SOURCES OF RESILIENCE AS PREDICTORS OF WELL-BEING 1

Sources of Resilience as Potential Predictors of Well-Being in College Students

Alyssa J. Miville and Erin N. Smith Department of Psychology, Susquehanna University

SOURCES OF RESILIENCE AS PREDICTORS OF WELL-BEING 2

Abstract

When it comes to balancing different areas of life, college students have many obstacles to overcome. From focusing on academic life, to carving out time for friends, family and other loved ones, to planning for the near and distant future, students have plenty of life domains to split their attention between. Fortunately, many students, no matter their class year, possess sources of resilience that can help them overcome the challenges and stressors that come with balancing these important roles and responsibilities. In the present study, we look at two sources of individual resilience (i.e., religiosity and family cohesion) and their impact on students’ overall well-being, assessed through stress, hope, and self-esteem levels. A sample of 253 college students was pooled from Susquehanna University’s campus and responses were collected using an online survey through Qualtrics. To test our hypotheses, three multiple linear regressions were run. Results indicated support for most of our hypotheses. Greater levels of both family cohesion and religiosity were significantly related to higher self-esteem and lower stress levels, and greater religiosity was significantly related to more hope. However, our results did not indicate that greater family cohesion is significantly related to higher levels of hope.

Overall, our study’s findings suggest that there are several complex and interrelated resilience factors that contribute to the well-being of college students.

Keywords: resilience, family cohesion, religiosity, college students, well-being, spirituality, hope

SOURCES OF RESILIENCE AS PREDICTORS OF WELL-BEING 3

Sources of Resilience as Potential Predictors of Well-Being in College Students College students often face challenges when it comes to balancing a variety of life domains. These life domains include their academics, social and family life, health and fitness, and future planning. Keeping in mind that students are also sons, daughters, parents, siblings, friends, members of social organizations, and/or partners, they may struggle with effective time management. This includes balancing social and academic pressures, delaying or putting off healthy behaviors (such as exercise or sleep) for more pressing deadlines, and avoiding future planning in order to take care of present concerns (Tan-Wilson & Stamp, 2015). It is evident that the obstacles that come with balancing an array of life domains are interconnected and impact one another. Fortunately, students possess a great deal of resilience to help them overcome this.

Resilience, as defined by the American Psychological Association, is “the process of adapting well in the face of adversity, trauma, tragedy, threats or even significant sources of stress” (2014). This definition, although compact and useful, fails to shed light on the complex nature of resilience, as many biological, psychological, social and cultural factors interact with one another to determine how one responds to stressful experiences (Southwick et al., 2014).

Stress is not a simple “stimulus-response” reaction, but rather an interaction between an individual and the environment (Lecic-Tosevski et al., 2011). In essence, our response to stress primarily takes place in the context of resources that are available to us, including, but not limited to, our interactions with other people, our own cultural and religious practices, and the organizations and communities that we are each involved in (Sherrieb et al., 2010; Walsh, 2006).

Each of these contexts may help individuals become more or less resilient when facing challenges and stressors. To this effect, two well-researched contexts that could serve as potential sources of resilience for college students are one’s family and whether or not they are religious or spiritual in nature. SOURCES OF RESILIENCE AS PREDICTORS OF WELL-BEING 4

Literature Review

Family Cohesion and Good Family Communication

In reviewing the literature, research indicates that a good sense of family communication and a healthy amount of family time can often buffer an individual’s risk of negative health and relationship outcomes at any age (Black & Lobo, 2008). This finding makes sense, as individuals are likely to have a desire for close family ties and support when it comes to many scenarios in life. Whether these scenarios are positive life milestones (e.g., obtaining a driver’s license, getting married, graduating from school) or serious, personal hardships (e.g., losing a loved one or experiencing health complications), having close family members to lean on for support is beneficial, especially in cases of personal hardship. O’Brien (2017) proposed a model of family and kinship across generations, which suggests that close connections created within active family systems and communities are helpful in teaching individuals to cope with life struggles over time. From this suggestion, it can be stated that the formation of healthy relationships and effective coping resources is part of what inspires individuals to become more resilient.

The idea of a healthy family system can be found in other studies. Borchet et al. (2016) looked at parentification, in which a child or adolescent accepts roles and obligations that are typically fulfilled by adults. The researchers found that stronger bonds between adolescents and their parents, as well as greater levels of adolescent satisfaction regarding one’s family life, were better associated with more positive reviews of parentification and its effect on children in the family. Interestingly enough, the researchers concluded that when the family system is functioning effectively through the eyes of the adolescent (i.e., they have a good sense of family cohesion), then that adolescent can go on to use family resources to positively reformulate even the most negative experiences (Borchet et al., 2016). This finding showcases a great deal of SOURCES OF RESILIENCE AS PREDICTORS OF WELL-BEING 5 resilience in adolescent family members, which is promising to think about as these adolescents mature into educated young adults. A related study conducted by Feldman et al. (2018) looked at how family cohesion and support within families is often considered a predictor of students’ effort-investment and success in school. Results of this study supported the important contribution of family cohesion, as well as the mediating role of hope (as a protective factor), in predicting students’ success and efforts in school (Feldman et al., 2018).

While the literature clearly suggests that the family unit can have a major impact on children and adolescents, few studies have looked specifically at the effects of family cohesion and family communication on the adjustment of college students, both initially and throughout the college experience. A study conducted by Uruk et al. (2007) examined how both family cohesion and adaptability impact college students’ trauma symptoms and psychological well-being. Results revealed family cohesion and adaptability to have a significant unique variance in a sample of

189 undergraduate students (Uruk et al., 2007). Guassi Moreira and Telzer (2015) surveyed 338 college freshmen prior to attending college, and then again two months into their first semester, and found that young adults who reported increases in family cohesion also reported notable declines in depressive symptoms during their college transition. Another study looked at

Brazilian university students, with ages between 18 and 35 (Fiorini & Bardagi, 2018). Fiorini and Bardagi (2018) found that university students with higher levels of differentiation of self and better career adaptability not only showed better ability to balance cohesion and flexibility in family interaction, but also more satisfaction and positive perceptions of communication in relation to the family unit. While this study partially examined family cohesion and communication in relation to college students (i.e., how students balance and perceive family SOURCES OF RESILIENCE AS PREDICTORS OF WELL-BEING 6 life), the study failed to look at the effects that family cohesion and good family communication

(or lack thereof) have on college students’ mental health and overall well-being.

Mixed Findings Regarding Impact of Family Life. Some studies have more ambiguous findings regarding the impact family life has on college students. Hood et al. (2019) looked at how family factors relate to depressive symptoms in college students, and how self-compassion can alleviate such symptoms. The researchers examined 365 university students and found that individuals who reported high levels of self-compassion displayed similar rates of depression, regardless of whether they reported mild, moderate, or high levels of family unpredictability

(Hood et al., 2019). The findings of this study suggest that family factors do not play a significant role in college students’ resilience or overall well-being, which is contrary to the previous studies mentioned. However, another study conducted by Berryhill et al. (2018) surveyed 500 college students and found that cohesive family functioning was related to higher levels of positive communication; positive communication was related to higher levels of self- compassion; and higher levels of self-compassion were related to lower levels of depression and anxiety. This finding is in complete contrast with the finding of Hood et al. (2019) but is more consistent with our review of the literature, which suggests that positive family communication and good family cohesion are key components in building up college students’ resilience and overall well-being.

Religiosity and Spirituality

Similar to how family cohesion and family communication are positively associated with measures of resilience, the literature indicates that two other factors, specifically religiosity and spirituality, are also helpful in aiding individual resilience levels, including those of adolescents and traditional college-aged students. Santoro et al. (2016) examined childhood adversity SOURCES OF RESILIENCE AS PREDICTORS OF WELL-BEING 7 alongside religiosity and spirituality in a sample of adolescents from India. The study found well-being to be significantly associated with religiosity, daily spiritual experiences, and religious coping, especially for female participants (Santoro et al., 2016). Another study suggests that adolescents who report religion and spirituality to be important to them often report lower levels of anxiety and higher levels of hope (DiPierro et al., 2018). Going beyond just adolescents, it appears that individuals between the ages of 18 and 24 who have a greater sense of spirituality often experience greater levels of resilience, as well (Howell & Miller-Graff,

2014). Howell and Miller-Graff (2014) conducted a study with 321 young adult American college students who had experienced childhood violence. Hierarchical multiple regression analyses revealed that after controlling for experiences related to childhood victimization, other potentially traumatic events, and current symptoms of depression and anxiety, higher resilience during emerging adulthood was, in part, associated with greater spirituality (Howell & Miller-

Graff, 2014). These findings indicate that spirituality is an important factor to consider when thinking about the resilience of college-aged individuals.

Religiosity and Family Cohesion

A couple studies have looked at how the two resilience factors of religiosity and family cohesion may go together. Some studies, in particular, investigate how spiritual and religious components impact family resilience, as a whole, and the resilience of family members, individually. Caldwell and Senter (2013) found that religious and spiritual practices tend to relate to lower levels of individual anxiety and depression not only because family members learn how to cope (as a unit) with difficult situations over time, but also because individual spirituality gives each family member a sense of purpose, meaning, and hope. All of these individual characteristics are common in different religious or spiritual contexts. Another study is consistent SOURCES OF RESILIENCE AS PREDICTORS OF WELL-BEING 8 with these findings. After evaluating children and adolescents considered high-risk for mood or psychiatric disorders (selected because they had at least one depressed parent), Kasen et al.

(2012) concluded that increased attendance to religious services significantly reduced the odds for major depressive disorder, mood disorder, and any other psychiatric disorder by 76%, 69%, and 64% respectively. The study also found that increased religious or spiritual importance in children and adolescents was associated with significantly reduced odds for mood disorder by

74% in children and adolescents with a high exposure to negative family life events (Kasen et al.,

2012). This finding suggests that greater religiosity or spirituality may contribute to the development of resilience, even in high-risk families.

These studies look at how religiosity, spirituality and family cohesion (or lack thereof) interact with each other, which is important to take into consideration as you also consider the resilience factors individually. However, these studies primarily focus on children, adolescents, and the family unit as a whole, which misses out on exploring religious or non-religious college students as individuals separate from, but still impacted by, their families. This sparks the question of just how impactful a cohesive family unit can be on these students who are

(typically) away from home. It also begs the question of how being spiritual, religious, neither, or both can be helpful to college students, as they are especially faced with the challenge of balancing several competing life domains, on top of being students with academic and social responsibilities.

The Present Study

In the present study, we investigate the impact that two sources of individual resilience

(i.e., religiosity/spirituality and family cohesion) have on the overall well-being of college students, rather than any-aged individual or family member. Regarding the first source of SOURCES OF RESILIENCE AS PREDICTORS OF WELL-BEING 9 individual resilience, family cohesion, we look specifically at how positive family factors, such as high levels of family cohesion and effective family communication, impact college students’ well-being, as the family unit can be both pervasive and impactful even when college students are away from home. Analyzing the presence or absence of such positive family factors is important in predicting the overall well-being of college students as they try to balance a multitude of life domains, including their social and family life, their academics, their health and fitness, and their planning for the future. From this knowledge, more direct and potentially family-based strategies may be found that could help assist college students in finding balance in their lives, especially if they are lacking in any particular area.

Regarding the second source of individual resilience, religiosity or spirituality, we look specifically at how practicing a religion or having some level of spirituality can be beneficial for college students’ well-being, whether they have a cohesive family unit or not. Religiosity and spirituality can be very strong components in helping individuals grow and overcome challenges through great resilience, as evidenced by the previously discussed research. Assessing the religious and non-religious, or spiritual and non-spiritual, practices that college students engage in, while also looking at their overall well-being, may provide us with useful information that could help inspire the creation of research-based religious or spiritual programs geared towards college students. This would especially become useful for those students whose religion or spirituality is already a source that helps them stay resilient in the face of adversity.

All students possess a great deal of resilience, and each student has a variety of sources they can draw from to keep them going. Regardless of which sources college students draw from, common threads seem to exist amongst those students who have higher levels of certain sources of resilience. In the present study, we look specifically at how well-being is impacted by SOURCES OF RESILIENCE AS PREDICTORS OF WELL-BEING 10 such sources, and we divide well-being into three components: (1) stress, (2) hope, and (3) self- esteem. In analyzing our two sources of individual resilience, family cohesion and religiosity/spirituality, we hypothesize that college students with higher levels of family cohesion and/or higher levels of religiosity will have a greater sense of well-being, evidenced by lower levels of stress, higher levels of hope, and higher levels of self-esteem.

Materials and Methods

Participants

A sample of 253 college students was pooled from Susquehanna University’s campus through psychology courses and the online student portal. The sample consisted of 61 males, 190 females, and two non-binary or third gender individuals. Of these individuals, 22.1% were seniors, 20.2% were juniors, 30.4% were sophomores, and 26.5% were first years. Additionally,

80.6% of participants were White, Caucasian, or European-American; 11.9% were Black or

African American; .4% were American Indian, Native American, or Alaska Native; .8% were

Asian Indian; 1.6% were Chinese; and 4.7% identified under another race.

Procedures

An online Qualtrics survey was used to collect responses. Participants accessed the survey through a link provided in an email or through the online student portal and could complete the survey on a computer, laptop, tablet, or phone at any convenient time. Students signed a digital consent form prior to participation and a debriefing statement followed the survey. At the end of each survey, participants were given the chance to sign up for extra credit in a psychology course or to enter their name into a raffle for one of ten $20 Starbucks gift cards.

Measures

Religiosity Questionnaire SOURCES OF RESILIENCE AS PREDICTORS OF WELL-BEING 11

Religiosity/spirituality was measured by the Religiosity Questionnaire created by

Bottoms et al. (1997). This measure is comprised of seven items assessing attitudes and behaviors related to religious/spiritual practices. Items were scored on 7-point Likert scales where higher scores indicated higher levels of religiosity/spirituality. All seven items were summed into a single score for each survey participant, which indicated that participants with higher scores were more likely to be religious or spiritual. This religiosity scale had good internal reliability from the original study in which it was first used (Cronbach’s alpha = .87, mean inter- item correlation = .49) (Bottoms et al., 1997).

Family Characteristics Measure

Family characteristics were measured using the Family Characteristics Measure created by Savage and Mezuk (2014). This measure is comprised of two subscales: family cohesion and family conflict. The 10 items on the family cohesion subscale were scored on a 4-point scale with the following anchors: 0 (strongly disagree), 1 (somewhat disagree, 2 (somewhat agree), and 3 (strongly agree). The five items on the family conflict subscale were scored on a 3-point scale with the following anchors: 0 (hardly ever or never), 1 (sometimes) and 2 (often). Scores for each scale were summed into a single score, with possible scores for each survey participant ranging from 0-30 for family cohesion and 0-10 for family conflict. According to the original study in which it was first used, the family cohesion subscale had strong reliability (Cronbach’s alpha = .93), while the family conflict subscale had moderately strong internal reliability

(Cronbach’s alpha = .77) (Savage & Mezuk, 2014). For the purposes of the current study, we did not focus on participants’ responses to the family conflict subscale, as we were more interested in studying how positive family factors impact college students’ well-being; for this reason, our SOURCES OF RESILIENCE AS PREDICTORS OF WELL-BEING 12 analyses and discussion focus primarily on participants’ responses to the family cohesion subscale.

Perceived Stress Scale

Perceived stress was measured using the Perceived Stress Scale (Cohen et al., 1983). This

10-item scale is a self-report questionnaire that asked survey participants about their thoughts and feelings during the last month. Items were designed to measure how unpredictable, uncontrollable, and overloaded survey participants felt their lives were. All 10 items were scored on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (never) to 4 (very often). Total perceived stress scores of survey participants were obtained by reversing responses (e.g., 0 = 4; 1 = 3; 2 = 2; 3 =1; 4 = 0) to the four positively-worded items (items 4, 5, 7, and 8), and then summing all ten items on the scale. According to the original study conducted by Cohen et al. (1983), the Perceived Stress

Scale had strong internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha =.84 to .86).

Adult State Hope Scale

Hope was measured using the Adult State Hope Scale (Snyder et al., 1996). This six-item scale is a self-report questionnaire that assesses goal-directed thinking at any given moment All six items were scored on an 8-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (definitely false) to 8 (definitely true). All six items were summed together to give each survey participant an individual hope score. Scores could range from 6 to 48, with higher scores indicating higher levels of hope. In looking at the reliability of the State Hope Scale, Cronbach’s alphas ranged from .79 to .95

(Snyder et al., 1996).

Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale

Self-esteem was measured using the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965).

This 10-item scale measures universal self-worth by measuring both positive and negative SOURCES OF RESILIENCE AS PREDICTORS OF WELL-BEING 13 feelings about the self.. All 10 items were scored on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 1

(strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). Items 2, 5, 6, 8, and 9 were reverse scored. All 10 items were summed together to give each survey participant an individual self-esteem score. Higher scores indicated higher self-esteem. This self-esteem scale had strong reliability, with internal consistency ranging from .77 to .88 and test-retest reliability ranging from .82 to .85 (Rosenberg,

1965).

Results

To see whether college students’ family cohesion and religiosity are directly related to their stress, hope, and self-esteem levels, we ran a series of correlations (see Appendix A).

Perceived stress significantly related to both religiosity and family cohesion. More specifically, both higher levels of religiosity and higher levels of family cohesion significantly correlated with lower stress levels. Hope, our second measure of well-being, was significantly related to religiosity, but was not significantly related to family cohesion. Higher levels of religiosity significantly correlated with higher levels of hope. Our third and final measure of well-being, self-esteem, significantly related to both religiosity and family cohesion, with higher levels of religiosity and higher levels of family cohesion significantly positively correlated with self- esteem.

To test our hypotheses, we ran a series of multiple linear regressions to find the best predictors for each measure of well-being (i.e., stress, hope, and self-esteem.) In the first step of our regression on perceived stress, control variables of race, gender, and class year were entered.

Then, the main study variables (i.e., family cohesion and religiosity) were entered in the second step. The best model for predicting perceived stress included family cohesion and gender, both of which turned out to be significant predictors. Going one step further, family cohesion related SOURCES OF RESILIENCE AS PREDICTORS OF WELL-BEING 14 negatively to perceived stress, in that higher scores on the family cohesion subscale (from the

Family Characteristics Measure) related to lower scores on the Perceived Stress Scale. The overall model was significant, accounting for 16.44% of the variability in perceived stress levels,

F (2, 249) = 25.70, p < .0001, (see Appendix B, Table B1).

In the first step of our regression on hope, control variables of race, gender, and class year were entered. Then, the main study variables were entered. The best model for predicting hope included religiosity and race. Of these two predictor variables, religiosity was found to be the significant predictor. Going further, religiosity related positively to hope, in that higher scores on the Religiosity Questionnaire related to higher scores on the Adult State Hope Scale.

Although this model only accounted for 5.63% of the variability in college students’ hope levels, it was still a significant model, F (2, 242) = 8.27, p = .0003, (see Appendix B, Table B2).

In our regression on self-esteem, we followed the steps indicated above. The best model for predicting self-esteem in college students included one control variable of gender, as well as both sources of resilience (religiosity and family cohesion). All three of these turned out to be significant predictors of self-esteem. Both religiosity and family cohesion related positively to self-esteem, meaning that higher scores on both the Religiosity Questionnaire and the family cohesion subscale of the Family Characteristics Measure related to higher individual scores on the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. The model of this regression was significant, accounting for

20.64% of the variability in self-esteem levels, F (3, 240) = 22.06, p < .0001, (see Appendix B,

Table B3).

Additional Analyses

Although we did not have any hypotheses regarding gender, we ran an exploratory repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) to test for the main effect of gender on each of SOURCES OF RESILIENCE AS PREDICTORS OF WELL-BEING 15 our study variables. Due to the low number of nonbinary or third gender participants, our analyses on the effect of gender did not include their data. Since our independent variable of gender is a between-subjects factor, and our dependent variables are within-subjects factors; we used a mixed factorial design. A repeated measures ANOVA revealed a significant main effect of gender on perceived stress, F (1, 249) = 9.67, p = .0021, with females reporting significantly higher perceived stress levels (M = 25.19) than male participants (M = 22.36). It also revealed a significant main effect of gender on self-esteem, F (1, 249) = 12.10, p = .0006, with females reporting significantly lower self-esteem (M = 17.40) than male participants (M = 20.49). The main effect of gender on our third measure of well-being, hope, was not significant, F (1, 249) =

.46, p = .4992. When analyzing the main effect that gender had on our sources of resilience, neither the main effect of gender on religiosity, F (1, 241) = .63, p = .4275, nor the main effect of gender on family cohesion, F (1, 249) = 2.20, p = .1390, were significant.

Discussion

The results supported most of our hypotheses. For our first four hypotheses, we predicted that individuals with greater levels of family cohesion and/or individuals with greater levels of religiosity or spirituality would have higher levels of self-esteem and/or lower levels of stress.

We also predicted that individuals with greater levels of religiosity or spirituality would have higher levels of hope. Each of these hypotheses was supported in the current study. Our sixth hypothesis, in which we predicted that higher levels of family cohesion would be related to higher levels of hope, was not supported.

Existing research supports for our findings. Relating to our results regarding religiosity,

Deb et al. (2016) found a strong association between overall spirituality and better health.

Caldwell and Senter (2013) found that spiritual and religious practices often inspire individuals SOURCES OF RESILIENCE AS PREDICTORS OF WELL-BEING 16 to have a more positive worldview. It is this kind of worldview that helps people cope with difficult situations over time, as it gives them a sense of purpose, meaning, and hope (Caldwell

& Senter, 2013). Nadal et al. (2018) found that emerging adults with higher levels of religiosity and spirituality tend to fare better in terms of psychosocial outcomes, including depression, anxiety, and overall well-being. In a similar line of thought, research also shows that the more religious and spiritual individuals are, the higher their levels of self-esteem are (Wilt et al., 2016;

Hayman et al., 2007). Wilt et al. (2016) found that people with higher religiousness tend to find more meaning in the struggle, and this more positive perception of the struggle accounts for a modest amount of unique variance in well-being (indicated by higher levels of satisfaction with life and self-esteem, as well as lower levels of depression and anxiety).

The literature also supports our findings on family cohesion. In a study looking at 83

African American undergraduates, Gebre and Taylor (2017) found poor relations with family to be linked with both an increased vulnerability to stress and a decreased self-esteem, which, in turn, was also associated with a decrease in college adjustment. The current study’s findings also suggest that college students with low family cohesion may be more prone to low self-esteem and high levels of stress; thus, they may have more trouble balancing college with other aspects of their lives, at least to some degree. To that effect, college students with higher levels of family cohesion and better family relations may experience lower levels of stress overall and be better able to handle the many challenges that strike college students each year. This is what the current study aims to highlight. Other studies support the idea of family cohesion as a resilience factor for college students. Kingery et al. (2019) found high family support to predict lower stress levels in a sample size of 353 undergraduate college students. Yet another study suggests that first-year university students with greater family and peer support report better adjustment SOURCES OF RESILIENCE AS PREDICTORS OF WELL-BEING 17 outcomes (Lau et al., 2018). This result highlights the idea that family support plays an important role into early adulthood, even as reliance on peer support increases. Although our study did not find high levels of family cohesion to be significantly related to higher levels of hope, the correlation was still in the positive direction, which is supported by the literature. Chang et al.

(2018) analyzed a sample of 502 Hungarian college students and found a significant interaction effect between hope and family support. This significant finding proposes that family support can be a positive psychological resource and serve as a potential source of hope among those college students with poor mental health and a lack of overall well-being.

Other studies’ findings appear to be less congruent with the results of our study.

Hunsberger et al. (2009) carried out two studies to assess possible links between religious and non-religious students and their ability to adjust. In both studies, including a sample of 216 university students, they found no indication of religious students differing from non-religious students. Primary measures of adjustment included depression, self-esteem, and social support.

This finding offers little support for the claim that religiosity has positive implications for students (Hunsberger et al., 2009). Similarly, O’Connor et al. (2003) found religiosity to be unrelated to stress and psychological distress in a study of 177 undergraduate students, except for in instances where good support systems were in place. These findings, paired together, suggest that religiosity could account for some form of stress reduction, but only when paired with supportive, high quality relationships, such as with family or friends. Khallad and Jabr (2016) caution against too much family support, as it may lead college students to perceive their families as too demanding and even expecting too much of them. However, having both a healthy amount of family support and some level of religiosity or spirituality may prove to be effective and beneficial to university students as they move through their college years. SOURCES OF RESILIENCE AS PREDICTORS OF WELL-BEING 18

Limitations

One limitation of the current study was the lack of focus on spirituality. Although we addressed both religiosity and spirituality throughout the paper, we placed more of an emphasis on religiosity. The religiosity questionnaire that we used primarily focused on religious beliefs and activities (e.g., going to church); however, the questionnaire failed to dive into more spiritual-based practices (e.g., private prayer). We consider this to be a limitation to our study because we are aware of the differences present between individuals who are religious, spiritual, both, or have no spiritual/religious beliefs or practices. Beyer et al. (2018) collected 800 responses from young adults (18 to 30 years old) and found great variation in the construction of religious and non-religious identities. They found three categories: (1) the non-religious/non- spiritual, who engage in no religious or spiritual practices and subscribe to very few common religious beliefs; (2) the religious, who exhibit standard religious beliefs and practices, usually in accordance with one religion; and (3) the spiritual-but-not-religious, who draw from a variety of religious sources and traditions but engage in relatively few religious practices. Caldwell and

Senter (2013) suggest that spiritual practices alone can build mindfulness and lead to lower levels of anxiety and depression. Future studies may also build on our current study by evaluating anxiety and depression levels directly. By doing so in combination with the current study’s variables of stress, hope, and self-esteem, a richer idea of our study’s resilience factors

(religiosity and family cohesion) impact on mental wellness in college students may be revealed.

Future Directions

In future research, breaking down the religiosity component into separate categories and assessing spirituality on a deeper level may provide us with a deeper understanding of how one’s religiosity and/or spirituality can impact their mental health and well-being. Further investigation SOURCES OF RESILIENCE AS PREDICTORS OF WELL-BEING 19 into these different categories of religiosity and spirituality might also be helpful in gaining a better understanding of what differences exist in the mental health and well-being of college students, in particular, whether they are religious, spiritual, both, or have no spiritual/religious beliefs or practices. Furthermore, future research could measure mental health symptoms more directly in order to gain more insight into college students’ overall well-being. Adding in measures of depression, anxiety, and optimism, for example, may provide us with a fuller picture of how students are feeling, and hence may give us a better measure to use as a guide for increasing students’ well-being and better leveraging their personal sources of resilience. Finally, future research branching off from this study could investigate religions and family structures around the world to see how cultural differences in these sources of resilience could impact the mental health and well-being of college students in unique ways.

Implications

Overall, our study’s findings suggest that there are numerous resilience factors that contribute to the well-being of college students. Religiosity, spirituality, and family cohesion are important to consider when interacting with college students. On their own, these sources of resilience have clear positive impacts on college students’ mental health and well-being, and it is possible that combining these different sources could provide an even greater impact. Having a strong sense of family cohesion and support can significantly alleviate college students’ stress levels and build up their self-esteem, while following a religion or having some sense of spirituality can give college students significant hope for the future, as well as a deeper sense of meaning for life’s misfortunes. They may be better equipped to implement healthier behaviors if they draw support from a nurturing, caring family and/or their own religious or spiritual beliefs.

If counselors, professors, and other individuals that students look to for support learn of these SOURCES OF RESILIENCE AS PREDICTORS OF WELL-BEING 20 different sources of resilience that their students can draw from, they may also be better prepared to guide them. Regardless of the notion that college can be a challenging time, it is evident that many students possess the ability to bounce back from difficult situations. Whether they choose to draw from familial resources or their own personal faith, drawing from both sources simultaneously may benefit college students’ mental health and well-being greatly.

SOURCES OF RESILIENCE AS PREDICTORS OF WELL-BEING 21

References American Psychological Association. (2014). The road to resilience. Retrieved from

http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/road-resilience.aspx

Berryhill, M. B., Harless, C., & Kean, P. (2018). College student cohesive-flexible family

functioning and mental health: Examining gender differences and the mediation effects of

positive family communication and self-compassion. The Family Journal, 26(4), 422-

432. https://doi.org/10.1177/1066480718807411

Beyer, P., Craig, S., & Cummins, A. (2018). Religious identity construction among young adults

in Canada: The religious, the spiritual, and the non-religious. In P. L. Gareau, S. C.

Bullivant, & P. Beyer (Eds.), Youth, religion, and identity in a globalizing context (pp.

33-52). Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004388055_003

Black, K., & Lobo, M. (2008). A conceptual review of family resilience factors. Journal of

Family Nursing, 14(1), 33-55. https://doi.org/10.1177/1074840707312237

Borchet, J., Lewandowska-Walter, A., & Rostowska, T. (2016). Parentification in late

adolescence and selected features of the family system. Health Psychology Report, 4(2),

116-127. https://doi.org/10.5114/hpr.2016.55921

Bottoms, B. L., Diviak, K. R., & Davis, S. L. (1997). Religiosity Questionnaire [Database

record]. PsycTESTS. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0145-2134(97)00046-X

Caldwell, K., & Senter, K. (2013). Strengthening family resilience through spiritual and religious

resources. In D. S. Becvar (Ed.), Handbook of family resilience (pp. 441-455). New

York, NY: US Springer Science + Business Media.

Chang, E., Change, O., Martos, T., & Sallay, V. (2018). Loss of hope and suicide risk in

Hungarian college students: How the presence of perceived family support makes a SOURCES OF RESILIENCE AS PREDICTORS OF WELL-BEING 22

positive difference. The Family Journal, 26(1), 119-126.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1066480718756595

Cohen, S., Kamarck, T., & Mermelstein, R. (1983). A global measure of perceived stress.

Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 24, 386-396. https://doi.org/10.2307/2136404

Deb, S., McGirr, K., & Sun, J. (2016). Spirituality in Indian university students and its

associations with socioeconomic status, religious background, social support, and mental

health. Journal of Religion and Health, 55(5), 1623-1641.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10943-016-0207-x

DiPierro, M., Fite, P., & Johnson-Motoyama, M. (2018). The role of religion and spirituality in

the association between hope and anxiety in a sample of Latino youth. Child & Youth

Care Forum, 47(1), 101-114. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10566-017-9421-2

Feldman, D. B., Einav, M., & Margalit, M. (2018). Does family cohesion predict children’s

effort? The mediating role of sense of coherence, hope, and loneliness. The Journal of

Psychology, 152(5), 276-289. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2018.1447434

Fiorini, M. C., & Bardagi, M. P. (2018). Family functioning, differentiation of self and career

adaptability of Brazilian university students. Psicología desde el Caribe, 35(3).

http://dx.doi.org/10.14482/psdc.35.3.155.2

Gebre, A., & Taylor, R. D. (2017). Association of poor kin relations, college adjustment and

psychological well-being among African American undergraduates. Journal of Child and

Family Studies, 26(1), 217-224. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-016-0539-x

Guassi Moreira, J. F., & Telzer, E. H. (2015). Changes in family cohesion and links to

depression during the college transition. Journal of Adolescence, 43, 72-82.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2015.05.012 SOURCES OF RESILIENCE AS PREDICTORS OF WELL-BEING 23

Hayman, J. W., Kurpius, S. R., Befort, C., Nicpon, M. F., Hull-Blanks, E., Sollenberger, S., et al.

(2007). Spirituality among college freshmen: Relationships to self-esteem, body image,

and stress. Counseling and Values, 52(1), 55-70. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-

007X.2007.tb00087.x

Hood, C. O., Thomson Ross, L., & Wills, N. (2019). Family factors and depressive symptoms

among college students: Understanding the role of self-compassion. Journal of American

College Health, 1-5. https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2019.1596920

Howell, K. H., & Miller-Graff, L. E. (2014). Protective factors associated with resilient

functioning in young adulthood after childhood exposure to violence. Child Abuse &

Neglect, 38(12), 1985-1994. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2014.10.010

Hunsberger, B., Pratt, M., & Pancer, S. M. (2001). Religious versus nonreligious socialization:

Does religious background have implications for adjustment? The International Journal

for the Psychology of Religion, 11(2), 105-128.

https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327582IJPR1102_03

Kasen, S., Wickramaratne, P., Gameroff, M., & Weissman, M. (2012). Religiosity and resilience

in persons at high risk for major depression. Psychological Medicine, 42(3), 509-519.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291711001516

Khallad, Y., & Jabr, F. (2016). Effects of perceived social support and family demands on

college students’ mental well-being: A cross-cultural investigation. International Journal

of Psychology, 51(5), 348-355. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12177

Kingery, J., Bodenlos, J., & Lathrop, J. (2019). Facets of dispositional mindfulness versus

sources of social support predicting college students’ psychological adjustment. Journal SOURCES OF RESILIENCE AS PREDICTORS OF WELL-BEING 24

of American College Health, 68(4), 403-410.

https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2019.1574801

Lau, E., Chan, K., & Lam, C. (2018). Social support and adjustment outcomes of first-year

university students in Hong Kong: Self-esteem as a mediator. Journal of College Student

Development, 59(1), 129-134. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2018.0011

Lecic-Tosevski, D., Vukovic, O., & Stepanovic, J. (2011). Stress and personality. Psychiatriki,

22(4), 290-297.

Nadal, A. R., Hardy, S. A., & Barry, C. M. (2018). Understanding the roles of religiosity and

spirituality in emerging adults in the United States. Psychology of Religion and

Spirituality, 10(1), 30-43. https://doi.org/10.1037/rel0000104

O’Brien, K. (2017). Social cohesion and resilience in first Australian family and kinship

networks. Journal of Family History, 42(4), 440-451.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0363199017725347

O’Connor, D. B., O’Connor, R. C., & Cobb, J. (2003). Religiosity, stress and psychological

distress: No evidence for an association among undergraduate students. Personality and

Individual Differences, 34(2), 211-217. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00035-1

Robertson, P. (2012, January 5). Work/life balance beats stress or mental health as business

threat – Grid. Cover Magazine.

https://www.covermagazine.co.uk/cover/news/2147549/work-life-balance-beats-stress-

mental-health-business-threat-grid

Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton

University Press. SOURCES OF RESILIENCE AS PREDICTORS OF WELL-BEING 25

Santoro, A., Benkhoukha, A., Ramanayake, N., & Kapur, S. (2016). Adverse childhood

experiences and religiosity/spirituality in emerging adolescents in India. Psychology of

Religion and Spirituality, 8(3), 185-194. https://doi.org/10.1037/rel0000038

Savage, J. E., & Mezuk, B. (2014). Family Characteristics Measure [Database record].

PsycTESTS. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2014.03.011

Sherrieb, K., Norris, F. H., & Galea, S. (2010). Measuring Capacities for Community Resilience.

Social Indicators Research, 99(2), 227–247. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-010-9576-9

Snyder, C. R., Sympson, S. C., Ybasco, F. C., Borders, T. F., Babyak, M. A., & Higgins, R. L.

(1996). Development and validation of the State Hope Scale. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 70, 321-335. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.2.321

Southwick, S. M., Bonanno, G. A., Masten, A. S., Panter-Brick, C., & Yehuda, R. (2014).

Resilience definitions, theory, and challenges: interdisciplinary perspectives. European

Journal of Psychotraumatology, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.3402/ejpt.v5.25338

Tan-Wilson, A., & Stamp, N. (2015). College students’ views of work-life balance in STEM

research careers: Addressing negative preconceptions. Cell Biology Education: Life

Sciences Education, 14(3). https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.14-11-0210

Uruk, A. Ç., Sayger, T. V., & Cogdal, P.A. (2007). Examining the influence of family cohesion

and adaptability on trauma symptoms and psychological well-being. Journal of College

Student Psychotherapy, 22(2), 51-63, https://doi.org/10.1300/J035v22n02_05

Walsh, F. (2006). Strengthening family resilience (2nd ed.) New York, New York: Guilford

Press. SOURCES OF RESILIENCE AS PREDICTORS OF WELL-BEING 26

Wilt, J. A., Grubbs, J. B., Exline, J. J., & Pargament, K. I. (2016). Personality, religious and

spiritual struggles, and well-being. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 8(4), 341-

351. https://doi.org/10.1037/rel0000054

SOURCES OF RESILIENCE AS PREDICTORS OF WELL-BEING 27

Appendix A – Correlations

Table A1

Measures of Well-being Correlated with Sources of Resilience

Perceived Stress Hope Self-Esteem

Religiosity -.166** .244*** .256***

Family Characteristics

Family Cohesion -.390*** .105 .406***

Note. For correlations involving Religiosity, N = 245.

For correlations under Family Characteristics, N = 253.

* p < .05 ** p < .01 *** p < .001

SOURCES OF RESILIENCE AS PREDICTORS OF WELL-BEING 28

Appendix B – Summary of Regression Analyses

Table B1

Summary of the Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Perceived Stress

Variable Beta t p-value

Constant 13.96 < .0001

Family Cohesion -.375 -6.47 <.0001

Gender .137 2.37 .0186

Note. Adjusted R2 = .1644

SOURCES OF RESILIENCE AS PREDICTORS OF WELL-BEING 29

Table B2

Summary of the Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Hope

Variable Beta t p-value

Constant 52.05 < .0001

Religiosity .238 3.80 .0002

Race -.066 -1.05 .2948

Note. Adjusted R2 = .0563

SOURCES OF RESILIENCE AS PREDICTORS OF WELL-BEING 30

Table B3

Summary of the Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Self-Esteem

Variable Beta t p-value

Constant 6.42 < .0001

Religiosity .133 2.20 .0286

Family Cohesion .347 5.71 <.0001

Gender -.176 -3.06 <.0025

Note. Adjusted R2 = .2064