Personality and Individual Differences 76 (2015) 18–27

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Personality and Individual Differences

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

A meta-analysis of the trait resilience and mental health

Tianqiang Hu, Dajun Zhang ⇑, Jinliang Wang
Research Center for Mental Health Education, Faculty of Psychology, Southwest University, Chongqing 400715, China

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

Article history: The current meta-analysis aimed to review the relationship between trait resilience and mental health,
Received 15 July 2014 and examine some moderating variables such as participant age, gender, and adversity. A total of 60 stud-
Received in revised form 14 November 2014 ies and 111 effect sizes were analyzed. We found that: (1) Trait resilience was negatively correlated to
Accepted 17 November 2014
negative indicators of mental health and positively correlated to positive indicators of mental health.
(2) Age moderated the relationship between trait resilience and negative indicators but not the positive
indicators of mental health, with adults showing stronger than children and adolescents. (3) Gender also
Keywords:
moderated the relationship between trait resilience and mental health. As percentage of male partici-
Trait resilience
Mental health
pants increased, a weaker effect size was observed. (4) Adversity moderated the relationship between
Meta-analysis trait resilience and mental health. The effect sizes were significantly stronger for people in adversity than
those not in adversities.
Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction suggests that resilience is a personal trait that helps individuals

The word ‘‘resilience’’ originates from the Latin verb resilire, or,
‘‘to leap back’’. It is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as ‘‘being
able to withstand or recover quickly from difficult conditions’’.
When used in the field of psychology, this term describes the ability
to bounce back from negative emotional experiences and flexibly
adapt to the changing demands of stressful experiences (Block &
Block, 1980; Block & Kremen, 1996; Lazarus, 1993).
In the past decade, research on and applications of resilience have
drawn attention from a growing number of experts in psychology,
psychopathology, sociology, biology, and even cognitive neurosci-
ence. Notably, the relationship between resilience and mental
health has always been a topic of interest across disciplines
(Haskett, Nears, Sabourin Ward, & McPherson, 2006; Windle,
2011). Researchers have conducted many theoretical and empirical
studies leading to varied conclusions regarding this construct (e.g.,
Cohn, Fredrickson, Brown, Mikels, & Conway, 2009; Karairmak,
2010; Karreman & Vingerhoets, 2012; Liu, Wang, & Li, 2012). Never-
theless, its research and application in the mental health field are
seriously hindered due to the lack of a uniform operational defini-
tion for resilience and a corresponding methodology for studying
it (Davydov, Stewart, Ritchie, & Chaudieu, 2010).
Current definitions of resilience include three orientations:
trait, outcome, and process. Trait orientation (or trait resilience)
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: htqpsy@126.com (T. Hu), zhangdj@swu.edu.cn (D. Zhang),
wjl200789@163.com (J. Wang).
cope with adversity and achieve good adjustment and develop-
ment. Researchers who support this perspective view resilience
as a personality trait that inoculates individuals against the impact
of adversity or traumatic events (Connor & Davidson, 2003; Ong,
Bergeman, Bisconti, & Wallace, 2006). An outcome-oriented
approach regards resilience as a function or behavioral outcome
that can conquer and help individuals to recover from adversity
(Harvey & Delfabbro, 2004; Masten, 2001). The process-oriented
approach views resilience as a dynamic process in which individu-
als actively adapt to and recover rapidly from major adversities
(Fergus & Zimmerman, 2005; Luthar, Cicchetti, & Becker, 2000).
It is important to highlight the debate concerning definition
because these concepts provide researchers with theoretical
boundaries that help to determine the nature, direction, and verac-
ity of research inquiry (Fletcher & Sarkar, 2013). Conversely, con-
ceptual discrepancies hinder the evaluation and comparison of
research findings, preclude meta-analysis, and make it difficult to
operationalize the construct for measurement purposes (Davydov
et al., 2010). Therefore, the meta-analysis conducted in the current
study only includes research on trait resilience and mental health
and excludes studies that use other conceptual definitions of
resilience.
Ahern, Kiehl, Sole, and Byers (2006) and Windle, Bennett, and
Noyes (2011) reviewed the resilience measurement scales in all
population age groups and evaluated the psychometric properties
of these scales. They suggested that trait resilience was primarily
measured with four scales which obtained the most widely used
and good psychometric ratings (Cronbach’s a = 0.76–0.90): the

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.11.039
0191-8869/Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 T. Hu et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 76 (2015) 18–27
Connor–Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC, Campell-Sills & Stein,
2007; Connor & Davidson, 2003), the Dispositional Resilience Scale
(DRS, Bartone, Ursano, Wright, & Ingraham, 1989), the Ego-Resil-
ience Scale (ERS, Block & Kremen, 1996; Bromley, Johnson, &
Cohen, 2006; Klohnen, 1996), and the Resilience Scale (RS,
Wagnild & Young, 1993). The CD-RISC was used to measure psy-
chological resilience, the personal qualities that enabled one to
thrive in the face of adversity (personal competence, trust/toler-
ance/strengthening effects of stress, acceptance of change and
secure relationships, control, spiritual influences). The DRS was
designed to measure psychological hardiness (commitment, con-
trol, and challenge), the term that was equal to resilience. The
ERS comprising a single dimension was administered to assess
ego-resiliency (a stable personality characteristic). The RS was
measured to identify the degree of individual resilience, a positive
personality characteristic that enhances individual adaptation
(personal competence and acceptance of self and life). All of the
scales focused on assessing resilience at the level of personal char-
acteristics only and the mode of completion was self report (Ahern
et al., 2006; Windle et al., 2011). Though some other scales were
adopted, we excluded because of their bad psychometric proper-
ties and limited use, especially in studies of the relationship
between trait resilience and mental health, in order to enhance
the validity of this meta-analysis. Therefore, all included studies
used only these scales.
Mental health is an important component of individual adapta-
tion and development. New insights into this construct have
emerged as research in the field of mental illness has advanced
and with the advent of research on positive psychology. The prop-
osition of a dual-factor model of mental health has laid a solid
foundation for a more comprehensive and accurate assessment of
individual mental health (Greenspoon & Saklofske, 2001; Suldo &
Shaffer, 2008). This model considers mental health to be a
complete state, with a broader meaning than the absence of mental
illness, and strong sense of subjective wellbeing. Furthermore, it
includes the absence of negative indicators of mental health (e.g.,
depression, anxiety, negative affect) and the presence of positive
ones (e.g., life satisfaction, positive affect). Consequently, the
measurement and assessment of mental health should include
both negative and positive indicators.
The indicators of mental health in the present meta-analysis
were measured by some acknowledged scales. Specifically,
depression was mainly assessed via Self-Rating Depression Scale
(SDS; Zung, 1965), Beck Depression Inventory (BDI; Beck, Ward,
Mendelson, Mock, & Erbaugh, 1961), and Center for Epidemiologic
Studies Depression Scale (CES-D; Radloff, 1977). Anxiety was
mainly assessed Zung Self-Rating Anxiety Scale (SAS; Zung,
1971), and Anxiety Sensitivity Index (ASI; Peterson & Reiss,
1992). Positive affect and negative affect was mainly measured
using the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS; Watson,
Clark, & Tellegen, 1988). Finally, life satisfaction was mainly
assessed by the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS; Diener,
Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, 1985). 85 (76%) dependent samples
included in the current meta-analysis adopted these scales. All
the above scales measured the mental health status and differed
from the scales of trait resilience. Trait resilience was defined to
a personality trait, while mental health was an adaptational
consequence.
Many empirical studies have found that trait resilience was
negatively correlated with negative indicators of mental health
(e.g., Abiola & Udofia, 2011; Burns & Anstey, 2010; Fredrickson,
Tugade, Waugh, & Larkin, 2003, etc.) and positively correlated with
positive indicators (Abolghasemi & Varaniyab, 2010; Karairmak,
2010, etc.). Moreover, some indicators of mental health such as life
satisfaction (Rossi, Bisconti, & Bergeman, 2007; Wagnild & Young,
1993), positive affect (Fredrickson et al., 2003; Ong, Zautra, & Reid,
19
2010; Xing & Sun, 2013), depression (Beutel, Glaesmer, Wiltink,
Marian, & Brahler, 2010; Hasui et al., 2009; Ying, Wu, Lin, &
jiang, 2014), anxiety (Beutel et al., 2010) were proved to be pre-
dicted by trait resilience. The relations, however, varied across
studies. In response to this concern, many researchers have con-
ducted reviews to summarize research findings (Davydov et al.,
2010; Masten et al., 2011; Windle, 2011). Though they partly
confirmed the relations, such declarative reviews have their own
limitations (e.g., the quality of the review cannot be guaranteed
through convenience sampling or emphasis on statistical signifi-
cance while ignoring sample size), which make it difficult to obtain
an accurate understanding of the relationship between trait
resilience and mental health. For this reason, the conclusions of
declarative reviews may be inconsistent and lack reliability and/
or validity. Furthermore, it is difficult to determine the reasons
for differences when the conclusions of a declarative review are
inconsistent. Hence, it is imperative to conduct comprehensive
quantitative reviews (i.e., meta-analysis) to further elucidate the
relationship between trait resilience and mental health.
In addition, we were interested in evaluating participants’ age,
gender, and experience of adversity as potential moderators in
the association between trait resilience and mental health. First,
we planned to regard participants’ age as a potential moderator
because negative life events and the level of trait resilience are
more likely to vary according to the age of the individual (Luthar
& Brown, 2007; Ong, Bergeman, & Boker, 2009; Ong et al., 2006).
Further, differences between children/adolescents and adults have
been found in the relationship between trait resilience and mental
health, such as depression and life-satisfaction (Abolghasemi &
Varaniyab, 2010; Cenat & Derivois, 2014; Cohn et al., 2009;
Haddadi & Besharat, 2010).
Second, compared to men, women experience more life events
and are more sensitive to them, which generally lead to pain per-
ception (Aneshensel, 1992; Ramírez-Maestre, Martínez, &
Zarazaga, 2004). However, it appears that women might be better
adapted to chronic pain, given the similar levels of depression and
anxiety in men and women (Ramírez-Maestre et al., 2004). Several
researchers have proposed that there are gender differences in the
relationship between trait resilience and indicators of mental
health, such as life-satisfaction, depression and anxiety (e.g.,
Beutel et al., 2010; Bitsika, Sharpley, & Bell, 2013; Haddadi &
Besharat, 2010; Rossi et al., 2007).
Third, the diathesis-stress model suggests that poor develop-
mental experiences are most likely to affect the development of
individuals who carry potential diatheses (vulnerability factors)
that inhibit successful adaptation in the face of adversity (Roisman
et al., 2012). In contrast to diathesis or vulnerability, resilience,
which includes protection and buffering, prevents people from suc-
cumbing to or being harmed by adverse experiences. Although there
were no differences between vulnerable and resilient individuals in
the absence of adversity, similar to vulnerability, the relationship
between trait resilience and mental health, especially depression
and anxiety, may be changed when triggered by adversities.
Therefore, we expected that the experienced adversity moderated
the correlation between trait resilience and mental health.
Therefore, the current study aimed to review the relationship
between trait resilience and negative and positive mental health
indicators using meta-analysis. The meta-analysis was conducted
on a wide range of published studies (only in English) according
to the constructs of trait-oriented resilience and the dual-factor
model of mental health. This analysis estimated the effect size, ori-
entation, and significance of trait resilience and mental health from
a quantitative perspective, and analyzed whether the relationship
between trait resilience and mental health was moderated by
some potential variables such as participant age, gender and
adversity. The final purpose of this study was to serve as a
20 T. Hu et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 76 (2015) 18–27
reference and inspiration for future research on resilience and
resilience-based interventions and training in the mental health
field.
2. Methods
2.1. Literature search
The literature search was conducted in three steps. First, we
considered only articles written in English and chose electronic
library databases and key words through June 2014. We selected
Web of Science, Elsevier SDOL, EBSCO, Springer, PsycINFO, Pro-
Quest Digital Dissertations, and Google Scholar. Key words selected
were all possible combinations of terms reflecting resilience (psy-
chological resilience, resilience, resilient) and mental health (mental
health, well-being, life satisfaction, positive emotion, positive affect,
positive mood, depression, anxiety, negative emotion, negative affect,
negative mood). Second, we searched for full-text articles. Full-text
versions of articles that could not be found online were obtained
through library document delivery or by directly contacting study
authors. To avoid omission, we also contacted some researchers
who had published extensively in the areas of interest. The third
step was to analyze the collected studies and filter them on the
basis of inclusion and exclusion criteria.
2.2. Inclusion criteria
Only studies that fit five major criteria were chosen for inclu-
sion in the meta-analysis. Qualifying studies were those that (a)
were published studies but not dissertations, master’s theses, or
conference presentations in order to assure the quality of studies
involved in the meta-analysis; (b) measured trait resilience but
not any other defined resilience or similar constructs such as har-
diness or coping ability; (c) measured mental health, including life-
satisfaction, positive affect, depression, anxiety, or negative affect;
(d) reported Pearson’s correlation coefficients (r) between trait
resilience and the five indicators of mental health; (e) adopted sub-
jective and complete measures of resilience and mental health
using questionnaire surveys, but not alternative or one dimen-
sional scales.
2.3. Study coding
All independent samples meeting the above inclusion criteria
were coded (see Table 1). As mental health consists of positive
and negative indicators, we coded each, respectively. For each
study, we coded the following information: (a) author(s) and pub-
lication year; (b) number of participants; (c) indicators of mental
health; (d) age; (e) percentage of male participants; (f) adversity;
and (g) Pearson r. The following principles guided the coding pro-
cedure: First, effect sizes were based on independent samples and
coding was carried out for each independent sample, coding
respectively if a study had more than one sample. Second, if an
independent sample provided effect sizes (expressed as r) for sam-
ple characteristics such as sex, this number was used. Third, if a
study only reported the correlation between each dimension of
trait resilience and each indicator of mental health, the mean value
was used for effect sizes. Additionally, if one sample reported the
correlation between not only the total, but also each individual,
dimension of trait resilience and each indicator of mental health,
we coded the total correlation separately.
Once coding was complete, effect sizes of the correlation
between trait resilience and mental health were computed for each
sample based on Wilson and Lipsey’s principles (Wilson & Lipsey,
2001). The potential moderators of the relationship between trait
resilience and mental health were (a) age; (b) gender; (c) adversity.
On the distribution of samples according to age, we aggregated
effect sizes into three age groups: children and adolescents (6–
18 years old), and adults (19–60 years old) and mixed age. Adver-
sity was coded as ‘‘yes’’ and ‘‘no’’. ‘‘Yes’’ meant that participants
experienced or were experiencing some adversities or risk factors
and ‘‘no’’ meant that participants did not experienced or reported
experiencing adversities or risk factors.
Meta-analysis involves data from many participants; thus, cod-
ing errors are unavoidable, and such errors may be worse than
errors in the original data. To minimize error, article coding was
distributed between the first and second author (i.e., each article
was coded twice) with kappa coefficients ranging from .97 to .99.
All disagreements were resolved by discussion.
2.4. Data analysis
CMA 2.0 (Comprehensive Meta-Analysis 2.0) was used for data
analysis. Mean effect sizes and homogeneity tests were estimated
using a fixed-effects model that estimated a single effect assumed
to be common to every study. This provided a more precise and
reliable estimate of the relationship between trait resilience and
mental health than might be obtained with a random-effects
model (Cooper, 1998). All mean effect sizes were calculated by
averaging weighted (inverse variance weights) correlation coeffi-
cients across all independent samples. Homogeneity tests (Q-tests)
were used to determine whether there were potential moderators
that explained the variance in the effect sizes between different
samples. If the homogeneity test was significant (QBET > .05), post
hoc contrasts were performed to determine which groups were
statistically different (Howell & Howell, 2008).
3. Results
3.1. Study characteristics
In total, 60 studies were obtained based on our rigorous litera-
ture search and filtering; of these, 111 effect sizes were computed
or estimated. The studies represented 68,720 total participants.
The number of independent samples reported per study ranged
from 1 to 6. With regard to effect sizes, 76 (68%) were correlations
between trait resilience and negative indicators of mental health,
and 35 (32%) were correlations between trait resilience and posi-
tive indicators of mental health.
3.2. Overall relation
For the purposes of our meta-analysis, we computed mean
weighted effect sizes (r), sample sizes (k), 95% confidence intervals,
and total homogeneity statistics using a fixed-effects model (see
Table 2). As predicted, results showed a negative correlation
between trait resilience and negative indicators of mental health,
and a positive correlation between trait resilience and positive
indicators of mental health. The mean r effect size of the correla-
tion between resilience and negative indicators was 0.361
(z = 80.228, p < .001, k = 76, 95% CI = 0.369, 0.353), while the
mean r effect size of the correlation between trait resilience and
positive indicators of mental health was 0.503 (z = 78.299,
p < .001, k = 35, 95% CI = 0.493, 0.514). These effect sizes were con-
sidered to be medium effect sizes (Cohen, 1969).
3.3. Moderator analysis
To explore potential moderators of the relationship between
trait resilience and mental health, two total homogeneity tests
were conducted across the 76 (negative indicators of mental
health) and 35 (positive indicators of mental health) independent
 T. Hu et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 76 (2015) 18–27 21

Table 1
Effect sizes and study characteristics.

Study N Mental health indicatora Portion male Ageb Adversityc r

Abiola and Udofia (2011) 70 DP 0.67 2 1 0.275
Abiola and Udofia (2011) 70 AX 0.67 2 1 0.25
Abolghasemi and Varaniyab (2010) 55 LS Not reported 1 2 0.62
Abolghasemi and Varaniyab (2010) 55 LS Not reported 1 1 0.31
Baek, Lee, Joo, Lee, and Choi (2010) 576 DP 0.14 2 2 0.457
Beutel et al. (2010) 2144 LS 1 2 2 0.41
Beutel et al. (2010) 2144 AX 1 2 2 0.3
Bitsika et al. (2013) 35 DP 1 2 1 0.585
Bitsika et al. (2013) 35 AX 1 2 1 0.357
Bitsika et al. (2013) 73 DP 0 2 1 0.505
Bitsika et al. (2013) 73 AX 0 2 1 0.43
Bruwer, Emsley, Kidd, Lochner, and Seedat (2008) 502 DP 0.41 3 2 0.438
Burns and Anstey (2010) 1775 PA 0.54 2 2 0.575
Burns and Anstey (2010) 1775 NA 0.54 2 2 0.261
Burns, Anstey, and Windsor (2011) 3989 PA 0.47 2 2 0.562
Burns et al. (2011) 3989 NA 0.47 2 2 0.291
Burns et al. (2011) 3989 DP 0.47 2 2 0.381
Burns et al. (2011) 3989 AX 0.47 2 2 0.303
Cenat and Derivois (2014) 872 DP 0.44 1 1 0.045
Cohn et al. (2009) 86 LS 0.41 2 2 0.15
Cohn et al. (2009) 86 PA 0.41 2 2 0.454
Cohn et al. (2009) 86 NA 0.41 2 2 0.217
do Rosário Pinheiro and Matos et al. (2011) 180 DP 0.51 1 2 0.423
Ebrahimi, Keykhosrovani, Dehghani, and Javdan (2012) 100 DP 0.5 2 2 0.46
Fredrickson et al. (2003) 47 LS 0.38 2 1 0.35
Fredrickson et al. (2003) 47 LS 0.38 2 1 0.32
Fredrickson et al. (2003) 47 PA 0.38 2 1 0.59
Fredrickson et al. (2003) 47 NA 0.38 2 1 0.25
Fredrickson et al. (2003) 47 DP 0.38 2 1 0.24
Goins, Gregg, and Fiske (2012) 160 DP 0.48 2 2 0.51
Goldstein, Faulkner, and Wekerle (2013) 93 DP 0.24 2 2 0.334
Haddadi and Besharat (2010) 97 DP 1 2 2 0.588
Haddadi and Besharat (2010) 97 AX 1 2 2 0.611
Haddadi and Besharat (2010) 114 DP 0 2 2 0.633
Haddadi and Besharat (2010) 114 AX 0 2 2 0.644
Hasui et al. (2009) 514 DP 0.22 2 2 0.33
Hayter and Dorstyn (2014) 97 DP 0.34 2 1 0.44
Hayter and Dorstyn (2014) 97 AX 0.34 2 1 0.29
Heilemann, Lee, and Kury (2002) 315 DP 0 2 2 0.33
Karairmak (2010) 246 PA 0.39 2 1 0.692
Karairmak (2010) 246 NA 0.39 2 1 0.445
Karairmak (2010) 246 PA 0.39 2 1 0.696
Karairmak (2010) 246 NA 0.39 2 1 0.387
Klasen et al. (2010) 330 DP 0.52 1 1 0.17
Klibert et al. (2014) 413 DP 0.34 2 2 0.44
Klibert et al. (2014) 413 AX 0.34 2 2 0.33
Lee and Williams (2013) 206 DP 0.4 2 1 0.6
Lei et al. (2012) 565 DP 0.5 2 1 0.445
Lei et al. (2012) 565 AX 0.5 2 1 0.338
Liu et al. (2012) 282 LS 0.46 2 2 0.23
Liu et al. (2012) 282 PA 0.46 2 2 0.47
Liu et al. (2012) 282 NA 0.46 2 2 0.23
Liu, Wang, and Lü (2013) 263 LS 0.45 2 2 0.2
Liu, Wang, Zhou, and Li (2014) 412 PA 0.4 2 2 0.56
Liu et al. (2014) 412 NA 0.4 2 2 0.2
Liu et al.(2014) 412 LS 0.4 2 2 0.32
Lü, Wang, Liu, and Zhang (2014) 289 PA 0.14 2 2 0.52
Lü et al. (2014) 289 NA 0.14 2 2 0.12
Mak, Ng, and Wong (2011) 1419 LS 0.42 2 2 0.39
Mak et al. (2011) 1419 DP 0.42 2 2 0.38
Miller and Chandler (2002) 200 DP 0 2 2 0.336
Min, Yu, Lee, and Chae (2013) 230 DP 0.43 3 1 0.577
Min et al. (2013) 230 AX 0.43 3 1 0.597
Mitchell and Ronzio (2011) 209 DP 0 2 2 0.39
Moon et al. (2006) 231 DP 0.49 1 1 0.59
Moorhouse and Caltabiano (2007) 77 DP 0.4 3 1 0.448
Nath and Pradhan (2012) 146 PA 0.73 2 2 0.533
Ng, Ang, and Ho (2012) 719 DP 0.45 1 2 0.31
Ng et al. (2012) 719 AX 0.45 1 2 0.247
Nishi, Uehara, Kondo, and Matsuoka (2010) 430 DP 0.2 2 2 0.29
Okun, Rios, Crawford, and Levy (2011) 4161 PA 0.37 2 2 0.59
Okun et al. (2011) 4161 NA 0.37 2 2 0.56
Ong et al. (2010) 95 PA 0.24 2 1 0.41
Ong et al. (2010) 95 NA 0.24 2 1 0.27

(continued on next page)

22 T. Hu et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 76 (2015) 18–27

Table 1 (continued)

Study N Mental health indicatora Portion male Ageb Adversityc r

Ong et al. (2006) 27 PA 0.52 2 2 0.41
Ong et al. (2006) 40 PA 0.52 2 2 0.37
Ong et al. (2006) 40 NA 0.52 2 2 0.09
Ong et al. (2006) 34 PA 0.52 2 1 0.41
Ong et al. (2006) 34 NA 0.52 2 1 0.34
Otto, Howerter, Bell, and Jackson (2010) 856 PA 0.36 2 2 0.38
Otto et al. (2010) 856 NA 0.36 2 2 0.24
Özbey, Büyüktanir, and Türkoglu (2014) 427 LS 0.12 2 2 0.429
Petros, Opacka-Juffry, and Huber (2013) 196 DP 0.26 2 2 0.58
Petros et al. (2013) 196 AX 0.26 2 2 0.68
Pietrzak et al. (2010) 272 DP Not reported 2 1 0.57
Ramirez-Maestre et al. (2012) 299 DP 0.46 2 1 0.56
Ramirez-Maestre et al. (2012) 299 AX 0.46 2 1 0.41
Robottom et al. (2012) 83 DP 0.6 2 1 0.493
Robottom et al. (2012) 83 AX 0.6 2 1 0.339
Rossi et al. (2007) 55 LS 0 2 1 0.43
Runkewitz, Kirchmann, and Strauss (2006) 242 DP 0.31 3 1 0.523
Runkewitz et al. (2006) 242 AX 0.31 3 1 0.48
Santos, Bernardo, Gabbay, Dib, and Sigulem (2013) 85 DP 0.47 1 1 0.32
Santos et al. (2013) 85 AX 0.47 1 1 0.36
Simpson and Jones (2013) 61 PA 0.83 2 1 0.67
Simpson and Jones (2013) 61 NA 0.83 2 1 0.47
Singh and Yu (2010) 256 LS 0.65 2 2 0.23
Singh and Yu (2010) 256 PA 0.65 2 2 0.67
Singh and Yu (2010) 256 NA 0.65 2 2 0.26
Spies and Seedat (2014) 95 DP 0 2 1 0.28
Wagnild and Young (1993) 810 LS 0.38 2 2 0.3
Wagnild and Young (1993) 810 DP 0.38 2 2 0.37
Wells, Avers, and Brooks (2012) 54 DP Not reported 2 2 0.445
White, Driver, and Warren (2010) 42 LS 0.78 3 1 0.53
White et al. (2010) 42 DP 0.78 3 1 0.39
Xing and Sun (2013) 84 PA 0.38 2 2 0.45
Ying et al. (2014) 788 DP 0.47 1 1 0.19
Yu and Zhang (2007) 560 LS 0.5 3 2 0.48
Yu et al. (2011) 2914 AX 0.54 1 1 0.25
Yu et al. (2011) 2914 DP 0.54 1 1 0.38
Yu, Stewart, Liu, and Lam (2014) 1205 DP 0.24 2 2 0.18
a
LS = Satisfaction with life index scale; PA = Positive affect; DP = Depression; AX = Anxiety; NA = Negative affect.
b
1 = Children and adolescents; 2 = Adults; 3 = Mixed.
c
1 = ‘‘yes’’; 2 = ‘‘no’’.

Table 2
Fixed-model of the correlation between trait resilience and mental health.

Mental health k N Mean r 95% CI for r Test of null (2-tail) Homogeneity test Tau-squared
effect size
LL UL z-Value p-Value Q(T) df p I-squared Tau-squared SE Variance Tau
Negative indicators 76 45,188 0.361 0.369 0.353 80.228 0.000 1320.790 75 0.000 94.332 0.029 0.009 0.000 0.171
Positive indicators 35 20,092 0.503 0.493 0.514 78.299 0.000 441.223 34 0.000 92.294 0.023 0.011 0.000 0.152

samples. Results for trait resilience and negative indicators of men-
tal health showed that QT (75) = 1320.790, p < .001 while the result
for trait resilience and positive indicators of mental health was QT
(34) = 441.223, p < .001. Homogeneity tests were significant, sug-
gesting possible moderating variables of the relationship between
trait resilience and mental health. As previously mentioned, we
planned to examine three moderators: age, gender, adversity (see
Tables 3–5).
An omnibus homogeneity test revealed significant differences in
the mean effect sizes for the correlation between trait resilience and
negative indicators of mental health across three categories of age
(children and adolescents, adults, and mixed age), QBET (3,
k = 76) = 156.938, p < .001. Specifically, the mean r effect size for
the adults group (r = 0.379, 95% CI = 0.388, 0.370) was signifi-
cant stronger than the children and adolescents group (r = 0.273,
95% CI = 0.291, 0.254). However, the homogeneity test revealed
non-significant differences in the mean effect sizes for the relation-
ship between trait resilience and positive indicators of mental
health across all categories of age (QBET [2, k = 35] = 0.536, p > .05).
To test whether gender moderated the relationship between
trait resilience and mental health, the r effect size was meta-
regressed onto the percentage of male participants in each sample.
As shown in Table 4, gender significantly moderated the relation-
ship between trait resilience and mental health, QModel (1,
k = 76) = 12.863, p < .001 for trait resilience – negative indicators
of mental health, and QModel (1, k = 35) = 15.344, p < .001 for trait
resilience – positive indicators of mental health. As percentage of
male participants increased, a weaker effect was observed. The cor-
relations between trait resilience and mental health for all-male
sample (r = 0.323 for trait resilience – negative indicators of men-
tal health and r = 0.484 for trait resilience – positive indicators of
mental health) was predicted to be much weaker than ones for
 T. Hu et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 76 (2015) 18–27 23

Table 3
Age as a moderator of the correlation between trait resilience and mental health.

Mental health Between-group effect (QBET) k N Mean r effect size SE 95% CI for r Homogeneity test within each group (QW)
LL UL
Negative indicators 156.938***
Children and adolescents 11 9837 0.273*** 0.017 0.291 0.254 208.409***
Adults 58 33,786 0.379*** 0.011 0.388 0.370 943.776***
Mixed 7 1565 0.504*** 0.006 0.540 0.465 11.667
Positive indicators 0.536
Children and adolescents 2 110 0.480*** 0.116 0.319 0.614 4.253*
Adults 31 19,380 0.504*** 0.012 0.494 0.515 436.269***
Mixed 2 602 0.483*** 0.019 0.420 0.542 0.164
*
p < .05.
⁄⁄⁄
p < .001.

Table 4
Meta-regression analyses with effect size regressed onto percentage of male participants.

Mental health Parameter Estimate SE z-Value 95% CI for b

LL UL
Negative indicators b0 0.421 0.013 31.532 0.448 0.395
b1 0.098 0.027 3.586 0.044 0.151
Q Model (1, k = 74) = 12.863, p < .001
Positive indicators b0 0.621 0.018 33.499 0.585 0.658
b1 0.137 0.035 3.917 0.206 0.068
Q Model (1, k = 33) = 15.344, p < .001

Table 5
Adversity as a moderator of the correlation between trait resilience and mental health.

Mental health Between-group effect (QBET) k N Mean r effect size SE 95% CI for r Homogeneity test within each group (QW)
LL UL
Negative indicators 7.030**
Yes 35 7170 0.386*** 0.034 0.406 0.366 678.083***
No 41 38,018 0.357*** 0.006 0.365 0.348 635.677***
Positive indicators 15.729***
Yes 11 975 0.592*** 0.028 0.548 0.631 42.584***
No 24 19,117 0.499*** 0.011 0.488 0.509 382.911***
**
p < .01.
***
p < .001.

all-female sample (r = 0.421 for trait resilience – negative indica-
tors of mental health and r = 0.621 for trait resilience – positive
indicators of mental health).
The two omnibus homogeneity tests revealed significant differ-
ence in the mean r effect size of the correlation between trait resil-
ience and mental health across the two categories of adversity
(‘‘yes’’ and ‘‘no’’), QBET (1, k = 76) = 7.032, p < .01 for trait resilience
– negative indicators of mental health, and QBET (1, k = 35) =
15.729, p < .001 for trait resilience – positive indicators of mental
health. Specifically, the mean r effect size for the ‘‘yes’’ group
(r = 0.386, 95% CI = 0.406, 0.366 for trait resilience – negative
indicators of mental health, r = 0.592, 95% CI = 0.548, 0.631 for trait
resilience – positive indicators of mental health) was significant
stronger than the ‘‘no’’ group (r = 0.357, 95% CI = 0.365, 0.348
for trait resilience – negative indicators of mental health, r = 0.499,
95% CI = 0.488, 0.509 for trait resilience – positive indicators of
mental health).
3.4. Publication bias
Although the effect sizes came from a variety of sources, we
could not firmly determine whether publication bias influenced
the results of the meta-analysis or to what degree this might have
occurred. Therefore, we constructed a funnel plots of effect sizes
(see Fig. 1) to test whether effect sizes computed from a given
meta-analysis may be inflated due to a failure to include studies
in which the null hypothesis was retained. The funnel plot did
not show signs of asymmetry, and an Egger’s regression revealed
no significant bias (p = 0.459). We also calculated Rosenthal’s
fail-safe N (Rosenthal, 1979) to accommodate for shortcomings of
the funnel plot itself, and because a few studies deviated from the
mean value (Lau, Ioannidis, Terrin, Schmid, & Olkin, 2006). The
findings showed that there would need to be at least 5862 studies
with mean effect sizes of 1.0 added to the analysis before the
cumulative effect would become statistically non-significant.
Meanwhile, as the Rosenthal’s fail-safe Ns exceeded Rosenthal’s
recommended tolerance value of 5n + 10 (where n is the number
of effect sizes) (Rosenthal, 1979), our data appear to be resilient
to publication bias.
4. Discussion
It is critical to operationalize resilience as a trait or capability to
cope with adversity. This is directly related to efforts to study the
relationship between the relatively stable internal characteristic
(i.e., trait resilience) and mental health. Using meta-analysis, this
24 T. Hu et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 76 (2015) 18–27
0.0
0.1
Standard Error
0.2
0.3
0.4
-2.0 -1.5
Fig. 1. Funnel plot of effect sizes of the correlation between trait resilience and mental health.
study reviewed 60 empirical studies to quantitatively examine the
relationship between trait resilience and positive and negative
indicators of mental health. We also examined whether these
relationships were influenced by moderating variables. Results
indicated that trait resilience was negatively correlated with nega-
tive indicators of mental health and positively correlated with
positive indicators of mental health. In other words, levels of trait
resilience were lower for individuals who presented with higher
rates of depression, anxiety, or negative affect and higher for indi-
viduals with higher levels of life satisfaction or positive affect.
Effect sizes for these results were both medium (Cohen, 1969).
Meanwhile, the relationship between trait resilience and mental
health was influenced by participant age, gender, and adversity.
Our results suggest that resilience plays a major role in helping
individuals achieve a state of positive mental health and reduce
negative indicators. This is consistent with the Model of Three
Resilience System mechanism proposed by Davydov et al. (2010),
which postulates that resilience fosters mental health through
harm reduction, protection, and promotion. In other words, resil-
ience reduces or limits the negative impact (e.g., depression or anx-
iety) of adversity or exposure to traumatic events. Furthermore,
resilience seems to provide protection against the effects of nega-
tive events in daily life and improve individuals’ ability to deal
with potential threats. These factors are vital for improving subjec-
tive well-being and positive affect. As a personality trait, resilience
is fairly constant compared to external protective factors, and can
provide a relatively stable prediction of an individual’s mental
health. Consequently, a key objective of research on trait resilience
is to classify people into groups based on their level of resilience.
This will enable clinicians to focus more attention on individuals
with lower levels of resilience to help them overcome traumatic
events, helping to reduce the negative effects of such events and
the likelihood that they will develop depression or anxiety. In addi-
tion, targeted training and interventions will help those at risk to
make full use of external resources when faced with adversity.
The results also told us that positive health outcomes may be ben-
eficial to one’s trait resilience. Finally, as we only examined the
magnitude of the relationship between trait resilience and ‘‘whole’’
mental health, the current meta-analysis would also allow for a
more nuanced breakdown of specific mental health outcomes
(depression, etc.) in the future.
Age moderated the relationship between trait resilience and
negative indicators of mental health, with adults showing stronger
than children and adolescents. Conversely, age did not moderate
the relationship between trait resilience and positive indicators
Funnel Plot of Standard Error by Fisher's Z
-1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Fisher's Z
of mental health. A major reason may be that resilience increases
with age. Although trait resilience seems to be a more stable
parameter, some researchers review that child and adulthood resil-
ience reveal notable parallels as well as salient differences (Luthar
& Brown, 2007; Ong et al., 2009). Children and adolescents may be
less able than adults to report their resilience qualities. Using the
same measurement Resilience Scale (Wagnild & Young, 1993),
many researchers found that the average score of children or ado-
lescents were higher than that of adults (Cenat & Derivois, 2014;
do Rosário Pinheiro, & Matos, 2011; Ramirez-Maestre, Esteve, &
Lopez, 2012; Wagnild & Young, 1993). Child or adolescent resil-
ience is also typically understood in response to corrosive environ-
ments, while adult resilience is more often a matter of coping with
an isolated and usually brief traumatic event. Children and adoles-
cents require more long-term adaptive solutions than adults to
overcome their adversities (Bonanno, 2005).
Further, gender also moderated the relationship between trait
resilience and mental health. Specifically, as percentage of male
participants increased, a weaker effect size was observed. This
result is consistent with many findings (e.g., Bitsika et al., 2013;
Haddadi & Besharat, 2010). It reveals that more attention needs
to be paid to women than men when studying resilience and inter-
vention. The first reason is that the heritability of trait resilience is
lower among women compared to men (Boardman, Blalock, &
Button, 2008). Moreover, it is commonly believed that women
are ‘‘sicker than men’’, since they report poorer health than men
(McDonough & Walters, 2001). Men and women are socialized dif-
ferently, and engage in different roles in life. Compared to men,
women may derive more happiness from social networks and fam-
ily. Under the ‘‘cost of caring’’ hypothesis, women will experience
more adversities, especially chronic life stress, which is the most
important predictor of mental health status for women. However,
women have exhibited lower self-confidence, lower self-efficacy,
and less personal and material resources than men do (Costa,
Terracciano, & McCrae, 2001). When facing adversities, women
often have a weaker sense of mastery than men, and tend to rumi-
nate over problems, a coping style that have been shown to
lengthen depressive episodes (Nolen-Hoeksema, 1991). Thus,
attention to the relationship between trait resilience and mental
health is needed for women.
We also found that adversity moderated the relationship
between trait resilience and mental health. The effect sizes were
significantly stronger for people in adversity than those not in
adversities. The findings also partially support the views of
Connor and Davidson (2003) and Luthar and Cicchetti (2000) in
 T. Hu et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 76 (2015) 18–27
demonstrating that the role of resilience changes as adversity
changes. The type and scope of adversity, as one of the two
required elements of resilience, cover all negative life events
(internal or external to the individual) related to difficulties in
adaptation and mental disorder throughout the lifespan. Thus,
while nearly all individuals possess resilient characteristics, these
characteristics may fully manifest when faced with adversity. In
other words, trait resilience may comprise both innate and
acquired contents, both relatively stable and influenced by envi-
ronmental factors. Thus, increased opportunities for exposure to
adversity and life experience may be an important factor affecting
the trait resilience and even the relationship between trait resil-
ience and mental health; further research is needed to better
understand this relationship. However, the moderating effect–
albeit significant–is surprisingly weak, possibly due to an overlap
between the two groups. In other words, some people who are
assigned to the ‘‘no’’ group, in fact, have experienced, or are expe-
riencing adversities, but did not report them when queried.
Although the present meta-analysis was conducted in strict
accordance with relevant standards and procedures, it is important
to address several limitations. First, all included studies were pub-
lished in English. Not using other languages limited the breadth of
studies and excluded certain cultures or countries, etc. Second,
only depression, anxiety, negative affect (negative indicators), life
satisfaction, and positive affect (positive indicators) were selected
as indicators of mental health; other strong indicators, such as self-
esteem or self-efficacy, were excluded. Moreover, there may be
overlap between these selected indicators. Third, we only used
Pearson’s correlations to measure effect size; other indicators
(e.g., phi-coefficient, point-biserial correlation, and Spearman
rank-order correlation coefficient) were excluded. This limited
the number of studies included in the meta-analysis, thereby
potentially affecting the validity and popularization of the results.
Fourth, potential moderators were limited to age, gender, adver-
sity. Other variables such as ethnicity and specific indicator of
mental health should be investigated in future studies as they also
may affect the relationship between resilience and mental health.
Fifth, this meta-analysis only focused on the relationship between
trait-oriented resilience and mental health. Future research should
analyze the relationship between mental health and other types of
resilience. Finally, the present meta-analysis was based on cross-
sectional studies and caution should be taken in inferring a causal
relationship between trait resilience and mental health.
5. Conclusions
The present meta-analysis investigated 60 studies on the rela-
tionship between trait resilience and mental health. We found
the following: (1) Trait resilience was negatively correlated to neg-
ative indicators of mental health (depression, anxiety, and negative
affect) and positively correlated to positive indicators of mental
health (life satisfaction and positive affect). (2) Age moderated
the relationship between trait resilience and negative indicators
of mental health, with adults showing stronger than children and
adolescents. (3) Gender also moderated the relationship between
trait resilience and mental health. As percentage of male partici-
pants increased, a weaker effect size was observed. (4) Adversity
moderated the relationship between trait resilience and mental
health. The effect sizes were significantly stronger for people in
adversity than those not in adversities.
Acknowledgment
This study was supported by the 2014–2015 Key Project (No.
034) at the Key Humanity Social Science Research Institute in
Chongqing, China.
25
References
⁄
References marked with asterisk indicate studies included in the
meta-analysis.
⁄
Abiola, T., & Udofia, O. (2011). Psychometric assessment of the Wagnild and
Young’s resilience scale in Kano, Nigeria. BMC Research Notes, 4, 509.
⁄
Abolghasemi, A., & Varaniyab, S. T. (2010). Resilience and perceived stress:
Predictors of life satisfaction in the students of success and failure. Procedia –
Social and Behavioral Sciences, 5, 748–752.
Ahern, N. R., Kiehl, E. M., Sole, M. L., & Byers, J. (2006). A review of instruments
measuring resilience. Issues in Comprehensive Pediatric Nursing, 29, 103–125.
Aneshensel, C. S. (1992). Social stress: Theory and research. Annual Review of
Sociology, 18, 15–38.
⁄
Baek, H. S., Lee, K. U., Joo, E. J., Lee, M. Y., & Choi, K. S. (2010). Reliability and validity
of the Korean version of the Connor–Davidson resilience scale. Psychiatry
Investigation, 7, 109–115.
Bartone, P. T., Ursano, R. J., Wright, K. M., & Ingraham, L. H. (1989). The impact of a
military air disaster on the health of assistance workers: A prospective study.
The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 177, 317–328.
Beck, A. T., Ward, C. H., Mendelson, M., Mock, J., & Erbaugh, J. (1961). An inventory
for measuring depression. Archives of General Psychiatry, 4, 561–571.
⁄
Beutel, M. E., Glaesmer, H., Wiltink, J., Marian, H., & Brahler, E. (2010). Life
satisfaction, anxiety, depression and resilience across the life span of men. Aging
Male, 13, 32–39.
⁄
Bitsika, V., Sharpley, C. F., & Bell, R. (2013). The buffering effect of resilience upon
stress, anxiety and depression in parents of a child with an autism spectrum
disorder. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 25, 533–543.
Block, J. H., & Block, J. (1980). The role of ego-control and ego resiliency in the
organization of behavior. In W. A. Collins (Ed.), Minnesota symposium on child
psychology (pp. 39–101). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Block, J., & Kremen, A. M. (1996). IQ and ego-resiliency: Conceptual and empirical
connections and separateness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70,
349–361.
Boardman, J. D., Blalock, C. L., & Button, T. M. (2008). Sex differences in the
heritability of resilience. Twin Research and Human Genetics, 11, 12–27.
Bonanno, G. A. (2005). Resilience in the face of potential trauma. Current Directions
in Psychological Science, 14, 135–138.
Bromley, E., Johnson, J. G., & Cohen, P. (2006). Personality strengths in adolescence
and decreased risk of developing mental health problems in early adulthood.
Comprehensive Psychiatry, 47, 315–324.
⁄
Bruwer, B., Emsley, R., Kidd, M., Lochner, C., & Seedat, S. (2008). Psychometric
properties of the multidimensional scale of perceived social support in youth.
Comprehensive Psychiatry, 49, 195–201.
⁄
Burns, R. A., & Anstey, K. J. (2010). The Connor–Davidson resilience scale (CD-RISC):
Testing the invariance of a uni-dimensional resilience measure that is
independent of positive and negative affect. Personality and Individual
Differences, 48, 527–531.
⁄
Burns, R. A., Anstey, K. J., & Windsor, T. D. (2011). Subjective well-being mediates
the effects of resilience and mastery on depression and anxiety in a large
community sample of young and middle-aged adults. Australian and New
Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 45, 240–248.
Campell-Sills, L., & Stein, M. B. (2007). Psychometric analysis and refinement of the
Connor–Davidson resilience scale (CD-RISC): Validation of a 10 item measure of
resilience. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 20, 1019–1028.
⁄
Cenat, J. M., & Derivois, D. (2014). Psychometric properties of the Creole Haitian
version of the resilience scale amongst child and adolescent survivors of the
2010 earthquake. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 55, 388–395.
Cohen, J. (1969). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York, NY:
Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
⁄
Cohn, M. A., Fredrickson, B. L., Brown, S. L., Mikels, J. A., & Conway, A. M. (2009).
Happiness unpacked: Positive emotions increase life satisfaction by building
resilience. Emotion, 9, 361–368.
Connor, K. M., & Davidson, J. R. T. (2003). Development of a new resilience scale: The
Connor–Davidson resilience scale (CD-RISC). Depression and Anxiety, 18, 76–82.
Cooper, H. M. (1998). Synthesizing research: A guide for literature reviews (Vol. 2).
Sage.
Costa, P., Jr, Terracciano, A., & McCrae, R. R. (2001). Gender differences in personality
traits across cultures: Robust and surprising findings. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 81, 322–331.
Davydov, D. M., Stewart, R., Ritchie, K., & Chaudieu, I. (2010). Resilience and mental
health. Clinical Psychology Review, 30, 479–495.
Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larson, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life
scale: A measure of life satisfaction. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 1–5.
⁄
do Rosário Pinheiro, M., & Matos, A. P. (2011). Exploring the construct validity of
the two versions of the resilience scale in an Portuguese adolescent sample.
Comprehensive Psychiatry, 52, 218–224.
⁄
Ebrahimi, A., Keykhosrovani, M., Dehghani, M., & Javdan, M. (2012). Investigating
the relationship between resiliency, spiritual intelligence and mental health of a
group of undergraduate students. Life Science Journal, 9, 67–70.
Fergus, S., & Zimmerman, M. A. (2005). Adolescent resilience: A framework for
understanding healthy development in the face of risk. Annual Review of Public
Health, 6, 399–419.
Fletcher, D., & Sarkar, M. (2013). Psychological resilience: A review and critique of
definitions, concepts, and theory. European Psychologist, 18, 12–23.
26 T. Hu et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 76 (2015) 18–27
⁄ ⁄
Fredrickson, B. L., Tugade, M. M., Waugh, C. E., & Larkin, G. R. (2003). What good are
positive emotions in crises: A prospective study of resilience and emotions
following the terrorist attacks. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84,
365–376.
⁄
Goins, R. T., Gregg, J. J., & Fiske, A. (2012). Psychometric properties of the Connor–
Davidson resilience scale with older American Indians: The native elder care
study. Research on Aging, 35, 123–143.
⁄
Goldstein, A. L., Faulkner, B., & Wekerle, C. (2013). The relationship among internal
resilience, smoking, alcohol use, and depression symptoms in emerging adults
transitioning out of child welfare. Child Abuse and Neglect, 37, 22–32.
Greenspoon, P. J., & Saklofske, D. H. (2001). Toward an integration of subjective
well-being and psychopathology. Social Indicators Research, 54, 81–108.
⁄
Haddadi, P., & Besharat, M. A. (2010). Resilience, vulnerability and mental health.
Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 5, 639–642.
Harvey, J., & Delfabbro, P. H. (2004). Psychological resilience in disadvantaged
youth: A critical overview. Australian Psychologist, 39, 3–13.
Haskett, M. E., Nears, K., Sabourin Ward, C., & McPherson, A. V. (2006). Diversity in
adjustment of maltreated children: Factors associated with resilient
functioning. Clinical Psychology Review, 26, 796–812.
⁄ ⁄
Hasui, C., Igarashi, H., Shikai, N., Shono, M., Nagata, T., & Kitamura, T. (2009). The
resilience scale: A duplication study in Japan. The Open Family Studies Journal, 2,
15–22.
⁄
Hayter, M. R., & Dorstyn, D. S. (2014). Resilience, self-esteem and self-compassion
in adults with spina bifida. Child Abuse & Neglect, 52, 167–171.
⁄ ⁄
Heilemann, M. V., Lee, K. A., & Kury, F. S. (2002). Strengths and vulnerabilities of
women. Nursing Research, 51, 175–182.
Howell, R. T., & Howell, C. J. (2008). The relation of economic status to subjective
well-being in developing countries: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 134,
536–560.
⁄
Karairmak, O. (2010). Establishing the psychometric qualities of the Connor–
Davidson resilience scale (CD-RISC) using exploratory and confirmatory factor
analysis in a trauma survivor sample. Psychiatry Research, 179, 350–356.
Karreman, A., & Vingerhoets, A. (2012). Attachment and well-being: The mediating
role of emotion regulation and resilience. Personality and Individual Differences,
53, 821–826.
⁄ ⁄
Klasen, F., Oettingen, G., Daniels, J., Post, M., & Hoyer, C. (2010). Posttraumatic
resilience in former Ugandan child soldiers. Child Development, 81, 1096–1113.
⁄
Klibert, J., Lamis, D. A., Collins, W., Smalley, K. B., Warren, J. C., Yancey, C. T., et al.
(2014). Resilience mediates the relations between perfectionism and college
student distress. Journal of Counseling and Development, 92, 75–82.
Klohnen, E. C. (1996). Conceptual analysis and measurement of the construct of
ego-resiliency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 1067–1079.
Lau, J., Ioannidis, J. P., Terrin, N., Schmid, C. H., & Olkin, I. (2006). Evidence based
medicine: The case of the misleading funnel plot. British Medical Journal, 333,
597.
Lazarus, R. S. (1993). From psychological stress to emotions: A history of changing
outlooks. Annual Review of Psychology, 44, 1–21.
⁄
Lee, H., & Williams, R. A. (2013). Effects of parental alcoholism, sense of belonging,
and resilience on depressive symptoms: A path model. Substance Use and
Misuse, 48, 265–273.
⁄
Lei, M., Li, C., Xiao, X., Qiu, J., Dai, Y., & Zhang, Q. (2012). Evaluation of the
psychometric properties of the Chinese version of the resilience scale in
Wenchuan earthquake survivors. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 53, 616–622.
⁄ ⁄
Liu, Y., Wang, Z. H., & Li, Z. G. (2012). Affective mediators of the influence of
neuroticism and resilience on life satisfaction. Personality and Individual
Differences, 52, 833–838.
⁄
Liu, Y., Wang, Z., & Lü, W. (2013). Resilience and affect balance as mediators
between trait emotional intelligence and life satisfaction. Personality and
Individual Differences, 54, 850–855.
⁄
Liu, Y., Wang, Z., Zhou, C., & Li, T. (2014). Affect and self-esteem as mediators
between trait resilience and psychological adjustment. Personality and
Individual Differences, 66, 92–97.
⁄
Lü, W., Wang, Z., Liu, Y., & Zhang, H. (2014). Resilience as a mediator between
extraversion, neuroticism and happiness, PA and NA. Personality and Individual
Differences, 63, 128–133.
Luthar, S. S., & Brown, P. J. (2007). Maximizing resilience through diverse levels of
inquiry: Prevailing paradigms, possibilities, and priorities for the future.
Development and Psychopathology, 19, 931–955.
Luthar, S. S., & Cicchetti, D. (2000). The construct of resilience: Implications for
interventions and social policies. Development and Psychopathology, 12,
857–885.
Luthar, S. S., Cicchetti, D., & Becker, B. (2000). Research on resilience: Response to
commentaries. Child Development, 71, 573–575.
⁄ ⁄
Mak, W. W., Ng, I. S., & Wong, C. C. (2011). Resilience: Enhancing well-being
through the positive cognitive triad. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 58,
610–617.
Masten, A. S. (2001). Ordinary magic: Resilience processes in development.
American Psychologist, 56, 227–238.
Masten, A. S., Monn, A. R., Supkoff, L. M., Southwick, S., Litz, B., Charney, D., &
Friedman, M. (2011). Resilience in children and adolescents. Resilience and
mental health: Challenges across the lifespan, (pp. 103–119).
McDonough, P., & Walters, V. (2001). Gender and health: Reassessing patterns and
explanations. Social Science & Medicine, 5, 547–559.
⁄
Miller, A. M., & Chandler, P. J. (2002). Acculturation, resilience, and depression in
midlife women from the former Soviet Union. Nursing Research, 51, 26–32.
Min, J. A., Yu, J. J., Lee, C. U., & Chae, J. H. (2013). Cognitive emotion regulation
strategies contributing to resilience in patients with depression and/or anxiety
disorders. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 54, 1190–1197.
⁄
Mitchell, S. J., & Ronzio, C. R. (2011). Violence and other stressful life events as
triggers of depression and anxiety: What psychosocial resources protect African
American mothers? Maternal and Child Health Journal, 15, 1272–1281.
⁄
Moon, J. R., Jung, Y. Y., Huh, J., Kang, I. S., Park, S. W., Yang, J. H., & Lee, H. J. (2006).
Relationship between depression and resilience in adolescents with congenital
heart disease. Korean Journal of Pediatrics, 49, 523–528.
⁄
Moorhouse, A., & Caltabiano, M. L. (2007). Resilience and unemployment:
Exploring risk and protective influences for the outcome variables of
depression and assertive job searching. Journal of Employment Counseling, 44,
115–125.
⁄
Nath, P., & Pradhan, R. K. (2012). Influence of positive affect on physical health and
psychological well-being: Examining the mediating role of psychological
resilience. Journal of Health Management, 14, 161–174.
⁄
Ng, R., Ang, R. P., & Ho, M.-H. R. (2012). Coping with anxiety, depression, anger and
aggression: The mediational role of resilience in adolescents. Child and Youth
Care Forum, 41, 529–546.
Nishi, D., Uehara, R., Kondo, M., & Matsuoka, Y. (2010). Reliability and validity of
the Japanese version of the resilience scale and its short version. BMC Research
Notes, 3, 310.
Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (1991). Responses to depression and their effects on the
duration of depressive episodes. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 100, 569–582.
Okun, M., Rios, R. A., Crawford, A. V., & Levy, R. (2011). Does the relation between
volunteering and well-being vary with health and age? The International Journal
of Aging and Human Development, 72, 265–287.
⁄
Ong, A. D., Bergeman, C. S., Bisconti, T. L., & Wallace, K. A. (2006). Psychological
resilience, positive emotions, and successful adaptation to stress in later life.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 730–749.
Ong, A. D., Bergeman, C. S., & Boker, S. M. (2009). Resilience comes of age: Defining
features in later adulthood. Journal of Personality, 77, 1777–1804.
⁄
Ong, A. D., Zautra, A. J., & Reid, M. C. (2010). Psychological resilience predicts
decreases in pain catastrophizing through positive emotions. Psychology and
Aging, 25, 516–523.
Otto, M. L., Howerter, A., Bell, I. R., & Jackson, N. (2010). Exploring measures of
whole person wellness: Integrative well-being and psychological flourishing.
Explore: The Journal of Science and Healing, 6, 364–370.
⁄
Özbey, S., Büyüktanir, A., & Türkoglu, D. (2014). An investigation of preservice pre-
school teachers’ resilience skills. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116,
4040–4046.
Peterson, R. A., & Reiss, S. (1992). The anxiety sensitivity index manual. Worthington,
OH: International Diagnostic Systems.
⁄
Petros, N., Opacka-Juffry, J., & Huber, J. H. (2013). Psychometric and neurobiological
assessment of resilience in a non-clinical sample of adults.
Psychoneuroendocrinology, 38, 2099–2108.
⁄
Pietrzak, R. H., Johnson, D. C., Goldstein, M. B., Malley, J. C., Rivers, A. J., Morgan, C.
A., et al. (2010). Psychosocial buffers of traumatic stress, depressive symptoms,
and psychosocial difficulties in veterans of Operations Enduring Freedom and
Iraqi Freedom: The role of resilience, unit support, and postdeployment social
support. Journal of Affective Disorders, 120, 188–192.
Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES-D scale: A self-report depression scale for research in
the general population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, 385–401.
Ramirez-Maestre, C., Esteve, R., & Lopez, A. E. (2012). The path to capacity:
Resilience and spinal chronic pain. Spine, 37, E251–E258.
Ramírez-Maestre, C., Martínez, A. E. L., & Zarazaga, R. E. (2004). Personality
characteristics as differential variables of the pain experience. Journal of
Behavioral Medicine, 27, 147–165.
⁄
Robottom, B. J., Gruber-Baldini, A. L., Anderson, K. E., Reich, S. G., Fishman, P. S.,
Weiner, W. J., et al. (2012). What determines resilience in patients with
Parkinson’s disease? Parkinsonism and Related Disorders, 18, 174–177.
Roisman, G. I., Newman, D. A., Fraley, R. C., Haltigan, J. D., Groh, A. M., & Haydon, K.
C. (2012). Distinguishing differential susceptibility from diathesis-stress:
Recommendations for evaluating interaction effects. Development and
Psychopathology, 24, 389–409.
Rosenthal, R. (1979). The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results.
Psychological Bulletin, 86, 638–641.
⁄
Rossi, N. E., Bisconti, T. L., & Bergeman, C. S. (2007). The role of dispositional
resilience in regaining life satisfaction after the loss of a spouse. Death Studies,
31, 863–883.
⁄
Runkewitz, K., Kirchmann, H., & Strauss, B. (2006). Anxiety and depression in
primary care patients: Predictors of symptom severity and developmental
correlates. Journal Psychosomatic Research, 60, 445–453.
Santos, F. R., Bernardo, V., Gabbay, M. A., Dib, S. A., & Sigulem, D. (2013). The impact
of knowledge about diabetes. Diabetology and Metabolic Syndrome, 5, 55.
⁄
Simpson, G., & Jones, K. (2013). How important is resilience among family
members supporting relatives with traumatic brain injury or spinal cord injury?
Clinical Rehabilitation, 27, 367–377.
⁄
Singh & Yu, X. (2010). Psychometric evaluation of the Connor–Davidson resilience
scale (CD-RISC) in a sample of Indian students. Journal of Psychology, 1, 23–30.
⁄
Spies, G., & Seedat, S. (2014). Depression and resilience in women with HIV and
early life stress: Does trauma play a mediating role? A cross-sectional study.
BMJ Open, 4, e004200.
Suldo, S. M., & Shaffer, E. J. (2008). Looking beyond psychopathology: The dual-
factor model of mental health in youth. School Psychology Review, 37, 52–68.
 T. Hu et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 76 (2015) 18–27
⁄ ⁄
Wagnild, G. M., & Young, H. M. (1993). Development and psychometric
evaluation of the resilience scale. Journal of Nursing Measurement, 1, 165–
178.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief
measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1070.
⁄
Wells, M., Avers, D., & Brooks, G. (2012). Resilience, physical performance
measures, and self-perceived physical and mental health in older Catholic
nuns. Journal of Geriatric Physical Therapy, 35, 126–131.
⁄
White, B., Driver, S., & Warren, A. M. (2010). Resilience and indicators of
adjustment during rehabilitation from a spinal cord injury. Rehabilitation
Psychology, 55, 23–32.
Wilson, D. B., & Lipsey, M. W. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Opbubyak gpepey nawbb
(cv. <http://www. mason. gmu. edu/>).
Windle, G. (2011). Psychological resilience as a resource for later life. Gerontologist,
51, 331.
Windle, G., Bennett, K. M., & Noyes, J. (2011). A methodological review of resilience
measurement scales. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 9, 1–18.
27
Xing, C., & Sun, J. M. (2013). The role of psychological resilience and positive affect
in risky decision-making. International Journal of Psychology, 48, 935–943.
⁄
Ying, L., Wu, X., Lin, C., & jiang, L. (2014). Traumatic severity and trait resilience as
predictors of posttraumatic stress disorder and depressive symptoms among
adolescent survivors of the Wenchuan earthquake. PLoS One, 9, e89401.
⁄
Yu, X. N., Lau, J. T., Mak, W. W., Zhang, J., Lui, W. W., & Zhang, J. (2011). Factor
structure and psychometric properties of the Connor–Davidson resilience scale
among Chinese adolescents. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 52, 218–224.
⁄
Yu, X., Stewart, S. M., Liu, I. K., & Lam, T. H. (2014). Resilience and depressive
symptoms in mainland Chinese immigrants to Hong Kong. Social Psychiatry and
Psychiatric Epidemiology, 49, 241–249.
⁄
Yu, X., & Zhang, J. (2007). Factor analysis and psychometric evaluation of the
Connor–Davidson resilience scale (CD-RISC) with Chinese people. Social
Behavior and Personality, 35, 19–30.
Zung, W. W. K. (1965). A self-rating depression scale. Archives of General Psychiatry,
12, 53–70.
Zung, W. W. K. (1971). A rating instrument for anxiety disorders. Psychosomatics, 12,
371–379.