Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Military Psychology logoLink to Military Psychology
. 2022 Feb 9;34(5):530–540. doi: 10.1080/08995605.2021.2017190

Resilience in late adolescence/young adulthood: Rising to the occasion?

Cheryl Zlotnick 1,✉, Inbal Manor-Lavon 1, Einav Srulovici 1
PMCID: PMC10013384  PMID: 38536303

ABSTRACT

The developmental period of late adolescence/young adulthood is characterized by transitioning to an independent individual with a self-identity, established health habits and the components of resilience: (1) confidence in one’s abilities (personal competence) and (2) the ability to adapt to changes (acceptance of self and life). This two-wave, prospective study examines the associations among self-identity, health habits and resilience in 18 year olds (n = 149) before military service and six months afterward. The questionnaire included validated scales of resilience and self-identity, as well as instruments measuring health habits, family environment and demographic characteristics. Cross-sectional findings indicated that resilience at baseline was associated with gender-male (p < .05), lower distress (p < .001) and higher identity-affirmation/belonging (p < .05). Longitudinal findings showed that resilience was associated with changes of distress (p < .05) and the resilience component of personal competence (p < .001). Cross-sectional and longitudinal perspectives on 18-year-old military recruits portrayed different pictures. The cross-sectional findings showed that resilience was associated with lower distress and higher feelings of affirmation/belonging (self-identity); however, longitudinal findings showed that resilience was predicted by the ability to adapt to changes under stress. Resilient 18 year olds demonstrated the ability to adapt to stressful situations, but psychological distress may impede the development of self-identity.

KEYWORDS: Resilience, self-identity, health habits, military, late adolescence, young adulthood

What is the public significance of this article?—Military service has the reputation of building character, improving self-discipline, and increasing self-confidence as recruits learn to function in the military and how to react in stressful situations. Self-confidence in one’s ability to devise strategies to overcome life’s challenges is a component of self-identity; and learning to react to life’s stressors is a component of resilience. Accordingly, it may be that military service facilitates both the development of self-identity and resilience for adolescents/young adults, many of whom begin military service following high school (Drake et al., 2016; Sagone et al., 2020). At this time of transition, adolescents/young adults are establishing lifelong health habits and undergoing emotional and psychological development of attributes such as resilience and self-identity (Alessandri et al., 2014; Ross et al., 2020). This study focuses on the relationship among health habits, self-identity, stress and resilience, all of which may undergo changes during the six-month period when 18-year-olds enter the military.

Resilience refers to the dynamic and interactive process of returning to normal function after encountering and adjusting to a threat, such as a stressor or traumatic event (Luthar et al., 2000; Masten, 2014). Resilience, therefore, although correlated with good mental health and social competence is a very different construct (Bonanno, 2005; Rutter, 2012). Yet, the precise nature of resilience remains unclear. Some researchers characterize resilience as a state that varies depending on an individual’s personal characteristics and experiences, the type of threat, the setting where the threat takes place, and timing during the life course when the threat occurs (Campbell-Sills & Stein, 2007; Masten & Tellegen, 2012). Others contend that resilience is an established trait resulting from genetics and biological responses that are activated by threats and adverse situations (Block & Kremen, 1996; Yehuda & Flory, 2007). These perspectives suggest that resilience may have two distinct components: personality characteristics that are static and trait-like; and the adaptation ability that is dynamic and state-like.

Accordingly, each resilient component has associations with other characteristics. For example, the dispositional or trait personality characteristic component of resilience is protective against psychological distress (Grych et al., 2020; Ong et al., 2006) and correlated positively with optimism, well-being (Grych et al., 2020) and self-confidence (Wagnild & Young, 1993). The dynamic and changeable adaptation ability component of resilience centers on the capacity to overcome threats and adversity (Masten, 2018). It can be increased with experience, development (Masten & Tellegen, 2012) and targeted interventions, which are linked to decreased anxiety and increased posttraumatic growth (Koni et al., 2019; Ord et al., 2020; Rutter, 2012).

Resilience arises from several factors including the family and social environment that begins with the parent–child relationship (Bartone et al., 2009). The bonding of infants to their parents, called attachment, is the basis of the parent–child relationship, and individuals’ connection and connectedness with other human beings over the lifetime (Bowlby, 1977). Children who have stable and safe relationships learn to trust their caregiving adults and develop into adolescents/young adults who are willing to engage in new experiences and relationships (Moretti & Peled, 2004).

Resilience is associated with self-identity, an expected association, as both these attributes are based on experiences and relationships with other individuals and groups (Christmas & Khanlou, 2019). Self-identity is part of the late adolescence/young adulthood stage of development and is characterized by reporting membership to different groups including those related to national origin, religion, political affiliation, or military unit (Cruwys et al., 2013). Possessing multiple-group memberships is positively linked to psychological well-being and negatively associated with stress and depression (Crocetti et al., 2008; Cruwys et al., 2013, 2014). In fact, when faced with difficult challenges, having group membership is related positively to resilience (Jones & Jetten, 2010).

Self-identity is comprised of two components, identity exploration (questioning and deciding on values and beliefs) and identity achievement or affirmation/belonging (selection of group memberships) (Marcia, 1966). These two components are associated with one another (Crocetti et al., 2008). While the former (identity exploration) is linked to adaptive personality dimensions, such as extroversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness and openness to experience (Crocetti et al., 2008), the latter (affirmation/belonging) is related to the ability of being able to persevere despite stressful tasks (Marcia, 1966). Accordingly, this latter component of self-identity demonstrates a positive relationship with resilience (Hatala et al., 2017; Scarf et al., 2016).

Another area of family and social environment linked to resilience is family socioeconomic status, and this link remains even after youth have left their parents’ home (Bottrell, 2009; Hornor, 2017). Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) (victim of neglect or abuse before the age of 18 years) are associated with lower levels of resilience and coming from a family with lower socioeconomic status (Schnarrs et al., 2020). Reporting ACEs is positively associated with distress (Beutel et al., 2017), more frequently reported in women than men (Zhang et al., 2018), and more common among migrants (defined as individuals born in another country) than native-born adolescents/young adults (Motti-Stefanidi et al., 2012).

Resilience may be linked to health habits, which like self-identity, are established during adolescent/young adult development (Ross et al., 2020). The two more commonly measured health habits of adolescents/young adults are healthy eating, defined as eating fruits and vegetables daily, and not smoking (Mistry et al., 2009; Ross et al., 2020). When resilience was defined as not having physical or mental comorbidities, a link was found between resilience and health habits (Stefanovics et al., 2020). However, when resilience was operationalized by a scale measuring self-confidence in one’s ability to adapt to changes, no relationship was found with health habits (Ayres & Pontes, 2018) or with nicotine dependence (Isaacs et al., 2017)

Life experiences, such as being in the military, may increase resilience and personal growth (Campbell-Sills et al., 2018), but also may increase psychological distress (Nakkas et al., 2016). Feelings of psychological distress are subjective and vary by person, situation, context, and duration (Bliese et al., 2017). Distress is negatively associated with overall resilience (Beutel et al., 2017). Accordingly, several personality characteristics, which are positively correlated with resilience, are negatively correlated with distress (Moore et al., 2018). For example, optimism is associated with the personality trait of resilience (Grych et al., 2020) but negatively associated with distress (Carver et al., 2010).

The level of psychological distress influences resilience such that individuals with high versus low levels of distress who possess low resilience have greater odds of exhibiting emotional disorders (Campbell-Sills et al., 2018). Conversely, low levels of distress contribute to the adaptation ability of resilience by “steeling” the individual, a term denoting adaptation to later stresses by giving individuals measured doses of stressful experiences in controlled, comfortable environments (Rutter, 2012). These interventions enable individuals to reflect on the source of stress, consequences and potential implications of the event, and devise optimal ways of reacting should the event recur, or provide strategies to completely avoid the event (Ord et al., 2020).

Studies examining the link between resilience and stress among military personnel have garnered substantial interest (Campbell-Sills et al., 2018; Rosellini et al., 2015; Skomorovsky & Stevens, 2013). Particularly among new recruits, studies have focused on protective factors that buffer the stress of being in the military (Campbell-Sills et al., 2018) and contribute to resilience despite the stress of military life (Escolas et al., 2014; Hystad et al., 2015; Isaacs et al., 2017). This study aims to contribute to the knowledge on protective factors that contribute to building resilience for new recruits by focusing on the associations among resilience, self-identity and health habits, all of which may change during the transition that occurs with adolescent/young adult development and when new recruits enter the military.

Hypothesis 1 – We anticipate that cross-sectional results will show that prior to military service, resilience will be positively associated with self-identity and positive health habits but negatively related to distress among adolescents/young adults.

Hypothesis 2 – We anticipate that longitudinal results will show that after 6 months in military service, increased resilience will be positively associated with self-identity and positive health habits and will be negatively associated with distress among adolescents/young adults.

The context of the Israeli military

Military (or community) service is mandatory for most Israelis who are 18 years old after high school completion. Still, Israeli 18 year olds choose for themselves either community or military service. Those who choose military service undergo screening, medical evaluation, psychometric evaluation, and psychological assessment prior to induction to determine service function and placement. Even recruits with special needs may serve, although they are assigned to environments where they can fulfill their service safely (Bodner et al., 2007). It is noteworthy that exclusions to mandatory service includes Jewish religious girls, those unsuitable for military service due to health reasons, Israel’s Arab citizens who are Muslim, Christian or Bedouin, and ultra-orthodox males who are studying in a yeshiva (Bick, 2016). Adjusting for these exceptions, approximately 60–70% of 18 year olds enter military service (Israeli Knesset, 2017). For most of these apparently healthy 18-year-olds, who come from varied family backgrounds, health habits and self-identities, entry into military service is the first time that they are away from home and expected to function completely independently from their parents for an extended time-period. Therefore, this study supposes that entry into the military is a stressful event for adolescents/young adults.

Methods

Using a two-wave, prospective, study design, a cohort of adolescents/young adults aged 18 years entering the military were recruited via links on social media sites containing a description of the study, the approximately 20-minute questionnaire, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and consenting procedure. The consenting procedure indicated that the 18-year-old’s name and e-mail would be requested as they were needed for follow-up contact and for sending the gift certificate as a thank you for time and effort (worth about $17 for the baseline questionnaire and about $34 for the 6-month follow-up). The university’s Ethics Committee (#268/18) approved the study.

Participants who completed the first questionnaire (n = 297) received an invitation six months later to complete the follow-up questionnaire. Two reminders were sent one and two weeks later if the follow-up questionnaire was not completed. All participants completed the questionnaire at baseline, containing: demographic characteristics (i.e., gender, year of birth, place of birth – participants born outside of Israel were categorized as migrants based on the United Nations’ definition of individuals born in another country (United Nations International Organization for Migration, 2019)), family environment (i.e., ACEs and socioeconomic status), health habits (i.e., smoking, fruit and vegetable consumption), and internal resources (i.e., level of psychological distress, self-identity, and resilience). Only 149 (50.2%) completed the follow-up questionnaire (two-wave sample).

Measures

Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs). ACEs were measured using the 10, yes-no questions on whether before the age of 18, the participant experienced: emotional abuse, physical abuse, sexual abuse, emotional neglect, physical neglect, parental divorce/separation, witnessed domestic violence, family member had an alcohol/drug addiction, family member had a mental illness, and family member was imprisoned (Felitti et al., 1998). Since very few participants even had a single ACE, ACEs were dichotomized into had at least one ACE versus did not.

Socioeconomic status. The question on socio-economic status was “How would you describe your family economic status?” The participant could choose: extremely poor, not good, average, good, or above average. Due to distribution, the socioeconomic variable was re-categorized as socioeconomic status – above average versus not.

Never smoked. Participants who reported never smoking during both waves (baseline and 6-month follow-up) were categorized as never smoked.

Maintained healthy diet with fruits and vegetables. Consistent with other researchers’ definition of healthy eating (Bellis et al., 2017), participants were asked “How many days per week do you eat the following?” Participants selected: less than once a week, once a week, two to four times per week, five to six times per week, once a day, and more than once a day. Participants who reported consuming more than one fruit and vegetable per day during both waves were categorized as “maintained healthy diet with fruits and vegetables.”

Psychological distress. The six-question, four-level Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K6) was used to measure psychological distress (Kessler et al., 2003). An example of a question is “what is the frequency during the past 30 days that you felt everything was an effort?” Possible responses were: none of the time, a little of the time, some of the time, most of the time, and all of the time. Scores range from 0 to 24. Based on our baseline findings, internal consistency was acceptable (Cronbach's alpha = 0.75).

Self-Identity. Self-identity was measured by the 12-item, four-level Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure (MEIM). The MEIM is measured by the total score as well as the scores of its two subscales. The affirmation/belonging contains seven items and exploration contains five items (Phinney, 1992). An example of the MEIM affirmation/belonging subscale is “I have a strong sense of belonging to my ethnic group.” An example of the MEIM exploration subscale is “I have spent time trying to find out more about my own ethnic group, such as its history, traditions and customs.” The possible responses are: strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, and strongly disagree. The total score ranges from 12 to 48. Based on our baseline findings, internal consistency was acceptable to good for the total scale, and the subscales of affirmation and exploration, with Cronbach’s alphas of 0.82, 0.70, and 0.75, respectively.

Resilience. The 25-item, seven-level Resilience Scale (RS) was used to measure resilience (Wagnild & Young, 1993). This scale formed the basis for other resilience scales and was used among army recruits (Campbell-Sills et al., 2018). The RS was measured by the total score and its two subscales including (1) Personal Competence and (2) Acceptance of Self & Life. Personal Competence indicating adaptation ability has 17 items (e.g., “In an emergency, people can rely on me”) and the Acceptance of Self & Life indicating the personality characteristic of taking life in stride has eight items (e.g., “I do not dwell on things”). The participants ranked each statement from 1 to 7, with one labeled as disagree and seven labeled as agree. The total RS score ranges from 25 to 175. Having a score of 120 or below indicates low resilience and a score greater than 145 indicates high resilience (Wagnild, 2009). Internal consistency for the total RS scale and the subscales of personal competence and acceptance of self and life was excellent to fair with Cronbach's alpha of 0.90, 0.90, and 0.63, respectively.

Several techniques have been used to examine the changing effects of adaptability, hardiness or resilience over time (1) regressing the baseline value on the final value of resilience (Koni et al., 2019); (2) categorizing the nature of the change (Oshri et al., 2015); and (3) or change over time (Keefer et al., 2013). In this study, change in internal resources for each variable was calculated by subtracting baseline values from the 6-month follow-up values (i.e., change in level of distress, change in resilience-acceptance of self & life, change in resilience-personal competence, change in identity-affirmation/belonging, change in identity-exploration).

Analyses

Data were analyzed using SPSS® Version 25. Imputed values were calculated using the Monte Carlo Markov Chain (MCMC) method for variables missing fewer than 6% of the values (Schafer & Olsen, 1998; Yuan, 2011). Due to the substantial loss to follow-up, a comparison of the demographic characteristics (gender, migrant status) and family environment variable (socioeconomic status and having any ACEs) between the baseline sample (n = 297) and two-wave sample (n = 149) was made, but no differences were found by demographic variables or by the measures of self-identity, psychological distress or resilience (see, Table 1).

Table 1.

Comparison of demographic characteristics of baseline and two-wave samples.

  Baseline Sample
(n = 297)		 Two-Wave Sample (Baseline and 6-month Follow-up)
(n = 149)
Percent (n) Percent (n)
Gender – male 30.2 (90) 26.8 (40)
Migrant 30.2 (90) 26.8 (40)
No adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) 66.6 (197) 70.7 (104)
Socioeconomic status – above average 62.4 (186) 64.7 (97)
  Mean (SD) Mean (SD)
Identity (range: 12–48) 30.4 (6.13) 31.4 (5.93)

  • Identity affirmation/belonging (range: 7–28)

 17.8 (3.99) 18.69 (3.53)

  • Identity exploration (range: 5–20)

 15.3 (3.47) 15.5 (3.53)
Distress (range: 0–24) 12.5 (4.41) 12.4 (3.83)
Resilience (scores range: 25– 175) 131.0 (21.80) 130.0 (20.34)

  • Resilience – Personal competence (range: 17–119)

 92.1 (16.13) 92.5 (14.80)

  • Resilience – Acceptance of self & life (range: 8–56)

 38.9 (7.07) 37.5 (7.02)
Open in a new tab

* p < 0.5, ** p < .01, ***p < .001

To conduct comparisons between baseline and 6-month follow-up, paired t-Tests were used for continuous variables and McNemar’s test was used for categorical variables. Pearson’s Correlation Coefficients coefficients were used to examine the relationships between continuous variables.

Linear regression models were used to examine the associations between the dependent variable of resilience and three blocks of independent variables for the baseline sample (n = 297) and the two-wave sample (n = 149). The first block of independent variables includes the demographic variables (i.e., gender and migrant status). The second block includes family environment variables (i.e., socioeconomic status, having any ACEs) and health habits (i.e., never smoked, maintained diet with more than one serving of fruit/vegetables daily). The third block includes internal resources (i.e., distress, identity and the identity subscales of acceptance of life/belonging and exploration). F-values, adjusted r-squared and changes in adjusted r-squared (∆R2) are reported. Significance was declared at p < .05.

Results

Among the 18 year olds in the two-wave sample (n = 149), males and migrants comprised more than a quarter of the sample, almost three-quarters reported no ACEs and about two-thirds reported that their family socioeconomic status was above average (n = 149) (see, Table 2). More than four-fifths of youth remained nonsmokers; however, being a healthy eater who consumed fruits and vegetables more than once per day changed significantly between baseline and six-month follow-up (79.9% to 69.1%, p < .001, respectively). Among the internal resources of identity measures, no changes between baseline and 6-month follow-up were found in the MEIM score, the MEIM subscale of affirmation/belonging score, or the resilience subscale of acceptance of self & life score; however, significant decreases were found in the MEIM exploration score (p < .001) and distress (p < .001). A plot of the levels of distress and resilience are illustrated in Figure 1.

Table 2.

Characteristics of 18-year-old youth of the two-wave sample at the baseline and 6-month follow-up (n = 149).

  Baseline 6-month Follow-up
Mean (SD) Mean (SD)
Demographic characteristics    
Gender – Male, % (n) 26.8 (40)  
Migrant, % (n) 26.8 (40)  
Family environment    
No adverse childhood
experience (ACEs), % (n)		 70.7 (104)  
Socioeconomic status – above
average, % (n)		 64.7 (97)  
Maintained health habits    
Never smoked, % (n) 81.3 (123) 81.3 (123)
Healthy diet with fruits and vegetables, % (n) *** 79.9 (119) 69.1 (103)
Internal resources    
Identity – Multi-Group Ethnic Identity Measure (MEIM) (score range: 12–48) 31.6 (6.00) 30.8 (5.61)

  • Identity affirmation/belonging (scores range: 7–28)

 18.8 (3.56) 18.4 (3.64)

  • Identity exploration (scores range: 5–20)***

 15.6 (3.60) 12.4 (2.71)
Kessler – Distress (scores range: 0–24) *** 12.3 (3.88) 15.3 (4.42)
Resilience Scale (scores range: 25– 175) 130.7 (20.01) 127.5 (22.61)

  • Resilience – Personal competence (scores range: 17–119)

 93.1 (14.52) 90.7 (16.47)

  • Resilience – Acceptance of self & life (scores range: 8–56)

 37.6 (6.99) 36.8 (7.34)
Open in a new tab

* p < 0.5, ** p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

Baseline and 6-month follow-up scores on distress and resilience total and resilience subscales for new military recruits(n = 149).

Correlations were examined between scores on resilience of the two-wave sample with the MEIM scale and affirmation/belonging and acceptance of self and life subscale scores. At the baseline, resilience was correlated with MEIM (r = 0.302, p < .01), affirmation/belonging (r = 0.255, p < .01) and with acceptance of self & life (r = 0.294, p < .01). At the six-month follow-up, resilience was correlated with MEIM (r = 0.236, p < .01) but not correlated with either affirmation/belonging or acceptance of self and life.

Linear regression models were used to examine the associations between the cross-sectional data of the dependent variable of resilience and the three blocks of independent variables for the baseline sample (n = 297) and the two-wave sample (n = 149). For the baseline sample, higher resilience at baseline was associated with gender–male (p < .05), lower distress (p < .001), and higher identity-affirmation belonging (p < .01) (see, Table 3). The model was significant (p < .001) and explained 23% of the variance. For the two-wave sample, resilience at the baseline was also associated with gender-male (p < .05), lower distress (p < .001) and higher identity-affirmation/belonging (p < .05). This model was significant (p < .001) and explained 31% of the variance.

Table 3.

Linear regression models predicting resilience in 18-year-old youth in the military, with estimates, beta values, and standard error (SE).

  Baseline Sample
(n = 297)		 Two-wave Sample
(n = 149)
 
 Baseline
 Baseline
 6-month Follow-up
Estimate
 β
 SE
 Estimate
 β
 SE
 Estimate
 β
 SE
Demographic characteristics                  
Gender – male 5.517 0.120* 2.449 7.893 0.174* 3.368 6.827 0.129 4.270
Migrant −0.995 −0.022 2.440 −6.194 −0.133 3.384 −6.205 −0.131 4.261
Family environment                  
Reported at least one adverse childhood experience (ACEs) 0.133 0.008 0.921 1.679 0.099 1.267 −1.667 −0.095 1.554
Socioeconomic status – above average 1.603 0.037 2.298 5.071 0.117 3.107 1.175 0.021 3.897
Maintained health habits                  
Never smoked 4.018 0.059 3.564 1.569 0.027 4.563 4.468 0.087 5.448
Healthy diet with fruits and vegetables 1.344 0.028 2.473 1.679 0.036 3.816 −0.652 −0.013 3.936
Changed internal resources                  
Distress −1.544 −0.297*** 0.278 −2.516 −0.491*** 0.395 −1.757 −0.343*** 0.413
Identity                  
Identity – Affirmation/belonging 1.649 0.245** 0.490 1.410 0.268* 0.656 0.909 0.159 0.588
Identity- Exploration 0.514 0.113 0.331 0.024 −0.017 0.637 −1.120 −0.177 0.732
F (df) = Value   F(9,286) = 11.113*** F(9,134) = 6.796***   F(9,129) = 3.333***
R-Square R2 = .23     R2 = .31   R2 = .0.19  
Open in a new tab

* p < 0.5, ** p < .01, ***p < .001

A linear regression model comprising the two-wave sample examined the association between resilience at the 6-month follow-up and the same three blocks of variables. Findings indicated that only lower distress (p < .001) was associated with higher resilience. This model was significant (p < .001) and explained 19% of the variance (see, Table 3).

The final linear regression models provided a longitudinal view of the association between resilience after the six-month period and the three blocks of independent variables (see, Table 4). For Model one, the block of demographic characteristics (gender and migrant status) was introduced, but none of the variables were associated with resilience, resulting in a model with poor model fit that explained only 2% of the variance. For Model two, the second block of variables on family environment (socioeconomic status and having at least one ACE) and maintained health habits (never smoked, maintained diet with fruit/vegetables) was added; but none of these variables were significantly associated with resilience. Consequently, the model fit remained poor, and very little additional variance was explained (4%). For Model three, the third block of variables indicating changes in internal resources was added. As with the first two models, demographic characteristics, family environment and maintained health habits remained insignificant; however, the dependent variable of resilience was associated with increasing changes of distress (p < .05) and increasing changes of the resilience subscale of personal competence (p < .001). The fit was significant (p < .001) and the model explained 38% of the variance.

Table 4.

Linear regression models on prospective data predicting resilience in 18-year-olds 6 months after entry into the military (n = 149), with estimates, beta values, and standard error (SE).

  Model One
 Model Two
 Model Three
Estimate β SE Estimate β SE Estimate β SE
Demographic characteristics                  
Gender – male 5.649 0.114 4.167 5.172 0.097 4.416 5.925 0.104 3.725
Migrant −4.569 −0.098 4.235 −5.411 −0.117 4.387 −6.715 −0.144 3.677
Family environment                  
Reported at least one adverse childhood experience (ACEs)       −2.034 −0.109 1.647 −0.314 −0.016 1.406
Socioeconomic status – above average       3.069 0.064 4.079 5.579 0.101 3.434
Maintained health habits                  
Never smoked       0.244 0.012 5.261 0.233 0.000 4.544
Healthy diet with fruits and vegetables       −0.159 0.012 4.013 1.962 0.043 3.391
Changed internal resources                  
Change in distress             0.971 0.195* 0.387
Change in resilience – acceptance of self & life             0.507 0.112 0.354
Change in resilience – personal competence             0.807 0.519*** 0.161
Change in identity – affirmation/belonging             −0.240 −0.026 0.504
Change in identity – exploration             −0.996 −0.166 0.540
F (df) = Value   F(2,133) = 1.488   F(6,129) = 0.907   F(11,124) = 7.025***
R-Square R2 = 0.02   R2 = 0.04   R2 = 0.38  
ΔR-square     ΔR2 = 0.02   ΔR2 = 0.34  
Open in a new tab

* p < 0.5, ** p < .01, ***p < .001

Discussion

The development of resilience, self-identity and health habits in adolescents/young adults who are engaging in new and different experiences (Alessandri et al., 2014; Crane et al., 2019; Crone & Dahl, 2012; Ross et al., 2020) may provide a partial explanation for the different findings between the longitudinal and cross-sectional findings among the adolescents/young adults. Specifically, longitudinal study findings indicated that resilience, after the first six-months in military service, is related to increased adaptation ability (as hypothesized) and increased distress (the inverse direction was hypothesized); however, cross-sectional results showed that increased resilience was negatively associated with distress (as hypothesized) and positively associated with the identity-affirmation/belonging (as hypothesized). Resilience was not associated with health habits in either the cross-sectional or longitudinal findings.

Longitudinal and cross-sectional views – the relationship between resilience and distress

The time-period between late adolescence and early adulthood marks a particularly sensitive developmental stage when newly independent youth encounter a variety of novel experiences that influences resilience, self-identity and health habits, but also increases stress (Crone & Dahl, 2012). The longitudinal findings from this study indicate that resilience is related positively to increasing changes in both distress and the adaptation ability of resilience over the six-month period. Such findings support the theoretical, dual nature of resilience (i.e., the part trait and part state components of resilience) in which the facile, state-like ability to adapt increases during a time of distress (Campbell-Sills & Stein, 2007; Masten & Tellegen, 2012), while the static, trait-like ability remains constant (Block & Kremen, 1996; Yehuda & Flory, 2007). The state-like ability is the component that may increase with new and different experiences and is the targeted component of interventions designed to facilitate adjustment to psychological distress.

It may appear that findings on the relationship between distress and resilience conflict since some studies suggest that distress stimulates increases in the adaptation ability component of resilience (Alessandri et al., 2014), while others suggest distress and resilience have an inverse relationship (Beutel et al., 2017; Moore et al., 2018). Our cross-sectional findings at baseline and at the 6-month follow-up waves illustrate the stability of the inverse relationship between distress and resilience. Indeed, consistent with other researchers’ findings (Nakkas et al., 2016), this study’s results indicate increased stress over the six-month follow-up period in military service, but bivariate results show that neither resilience nor resilience subscales changed significantly over the follow-up period.

Self-identity

Another product of adolescent/young adult development is the formation of a self-identity, which indicates a sense of affirmation/belonging (Phinney, 1990; Ross et al., 2020). Adolescents/young adults who engage in varied and different activities, when they are not with their family and friends, are more likely to have increases in affirmation/belonging (Galliher et al., 2017), and affirmation is positively related to resilience (Hatala et al., 2017; Scarf et al., 2016). Contrary to our hypothesis, longitudinal findings indicated that resilience was not associated with changes in affirmation over the six-month period. In fact, bivariate findings showed that over the six-month period affirmation/belonging did not increase while identity exploration decreased. Both findings, the lack of change in affirmation/belonging and the decrease in exploration, are surprising as other researchers noted that undergoing socialization in a new cultural surrounding increases self-identity affirmation and exploration (Else-Quest & Morse, 2015). A potential explanation for this unexpected finding is that traumatic and stressful situations may actually delay the development of self-identity (Waterman, 2020) and based on bivariate analyses, distress levels increased significantly.

Health habits, family environment, and demographic characteristics

Resilience over the six-month follow-up period was not associated with maintaining health habits (never smoking, maintaining diet including fruits/vegetables), family environment (ACEs and socioeconomic status), or demographic characteristics (gender and migrant status). Similarly, the cross-sectional study found no association between resilience and the independent variables comprising health habits, family environment and migrant status; only being male was related to higher resilience. Other researchers found independent associations between the resilience and the variables of socioeconomic status (Bottrell, 2009; Hornor, 2017), ACEs (Schnarrs et al., 2020), and being a migrant (Motti-Stefanidi et al., 2012). The absence of these associations in our study may be due to the insufficient variability of these variables or sample size.

This study has the advantage of containing a six-month follow-up measure of new military recruits who are likely to be representative of healthy 18-year-olds as opposed to some countries who have voluntary armies resulting in a possible self-selection bias (Rosellini et al., 2015). Israeli military service is required for most healthy Israeli youth who have completed high school, thus selection bias may be lower. Still, due to policies and exclusions specific to Israeli military recruitment, generalizability to all 18-year-olds or to military recruits in other countries must be made with caution. Other study limitations include the loss to follow-up of almost half the sample (although concern is reduced as comparisons suggest that the two-wave sample was similar to the baseline sample in demographic, family environment, distress, self-identify and resilience variables). Possible reasons for the high dropout rate may be that prior to military service, the adolescents/young adults may have had more time to respond to the survey and greater access to the internet. Also, their e-mail addresses may have changed once they entered the military, so our requests to complete the follow-up survey went unanswered. Other study limitations include the inability to verify variables such as family socioeconomic status and the lack of more specific information on the six-month follow-up period such as unit assignment (e.g., combat versus not). Moreover, more specific information on the nature of stressors was not obtained. Lastly, a longer follow-up period than the 6-month follow-up period of this study or providing more than two points of observation would provide a better picture of the relationship between resilience, stress and self-identity.

Conclusion

Cross-sectional and longitudinal studies provide different perspectives of the complicated relationships among resilience, stress, health habits and identity for adolescents/young adults engaging in novel experiences. While the feeling affirmation/belonging is associated with resilience, it is the change in the adaptation ability (personal competence) during stressful activities that predicts resilience over time. These findings further support the utility of interventions and activities that encourage the development of this changeable component of resilience.

Funding Statement

This work was supported by the Ministry of Aliyah and Immigrant Absorption [None].

Data availability statement

Due to Ethics’ Committee restrictions, data are not available.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

References

  1. Alessandri, G., Kanacri, L., Paula, B., Eisenberg, N., Zuffianò, A., Milioni, M., Vecchione, M., & Caprara, G. V. (2014). Prosociality during the transition from late adolescence to young adulthood: The role of effortful control and ego-resiliency. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40(11), 1451–1465. 10.1177/0146167214549321 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Ayres, C. G., & Pontes, N. M. (2018). Use of theory to examine health responsibility in urban adolescents. Journal of Pediatric Nursing, 38, 40–45. 10.1016/j.pedn.2017.09.011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Bartone, P. T., Barry, C. L., & Armstrong, R. E. (2009). To build resilience: Leader influence on mental hardiness. Defense Horizons, 69(November), 1–8. https://ndupress.ndu.edu/Portals/68/Documents/defensehorizon/DH-69.pdf?ver=2014-03-06-114911-393 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bellis, M. A., Hardcastle, K., Ford, K., Hughes, K., Ashton, K., Quigg, Z., & Butler, N. (2017). Does continuous trusted adult support in childhood impart life-course resilience against adverse childhood experiences - a retrospective study on adult health-harming behaviours and mental well-being. BMC Psychiatry, 17(1), 110. 10.1186/s12888-017-1260-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Beutel, M. E., Tibubos, A. N., Klein, E. M., Schmutzer, G., Reiner, I., Kocalevent, R.-D., & Brähler, E. (2017). Childhood adversities and distress-The role of resilience in a representative sample. PLoS ONE, 12(3), e0173826. 10.1371/journal.pone.0173826 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Bick, E. (2016). Lip-service to service: The Knesset debates over civic national service in Israel, 1977–2007. Israel Affairs, 22(1), 126–149. 10.1080/13537121.2015.1111630 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  7. Bliese, P. D., Adler, A. B., & Flynn, P. J. (2017). Transition processes: A review and synthesis integrating methods and theory. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 4(1), 263–286. 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032516-113213 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  8. Block, J., & Kremen, A. M. (1996). IQ and ego-resiliency: Conceptual and empirical connections and separateness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(2), 349. 10.1037/0022-3514.70.2.349 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Bodner, E., Iancu, I., Sarel, A., & Einat, H. (2007). Innovations: Accommodations: Efforts to support special-needs soldiers serving in the Israeli defense forces. Psychiatric Services, 58(11), 1396–1398. 10.1176/ps.2007.58.11.1396 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Bonanno, G. A. (2005). Clarifying and extending the construct of adult resilience. American Psychologist, 60(3), 265–267. 10.1037/0003-066X.60.3.265b15796689 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  11. Bottrell, D. (2009). Understanding ‘marginal’ perspectives: Towards a social theory of resilience. Qualitative Social Work, 8(3), 321–339. 10.1177/1473325009337840 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  12. Bowlby, J. (1977). The making and breaking of affectional bonds: I. Aetiology and psychopathology in the light of attachment theory. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 130(3), 201–210. 10.1192/bjp.130.3.201 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Campbell-Sills, L., Kessler, R. C., Ursano, R. J., Sun, X., Taylor, C. T., Heeringa, S. G., & Stein, M. B. (2018). Predictive validity and correlates of self‐assessed resilience among US Army soldiers. Depression and Anxiety, 35(2), 122–131. 10.1002/da.22694 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Campbell-Sills, L., & Stein, M. B. (2007). Psychometric analysis and refinement of the Connor–Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC): Validation of a 10-item measure of resilience. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 20(6), 1019–1028. 10.1002/jts.20271 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. F., & Segerstrom, S. C. (2010). Optimism. Clinical Psychology Review, 30(7), 879–889. 10.1016/j.cpr.2010.01.006 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Christmas, C. M., & Khanlou, N. (2019). Defining youth resilience: A scoping review. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 17(3), 731–742. 10.1007/s11469-018-0002-x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  17. Crane, M. F., Searle, B. J., Kangas, M., & Nwiran, Y. (2019). How resilience is strengthened by exposure to stressors: The systematic self-reflection model of resilience strengthening. Anxiety, Stress, & Coping, 32(1), 1–17. 10.1080/10615806.2018.1506640 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Crocetti, E., Rubini, M., & Meeus, W. (2008). Capturing the dynamics of identity formation in various ethnic groups: Development and validation of a three-dimensional model. Journal of Adolescence, 31(2), 207–222. 10.1016/j.adolescence.2007.09.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Crone, E. A., & Dahl, R. E. (2012). Understanding adolescence as a period of social-affective engagement and goal flexibility. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 13(9), 636–650. 10.1038/nrn3313 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Cruwys, T., Dingle, G. A., Haslam, C., Haslam, S. A., Jetten, J., & Morton, T. A. (2013). Social group memberships protect against future depression, alleviate depression symptoms and prevent depression relapse. Social Science & Medicine, 98c, 179–186. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.09.013 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Cruwys, T., South, E. I., Greenaway, K. H., & Haslam, S. A. (2014). Social identity reduces depression by fostering positive attributions. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 6(1), 65–74. 10.1177/1948550614543309 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  22. Drake, E. C., Sladek, M. R., & Doane, L. D. (2016). Daily cortisol activity, loneliness, and coping efficacy in late adolescence: A longitudinal study of the transition to college. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 40(4), 334–345. 10.1177/0165025415581914 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Else-Quest, N. M., & Morse, E. (2015). Ethnic variations in parental ethnic socialization and adolescent ethnic identity: A longitudinal study. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 21(1), 54–64. 10.1037/a0037820 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Escolas, S., Escolas, H., & Bartone, P. T. (2014). Adult attachment style, hardiness, and mood. Military Behavioral Health, 2(2), 129–137. 10.1080/21635781.2014.903793 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  25. Felitti, V. J., Anda, R. F., Nordenberg, D., Williamson, D. F., Spitz, A. M., Edwards, V., & Marks, J. S. (1998). Relationship of childhood abuse and household dysfunction to many of the leading causes of death in adults. The adverse childhood experiences (ACE) study. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 14(4), 245–258. 10.1016/S0749-3797(98)00017-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Galliher, R. V., McLean, K. C., & Syed, M. (2017). An integrated developmental model for studying identity content in context. Developmental Psychology, 53(11), 2011–2022. 10.1037/dev0000299 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Grych, J., Taylor, E., Banyard, V., & Hamby, S. (2020). Applying the dual factor model of mental health to understanding protective factors in adolescence. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 90(4), 458–467. 10.1037/ort0000449 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Hatala, A. R., Pearl, T., Bird-Naytowhow, K., Judge, A., Sjoblom, E., & Liebenberg, L. (2017). “I have strong hopes for the future”: Time orientations and resilience among Canadian indigenous youth. Qualitative Health Research, 27(9), 1330–1344. 10.1177/1049732317712489 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Hornor, G. (2017). Resilience. Journal of Pediatric Health Care: Official Publication of National Association of Pediatric Nurse Associates & Practitioners, 31(3), 384–390. 10.1016/j.pedhc.2016.09.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Hystad, S. W., Olsen, O. K., Espevik, R., & Säfvenbom, R. (2015). On the stability of psychological hardiness: A three-year longitudinal study. Military Psychology, 27(3), 155–168. 10.1037/mil0000069 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  31. Isaacs, K., Mota, N. P., Tsai, J., Harpaz-Rotem, I., Cook, J. M., Kirwin, P. D., & Pietrzak, R. H. (2017). Psychological resilience in U.S. military veterans: A 2-year, nationally representative prospective cohort study. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 84, 301–309. 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2016.10.017 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Jones, J. M., & Jetten, J. (2010). Recovering from strain and enduring pain: Multiple group memberships promote resilience in the face of physical challenges. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2(3), 239–244. 10.1177/1948550610386806 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  33. Keefer, K. V., Holden, R. R., & Parker, J. D. A. (2013). Longitudinal assessment of trait emotional intelligence: Measurement invariance and construct continuity from late childhood to adolescence. Psychological Assessment, 25(4), 1255–1272. 10.1037/a0033903 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Kessler, R. C., Barker, P. R., Colpe, L. J., Epstein, J. F., Gfroerer, J. C., Hiripi, E., & Zaslavsky, A. M. (2003). Screening for serious mental illness in the general population. Archives of General Psychiatry, 60(2), 184–189. 10.1001/archpsyc.60.2.184 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Knesset, I. (2017). The weighted recruitment rate for the IDF (translated from Hebrew) [Press release]. https://main.knesset.gov.il/News/PressReleases/Pages/press26117x.aspx
  36. Koni, E., Moradi, S., Arahanga-Doyle, H., Neha, T., Hayhurst, J. G., Boyes, M., & Scarf, D. (2019). Promoting resilience in adolescents: A new social identity benefits those who need it most. PLoS ONE, 14(1), e0210521. 10.1371/journal.pone.0210521 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Luthar, S. S., Cicchetti, D., & Becker, B. (2000). The construct of resilience: A critical evaluation and guidelines for future work. Child Development, 71(3), 543–562. 10.1111/1467-8624.00164 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Marcia, J. E. (1966). Development and validation of ego-identity status. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3(5), 551. 10.1037/h0023281 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Masten, A. S. (2014). Invited commentary: Resilience and positive youth development frameworks in developmental science. Journal of Youth & Adolescence, 43, 1018–1024. 10.1007/s10964-014-0118-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Masten, A. S. (2018). Resilience theory and research on children and families: Past, present, and promise. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 10(1), 12–31. 10.1111/jftr.12255 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  41. Masten, A. S., & Tellegen, A. (2012). Resilience in developmental psychopathology: Contributions of the project competence longitudinal study. Development and Psychopathology, 24(2), 345–361. 10.1017/S095457941200003X [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Mistry, R., McCarthy, W. J., Yancey, A. K., Yao, L., & Patel, M. (2009). Resilience and patterns of health risk behaviors in California adolescents. Preventive Medicine, 48(3), 291–297. 10.1016/j.ypmed.2008.12.013 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Moore, M., Culpepper, S., Luan, P. K., Strauman, T. J., Dolcos, F., & Dolcos, S. (2018). Neurobehavioral mechanisms of resilience against emotional distress: An integrative brain-personality-symptom approach using structural equation modeling. Personality Neuroscience, 1, e8. 10.1017/pen.2018.11 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Moretti, M. M., & Peled, M. (2004). Adolescent-parent attachment: Bonds that support healthy development. Paediatrics & Child Health, 9(8), 551–555. 10.1093/pch/9.8.551 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Motti-Stefanidi, F., Asendorpf, J. B., & Masten, A. S. (2012). The adaptation and well-being of adolescent immigrants in Greek schools: A multilevel, longitudinal study of risks and resources. Development and Psychopathology, 24(2), 451–473. 10.1017/S0954579412000090 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Nakkas, C., Annen, H., & Brand, S. (2016). Psychological distress and coping in military cadre candidates. Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment, 12, 2237–2243. 10.2147/NDT.S113220 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Ong, A. D., Bergeman, C. S., Bisconti, T. L., & Wallace, K. A. (2006). Psychological resilience, positive emotions, and successful adaptation to stress in later life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(4), 730–749. 10.1037/0022-3514.91.4.730 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Ord, A. S., Stranahan, K. R., Hurley, R. A., & Taber, K. H. (2020). Stress-related growth: Building a more resilient brain. The Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences, 32(3), A4–212. 10.1176/appi.neuropsych.20050111 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Oshri, A., Lucier‐Greer, M., O’Neal, C. W., Laura, A. A., Mancini, J. A., & Ford, J. L. (2015). Adverse childhood experiences, family functioning, and resilience in military families: A pattern‐based approach. Family Relations: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Applied Family Studies, 64(1), 44–63. 10.1111/fare.12108 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  50. Phinney, J. S. (1990). Ethnic identity in adolescents and adults: Review of research. Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), 499–514. 10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.499 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Phinney, J. S. (1992). Multigroup ethnic identity measure: A new scale for use with diverse groups. Journal of Adolescent Research, 7(2), 156–176. 10.1177/074355489272003 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  52. Rosellini, A. J., Heeringa, S. G., Stein, M. B., Ursano, R. J., Chiu, W. T., Colpe, L. J., & Kessler, R. C. (2015). Lifetime prevalence of DSM-IV mental disorders among new soldiers in the U.S. Army: Results from the army study to assess risk and resilience in servicemembers (Army STARRS). Depression and Anxiety, 32(1), 13–24. 10.1002/da.22316 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Ross, D. A., Hinton, R., Melles-Brewer, M., Engel, D., Zeck, W., Fagan, L., & Mohan, A. (2020). Adolescent Well-Being: A definition and conceptual framework. Journal of Adolescent Health, 67(4), 472–476. 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2020.06.042 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Rutter, M. (2012). Resilience as a dynamic concept. Development and Psychopathology, 24(2), 335–344. 10.1017/S0954579412000028 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Sagone, E., Caroli, D., Elvira, M., Falanga, R., & Luisa, I. M. (2020). Resilience and perceived self-efficacy in life skills from early to late adolescence. International Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 25(1), 882–890. 10.1080/02673843.2020.1771599 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  56. Scarf, D., Moradi, S., McGaw, K., Hewitt, J., Hayhurst, J. G., Boyes, M., & Hunter, J. A. (2016). Somewhere I belong: Long‐term increases in adolescents’ resilience are predicted by perceived belonging to the in‐group. British Journal of Social Psychology, 55(3), 588–599. 10.1111/bjso.12151 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Schafer, J. L., & Olsen, M. K. (1998). Multiple imputation for multivariate missing-data problems: A data analyst’s perspective. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 33(4), 545–571. 10.1207/s15327906mbr3304_5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Schnarrs, P. W., Stone, A. L., Salcido, R., Georgiou, C., Zhou, X., & Nemeroff, C. B. (2020). The moderating effect of resilience on the relationship between adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) and quality of physical and mental health among adult sexual and gender minorities. Behavioral Medicine, 46(3–4), 366–374. 10.1080/08964289.2020.1727406 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Skomorovsky, A., & Stevens, S. (2013). Testing a resilience model among Canadian forces recruits. Military Medicine, 178(8), 829–837. 10.7205/MILMED-D-12-00389 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. Stefanovics, E. A., Potenza, M. N., & Pietrzak, R. H. (2020). Smoking, obesity, and their co-occurrence in the U.S. military veterans: Results from the national health and resilience in veterans study. Journal of Affective Disorders, 274, 354–362. 10.1016/j.jad.2020.04.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  61. United Nations International Organization for Migration . (2019). International migration law: Glossary on migration. Retrieved 18 August 2019, from International Organization for Migration (IOM) http://publications.iom.int/system/files/pdf/iml_34_glossary.pdf
  62. Wagnild, G. (2009). A review of the resilience scale. Journal of Nursing Measurement, 17(2), 105–113. 10.1891/1061-3749.17.2.105 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  63. Wagnild, G. M., & Young, H. M. (1993). Development and psychometric evaluation of the resilience scale. Journal of Nursing Measurement, 1(2), 165–178. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  64. Waterman, A. S. (2020). “Now what do I do?“: Toward a conceptual understanding of the effects of traumatic events on identity functioning. Journal of Adolescence, 79, 59–69. 10.1016/j.adolescence.2019.11.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  65. Yehuda, R., & Flory, J. D. (2007). Differentiating biological correlates of risk, PTSD, and resilience following trauma exposure. Journal of Traumatic Stress: Official Publication of the International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies, 20(4), 435–447. 10.1002/jts.20260 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  66. Yuan, Y. C. (2011). Multiple imputation using SAS software. Journal of Statistical Software, 45(6), 1–25. 10.18637/jss.v045.i06 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  67. Zhang, M., Zhang, J., Zhang, F., Zhang, L., & Feng, D. (2018). Prevalence of psychological distress and the effects of resilience and perceived social support among Chinese college students: Does gender make a difference? Psychiatry Research, 267, 409–413. 10.1016/j.psychres.2018.06.038 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

Due to Ethics’ Committee restrictions, data are not available.

Articles from Military Psychology are provided here courtesy of Division of Military Psychology of the American Psychological Association and Taylor & Francis

RESOURCES