.16⁎⁎⁎ .34⁎⁎⁎ .48⁎⁎⁎
Resilience at T1 – – – – – −.21⁎⁎⁎ −.17⁎⁎⁎
GSI at T1 – – – – – – .63⁎⁎⁎

Note. N = 993. GSI = global severity index. T1 = first follow-up/ T2 = second follow-up.
*p b .05. **p b .01. ***p b .001.

2.2.3. Psychological distress

The German version of the Symptom checklist SCL-90-R (Derogatis, 1977; Franke, 2002) was employed to assess the self-
reported degree of symptom distress over the previous 7 days. Each of the 90 items is rated on a five-point Likert scale (0 = not at
all, 1 = a little bit, 2 = moderately, 3 = quite a bit, 4 = extremely). The Global Severity Index (GSI) of distress is the mean score across
all items. In the present study, Cronbach's α for the GSI was .95 (at T1) and .96 (at T2), respectively.

3. Results

3.1. Descriptive statistics

Bivariate correlations between daily hassles scores, dispositional resilience scores, and the measure of psychological distress
(GSI) are presented in Table 1 for both waves of data collection. Because the sample size was large, the magnitude of the
correlation coefficient is useful as it conveys meaning about effect size. Based on Cohen's (1992) criteria, the size of associations
of daily hassles with psychological distress should be interpreted as medium and the size of associations of dispositional
resilience with psychological distress as small. Older adolescents scored slightly higher on dispositional resilience than younger
adolescents, and female participants showed slightly higher levels of daily hassles than males at Wave 1. In addition, the
frequency of daily hassles showed a small to moderate negative association with dispositional resilience. The frequency of daily
hassles and the distress score (GSI) showed some temporal stability over Waves 1 and 2. The mean frequencies of daily hassles at
T1 and T2 were M1 = 1.65 (SD1 = .33) and M2 = 1.64 (SD2 = .32); the mean scores of the distress (GSI) were M1 = .28 (SD1 = .29) and
M2 = .27 (SD2 = .28). Although the average frequency of daily hassles seems to be rather low, 99.5% of the respondents reported
that at least one of the 14 hassles occurred very often/always. At T1, the mean of dispositional resilience was 76.1 (SD = 7.0). The
frequency of daily hassles and the mean score of distress did not differ across the two-year interval between waves, ts(933) = .01,
and .58, respectively, ns. In addition, the mean of the GSI distress scores at Wave 1 (M = .28, SD = .29) did not differ from the mean
of the German normative sample of 1006 adults (M = .33, SD =.25; Franke, 2002, p. 97).

3.2. Hierarchical multiple regression analysis

Associations of the level of dispositional resilience with the frequency of daily hassles and residual change of the frequency of
hassles over time were analyzed with hierarchical multiple linear regression analyses. Separate analyses were computed for
predicting the frequency of hassles at T1 and at T2. Both analyses controlled for sociodemographic confounding variables. Higher
levels of dispositional resilience were related to a lower concurrent frequency of daily hassles, and resilience explained 4% of the

Table 2
Predictors of the frequency and of residual change in the frequency of daily hassles

Predictors of the frequency of daily hassles at T1 Predictors of residual change in the frequency of daily hassles

B β B β B β B β B β
Age .01⁎ .07 .02⁎ .07 −.01 −.03 −.01 −.02 −.01⁎ −.05
Sex (female) .01 .05 .04⁎ .06 .04 .06 .04⁎ .06 .02 .02
Education .01 .02 .01 .02 .02 .04 .01 .03 .01 .02
Dispositional resilience −.01⁎⁎⁎ −.26 −.01⁎⁎⁎ −.15 −.00 −.01
Daily hassles (T1) .55⁎⁎⁎ .56
(Constant) 1.35⁎⁎⁎ 2.20⁎⁎⁎ 1.66⁎⁎⁎ 2.18⁎⁎⁎ 5.85⁎⁎⁎
ΔR2 .01 .06 .005 .025 .29
Total R2 .01 .07 .005 .03 .32

Note. N = 993, β (B) = (un)standardized regression coefficient.

*p b .05. **p b .01. ***p b .001.
 M. Pinquart / Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 30 (2009) 53–60 57

Table 3
Predictors of psychological distress at T1 (Stepwise multiple linear regression analysis)

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4

B β B β B β B β
Age .02⁎ .07 .01⁎ .05 .02⁎ .06 .01⁎ .06
Sex (women = 2, men = 1) .07⁎⁎⁎ .12 .05⁎⁎ .09 .06⁎⁎⁎ .09 .05⁎⁎⁎ .09
Education −.01 −.02 −.01 −.02 −.01 −.03 −.01 −.02
Daily hassles .41⁎⁎⁎ .46 .39⁎⁎⁎ .43 .38⁎⁎⁎ .43
Dispositional resilience −.01⁎⁎⁎ −.12 −.01⁎⁎⁎ −.11
Hassles × resilience −.01⁎⁎⁎ −.10
(Constant) .88⁎⁎⁎ .32⁎⁎ .71⁎⁎⁎ .63⁎⁎⁎
ΔR2 .02 .22 .01 .01
Total R2 .02 .24 .25 .26

Note. N = 1221, β (B) = (un)standardized regression coefficient, ΔR2= variance explained in the step of regression analysis.
*p b .05. **p b .01. ***p b .001.

variance of the dependent variable. However, dispositional resilience did not predict residual change in the frequency of hassles
over time (see Table 2). Thus, Hypothesis 1 was only partially supported by the present data. With regard to sociodemographic
variables, it was found that older and female adolescents started with a higher frequency of daily hassles but older adolescents
showed a stronger decline in this variable over time.
In support of Hypotheses 2 and 3, higher levels of daily hassles and lower levels of dispositional resilience were related to higher
concurrent symptom distress, as measured by the Global Severity Index of the SCL-90-R (see Table 3). In addition, a significant
interaction effect of dispositional resilience and daily hassles on psychological distress scores was found. The level of daily hassles
explained 22% of the variance of the psychological distress scores, and dispositional resilience and the interaction effect of the daily
hassles and dispositional resilience each explained an additional one percent of the variance in psychological distress scores.
In order to further analyze the interaction effect, the sample was divided into adolescents with the highest scores on the
Resilience Scale (top 33% of the sample), lowest scores on the Resilience Scale (bottom 33% of the sample), and average scores
(Aiken & West, 1991). Separate regression analyses were subsequently computed for each of these sub-groups. Associations of daily
hassles with the GSI were weaker in the sub-group with highest levels of dispositional resilience (B = .30, β = .34, t = 6.69, p b .001),
as compared to the sub-group with average (B = .34, β = .50, t = 11.84, p b .001) and lowest resilience scores (B = .53, β = .49, t = 6.70,
p b .001; see Fig. 1). Thus, the analysis of concurrent relationships supports the first part of Hypothesis 4.
The analysis of effects of sociodemographic variables showed that older adolescents and women had higher levels on the GSI.
However, no association between education and the outcome was evident.
Finally, analyses examined whether daily hassles and dispositional resilience would be able to predict residual changes in
psychological distress across a two-year interval. The GSI at T2 was used as dependent variable in hierarchical multiple linear
regression analysis. Age, sex, and education were entered in the first step, followed by the pretest values of the GSI (step 2), daily

Fig. 1. Concurrent associations between the frequency of daily hassles and psychological distress in groups with low, average, and high levels of dispositional
resilience.
58 M. Pinquart / Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 30 (2009) 53–60

Table 4
Predictors of residual change in psychological distress between T1 and T2 (Stepwise multiple linear regression analysis)

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5

B β B β B β B β B β
Age −.01 −.04 −.02⁎⁎⁎ −.09 −.02⁎⁎⁎ −.09 −.02⁎⁎⁎ −.04 −.02⁎⁎⁎ −.09
Sex (Female) .02 .03 −.02 −.04 −.02 −.04 −.02 −.04 −.02 −.04
Education −.02 −.05 −.02⁎ −.05 −.02⁎ −.05 −.02⁎ −.05 −.02⁎ −.05
GSI (T1) .62⁎⁎⁎ .65 .55⁎⁎⁎ .57 .55⁎⁎⁎ .57 .55⁎⁎⁎ .57
Daily hassles .14⁎⁎⁎ .16 .14⁎⁎⁎ .16 .14⁎⁎⁎ .16
Dispositional resilience .00 −.00 −.00 −.00
Hassles × resilience −.00 −.01
(Constant) 1.43⁎⁎⁎ .90⁎⁎⁎ .78⁎⁎⁎ .79⁎⁎⁎ .79⁎⁎⁎
ΔR2 .005 .405 .02 .00 .00
Total R2 .005 .41 .43 .43 .43

Note. N = 993, β (B) = (un)standardized regression coefficient, GSI = global severity index.
*p b .05. **p b .01. *** p b .001.

hassles (step 3), dispositional resilience (step 4), and interaction effects of daily hassles and resilience (step 5). The GSI pretest score
was the strongest predictor explaining 40.5% of the GSI at the second time of measurement. In addition, higher levels of daily
hassles at T1 predicted a stronger increase of the GSI, thus supporting Hypothesis 2. Interestingly, the results showed no statistical
main effect of dispositional resilience and no interaction effect between hassles and resilience on residual change in psychological
distress (Table 4). Thus, Hypotheses 3 and 4 were not supported by the longitudinal findings.
As shown in Table 4, few effects of the control variables emerged: Older and better educated participants were more likely to
show a decline in the GSI. However, change in the Global Symptom Index did not vary by sex.

4. Discussion

The present study investigated associations between daily hassles, dispositional resilience—as assessed by Wagnild and Young's
measure—and psychological distress in adolescents. Similar to previous studies, individuals with more daily hassles were found to
show higher levels of psychological distress (Chang & Sanna, 2003; Hampel & Petermann, 2006; Lohaus et al., 2004; Sim, 2000).
However, findings also revealed that higher initial levels of daily hassles predict an increase in psychological distress over time.
Thus, we can rule out the possibility that concurrent associations between daily hassles and psychological distress may be based on
distressed individuals evoking or reporting higher numbers of daily hassles. In addition, the present hassles scale focused on the
frequency of daily hassles, rather than on the intensity of being distressed. Thus, we can rule out the association between both
variables being based on an overlap of item content. Rather, the present results indicate that individuals who experience larger
number daily hassles are at higher risk for impaired psychological health. Future studies are needed to identify mediators of the
association between hassles and adolescents' psychological distress.
According to Wagnild and Young's (1993) view of resilience, high scores of dispositional resilience should be linked to low
frequency of stressors, low levels of psychological distress and a decrease in both variables over time. The assumption about
concurrent associations was supported by the present data. Although dispositional resilience explained only one percent of the
variance of the symptom distress at the first time of measurement, this effect size is of practical relevance. For example, according
to the Binomial Effect Size Display (Rosenthal, 1991), 1% explained variance would indicate that that 55% of the respondents with
above-median resilience scores would show GSI scores below the median, as compared to 45% of persons with below-median
resilience scores. Nonetheless, concurrent associations do not explain whether dispositional resilience affects symptom distress or
vice versa.
Interestingly, dispositional resilience showed a negative concurrent association with the number of daily hassles, but it did not
predict a decline in the number of hassles over time. This suggests, first, that the concurrent association may be based on the effect
of the number of daily hassles on dispositional resilience rather than vice versa: Being confronted with many hassles may
undermine dispositional resilience. In fact, Conger, Jewsbury-Conger, Matthews, and Elder (1999) have shown that high levels of
stressors predict a decline in self-efficacy beliefs, which is a core component of Wagnild and Young's Resilience Scale.
Unfortunately, no follow-up data on dispositional resilience were available for testing this interpretation.
Second, the Daily Hassles scale showed considerable correlational stability over time (r = .56), so that limited interindividual
variability in residual change was available for explanation. Third, as the Wagnild and Young scale was originally developed for
an adult population, it might not have tackled the most important psychological resources for dealing with the daily hassles of
adolescents. However, the scale assessed perceived personal competence (self-efficacy) and acceptance of self, which have been
suggested as important psychological resources that promote resilience in general (Garmezy, 1985; Luthar, Cicchetti, & Becker,
2000). Fourth, in order to find that T1-scores of a variable predict residual change in psychological outcomes over longer time
intervals, the predictor variable should show sufficient correlational stability. Thus the lack of prospective effects of
dispositional resiliency may indicate that individuals' scores on the Resilience Scale were also subject to change. Nonetheless,
Killien and Jarrett (1993) reported high stability coefficients for the Wagnild and Young scale. Fifth, the lack of long-term effects
may indicate the general low utility of measures of dispositional resilience, because factors that promote resilience would only
 M. Pinquart / Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 30 (2009) 53–60 59

be situation-specific (e.g., Rutter, 1999). However, more longitudinal research is needed before such a conclusion can be
confirmed.
In line with the findings of Aroian et al. (1997) and Humphreys (2003), a negative concurrent association was found between
dispositional resilience and psychological distress at T1, and dispositional resilience buffered the effect of the frequency of daily
hassles on concurrent levels of symptom distress. However, the significant effects of daily hassles on psychological distress in
adolescents scoring highly on dispositional resilience point to a more attenuating than eliminating effect of this disposition on the
stress-outcome relationship. Indeed, the interaction effect explained only one percent of the variance of the dependent variable, an
effect size similar to that found in previous studies on stress-protective factors (Luthar et al., 2000). Nonetheless, dispositional
resilience neither predicted residual change in psychological distress over time nor buffered the effect of daily hassles on symptom
distress at T2 when controlling for its level at pretest.
The discrepancy between the concurrent and longitudinal results may be based on restricted correlational stability of the
Wagnild and Young measure and on the fact that psychological distress would have an impact on dispositional resilience rather
than vice versa. In addition, the SCL-90-R showed considerable correlational stability over time, so that limited interindividual
variability in change was available for explanation. However, high levels of daily hassles at T1 predicted an increase in psychological
distress over time, thus indicating that residual change in psychological distress could be explained by T1 measures.
Finally, the weak, and in part lacking, stress-buffering effects may be an outcome of the limited number of individuals who faced
high levels of stressors, and fewer still simultaneously showed high scores on the Resilience Scale (given the negative correlation of
this measure with daily hassles). Thus, strong stress-buffering effects are generally difficult to detect (McClelland & Judd, 1993).
With regard to sociodemographic characteristics, cross-sectional data showed that older adolescents reported slightly higher
frequency of daily hassles and higher levels of psychological distress at the first time of measurement, followed by a stronger
decrease over time. As adolescence-specific biological, cognitive and social changes (e.g., increasing role of peers, pubertal
changes) explain, in part, the higher levels of stressors and symptom distress found in older adolescents' (e.g., Ge et al., 2001), age-
differences in these variables may decline upon reaching adulthood. In fact, Newman et al. (1996) observed that mental disorders
increase from late childhood through late adolescence, showing no further change from late adolescence to young adulthood.
The observed higher level of daily hassles and psychological distress in female adolescents replicates results from previous
studies, most probably reflecting sex differences in stressors and stress reactivity (e.g., Lohaus et al., 2004). Interestingly, there
were no associations between educational attainment and psychological distress at T1, although higher education predicted a
decline in the number of daily hassles and in psychological distress over time. Advantages of better educational attainment for
psychological health therefore become more apparent in late adolescence and young adulthood, for example, in the school-to-
work transition (e.g., Pinquart, Juang, & Silbereisen, 2003).
A few caveats need to be considered regarding the present study. First, only self-report data could be used. Second, participants
from lower school tracks were more likely to drop out of the study. Thus, the effect of educational attainment on residual change in
psychological distress may have been underestimated. Third, we analyzed effects of “normal” daily stressors in adolescents' lives
rather than focusing on severe critical life events that only few adolescents face (e.g., death of a parent). Nonetheless, as there is
evidence for even stronger associations of daily hassles than of critical life events with psychological health (e.g., DuBois et al.,
1992) the analysis of effects of daily hassles is relevant. Finally, it may not be possible to generalize the present results on German
adolescents to other national/ethnic groups.
Despite these limitations, several conclusions and benefits can be drawn from the findings of the present study. The study
contributes to the evaluation of the utility of the widely used and translated measure by Wagnild and Young (1993) in an
adolescent population and to the evaluation of the concept of dispositional resilience as a personality variable in general. First, as
the Wagnild and Young measure explained only a very low amount of variance of the concurrent level of daily hassles and
psychological distress, showed only a weak stress-buffering effect, and did not predict residual change in the frequency of daily
hassles and of psychological distress over time, it is of limited value for predicting positive psychological outcomes in the face of
daily stressors. Thus, the term “Resilience Scale” promises more than it really has to offer. Nonetheless, Wagnild and Young's scale
assesses a psychological resource that may promote short-term adaptation in the face of minor stressors or hassles. Thus, the
Resilience scale may be useful when lowering the aspiration from assessing general or dispositional resilience to assessing a
psychological resource that promotes resilience under specified conditions. As individuals may show resilience in relation to some
sorts of stresses and adversities, but not others (e.g., Rutter, 1999), researchers could systematically test for conditions (e.g., critical
life events, severe traumata) under which scores on the Resilience Scale would predict change in specified outcomes (e.g.,
addiction, solving age-associated developmental tasks) and buffer the effects of specified stressors on these outcomes. Thus,
Wagnild and Young's Resilience scale and related measures may be a useful tool for predicting situation-specific resilience when
more differential results become available.
Second, when researchers develop resilience scales, they should validate their measures by showing prospective effects on
outcome measures and by showing stress-buffering effects. If researchers would be able to show such effects, they could bridge the
gap between the research tradition of resilience as a variable that has main effects on positive outcomes irrespective of the level of
stressors (Wagnild & Young, 1993), and of situation-specific resilience as indicated by a stress-buffering effect (e.g., Luthar et al.,
2000).
Third, further studies should test whether other scales developed for assessing dispositional resilience have long-term effects
on the level of stressors and on the association between stressors and psychological outcomes (e.g., the Adolescent Resiliency
Attitudes Scale by Biscoe & Harris, 1994). Finally, research is needed to identify variables that may mediate the concurrent effects of
the Resilience Scale on outcome variables, such as appraisal of stressors and active coping processes.
60 M. Pinquart / Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 30 (2009) 53–60

References

Aldwin, C. (2006). Stress, coping, and development: An integrative perspective, (2nd ed.) New York: Guilford.
Almeida, D. M. (2005). Resilience and vulnerability to daily stressors assessed via diary methods. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 64−68.
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Aroian, K. J., Schappler-Morris, N., Neary, S., Spitzer, A., & Tran, T. V. (1997). Psychometric evaluation of the Russian language version of the Resilience Scale. Journal
of Nursing Measurement, 5, 151−164.
Baruth, K. E., & Carroll, J. J. (2002). A formal assessment of resilience: The Baruth Protective Factors Inventory. Journal of Individual Psychology, 58, 235−244.
Beardslee, W. R. (1989). The role of self-understanding in resilient individuals: The development of a perspective. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 59, 266−278.
Biscoe, B., & Harris, B. (1994). Adolescent Resiliency Attitudes Scale manual. Oklahoma City, OK: Eagle Ridge Institute.
Chang, E. C., & Sanna, L. J. (2003). Experience of daily hassles and psychological adjustment among adolescents: Does it make a difference if one is optimistic or
pessimistic? Personality and Individual Differences, 34, 867−879.
Cicchetti, D., & Garmezy, N. (1993). Milestones in the development of resilience. Development and Psychopathology, 5, 497−774.
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155−159.
Conger, R. D., Jewsbury-Conger, K., Matthews, L. S., & Elder, G. H. (1999). Pathways of economic influence on adolescent adjustment. American Journal of Community
Psychology, 27, 519−541.
Cooley, L. L. (1990). Exercise, hardiness, and the stress–illness relationship. Unpublished master's thesis. University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
Derogatis, L. R. (1977). SCL-90-R, administration, scoring, and procedures manual-I for the r(evised) version. Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine.
DuBois, D. L., Felner, R. D., Brand, S., Adan, A. M., & Evans, E. G. (1992). A prospective study of life stress, social support, and adaptation in early adolescence. Child
Development, 63, 542−557.
Franke, G. H. (2002). SCL-90-R:Die Symptom-Checkliste von Derogatis—Deutsche Version [Symptom checklist by Derogatis: German version], (2nd. ed.)
Weinheim: Beltz.
Garmezy, N. (1985). Stress-resistant children: The search for protective factors. In J. E. Stevenson (Ed.), Recent research in developmental psychopathology
(pp. 213−233). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Ge, X., Conger, R. D., & Elder, G. H. (2001). The relation between puberty and psychological distress in adolescent boys. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 11, 49−70.
Hampel, P., & Petermann, F. (2006). Perceived stress, coping, and adjustment in adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 38, 409−415.
Heilemann, M. V., Lee, K., & Kury, F. S. (2003). Psychometric properties of the Spanish version of the resilience scale. Journal of Nursing Measurement, 11, 61−71.
Höfler, M., Lieb, R., Perkonigg, A., Schuster, P., Sonntag, H., & Wittchen, H. U. (1999). Covariates of cannabis use progression in a representative population sample of
adolescents: A prospective examination of vulnerability and risk factors. Addiction, 94, 1679−1694.
Humphreys, J. (2003). Resilience in sheltered battered women. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 24, 137−152.
Johnson, J. G., & Sherman, M. F. (1997). Daily hassles mediate the relationship between major life events and psychiatric symptomatology. Journal of Social and
Clinical Psychology, 16, 389−404.
Killien, M., & Jarrett, M. E. (1993). Returning to work; Impact on postparentum mothers. Unpublished raw data.
Klaas, M. C. (1989). Effectiveness of hardiness and sleep as resources against stress-related illness. Unpublished master's thesis. University of Washington, Seattle,
WA.
Leppert, K., Gunzelmann, T., Schumacher, J., Strauss, B., & Brähler, E. (2005). Resilienz als protektives Persönlichkeitsmerkmal im Alter [Resilience as a protective
personality characteristic in the elderly]. Psychotherapie, Psychosomatik, Medizinische Psychologie, 55, 365−369.
Lieb, R., Isensee, B., Sydow, K. V., & Wittchen, H. -U. (2000). The Early Developmental Stages of Psychopathology study (EDSP): A methodological update. European
Addiction Research, 6, 170−182.
Lohaus, A. (1990). Gesundheit und Krankheit aus der Sicht von Kindern [Health and illness from children's view]. Göttingen: Hogrefe.
Lohaus, A., Beyer, A., & Klein-Heßling, J. (2004). Stresserleben und Stresssymptomatik bei Kindern und Jugendlichen [Stress and symptoms of distress in children
and adolescents]. Zeitschrift für Entwicklungspsychologie und Pädagogische Psychologie, 36, 38−46.
Luthar, S. S., Cicchetti, D., & Becker, B. (2000). The construct of resilience: A critical evaluation and guidelines for future work. Child Development, 71, 543−562.
McClelland, G. H., & Judd, C. M. (1993). Statistical difficulties of detecting interactions and moderator effects. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 376−390.
Moffitt, T. E. (1993). “Life-course persistent” and “adolescent limited” problem behavior: A developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review, 100, 674−701.
Newman, D. L., Moffitt, T. E., Caspi, A., Magdol, L., Silva, P. A., & Stanton, W. R. (1996). Psychiatric disorders in a birth cohort of young adults: Prevalence, comorbidity,
clinical significance, and new case incidence from ages 11 to 21. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64, 552−562.
Perkonigg, A., & Wittchen, H. -U. (1995). The Daily Hassles Scale: Research version. Munich: Max Planck Institute for Psychiatry.
Perkonigg, A., Yonkers, K. A., Pfister, H., Lieb, R., & Wittchen, H. U. (2004). Risk factors for premenstrual dysphoric disorder in a community sample of young women:
The role of traumatic events and posttraumatic stress disorder. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 65, 1314−1322.
Pesce, R. P., Assis, S. G., Santoz, N., & de Oliveira, R. (2004). Riasco e proteção de um equilibrio promoter de resilieência [Risk and protection: Looking for an
equilibrium that provides resilience]. Psicologia: Teoria e Pesquisa, 20, 135−143.
Pinquart, M., Juang, L. P., & Silbereisen, R. K. (2003). Self-efficacy and successful school-to-work transition: A longitudinal study. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63,
329−346.
Rosenthal, R. (1991). Meta-analytic procedures for social research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Rutter, M. (1985). Resilience in the face of adversity: Protective factors and resistance to psychiatric disorders. British Journal of Psychiatry, 147, 598−611.
Rutter, M. (1999). Resilience concepts and findings: Implications for family therapy. Journal of Family Therapy, 21, 119−144.
Schumacher, J., Leppert, K., Gunzelmann, T., Strauß, B., & Brähler, E. (2005). Die Resilienzskala—Ein Fragebogen zur Erfassung der psychischen Widerstandsfähigkeit
als Personmerkmal [Resilience Scale: A questionnaire on dispositional resilience]. Zeitschrift für Klinische Psychologie, Psychiatrie und Psychotherapie, 53, 16−39.
Sim, H. (2000). Relationship of daily hassles and social support to depression and antisocial behaviour among early adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence,
29, 647−659.
Vollrath, M. (2000). Personality and hassles among university students: A three-year longitudinal study. European Journal of Personality, 14, 199−215.
Wagnild, G. M., & Young, H. M. (1993). Development and psychometric evaluation of the Resilience Scale. Journal of Nursing Measurement, 1, 165−178.
Werner, E. E., & Smith, R. S. (1992). Overcoming the odds. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Wichstrom, L. (1999). The emergence of gender differences in depressed mood during adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 35, 232−245.
Zinnecker, J., & Stecher, L. (2006). Gesellschaftliche Ungleichheit im Spiegel hierarchisch geordneter Bildungsgänge [Societal inequality in hierarchically structured
educational tracks]. In W. Georg (Ed.), Soziale Ungleichheit im Bildungssystem (pp. 291−310). Konstanz: UVK.