J Happiness Stud

DOI 10.1007/s10902-013-9467-2

RESEARCH PAPER

Be Happy: The Role of Resilience Between Characteristic

Affect and Symptoms of Depression

Jennifer M. I. Loh • Nicola S. Schutte • Einar B. Thorsteinsson

Ó Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Abstract Characteristic affect may influence the development of resilience. Higher

levels of resilience may in turn decrease the likelihood of individuals developing symp-
toms of depression. All first year psychology students (N = 217) were recruited in this
longitudinal study to examine whether resilience mediates the relationship between
characteristic affect and symptoms of depression. One hundred and seven students com-
pleted survey measures at the start of a semester and again 3 months later. Results indi-
cated that greater negative affect predicted worsening of depressive symptoms over
3 months, while greater positive affect predicted a lessening of depressive symptoms over
3 months. Resilience fully mediated the effects of positive affect on change in depression
and partly mediated the effects of negative affect on change in depression. These results
are interpreted in the context of a hierarchical model of affect and the Broaden and Build
Theory, which may explain how resilience arises from positive affect and mediates
between affect and symptoms of depression over time.

Keywords Affect  Resilience  Depression  Longitudinal study

1 Introduction

Individuals differ in their characteristic levels of positive and negative affect and these
affect dimensions are relatively independent of one another (Diener and Emmons 1984;
Watson et al. 1988). Low positive affect and high negative affect are both linked to more
symptoms of depression, with the two affect dimensions making independent contributions

J. M. I. Loh (&)
Faculty of Computing, School of Psychology and Social Science,
Health and Science, Edith Cowan University, Perth, WA 6027, Australia
e-mail: [email protected]

N. S. Schutte  E. B. Thorsteinsson
University of New England, Armidale, NSW, Australia

123
 J. M. I. Loh et al.

(Crawford and Henry 2004; Watson et al. 1988). Positive and negative affect can be stable
characteristics of an individual, similar to other traits, as well as temporary states (Watson
et al. 1988).
A hierarchical affect structure may have as its base the characteristic dimensions of
positive affect and negative affect with specific emotions, such as happiness, sadness and
fear as well as emotional disorders, such as depression, found at the higher levels of the
hierarchy (Crawford and Henry 2004; Watson and Clark 1992; Watson et al. 2008).

1.1 Broaden and Build Theory: Positive Affect

The broaden and build theory (Fredrickson 2001, 2003; Fredrickson and Joiner 2002)
suggests a dynamic mechanism through which positive and negative affect may lead to
different life outcomes. The broaden and build theory of positive emotions (Fredrickson
1998; Fredrickson and Cohn 2008) posits that positive affect are evolved adaptations which
broaden individuals’ thought and action capabilities through encouraging processes such as
play and exploration (Fredrickson and Losada 2005). Over time, this broadening enhances
personal resources, social skills and adaptive flexibility. Enhanced personal resources and
skills in turn lead to better life outcomes, including ones such as the formation of close
relationships (Waugh and Fredrickson 2006). In contrast, negative emotions may narrow
attention, cognition, and physiology capabilities by focusing attention on a specific threat
or by promoting avoidance behaviour (Carver 2003; Cosmides and Tooby 2000; Fred-
rickson and Losada 2005). This narrowing may lead to less building of resources which in
turn may lead to poorer life outcomes.
Empirical evidence supports the broaden and build theory. High characteristic positive
affect predicts a variety of outcomes, ranging from work success to longevity (Fredrickson
and Losada 2005). Experimental interventions designed to increase positive affect have led
to broadened behavioural and cognitive repertoires (Fredrickson and Branigan 2005;
Fredrickson et al. 2008; Isen et al. 1987). For example, in a randomised controlled trial
study, Fredrickson et al. (2008) found that a 6 weeks long meditation program designed to
increase positive emotions resulted in increased positive affects and personal resources.
Degree of increase in positive emotions was associated with improved social support,
mindfulness, purpose in life and a reduction in illness symptoms. Similarly, Tugade and
Fredrickson (2007) found that cultivating positive affect increased personal resources, life
satisfaction and resilience (Tugade and Fredrickson 2007). In other words, positive affect is
the ‘‘fuel’’ for resilience. It enables individuals to find meaning in otherwise meaningless
and highly stressful situations (Tugade and Fredrickson 2007; Waugh et al. 2008).
Werner (1985) noted that resilient individuals easily adapt and adjust quickly to major
life events as well as stressful life transitions (Beasley et al. 2003). Resilience is a resource
that guards against the development of psychiatric disturbances, and is an important
influence in the healthy adjustment to life stresses (Friborg et al. 2003). Thus, resilience
may be an important underlying mechanism between adversities and life outcomes.

1.2 Resilience

Resilience has been broadly conceptualised as the capacity to recover from adversity and
encompasses a dynamic process of positive adaptation (Luthar et al. 2000). Resilience
constitutes protective processes (e.g., resources, competencies, talents and skills) that
reside within the individual, within the family or peer network and within the community
(Garmezy 1991; Werner 1985). The accumulation of these ‘‘protective factors’’ gives rise

123
The Role of Resilience

to resilience. These ‘‘protective factors’’ become increasingly important as individuals are

exposed to greater risk factors (Zautra et al. 2010). According to this view, most of us have
the ability to be resilient and that resilience is in itself a normal adaptive function which
enables us to withstand as well as recover from threatening challenges (Bonanno 2004;
Bonanno et al. 2004a, b; Masten 2001). These conceptualisations focus on resilience as a
process; describing factors involved in promoting well-being of individuals and protecting
the individuals against risk.
Despite the usefulness of the above conceptualisation of resilience, debates within the
literature remain regarding how many protective factors are needed to overcome risk
factors. Research has found that some individuals, irrespective of number of risk factors,
are simply more resilient than others. In other words, these individuals have high ego or
trait resilient. Ego or trait resilient refers to an individual’s ability to respond adaptively
and resourcefully to new structures (Block and Kreman 1996); such adaptive responding
may include the ability to self regulate and to develop intellectual skills to help solve
problems.
Individuals with high trait resilience tend to show more flexibility when faced with
changing demands, more openness to new experiences and demonstrate a greater ability to
self regulate themselves under adversities (Block and Kreman 1996; Fredrickson and
Levenson 1998; Isen et al. 1987; Luthar et al. 2000; Tugade and Fredrickson 2004). Thus,
high trait resilience individuals tend to have the ability to appropriately and actively self
regulate themselves whereas low trait resilience individuals tend to either over or under-
regulate themselves (Block and Kreman 1996; Tugade and Fredrickson 2007). This indi-
vidual difference in adaptation is significant considering that previous studies have found
that some people are more typically resilient than others despite encountering the same
risks or extreme life events (e.g., low SES; Werner and Smith 1992, 2001; or e.g., Warfare,
Florian et al. 1995).
According to Blocks, the ability for highly flexible individuals to control their adaptive
ability is essential to resilience (Block 2002; Block and Block 1980). Studies have found
that highly flexible individuals tend to have higher level of self confidence and better
psychological adjustment. More importantly, these individuals tend to experience positive
affect more often than less flexible individuals and that this ‘‘positive affect’’ seems to
contribute to their overall resilience (Block and Kreman 1996; Letzring et al. 2005;
Klohnen 1996). This close conceptual link between positive affect and resilience provides
the rationale for our adoption of Block and Kreman (1996)’s conceptualisation of
resilience.

1.3 Positive Affect and Resilience

Several studies have found positive emotions to be associated with more resilience and
negative emotions to be associated with less resilience (Fredrickson et al. 2003). In a study
which examined the duration of participants’ emotional response to a negative video,
Hemenover (2003) found that extraverted or emotionally stable individuals (traits related
to resilience) recovered more rapidly emotionally than introverts or highly neurotic indi-
viduals. Similarly, Waugh et al. (2008) presented participants with cues (aversive, threat,
safety) which signalled the likelihood of an upcoming picture being 100 % aversive, 50/50
aversive/neutral, or 100 % neutral. Participants were then asked to rate their affective state.
Waugh et al. (2008) found that relative to other individuals, resilient individuals reported
more positive emotions and more rapid emotional recovery after viewing a neutral picture
that could have been aversive. Others have found that when faced with a stressor (e.g.,

123
 J. M. I. Loh et al.

giving a public speech), high trait resilient individuals exhibited faster cardiovascular
recovery than low trait resilient individuals (Tugade and Fredrickson 2004). Broad minded
problem solving ability was also found to be related to positive mood (Burns et al. 2008).
These findings suggest that resilience may be related to positive affect.

1.4 Resilience and Depression

Depression is a common mental disorder and has been predicted to be the number one
cause of disability in both the developed and developing worlds by 2030 (World Health
Organisation 2008). A number of studies found that greater resilience is associated with
substantially fewer negative life outcomes such as depression (Smith et al. 2008; Wagnild
and Young 1993). For instance, Wu (2011) reported that resilience and a hope state
mediated the effect of post-traumatic stress disorder and depression in 175 family members
of victims of man-made trauma. Similarly, in a longitudinal study focusing on the rela-
tionship between affect, resilience and life satisfaction, Cohn et al. (2009) found that
positive emotions were associated with more resilience and that resilience fully mediated
the relationship between positive emotions and life satisfaction. However, in the above
study, negative emotions were only weakly related to lower resilience and lower life
satisfaction. This finding indicated that the longitudinal predictive relationships between
positive affect, resilience, and life satisfaction follow a different pattern than the rela-
tionships between negative affect, resilience and life satisfaction (Cohn et al. 2009). Such
differential patterns may also exist for the relationships between positive and negative
affect as well as resilience as predictors of depression.

1.5 Research Aims

Past research has found that cultivating positive affect led to increased resources, including
resilience, as well as greater life satisfaction and a reduction in illness symptoms, including
symptoms of depression (Crawford and Henry 2004; Fredrickson and Losada 2005; Tu-
gade and Fredrickson 2007; Watson and Clark 1992; Watson et al. 2008; Waugh et al.
2008). Through a Broaden and Build process (Fredrickson 2001, 2003; Fredrickson and
Joiner 2002), positive affect may be associated with developing greater characteristic
resilience. This greater characteristic resilience may reduce individuals’ chances of
developing depressive symptoms. This suggests that resilience may be fostered by positive
affect and that resilience in turn may lead to fewer symptoms of depression.
Transition to the university environment represents a time of great difficulty for many
first year students who may be separating from their parents, network of friends and
significant others (Larose et al. 2005). A study by Stallman (2010) showed that 83.9 %
of university students reported symptoms of depression and anxiety (Stallman 2010).
Similarly, a longitudinal study by Gall et al. (2000) found that acute stress is particularly
prominent during the transition period, especially for female university students (Gall
et al. 2000). There are also suggestions that university students become more stressed as
they progress through the semester (Campbell-Sills et al. 2006; Urquhart and Pooley
2007). This may be due to the competitive nature of the university environment where
academic success is achieved through competitive assignments and examinations. One
could argue then that the ability for students to successfully cope with scholastic set-
backs, stress and study pressures is a critical part of students’ academic success (Martin
2002).

123
The Role of Resilience

While there is an increase in studies which look at issues of mental health in university
students (Eisenberg et al. 2007; Stallman 2010, 2011, 2012), there is limited study
examining the mediating role of risks and protective mechanisms responsible for positive
outcomes in first year university students. Therefore, the current study aimed to investigate
longitudinally whether resilience mediates the relationship between positive affect and
depression symptomology in a sample of first year university students.

2 Methods

2.1 Participants

Two hundred and seventeen (N = 217) first year psychology students from a university in
Australia were recruited at the start of the semester of their first year of study. To be
eligible for inclusion in the study, students must have completed the survey at the
beginning of a semester and again at the end of the semester, 3 months later. This resulted
in 107 students who fulfilled these criteria. Tabachnick and Fidell’s (2007) rule of thumb
was applied to calculate the power required for this study. With two predictors, 106
participants were required, and the study was therefore adequately powered. Participants’
mean age was 28.1, SD = 10.25; 87 were women and 20 were men. Demographic
information of participants is displayed in Table 1.

2.2 Research Design and Procedure

The study commenced once approval from the University’s Research and Ethics Com-
mittee was obtained. Surveys were administered online through Survey Monkey. Survey
Monkey is a useful tool that can be used to create online surveys. A cover sheet was also
included online to outline the purpose of the study, the voluntary participation nature of the
study and assurance of participants’ confidentiality. All participants were instructed to
complete the survey at the beginning of the semester and again at the end of semester,
3 months later.
In addition, each participant was asked to provide a unique code (i.e., Mother’s and
Father’s initials) on their online survey. This unique code enables the researchers to match
the identity of participants who completed the survey at the end of the semester (Time 2) as
the same individual who completed the survey at the beginning of the semester (Time 1).
Only students who have completed survey at both Time 1 and Time 2 were included in the
analysis.

2.3 Materials

Depression was assessed using the Center for Epidemiological Studies-Depression Scale
(CES-D, Radloff 1977). Scores on this scale correlate highly with clinical rating measures
of depression (Radloff 1977) and other self-report measures of depression (Berndt 1990)
and distinguish between depressed inpatients and general population groups (Radloff
1977). Internal consistency for the scale ranges from .84 to .90 (Radloff 1977) and 1 month
test–retest reliability ranges from .32 to .54 (Roberts et al. 1990). Scores over 15 indicate
mild depression and scores over 26 indicate major depression (Zich et al. 1990).

123
 J. M. I. Loh et al.

Table 1 Participants’ demographics (N = 107)

Mean SD

Age (years) 28.1 10.25

N %

Marital status
Married/de facto 43 40.2
Single 57 53.3
Separated 3 2.8
Divorced 4 3.7
Employment
Full time work 21 19.6
Part time work 22 20.6
Unemployed 5 4.7
Student full-time 48 44.9
Student part-time 11 10.3
Income
Below $25,000 77 72
$25,001-$45,000 12 11.2
$45,001-$65,000 8 7.5
$65,001-$85,000 6 5.6
Above $85,001 4 3.7
Education
Year 10 or below 3 2.8
Year 12 (High school certificate-HSC) 53 49.5
Technical and further education (TAFE) 30 28.0
University degree 15 14.0
Higher degree (Postgraduate) 6 5.6

The Positive and Negative Affect Scales (PANAS; Watson et al. 1988) measure positive
and negative mood. For the present study, the characteristic positive and negative mood
instructions were used. Internal consistency for the scales have ranged from .85 to .88,
eight-week test–retest reliability has ranged from .68 to .71, and the scales have evidence
of validity through expected associations with other measures of affect (Watson et al.
1988).
Perception of stress was measured using the Perceived Stress Scale (Cohen et al. 1983).
This scale has good established validity and reliability (Cohen et al. 1983; Konduri et al.
2006; Morrison and O’Conner 2005). It has an internal consistency of 0.85 and a test–retest
reliability during a short retest interval (several days) of 0.85 (Sherina et al. 2004). The
scores ranged from 0 to 56, with higher scores indicating higher levels of perceived stress
and the lower scores indicating lower levels of perceived stress.
The Resilience Scale (Wagnild and Young 1993) assesses resilience as a construct
comprised of equanimity, perseverance, self-reliance, perception of meaningfulness of life
(purpose), and a sense of individual uniqueness. Its internal consistency ranges from .72 to
.94, (Wagnild 2009) test–retest reliability ranges from .84 to .67 over periods from 1 to
12 months (Wagnild and Young 1993) and evidence of validity includes associations with

123
The Role of Resilience

constructs such as forgiveness, stress, anxiety, and positive health behaviors (Wagnild
2009).

2.4 Analysis

Mediation was examined using the bootstrap method by Preacher and Hayes (Preacher and
Hayes 2004) which was shown to have advantages over the Sobel test (Baron and Kenny
1986). The Preacher and Hayes method is more powerful as it is robust against violations
of normality and it reduces the changes of not identifying mediation when it exists (false
negatives). The Preacher and Hayes method compares coefficients for (1) the total effect,
path c that is the effects of independent variable on the dependent variable without any
mediators with (2) the coefficient for the direct effect c0 that is the effects of independent
variable on the dependent variable with any mediators included. There is a significant
mediation if the c–c0 difference is larger than zero based on a 95 % CI generated using
bootstrap re-sampling method; 1,000 re-samples were used in the present study. If the c0
path becomes non-significant after controlling for the mediator(s), full mediation is pres-
ent. If c0 is significantly reduced from c, but is still significant, partial mediation is present.

3 Results

The mean depressive symptom score, as assessed by the CES-D at Time 1 was 15.56,
SD = 11.39, and at Time 2 the mean score was 15.59, SD = 11.53. The mean score of the
present sample was on the range of mild depressive symptomology. Result using partici-
pants’ response on the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS), a widely used psychological instru-
ment which taps the degree to which situations in one’s life are appraised as stressful in the
past month, found that the sample under study did not experience significant stress. Spe-
cifically, the mean PSS score for participants at time 1 was 2.21 and the mean for par-
ticipants at time 2 (3 months later towards the end of semester) was 2.19. This is consistent
with the widely accepted definition of resilience as participants in our sample continued to
exhibit competencies despite the stressful situation of the end of semester when final
assignments and examinations become due.
As shown in Table 2, higher positive affect and high resilience were associated with
less depressive symptomology (Time 1, Time 2, and change in depression) while negative
affect was associated with more depressive symptomology. Comparison of the magnitude
of the associations of positive affect, negative affect and resilience with depression (Time
1, Time 2, and change) using a Z test for dependent correlation coefficients (Rosenthal and
Rosnow 1991) showed that the association of negative affect with concurrent depression
(absolute value .79) was stronger than (a) the associations between positive affect and
depression at Time 1 (absolute value .56), z = 7.06, p = .001, and (b) resilience and
depression at Time 1 (absolute value .58), z = 7.38 p = .001. Comparison of the mag-
nitude of the associations of positive affect, negative affect and resilience with depression
at Time 2 and change in depression showed no significant differences in the magnitude of
these associations, zs \ 0.60 ps [ .279.
Table 3 presents regression analyses that indicated that positive affect, negative affect
and resilience all contributed some separate variance in predicting depressive sympto-
mology at Time 1, with negative affect being the most important predictor. Negative affect
and resilience both predicted depression symptoms at Time 2 and change in depression.

123
 J. M. I. Loh et al.

Table 2 Associations between positive and negative affect and resilience with depression (Time 1, Time 2,
and change over 3 months ((N = 107)
Measure Depression at time 1 Depression at time 2 Change in depression

Positive affect -.56* -.47* -.46*

Negative affect .79* .54* .52*
Resilience -.58* -.55* -.54*
* p \ .001

Table 3 Time 1 positive and negative affect and resilience as predictors of depression (Time 1, Time 2, and
change over 3 months) (N = 107)
Variable B SE B B t Adjusted R2

Outcome: depressive symptomology at Time 1 .74***

Positive affect -3.76 0.89 -0.27 -4.24***
Negative affect 8.97 0.74 0.64 12.16***
Resilience -2.03 0.89 -0.15 -2.29*
Outcome: depressive symptomology at Time 2 .39***
Positive affect -2.35 1.34 -0.17 -1.75
Negative affect 5.25 1.12 0.38 4.71***
Resilience -4.04 1.23 -0.30 -3.01**
Outcome: change in depression .36***
Positive affect -2.16 1.31 -0.16 -1.64
Negative affect -1.53 0.59 -0.22 -4.44***
Resilience -3.94 1.32 -0.30 -2.98**

* p \ .05. ** p \ .01. *** p \ .001

The correlation matrix for the variables used in the two mediation analysis is shown in
Table 4. The mediation analysis showed that resilience fully mediated the effects of
positive affect on change in depression while resilience partly mediated the effects of
negative affect on change in depression, see Table 5.

4 Discussion

The present study found that more negative affect predicted worsening of depressive
symptoms over 3 months, while greater positive affect predicted a lessening of depressive

Table 4 Correlation matrix for positive (PA) and negative affect (NA), resilience, and change in depression
over 3 months (N = 107)
Variable 2 3 4

1. PA Time 1 -.30** .64*** -.46***

2. NA Time 1 -.39*** .52***
3. Resilience Time 1 -.55***
4. Depression (change)
* p \ .05. ** p \ .01. *** p \ .001

123
The Role of Resilience

Table 5 Mediation effects of resilience (Time 1) on the relationship between (a) Positive affect (PA; Time
1) and change in depression over 3 months (CD3) and (b) Negative affect (NA; Time 1) and change in
depression over 3 months (N = 107)
Regression paths B t p

Mediation a path (PA on resilience)a 0.67 8.57 \.001

Mediation b path (resilience on CD3)a -5.52 -4.01 \.001
Total effect, c path (PA on CD3; No mediator)a -6.24 -5.33 \.001
Direct effect c0 (PA on CD3 including resilience as mediator) -2.57 -1.80 .075
Indirect effect bootstrapped (c–c0 ) with bootstrapped 95 % CIb -3.67 [-5.84, -2.03]
Mediation a path (NA on resilience)a -0.41 -4.38 \.001
Mediation b path (resilience on CD3)a -5.23 -4.90 \.001
Total effect, c path (NA on CD3; no mediator)a 7.05 6.30 \.001
Direct effect c0 (NA on CD3 including resilience as mediator) 4.93 4.47 \.001
Indirect effect bootstrapped (c–c0 ) with bootstrapped 95 % CIb 2.13 [1.19, 3.48]

B = unstandardised coefficient; CI = confidence interval. Fit for PA model R2 = .32, Adjusted R2 = .31,
F(2, 104) = 24.25, p \ .001. Fit for NA model R2 = .41, Adjusted R2 = .40, F(2, 104) = 36.14, p \ .001
a
Effects that need to be significant to meet the criteria for mediation according to Baron and Kenny (1986).
If the coefficient for the direct effect is reduced to zero then we have perfect mediation, if it is reduced
significantly but not to zero then we have partial mediation. However, if it is not reduced significantly then
there is no mediation
b
The effect of PA or NA on change in depression when resilience is introduced as a mediator. The indirect
effect may not be normally distributed thus the CI is derived from bootstrap resample (here 1,000). If the CI
produced does not include zero then criteria for mediation has been meet (Preacher and Hayes 2004)

symptoms over 3 months. Resilience fully mediated the effects of positive affect on change
in depression and partly mediated the effects of negative affect on change in depression. A
hierarchical structure of affect (Crawford and Henry 2004; Watson and Clark 1992;
Watson et al. 2008) may explain these longitudinal relationships. If the foundation of such
a structure is basic affect, this basic affect over time may interact with life events to
influence the development of specific emotions as well as symptoms of emotion-related
symptoms, such as symptoms of depression. Therefore, positive affect seems to enhance
resilience that in turn attenuates changes in depression. Negative affect increases depres-
sion but resilience again attenuates the effects of negative affect on depression.
If the relationship between affect and symptoms of depression does follow this pattern,
individuals may develop or draw on coping mechanisms to strengthen or mitigate the
impact of affect on development of symptoms of depression. A very general coping
mechanism for dealing with life challenges has been described as resilience. Resilience, a
higher level of which allows individuals to cope with negative experiences and adapt to
changing circumstances (Bonanno et al. 2004a, b; Garmezy 1991; Isen et al. 1987; Luthar
et al. 2000; Werner 1985, Tugade and Fredrickson 2004) may comprise characteristics that
are more likely to develop under conditions of high positive affect and low negative affect.
The broaden and build theory (Fredrickson 2001, 2003) suggests that positive emotions
broaden thought and action potentials and that this broadening leads to enhanced personal
resources. These resources may include the characteristics described as resilience. Nega-
tive emotions may narrow thought and action potentials, and this narrowing might lead to
less development of resilience and perhaps less likelihood of recognizing when it may be
useful to draw on resilience characteristics.

123
 J. M. I. Loh et al.

The findings of the present study regarding the mediating role of resilience lend some
support for these ideas. The greater resilience associated with more positive affect medi-
ated between higher levels of positive affect and lessening of depressive symptoms over
time. The lower resilience associated with more negative affect mediated between higher
levels of negative affect and worsening symptoms of depression over time.

5 Limitations

The rationale behind this longitudinal study and the theoretical interpretation of the results
draws on ideas relating to causal connections between variables. However, the longitudinal
research methodology employed does not allow firm causal conclusions to be drawn. The
response rate from first year students was low at 49.3 %. However, it should be noted that a
number of studies on university student also found similar low response rates from first
year students (Duke University 2005; James et al. 2010). For example, the Department of
Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR) conducted a survey with nine
Australian universities on the experiences of first year students. The response rate was
24 %. Similarly, Duke University conducted a survey with first year students on iPod uses.
Again, the overall response rate from first year students was low at 28 %. Nevertheless,
strategies (e.g., email reminder and/or mandatory participation) should be put in place
when considering future study of this nature. Another limitation of the current study is the
way in which we have conceptualised ‘resilience’. While we do not refute that resilience is
a combination of risks and protective factors that enabled individuals to grow despite
adversity (Luthar and Cicchetti 2000; Masten et al. 1990; Rutter 1999), we believe that
trait resilience is an equally important meditational factor between positive affect and
depression over time or in the future. For example, Fredrickson et al. (2003) found that
participants who experienced positive emotions before the 9/11 terrorists’ attack were
buffered against depressive symptoms; suggesting the importance of positive affect and a
plausible mediatory factors between emotions and depression.

5.1 Theoretical and Practical Implications

The broaden and build theory (Fredrickson 2001, 2003; Fredrickson and Joiner 2002;
Fredrickson and Losada 2005) suggests that positive emotions broaden thought and action
potentials and that this broadening leads to enhanced personal resources. These resources
may include the characteristics described as resilience. Negative emotions may narrow
thought and action potentials, and this narrowing might lead to less development of
resilience and perhaps less likelihood of recognising when it may be useful to draw on
resilience characteristics.
The findings of the present study provided some support for these ideas. The greater
resilience associated with more positive affect mediated between higher levels of positive
affect and lessening of depressive symptoms over time. The lower resilience associated
with more negative affect mediated between higher levels of negative affect and worsening
symptoms of depression over time.
A number of studies have shown that disturbance to emotion is a central feature of
depression. For instance, depressed individuals reported that they tend to avoid and
dampen their positive affect, engage in less cognitive elaboration and savour less of their
positive experiences (Bryant 2003; Feldman et al. 2008; Min’er and Dejun 2001). Simi-
larly, previous studies have found that individuals with lower self esteem and confidence

123
The Role of Resilience

tend to avoid their positive experiences, whereas individuals with higher self esteem tend
to relish in their positive experiences (Feldman et al. 2008; Larsen and Prizmic 2004).
Thus, it has been suggested that individuals with low self esteem avoided positive affect
because they believe they are not deserving of positive affect (Wood et al. 2003). These
findings have important practical implications in terms of cognitive interventions. For
example, Jacobson and Gortner (2000) have successfully used strategies to enhance
positive affect, as a possible treatment for depression. Other practitioners have similarly
found that individuals with mild or moderate depression benefited greatly from inducing
positive affect (Seligman et al. 2006). Focusing aspects of such interventions on harnessing
positive affect to increase resilience might lead to even greater reductions in depressive
symptoms.

5.2 Future Directions

Future research might use experimental methodologies to explore further the causal links
between affect, resilience, and symptoms of depression. Different populations need to be
sampled in future studies to examine whether the relationships found in the present study
hold true in them. Finally, future research might explore more complex models incorpo-
rating other life outcomes, such as symptoms of anxiety disorders that might also be
influenced by positive and negative affect and be mediated by resilience-related coping.

References

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological
research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Sci-
ence, 51, 1173–1182.
Beasley, M., Thompson, T., & Davidson, J. (2003). Resilience in response to life stress: The effects of
coping style and cognitive hardiness. Personality and Individual Differences, 34, 77–95.
Berndt, D. (1990). Inventories and scales. In B. Wolman & G. Stricker (Eds.), Depressive disorders, facts,
theories, and treatment methods (pp. 255–274). New York: Wiley.
Block, J. (2002). Personality as an affect-processing system. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Block, J. H., & Block, J. (1980). The role of ego-control and ego-resiliency in the organization of behavior.
In W. A. Collins (Ed.), Development of cognition, affect, and social relations: The Minnesota symposia
on child psychology (vol. 13, p. 48). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Block, J., & Kreman, A. M. (1996). IQ and ego-resiliency: Conceptual and empirical connections and
separateness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 349–361.
Bonanno, G. A. (2004). Loss, trauma, and human resilience: Have we underestimated the human capacity to
thrive after extremely aversive events? American Psychologist, 59, 20–28.
Bonanno, G. A., Papa, A., O’Neil, K., Westphal, M., & Coifman, K. (2004a). The importance of being
flexible: The ability to enhance and suppress emotional expression predicts long-term adjustment.
Psychological Science, 15, 482–487.
Bonanno, G. A., Wortman, C. B., & Nesse, R. M. (2004b). Prospective patterns of resilience and malad-
justment during widowhood. Psychology and Aging, 19, 260–271.
Bryant, F. B. (2003). Savouring beliefs inventory (SBI): A scale for measuring beliefs about savouring.
Journal of Mental Health, 12, 175–196.
Burns, A. B., Brown, J. S., Sachs-Ericsson, N., Plant, E. A., Curtis, J. T., Fredrickson, B. L., & Joiner, T. E.
(2008). Upward spiral of positive emotion and coping: Replication, extension, and initial explanation
of neurochemical substrates. Personality and Individual Differences, 44, 360–370.
Campbell-Sills, L., Cohan, S. L., & Stein, M. B. (2006). Relationship of resilience to personality, coping,
and psychiatric symptoms in young adults. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 44, 585–599.
Carver, C. S. (2003). Pleasure as a sign you can attend to something else: Placing positive feelings within a
general model of affect. Cognition and Emotion, 17, 241–261.

123
 J. M. I. Loh et al.

Cohen, S., Kamarak, T., & Mermelstein, R. (1983). A global measure of perceived stress. Journal of Health
and Social Behaviour, 24, 385–396.
Cohn, M. A., Frederickson, B. L., Brown, S. L., Mikels, J. A., & Conway, A. M. (2009). Happiness
unpacked: Positive emotions increase life satisfaction by building reserves. Emotion, 9, 361–368.
Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (2000). Evolutionary psychology and the emotions. In M. Lewis & J. M. H. Jones
(Eds.), Handbook of emotions (pp. 91–115). New York: Guilford Press.
Crawford, J. R., & Henry, J. D. (2004). The Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS): Construct
validity, measurement, properties, and normative data in a large non-clinical sample. British Journal of
Clinical Psychology, 43, 245–265.
Diener, E., & Emmons, R. A. (1984). The independence of positive and negative affect. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 47, 1105–1111.
Duke University. (2005). iPod first year experience final evaluation report. Retrieve May 6, 2013 from http://
cit.duke.edu/pdf/reports/ipod_initiative_04_05.pdf.
Eisenberg, D., Gollust, S. E., Golberstein, E., & Hefner, J. L. (2007). Prevalence and correlates of
depression, anxiety and suicidality among university students. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry,
77, 534–542.
Feldman, G. C., Joormann, J., & Johnson, S. L. (2008). Responses to positive affect: A self-report measure
of rumination and dampening. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 32, 507–525.
Florian, V., Mikulincer, M., & Taubman, O. (1995). Does hardiness contribute to mental health during a
stressful real-life situation? The roles of appraisal and coping. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 68, 687–695.
Fredrickson, B. L. (1998). What good are positive emotions? Review of General Psychology, 2, 300–319.
Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-and-build
theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56, 218–226.
Fredrickson, B. L. (2003). The value of positive emotions: The emerging science of positive psychology is
coming to understand why it’s good to feel good. American Scientist, 91, 330–335.
Fredrickson, B. L., & Branigan, C. A. (2005). Positive emotions broaden the scope of attention and thought–
action repertoires. Cognition and Emotion, 19, 313–332.
Fredrickson, B. L., & Cohn, M. A. (2008). Positive emotions. In M. Lewis, J. Haviland, & L. F. Barrett
(Eds.), Handbook of emotions (3rd ed., pp. 777–796). New York: Guilford Press.
Fredrickson, B. L., Cohn, M. A., Coffey, K. A., Pek, J., & Finkel, S. M. (2008). Open hearts build lives:
Positive emotions, induced through loving-kindness meditation, build consequential personal resour-
ces. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 1045–1062.
Fredrickson, B. L., & Joiner, T. (2002). Positive emotions trigger upward spirals toward emotional well-
being. Psychological Science, 13, 172–175.
Fredrickson, B. L., & Levenson, R. W. (1998). Positive emotions speed recovery from the cardiovascular
sequelae of negative emotions. Cognition and Emotion, 12, 191–220.
Fredrickson, B. L., & Losada, M. F. (2005). Positive affect and the complex dynamics of human flourishing.
American Psychologist, 60, 678–686.
Fredrickson, B. L., Tugade, M. M., Waugh, C. E., & Larkin, G. R. (2003). What good are positive emotions
in crisis? A prospective study of resilience and emotion following the terrorist attacks on the United
States on September 11th, 2001. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 365–376.
Friborg, O., Hjemdal, O., Rosenvinge, J. H., & Martinussen, M. (2003). A new rating scale for adult
resilience: What are the central protective resources behind healthy adjustment? International Journal
of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 12, 65–76.
Gall, T., Evans, D., & Bellerose, S. (2000). Transition to first year university: Patterns of change and
adjustment across life domains and time. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 19, 544–567.
Garmezy, N. (1991). Resiliency and vulnerability to adverse developmental outcomes associated with
poverty. American Behavioral Scientist, 34, 416–430.
Hemenover, S. H. (2003). Individual differences in rate of affect change: Studies in affective chronometry.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 121–131.
Isen, A. M., Daubman, K. A., & Nowicki, G. P. (1987). Positive affect facilitates creative problem solving.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 1122–1131.
Jacobson, N. S., & Gortner, E. T. (2000). Can depression be de-medicalized in the 21st century: Scientific
revolutions, counter-revolutions, and the magnetic field of normal science. Behaviour Research and
Therapy, 38, 103–117.
James, R., Krause, K., & Jennings, C. (2010). The first year experience in Australian universities: Findings
from 1994-2009. Melbourne: CSHE. (ISBN: 9780734041661).
Klohnen, E. C. (1996). Conceptual analysis and measurement of the construct of ego-resiliency. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 1067–1079.

123
The Role of Resilience

Konduri, N., Gupchup, G. V., Borrego, M. E., & Worley-Ouis, M. (2006). Assessment of the reliability and
validity of a stress questionnaire for pharmacy administration graduate students. College Student.
Journal, 40, 78–90.
Larose, S., Bernier, A., & Tarabulsy, G. M. (2005). Attachment state of mind, learning dispositions, and
academic performance during the college transition. Developmental Psychology, 41, 281–289.
Larsen, R. J., & Prizmic, Z. (2004). Affect regulation. In K. D. Vohs & R. F. Baumeister (Eds.), Handbook
of self-regulation: Research, theory, and applications (pp. 40–61). New York: Guilford.
Letzring, T. D., Block, J., & Funder, D. C. (2005). Ego-control and ego-resiliency: Generalization of self-
report scales based on personality descriptions from self, acquaintances, and clinicians. Journal of
Research in Personality, 39, 395–422.
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). The construct of resilience: A critical evaluation and
guidelines for future work. Child Development, 7, 543–562.
Martin, A. (2002). Motivation and academic resilience: Developing a model for student enhancement.
Australian Journal of Education, 46, 34–49.
Masten, A. S. (2001). Ordinary magic: Resilience processes in development. American Psychologist, 56,
227–238.
Masten, A. S., Best, K. M., & Garmezy, N. (1990). Resilience and development: Contributions from the
study of children who overcome adversity. Development and Psychopathology, 2, 425–444.
Min’er, H., & Dejun, G. (2001). Emotion regulation and depression of college students. Chinese Mental
Health Journal, 15, 438–441.
Morrison, R., & O’Conner, R. C. (2005). Predicting psychological distress in college students: The role of
rumination and stress. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 61, 447–460.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple
meditation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 36, 717–731.
Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES-D scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the general popu-
lation. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, 385–401.
Roberts, R. E., Andrews, J. A., Lewinsohn, P. M., & Hops, H. (1990). Assessment of depression in
adolescents using the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale. Psychological Assessment,
2, 122–128.
Rosenthal, R., & Rosnow, R. L. (1991). Essentials of behavioural research: Methods and data analysis (2nd
ed.). Boston, US: McGraw-Hill.
Rutter, M. (1999). Resilience concepts and findings: Implications for family therapy. Journal of Family
Therapy, 21, 119–144.
Seligman, M. E. P., Rashid, T., & Parks, A. C. (2006). Positive Psychotherapy. American Psychologist, 61,
774–788.
Sherina, M. S., Rampal, L., & Kaneson, N. (2004). Psychological stress among undergraduate medical
students. Medical Journal of Malaysia, 59, 207–211.
Smith, B. W., Dalen, J., Wiggins, K., Tooley, E., Christopher, P., & Bernard, J. (2008). The brief resilience
scale: Assessing the ability to bounce back. International Journal of Behavioural Medicine, 15,
194–200.
Stallman, H. M. (2010). Psychological distress in university students: A comparison with general population
data. Australian Psychologist, 45, 286–294.
Stallman, H. M. (2011). Embedding resilience within the tertiary curriculum: A feasibility study. Higher
Education Research and Development, 30, 121–134.
Stallman, H. (2012). A qualitative evaluation of perceptions of the role of competition in the success and
distress of law students. Higher Education Research and Development, 31, 891–904.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Tugade, M. M., & Fredrickson, B. L. (2004). Emotions: Positive emotions and health. In N. Anderson (Ed.),
Encyclopaedia of health and behavior (pp. 306–310). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Tugade, M. M., & Fredrickson, B. L. (2007). Regulation of positive emotions: Emotion regulation strategies
that promote resilience. Journal of Happiness Studies: Special Issue on Emotion Self-Regulation, 8,
311–333.
Urquhart, B., & Pooley, J. A. (2007). The transition experience of Australian students to resilience and
adjustment: The importance of social support. The Australian Community Psychologist, 19, 78–91.
Wagnild, G. (2009). A review of the Resilience Scale. Journal of Nursing Measurement, 17, 105–113.
Wagnild, G. M., & Young, H. M. (1993). Development and psychometric evaluation of the Resilience Scale.
Journal of Nursing Measurement, 2, 165–178.

123
 J. M. I. Loh et al.

Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1992). Affects separable and inseparable: On the hierarchical arrangement of
the negative effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 489–505.
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.
Watson, D., O’Hara, M., & Stuart, S. (2008). Hierarchical structures of affect and psychopathology and their
implications for the classification of emotional disorders. Depression and Anxiety, 25, 282–288.
Waugh, C. E., & Fredrickson, B. L. (2006). Nice to know you: Positive emotions, self-other overlap, and
complex understanding in the formation of new relationships. Journal of Positive Psychology, 1,
93–106.
Waugh, C. E., Fredrickson, B. L., & Taylor, S. F. (2008). Adapting to life’s slings and arrows: Individual
differences in resilience when recovering from an anticipated threat. Journal of Research in Person-
ality, 42, 1031–1046.
Werner, E. E. (1985). Resilience in development. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 4, 81–85.
Werner, E. E., & Smith, R. S. (1992). Overcoming the odds: High risk children from birth to adulthood.
Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Werner, E. E., & Smith, R. S. (2001). Journeys from childhood to midlife: Risk, resilience, and recovery.
Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Wood, J. V., Heimpel, S. A., & Michela, J. L. (2003). Savoring versus dampening Self esteem differences in
regulating positive affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 566–580.
World Health Organisation. (2008). The Global Burden of Disease: 2004 Update. Geneva: Switzerland.
Wu, H. C. (2011). The protective effects of resilience and hope on quality of life of the families coping with
the criminal traumatisation of one of its members. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 20, 1906–1915.
Zautra, A. J., Hall, J. S., & Murray, K. E. (2010). Resilience: A new definition of health for people and
communities. In J. W. Reich, A. J. Zautra, & J. S. Hall (Eds.), Handbook of adult resilience (pp. 3–34).
New York: Guilford.
Zich, J. M., Attkisson, C. C., & Greenfield, T. K. (1990). Screening for depression in primary care clinics:
the CES-D and the BDI. International Journal of Psychiatry Medicine, 20, 259–277.

123