Professional Documents
Culture Documents
8 TraArslanHamarta
8 TraArslanHamarta
net/publication/303750553
CITATIONS READS
16 1,669
4 authors, including:
Erdal Hamarta
Necmettin Erbakan Üniversitesi
67 PUBLICATIONS 1,033 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Erdal Hamarta on 02 June 2016.
Assist. Prof. Dr., Necmettin Erbakan University, Faculty of A.K. Education, Konya (TURKEY)
*Corresponding author: coskunarslan@konya.edu.tr
DOI: 10.7813/2075-4124.2013/5-3/B.49
ABSTRACT
The basic purpose of the present study is to examine whether university students’ self esteem and social
self-efficacy levels predict resilience or not. In line with this purpose, the researchers examined the correlation
between self-esteem and social self-efficacy and resilience scores in addition to whether self-esteem and social
self-efficacy levels are predictors of resilience. 532 university students studying at first, second, third and fourth
grades of various departments of Selcuk University participated in the study. 254 (48%) of these students were
females, while 278 (52%) of them were males. As the data collection instruments, Resilience Scale (Terzi, 2006),
Rosenberg Self-esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965), adapted into Turkish by Cuhadaroglu (1986) and Social Self-
efficacy Scale (Palanci, 2004) were used. Pearson conduct moment correlation and hierarchical regression
analysis techniques were used to analyze the data. There was a positive correlation between self-esteem and
resilience scores (r=.41, p<.01); similarly, there was a positive correlation between resilience and social self-
efficacy(r=.42, p<.01). According to hierarchical regression analysis results, it was found that self-esteem and
2
social self-efficacy variables significantly predict resilience (R =.24, F(2/529)=83.51, p<.01).
1. INTRODUCTION
There are differences between people’s living conditions and opportunities in our country as it is the case
anywhere else. According to 2006 World Development Report, what is meant by opportunity is access to a healthy
and long life, in which there is no material and social poverty (World Bank, 2006). For example, such properties as
family, gender, the society which the individual was born into, the time of birth, education and health systems,
which a person takes for granted, bring various opportunities or impossibilities with them. On the other hand,
individuals have some living conditions that might be changed with individual struggle and initiation. Some
examples for these conditions might be the struggles of individuals who were born into disadvantaged families or
regions to draw a road map for themselves, meet their developmental needs on their own and be successful
despite unfavourable conditions. This concept which is commonly referred to as indomitableness and resilience
accounts for such a case. There are ignored and abused children in the society who experienced extreme poverty,
who were exposed to violence, who stayed away from their parents and their caretakers for a long time, who had a
serious accident, witnessed the death of their relatives or experienced prolonged failure at school (Henderson and
Milstein, 1996). The number of children who exhibit antisocial behaviour is higher among such children under risk
in comparison with that of the children in normal population. However, despite such risk factors, social scientists
were surprised by the fact that there are a considerable number of children who will continue their lives without
exhibiting any antisocial behaviour within this risky group (Ogulmus, 2001). Therefore, researchers have
extensively investigated what the positive effects on these people are (Glantz and Sloboda; 1999, Dogan, 2006;
Karairmak, 2006; Terzi, 2006).
Two terms are involved in the concept resilience; that is, “individual” and “situation.” The words “resilient”
and “resilience” are used to refer to people who, despite unfavourable living conditions, successfully adapt
themselves to the environment and acquire unexpected success under challenging conditions and have the ability
to adapt themselves to extraordinary conditions and situations (Terzi, 2008). The term resilience has been used to
define three main phenomena in the literature. First, it is used as a characteristic feature that enables individuals
overcoming difficulties and exhibit stronger development than expected to stand on their own feet despite
negativities (under high levels of risk) (Masten, Morison, Pellegrini &Teliegen; 1990). In other words, in such a case
there are unexpected positive results. If such positive results are due to favourable environmental conditions, it is
said that resilience does not play any role in them (Glantz and Sloboda; 1999). Second, resilience indicates a
person’s quick adaptation to successful life experiences; for example, basic stress factors such as divorce and
conflict in the family or various other stress factors that have become apparent a short time ago. Third, it involves
overcoming trauma (such as the death of parents or siblings). Personal characteristics are important factors that
play a significant role in keeping a person safe from potential effects of trauma (Masten, Morison, Pellegrini
&Teliegen; 1990).
2.3.5. Procedure
In this study, the analysis of the data obtained through the scales administered was carried out using SPSS
16.00 software; the statistical significance level was expected to be 0.05 and 0.01. Pearson conduct moment
correlation technique was used to analyze the correlation between university students’ resilience scores and their
self-esteem and social self-efficacy scores. Whether self-esteem and social self-efficacy significantly predicted
resilience was tested with hierarchical regression analysis.
3. FINDINGS
Descriptive Statistics on the Participants’ Scores for Self-Respect, Social Self-efficacy, and Resilience Levels
N X ss
Self-esteem 532 30.94 4.67
Social Self-efficacy 532 86.08 17.02
Resilience 532 123.28 24.08
The means and standard deviations of the scores that participants obtained from self-esteem, social self-
efficacy and resilience scales are presented in Table 1. Higher scores in the scales indicate higher levels of social
self-efficacy, self-esteem and resilience.
The correlational data for learners’ scores in Resilience Scale and Self-esteem Scale and Social Self-
efficacy Scale are presented in Table 2.
Table 2. Correlational data on the Participants’ Scores for the RS, RSRS and SSES
N= 532; **p<.01
As it is seen in Table 2, it was found that there is a positive correlation between resilience and self-esteem
scores (r=.41, p<.01); similarly, there is a positive correlation between resilience and social self-efficacy scores
(r=.42, p<.01). Based on this finding, it is concluded that as learners resilience scores increase their self-esteem
and social self-efficacy scores increase as well.
Findings about the regression analysis of the learners’ self-esteem and social self-efficacy scores on
resilience scores
Table 3 presents the hierarchical regression analysis results of the learners’ scores in Self-esteem Scale
and Social Self-efficacy Scale on their Resilience Scale scores.
**p<.01
It is seen that the authentic contribution of self-esteem that is initially included in the model developed to
2
account for resilience is significant (R =.17, F(1/530)=106.80, p>.01). It is seen that the authentic contribution of self-
2
esteem and social self-efficacy included in the model in the second step is significant (R =.24, F(2/529)=83.51,
p<.01).Standardized regression coefficient () indicates that predictive variables have authentic contributions to
resilience. When self-esteem is included in the model by itself, it is seen that it has authentic contribution at =.41,
p<.01 and when it is included in the model together with social self-efficacy, it’s seen that self-esteem was apparent
at =.27, p<.01 and social self-efficacy was seen at =.30, p<.01.
Based on this, self-esteem and the independent variable account for 17% of the total variance on their own
in resilience. In addition, when self-esteem and social self-efficacy are included in the model together, they explain
24% of total variance in resilience.
4. DISCUSSIONS
The findings of the present research indicate that the mean of the learners’self-esteem scores is 30.94.
Considering that the highest score that can be obtained from Rosenberg Self-esteem Scale is 40, it can be said
that the learners had a higher level of self-perception. The significant positive correlation between self-esteem and
resilience can be attributed to the fact that self-esteem is among individual protective factors that support resilience
(Eminagaoglu, 2006 and Karairmak, 2006). Self-esteem can be defined as an individual’s considering himself or
herself as skilful, important, valuable and successful (Coopersmith, 1967) or it functions as a key to the notion of
social self-efficacy that refers to effective use of individual capacity (Bandura, 1993). The strong correlation
between self-esteem and resilience can be attributed to the fact that those with a higher level of self-esteem are
optimistic and persistent individuals with a strong will for success (Coopersmith, 1967). Therefore, a high level of
self-esteem not only helps individuals to develop themselves despite existing challenges, but it also protects them
against possible risks (Terzi, 2006). When the literature is examined, it is found that there is a negative correlation
between drug use and resilience or self-esteem (Veselska, Geckova, Orosova, Gajdosova, Dijk and Reijneveld;
2009) and that self-esteem is a significant predictor of social self-efficacy, social support and optimism
(Karademas, 2006). The finding that there is a positive significant correlation between self-esteem and resilience
(Benetti and Kambouropoulos, 2006) concords with findings of the present study.
The positive significant correlation between the level of social self-efficacy and resilience can be attributed
to individual protective factors in resilience (Eminagaoglu, 2006 and Karairmak, 2006). The notion of social self-
efficacy is apparent as a predictor of academic success (Hampton and Mason; 2003; Yazici, Seyis and Altun,
2010), in coping with stress seen after traumatic experiences such as natural or technological disasters and sexual
REFERENCES
1. Arslan C. (2009). Anger, self esteem and perceived social support in adolescence, Journal of Social
Behavior and Personality (37), 555-564.
2. Benetti C. & Kambouropoulos N. (2006). Affect-regulated indirect effects of trait anxiety and trait
resilience on self-esteem. Personality and Individual Differences, (41), 341-352.
3. Benight C.C. & Bandura A. (2004). Social cognitive theory of posttraumatic recovery: the role of
perceived self-efficacy. Behavior Research and Therapy, (42), 1129-1148.
4. Brouwers A. & Tomic W. (2000). A longitudinal study of teacher burnout and perceived self-efficacy in
classroom management. Teaching and Teacher Education, (16), 239-253.
5. Coopersmith S. (1967). The antecedents of self esteem.San Francisco: W.H. Freeman & Company.
6. Cuhadaroglu F. (1986). Adolesanlarda benlik saygisi. Yayinlanmamis Uzmanlik Tezi Hacettepe
Universitesi, Ankara.
7. Dogan T. (2006), Universite Ogrencilerinin Sosyal Zeka Duzeylerinin Depresyon Ve Bazi Degiskenler
Acisindan İncelenmesi, Yayinlanmamis Yuksek Lisans Tezi, Sakarya Universitesi Sosyal Bilimler
Enstitusu, Sakarya.
8. Dolbier C.L., Smith S.E. & Steinhardt M.A. (2007) Relationships of Protective Factors to Stres and
Symptoms of Illness. American Journal of Health Behavior, 31(4),423-433.
9. Dunya Bankasi (2006). “Dunya Kalkinma Raporu, Kalkinma ve Esitlik” World Development Report,,
Development and Equity, Oxford University Pres, Washington, D.C.
10. Efe M., Ozturk F., Koparan S. & Ozkilic R. (2008). The Effect of 5 Months Individiual and Teamsport
Trainings. E-Journal of New World Sciences Academy, 3(2), 99-107.
11. Eminagaoglu N.(2006). Guc Kosullarda Yasayan Sokak Cocuklarinda Dayaniklilik, Yayimlanmamis
Doktora Tezi, Ege Universitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitusu, İzmir.
12. Friesen B.J. (2007). Recovery and resilience in Children’s Mental Health:View from the Field.
Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal, 31(1),38-48.
13. Gizir C.A., (2004). Akademic resilience: An investigation of protective factors contributing to the
academic achievement of eighth grade students in poverty. Yayinlanmamis Doktota Tezi, Ortadogu
Teknik Universitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitusu, Ankara.
14. Glantz M.D. & Sloboda Z. (1999). Analysis and Reconceptualization of Resilience. In M. D. Glantz, J.
L. Johnson (Eds.), Resilience and Development: Positive Life Adaptations (pp. 109-126). New York:
Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
15. Guo Y., Piasta S.B., Justice L.M. & Kadevarek J.( 2010). Relations among preschool teachers’ self-
efficacy, classroom quality and children’s language and literacy gains. Teaching and Teacher
Education, (26), 1094-1103.
16. Hampton N.Z. & Mason E. (2003). Learning Disabilities, Gender, Sources of Efficacy, Self-Efficacy
Beliefs and Academic Achievement in High School Students. Journal of School Psychology, 41,
101-112.
17. Henderson N. & Milstein M.M. (1996). Resiliency in schools: Making it happen for students and
educators. Thousand Oaks, California, Corwin Pres.
18. Karademas E.C. (2006). Self-efficacy, social support and well-being: The mediating role of optimism.
Journal of Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 1281-1290.
19. Karairmak O.,(2006). Psikolojik Saglamlik Risk Faktorleri ve Koruyucu Faktorler, Turk Psikolojik
Danisma ve Rehberlik Dergisi, 26, 129-139.