Personality and Individual Differences 66 (2014) 9297

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Personality and Individual Differences

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

Affect and self-esteem as mediators between trait resilience

and psychological adjustment
Ya Liu a, Zhenhong Wang a,, Changjiang Zhou b, Tong Li a
a
b

School of Psychology, Shaanxi Normal University, No. 199 South Changan Road, Xian 710062, China
School of Management, Xinjiang Agricultural University, No. 311 East Agricultural University Road, Urumchi 830052, China

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 20 September 2013
Received in revised form 16 March 2014
Accepted 18 March 2014

Keywords:
Trait resilience
Positive affect
Negative affect
Self-esteem
Life satisfaction
Psychological distress
Sequential mediation

a b s t r a c t
The primary purpose of the current study was to examine the potential sequential mediation effects of
affect and self-esteem on the association between trait resilience and psychological adjustment, as
indexed by life satisfaction and psychological distress. A total of 412 undergraduate students completed
a packet of questionnaires that assessed trait resilience, positive and negative affect, self-esteem, life satisfaction and psychological distress. Mediation analyses showed that self-esteem mediated the relation
between trait resilience and life satisfaction. In addition, positive affect, negative affect, and self-esteem
were found to intervene between trait resilience and psychological distress. Furthermore, the sequential
mediation effects of affectself-esteem on the relations between trait resilience and life satisfaction as
well as psychological distress were conrmed. Results are discussed in light of previous ndings. Limitations of the study and suggestions for future research are briey discussed.
2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The concept of resilience in research has evolved over the last
four decades, but agreement relating to its denition has been less
unanimous (Bonanno, 2004; Luthar, Cicchetti, & Becker, 2000;
Masten, 2007; Olsson, Bond, Burns, Vella-Brodrick, & Sawyer,
2003). In the extant theoretical and research literature, most denitions generally fall under one of three categories: outcome, process, and personality trait. From the outcome perspective,
resilience can be dened as an outcome characterized by successful adaptation despite risk, acute stressors, and chronic adversities
(Masten, 2007; Olsson et al., 2003). From the process perspective,
resilience can be dened as a dynamic process of adaptation to a
risk setting that involves interaction between risk factors and protective resources (Luthar et al., 2000; Masten, 2007; Olsson et al.,
2003). Although resilience has been dened broadly, for the purposes of this study, it is dened as a positive personality trait that
enables individuals to bounce back from adversity, and to adapt,
thrive and mature in the face of adverse circumstances (Block &
Kremen, 1996; Friborg, Hjemdal, Rosenvinge, & Martinussen,
2003; Klohnen, Vandewater, & Young, 1996). Resilient individuals
are typically characterized by internal locus of control, positive

Corresponding author. Tel./fax: +86 29 85300855.

E-mail address: wangzhenhong@snnu.edu.cn (Z. Wang).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.03.023
0191-8869/ 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

self-image, optimism, active coping, hardiness, and self-efcacy

(Block & Kremen, 1996; Wagnild & Young, 1990). These positive
characteristics are associated with better psychological adjustment, as reected in higher life satisfaction and lower psychological distress.
1.1. Resilience and psychological adjustment
Trait resilience has been consistently found to be particularly
relevant for peoples life satisfaction, a positive indicator of psychological adjustment. A growing number of studies have revealed a
concurrent positive relation between trait resilience and life satisfaction (Liu, Wang, & Li, 2012; Mak, Ng, & Wong, 2011; Yu & Zhang,
2007). Some longitudinal studies robustly showed that trait resilience in Time 1 prospectively predicted life satisfaction in Time 2
(Klohnen et al., 1996; Siu et al., 2009). On the other hand, resilience
is repeatedly found to be negatively associated with psychological
distress, a negative indicator of psychological adjustment (Friborg
et al., 2003; Mak et al., 2011; Pinquart, 2009). Klohnen et al.
(1996)s and Siu et al. (2009)s longitudinal studies also demonstrated trait resilience in Wave 1 prospectively predicting psychological distress in Wave 2.
Recently, some researchers have investigated the mediation
mechanisms underlying the relationship between resilience and
psychological adjustment. For example, Mak et al. (2011) revealed
a cognitive mediation mechanism, such that trait resilience

Y. Liu et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 66 (2014) 9297

enhanced life satisfaction and reduced depression through a positive cognitive triad: positive views towards the self, the world, and
the future. Likewise, Burns, Anstey, and Windsor (2011) found that
positive and negative affect mediated the relation between resilience and psychological distress as indexed by depression and anxiety. In the current study we considered positive and negative
affect and self-esteem as potential mediators between trait
resilience and psychological adjustment, because both affect and
self-esteem are signicantly associated with resilience and psychological adjustment.
1.2. Positive and negative affect as mediators
In settings of everyday life, resilient individuals are more likely to
use humor, creative exploration, relaxation, and optimistic thinking
as ways of coping (Tugade & Fredrickson, 2004). Resilient individuals have also been found to report more positive meaning within
negative emotional experiences (Tugade & Fredrickson, 2004). Thus,
resilience is found to be associated with facilitating positive affect
and alleviating negative affect (Benetti & Kambouropoulos, 2006;
Liu et al., 2012). Furthermore, existing research demonstrated a positive association between positive affect and life satisfaction and an
inverse association between negative affect and life satisfaction
(Kuppens, Realo, & Diener, 2008). On the other hand, there is mounting evidence that positive affect is negatively, and negative affect is
positively related to psychological distress (Chang & Sanna, 2007;
Kafetsios, 2007). Considering the associations between positive
and negative affect and resilience, life satisfaction and psychological
distress, it seems plausible to assume that positive and negative affect mediate these associations.
1.3. Self-esteem as a mediator
Trait resilience, associated with facilitating positive affect and
alleviating negative affect, is demonstrated to promote individuals
self-esteem (Benetti & Kambouropoulos, 2006; Yu & Zhang, 2007).
As a fundamental psychological need, self-esteem serves an important adaptive function in psychological adjustment. There is ample
evidence to suggest that self-esteem is among the strongest predictors of life satisfaction (Diener & Diener, 1995; Kwan, Bond, &
Singelis, 1997). On the other hand, self-esteem was found to be
inversely correlated with psychological distress, in the form of anxiety, depression, interpersonal problems and the general severity
index of symptom disorders (Marcussen, 2006; Park, Heppner, &
Lee, 2010). Accordingly, self-esteem is of particular importance to
peoples psychological adjustment.
Self-esteem is not only a robust predictor of life satisfaction, but
also an intervening variable between personality traits and life satisfaction (Kwan et al., 1997). However, to our knowledge, no study
has been encountered to examine the mediation effect of
self-esteem on the relationships between trait resilience and life

satisfaction as well as psychological distress. In light of the bivariate

correlations between self-esteem with resilience, life satisfaction
and psychological distress, it was predicted that self-esteem mediated the relationship between resilience and psychological
adjustment.
1.4. The three-path mediating effect of affect and self-esteem
Regarding the relation between affect and self-esteem, extant
research indicated that positive affect is positively, and negative affect is inversely related to self-esteem (Benetti & Kambouropoulos,
2006). Moreover, there is evidence that positive affect mediated
the association between trait resilience and self-esteem (Benetti
& Kambouropoulos, 2006). Thus, the present study was to replicate
the mediator role of positive and (or) negative affect in the association between resilience and self-esteem.
Based on the preceding rationale and previous ndings, it seems
reasonable to hypothesize that the relations between trait resilience and life satisfaction as well as psychological distress were
sequentially mediated by affect and self-esteem among Chinese
college students in the normal situations as some prior studies
(e.g., Benetti & Kambouropoulos, 2006; Burns et al., 2011; Mak
et al., 2011). As emerging adults, college students are away from
their parents and live independently and thus usually feel lonely
and homesick. They also have to bear the heavy burden of studies
and the high stress of part-time job and future career orientation.
Consequently, college stage is a period full of stress for many students even in the normal situations. Thus, the current study might
shed light on the potential psychological mechanism in improving
college students psychological adjustment. The detailed hypothesized model concerning the three-path mediating effect of affect
and self-esteem on the relationship between trait resilience and
psychological adjustment is presented in Fig. 1.
2. Method
2.1. Participants
Four hundred and twelve undergraduate students (247 females
and 165 males) were recruited from introductory psychology classes in a large university located in Northwestern China. Mean age
of the sample was 20.7 years (SD = 1.8). All participants signed a
written consent form. Participation was anonymous and participants were assured of the condentiality of their responses.
2.2. Measures
2.2.1. ConnorDavidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC; Connor &
Davidson, 2003)
CD-RISC, one of the most widely used scale for measuring trait
resilience, was used to assess resilience. The Chinese version of

Positive Affect

Trait
Resilience

93

Life
Satisfaction

Self-esteem

Negative Affect

Psychological
Distress

Fig. 1. The hypothesized model concerning the mediator role of affect and self-esteem in the relationships of trait resilience with life satisfaction and psychological distress.

94

Y. Liu et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 66 (2014) 9297

CD-RISC was adapted by Yu and Zhang (2007). This scale consists

of 25 items (e.g., able to adapt to change, have a strong sense
of purpose). For each statement participants were asked to rate
how they generally feel on a ve-point Likert scale, ranging from
0 = not at all to 4 = true nearly all of the time. This scale demonstrated good psychometric properties in both Western and Eastern
populations (Connor & Davidson, 2003; Yu & Zhang, 2007).

exhibited satisfactory internal consistency and decent validity

(Goldberg, 1972; Yang et al., 2003).
3. Results
3.1. Preliminary analyses
The means, standard deviations, Cronbachs a coefcients, and
intercorrelations between the study variables are presented in Table 1. All self-report measures showed adequate internal consistency and were signicantly correlated.
Since all study variables are measured by self-report questionnaires, it was necessary to examine whether common method variance might be a problem (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff,
2003). All items (72 items) in the questionnaire were included in a
principle components factor analysis. The analysis produced 12
factors, with the rst factor explaining 18.88% of the variance.
The results of factor analysis revealed neither a single nor a general
factor, suggesting that common method variance is not a serious
problem with these data. Further, a factor analysis with 17 items
that are used to construct the SWLS and GHQ-12 scales were conducted. The analysis yielded 3 factors, with the rst factor explaining 22.41% of the variance, indicating that the signicant
correlation between these two psychological adjustment indices
is not driven purely by method bias.

2.2.2. Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS; Watson, Clark, &
Tellegen, 1988)
Participants levels of positive and negative affect were assessed
using the PANAS. The Chinese version of PANAS was translated by
Huang, Yang, and Ji (2003). The PANAS comprises two subscales,
each with 10 affective adjectives, assessing the general dimensions
of positive affect (e.g., active, alert, attentive) and negative affect
(e.g., afraid, ashamed, distressed). Responses are rated on a 5-point
Likert scale (1 = very slightly or not at all, 5 = extremely) based on
how participants feel in general. The PANAS has been shown to
have high reliability and excellent psychometric properties in college and community samples (Huang et al., 2003; Watson et al.,
1988).
2.2.3. Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES; Rosenberg, 1965)
Global self-esteem was evaluated using the RSES, which is the
most widely used measure of the construct (Blascovich & Tomaka,
1991). The Chinese version of RESE was adapted by Wang, Gao, Xu,
Huang, and Wang (1998). This scale includes 10 statements (e.g., I
am able to do things as well as most other people.). Each item was
rated by respondents according to the extent to which they agree
on a 4-point response format, ranging from 1 = strongly disagree
to 4 = strongly agree. The RSES demonstrated high reliability
and good validity (Blascovich & Tomaka, 1991; Wang et al., 1998).

3.2. Mediation analyses

3.2.1. Model estimation
Path analyses using Mplus v7 (Muthn & Muthn, 19982012)
with maximum likelihood estimation were conducted to examine
the primary hypothesis concerning the three-path mediating effect
of affect and self-esteem on the relationship between trait resilience and psychological adjustment. According to the recommendations of Hu and Bentler (1999), the following goodness-of-t
indices were used to evaluate the extent to which path models
t observed data: chi-square statistic (v2), v2/df ratio, the Mean
Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA), the Standardized Root
Mean Square Residual (SRMR), the Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI), and
the Comparative Fit Index (CFI). Throughout the study, a model
was considered to have an acceptable t if v2/df ratio <3, RMSEA
was below 0.08, SRMR was below 0.10, and TLI and CFI were greater than 0.90. A model was acknowledged for excellent t if v2/df
ratio <2, RMSEA was below 0.06, SRMR was below 0.08, and TLI
and CFI were greater than 0.95.
The hypothesized model with all direct paths between study
variables showed an excellent t to the data, with the following
indices:
v2 (2, N = 412) = 0.16 (P = 0.92), v2/df = 0.08,
RMSEA < 0.001 (90% CI: 0.0000.034), SRMR = 0.003, TLI = 1.00,
CFI = 1.00. Tests of parameter estimates indicated that all the direct
path coefcients were signicant in the proposed directions, except for the three following paths: trait resiliencepsychological

2.2.4. Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS; Diener, Emmons, Larsen, &
Grifn, 1985)
Life satisfaction was measured using the SWLS, which is a psychometrically sound brief measure. The Chinese version of SWLS
was translated by Ren (2006). This scale contains ve items (e.g.,
I am satised with my life.) that were rated on a 7-point scale,
from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The SWLS has demonstrated strong internal consistency reliability, high temporal stability, and satisfactory validity (Diener et al., 1985; Ren, 2006).
2.2.5. General Health Questionnaire (GHQ; Goldberg, 1972)
Psychological distress was measured with the 12-item version
of the GHQ (e.g., Have you recently been able to concentrate on
whatever you are doing?). The Chinese version of GHQ-12 was
adapted by Yang, Huang, and Wu (2003). Respondents were asked
to indicate whether they had experienced each described symptom
or behavior over the last few weeks on a 4-point scale from less so
than usual (1) to much more than usual (4). The GHQ-12

Table 1
Descriptive statistics, internal consistency and intercorrelations between the self-report measures (N = 412).

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Resilience
Positive affect
Negative affect
Self-esteem
Life satisfaction
Psychological distress

Note: a = Cronbachs a coefcient.

*
P < .05.
***
P < .001.

SD

61.98
29.94
21.75
28.20
18.67
28.39

12.37
5.84
5.61
3.87
5.67
5.10

0.90
0.83
0.78
0.79
0.75
0.75

0.56***
0.20***
0.51***
0.32***
0.40***

0.12*
0.45***
0.27***
0.50***

0.37***
0.18***
0.42***

0.34***
0.43***

0.23***

Y. Liu et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 66 (2014) 9297

95

distress (b = 0.07, t = 1.49, P = 0.14), positive affectlife satisfaction (b = 0.09, t = 1.58, P = 0.12), and negative affectlife satisfaction (b = 0.06, t = 1.24, P = 0.22). After eliminating the three
insignicant paths, a second model was estimated. This model also
represented an excellent t to the data, with the following indices:
v2 (5, N = 412) = 5.91 (P = 0.32), v2/df = 1.18, RMSEA = 0.021 (90%
CI: 0.0000.074), SRMR = 0.020, TLI = 0.996, CFI = 0.999.

worthy that, the effect size (DR2 = 0.044) of affect and self-esteem,
above and beyond trait resilience, in accounting for life satisfaction
is small, only slightly greater than the recommended minimum effect size representing a practically signicant effect (0.04; c.f.,
Ferguson, 2009). Thus, the interpretation of the mediating effect
of affect and self-esteem on the relation between resilience and life
satisfaction requires caution.

3.2.2. Full versus partial mediation

To test the hypothesis that affect and self-esteem would partially mediate the resiliencelife satisfaction relationship, a full
mediation model with the direct path from resilience to life satisfaction constrained to zero and a partial mediation model with the
above direct path not constrained were compared using a chisquare difference test. Results showed that, after eliminating the
above direct path, the t of the model reduced signicantly (Dv2
(1, N = 412) = 13.81, P < 0.001). Consequently, the partial mediation
model was supported.
In a similar vein, to test the hypothesis that affect and self-esteem would fully mediate the resiliencepsychological distress
relationship, the following two mediation models were compared:
(a) a full mediation model with the direct path between resilience
and psychological distress constrained to zero; (b) a partial mediation model with the above direct path not constrained. The chisquare difference test demonstrated that addition of the above direct path did not signicantly improve t (Dv2 (1, N = 412) = 1.88,
P = 0.17), indicating that the full mediation model with less estimated parameters represents a more parsimonious account of
the observed data. Consequently, the full mediation model was
supported. Path coefcients of the nal mediation model are
shown in Fig. 2.
To assess the variance in life satisfaction and psychological distress accounted for by the predictor (trait resilience) and mediators
(affect and self-esteem), we compared the effect sizes indexed by
R2 between the models with and without mediators (Ferguson,
2009). The correlations (R) of the predicted outcome scores by
the models and the raw scores were also calculated. In the direct
model without mediators, a total of 10.3% of the variance in life
satisfaction (R = 0.322, R2 = 0.103), and 15.7% of the variance in
psychological distress (R = 0.397, R2 = 0.157) were accounted for
by trait resilience. In the nal mediation model, the proportions
of variance in life satisfaction (R = 0.383, R2 = 0.147) and psychological distress (R = 0.628, R2 = 0.392) explained by the combination of trait resilience, affect and self-esteem were 14.7% and
39.2%, respectively. Accordingly, the unique variances in life satisfaction and psychological distress accounted for by the mediators
(affect and self-esteem) were 4.4% and 23.5%, respectively. Thus,
affect and self-esteem were found to have a non-negligible amount
of incremental predictive validity in predicting life satisfaction and
psychological distress, above and beyond trait resilience. It is note-

3.2.3. Assessment of mediation

Mediation effects for affect and self-esteem were tested for signicance using the Bootstrap estimation procedure in Mplus v7.
From the data set (N = 412), 1000 bootstrap samples were generated using random sampling with replacement. The indirect effects
and their associated 95% condence intervals (CI) are shown in Table 2. Bootstraping analysis indicated that all the indirect effects
were signicant, except for the indirect path: Resilience ? Negative affect ? Self-esteem ? Psychological distress (b = 0.007,
95% CI: 0.013 to 0.000). The upper bound of 95% CI of the indirect
path is exactly equal to 0, at the edge of the threshold for signicance. Thus, the interpretation of this indirect effect requires caution. Consequently, the association between trait resilience and life
satisfaction can be considered to be partially mediated by one simple mediator (self-esteem) and two three-path mediators (positive
affectself-esteem, negative affectself-esteem). Analogously, the
association between trait resilience and psychological distress
can be considered to be fully mediated by three simple mediators
(positive affect, negative affect, self-esteem) and at least one threepath mediator (positive affectself-esteem).
4. Discussion
In accordance with predictions, mediation analysis showed that
the inuence of resilience on life satisfaction is partly through the
simple mediator role of self-esteem and the three-path mediating
effect of affect and self-esteem. The nding of self-esteem mediating between resilience and life satisfaction is plausible, because
there is substantial evidence for the associations of self-esteem
with resilience (Benetti & Kambouropoulos, 2006; Yu & Zhang,
2007) and life satisfaction (Diener & Diener, 1995; Kwan et al.,
1997).
However, contrary to Liu et al. (2012)s ndings, the mediating effects of positive and negative affect on the relation between resilience
and life satisfaction were not signicant. This is presumably because
that the effects of positive and negative affect on life satisfaction were
fully mediated through self-esteem. This is in accordance with the
argument that affective states are particularly important in
regulating levels of self-esteem (Benetti & Kambouropoulos, 2006)
and the fact that self-esteem is a strong predictor of life satisfaction
(Diener & Diener, 1995; Kwan et al., 1997). Additionally, consistent
with Benetti and Kambouropoulos (2006), trait resilience was found

Positive Affect
0.56

0.24

0.24
0.32

Trait
Resilience

Life
Satisfaction

0.20

Self-esteem
-0.28

-0.20
Negative Affect

-0.41
-0.13
0.32

Psychological
Distress

Fig. 2. Final model concerning the sequential mediation effect of affect and self-esteem in the relationships between resilience and life satisfaction and between resilience
and psychological distress. The path coefcients are standardized.

96

Y. Liu et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 66 (2014) 9297

Table 2
Bootstrapping indirect effects and 95% condence intervals (CI) for the nal
mediation model.
Model pathways

Resilience ? Self-esteem ? Life satisfaction

Resilience ? Positive affect ? Selfesteem ? Life satisfaction
Resilience ? Negative affect ? Selfesteem ? Life satisfaction
Resilience ? Positive affect ? Psychological
distress
Resilience ? Negative affect ? Psychological
distress
Resilience ? Self-esteem ? Psychological
distress
Resilience ? Positive affect ? Selfesteem ? Psychological distress
Resilience ? Negative affect ? Selfesteem ? Psychological distress

Point
estimate

95% CI
Lower

Upper

0.078
0.032

0.039
0.012

0.116
0.053

0.013

0.004

0.022

0.228

0.286

0.171

0.063

0.095

0.031

0.040

0.072

0.009

0.017

0.032

0.002

0.007

0.013

0.000

cussed in the context of risk, such as stress, adversity, or trauma.

Although college students are a group full of high stress, the
present study examined the benecial effects of resilience in the
normal other than risk situations. Therefore, further research is
necessary to examine whether the inuence of resilience on
psychological adjustment is through the serial mediating effect of
affect and self-esteem in the risk situations. Fourthly, many
researchers dene resilience as a time- and context-dependent
process rather than a xed quality. Therefore, further research is
best to assess the resilience construct via measuring specic performance competencies in real time. Finally, all study variables
were assessed by self-report measures. There may be some contaminations resulting from the common method biases and social
desirability especially for those positive and desirable qualities
(e.g., resilience, self-esteem). Future research, thereby, should utilize multiple methods for evaluation (e.g., other-report) and more
rigorous procedural and statistical remedy techniques to reduce
the above possible contaminations.

Acknowledgements
to exert a signicant indirect effect on self-esteem via positive affect.
Incorporating the mediating role of affect in the association between
resilience and self-esteem and the facilitating effect of self-esteem on
life satisfaction, this study provided initial support for the three-path
mediation effect of affect and self-esteem on the relationship between resilience and life satisfaction.
Furthermore, mediation analysis revealed that the effect of
resilience on psychological distress is fully mediated via the simple
mediator role of positive affect, negative affect and self-esteem,
and the three-path mediating effect of positive affect and self-esteem. The nding of positive and negative affect as mediators between resilience and psychological distress is well in line with
numerous previous studies demonstrating that resilience is associated with high positive affect and low negative affect (Benetti &
Kambouropoulos, 2006; Burns et al., 2011; Liu et al., 2012) and
affective states are related to psychological distress (Chang &
Sanna, 2007; Kafetsios, 2007). In addition, the nding of
self-esteem as a mediator between resilience and psychological
distress appears to be reasonable, because resilience was found
to have a facilitating effect on self-esteem (Benetti & Kambouropoulos, 2006; Yu & Zhang, 2007) and self-esteem was conrmed to
attenuate psychological distress (Marcussen, 2006; Park et al.,
2010). Incorporating the mediator role of affect in the relation between resilience and self-esteem and the attenuation effect of selfesteem on psychological distress, this study provided preliminary
support for the sequential mediation effect of affect and selfesteem on the link between resilience and psychological distress.
Overall, the present study extends previous research by providing preliminary support for the sequential mediating effect of affect and self-esteem in the relation between trait resilience and
psychological adjustment. These ndings highlight the benecial
effect of resilience on psychological adjustment. Thus, intervention
experts and therapists could mainly focus on techniques (e.g.,
Padesky and Mooney (2012)s four-step strengths-based cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) model) that enhance individuals
resilience to improve their psychological well-being and mitigate
their psychological distress.
A number of limitations of this study warrant consideration.
Firstly, the present study was a cross-sectional design in nature
making it impossible to draw causal conclusions on these relations.
Therefore, studies that utilize prospective and longitudinal
approaches to determine the causal relationships between the
variables in question are warranted. Secondly, the study relied on
a college student sample and thus these ndings need to be
extended to other age groups. Thirdly, resilience is most often dis-

This study was funded by National Social Science Foundation

(BBA090030) awarded to Zhenhong Wang and Innovation Funds
of Graduate Programs, Shaanxi Normal University (2013CXB005)
awarded to Ya Liu.

References
Benetti, C., & Kambouropoulos, N. (2006). Affect-regulated indirect effects of trait
anxiety and trait resilience on self-esteem. Personality and Individual Differences,
41, 341352.
Blascovich, J., & Tomaka, J. (1991). Measures of self-esteem. In J. P. Robinson, P. R.
Shaver, & L. S. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological
attitudes (pp. 115160). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Block, J., & Kremen, A. M. (1996). IQ and ego-resiliency: Conceptual and empirical
connections and separateness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70,
349361.
Bonanno, G. A. (2004). Loss, trauma, and human resilience: Have we
underestimated the human capacity to thrive after extremely aversive
events? American Psychologist, 59, 2028.
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, 240248.
Chang, E. C., & Sanna, L. J. (2007). Affectivity and psychological adjustment across
two adult generations: Does pessimistic explanatory style still matter?
Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 11491159.
Connor, K. M., & Davidson, J. R. T. (2003). Development of a new resilience scale: The
ConnorDavidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC). Depression and Anxiety, 18, 7682.
Diener, E., & Diener, M. (1995). Cross-cultural correlates of life satisfaction and selfesteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 653663.
Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Grifn, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life
scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 7175.
Ferguson, C. J. (2009). An effect size primer: A guide for clinicians and researchers.
Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 40, 532538.
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,
6576.
Goldberg, D. P. (1972). The detection of psychiatric illness by questionnaire. Oxford,
UK: Oxford University Press.
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for t indexes in covariance structure
analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation
Modeling, 6, 155.
Huang, L., Yang, T., & Ji, Z. (2003). Applicability of the positive and negative affect
scale in Chinese. Chinese Mental Health Journal, 17, 5456.
Kafetsios, K. (2007). Work-family conict and its relationship with job satisfaction
and psychological distress: The role of affect at work and gender. Hellenic
Journal of Psychology, 4, 1535.
Klohnen, E. C., Vandewater, E. A., & Young, A. (1996). Negotiating the middle years:
Ego-resiliency and successful midlife adjustment in women. Psychology and
Aging, 11, 431442.
Kuppens, P., Realo, A., & Diener, E. (2008). The role of positive and negative
emotions in life satisfaction judgment across nations. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 95, 6675.

Y. Liu et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 66 (2014) 9297

Kwan, V. S. Y., Bond, M. H., & Singelis, T. M. (1997). Pancultural explanations for lifesatisfaction: Adding relationship harmony to self-esteem. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 73, 10381051.
Liu, Y., Wang, Z., & Li, Z. (2012). Affective mediators of the inuence of neuroticism
and resilience on life satisfaction. Personality and Individual Differences, 52,
833838.
Luthar, S. S., Cicchetti, D., & Becker, B. (2000). The construct of resilience: A critical
evaluation and guidelines for future work. Child Development, 71, 543562.
Mak, W. W. S., Ng, I. S. W., & Wong, C. C. Y. (2011). Resilience: Enhancing well-being
through the positive cognitive triad. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 58,
610617.
Marcussen, K. (2006). Identities, self-esteem, and psychological distress: An
application of identity-discrepancy theory. Sociological Perspectives, 49, 124.
Masten, A. S. (2007). Resilience in developing systems: Progress and promise as the
fourth wave rises. Development and Psychopathology, 19, 921930.
Muthn, L. K., & Muthn, B. O. (1998-2012). Mplus users guide (Seventh ed.). Los
Angeles, CA: Muthn & Muthn.
Olsson, C. A., Bond, L., Burns, J. M., Vella-Brodrick, D. A., & Sawyer, S. M. (2003).
Adolescent resilience: A concept analysis. Journal of Adolescence, 26, 111.
Padesky, C. A., & Mooney, K. A. (2012). Strengths-based cognitive-behavioural
therapy: A four-step model to build resilience. Clinical Psychology and
Psychotherapy, 19, 283290.
Park, H., Heppner, P. P., & Lee, D. (2010). Maladaptive coping and self-esteem as
mediators between perfectionism and psychological distress. Personality and
Individual Differences, 48, 469474.
Pinquart, M. (2009). Moderating effects of dispositional resilience on associations
between hassles and psychological distress. Journal of Applied Developmental
Psychology, 30, 5360.

97

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common
method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and
recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879903.
Ren, J. (2006). Positive psychology. Shanghai: Shanghai Education Press.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Siu, O.-L., Hui, C. H., Phillips, D. R., Lin, L., Wong, T., & Shi, K. (2009). A study of
resiliency among Chinese health care workers: Capacity to cope with workplace
stress. Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 770776.
Tugade, M. M., & Fredrickson, B. L. (2004). Resilient individuals use positive
emotions to bounce back from negative emotional experiences. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 320333.
Wagnild, G., & Young, H. M. (1990). Resilience among older women. Journal of
Nursing Scholarship, 22, 252255.
Wang, P., Gao, H., Xu, J., Huang, J., & Wang, C. (1998). Research on the reliability and
validity of Rosenberg Self-esteem Scale. Shandong Archives of Psychiatry, 11(4),
3132.
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, 10631070.
Yang, T., Huang, L., & Wu, Z. (2003). The application of Chinese health questionnaire
for mental disorder screening in community settings in mainland China. Chinese
Journal of Epidemiology, 24, 769773.
Yu, X., & Zhang, J. (2007). Factor analysis and psychometric evaluation of the
ConnorDavidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC) in Chinese people. Social Behavior
and Personality, 35, 1930.