Influence of Life Stress and Ego-resilience on Subjective Well-being of College Students

Correspondence to: Kyung-Hyun Suh, Department of Counseling, Sahm- yook University, 26-21, Kongnung 2-dong, Nowon-gu, Seoul 139-742, Korea

Tel: +82-2-3399-1676, E-mail: [email protected] Received November 1, 2009, Revised November 5, 2009 Accepted November 10, 2009

Influence of Life Stress and Ego-resilience on Subjective Well-being of College Students

Department of Counseling, Sahmyook University, Seoul, Korea

Kyung-Hyun Suh

The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationships between life stress, ego-resilience, and subjective well-being, and examine the moderating effect of ego-resilience on the relationship between life stress and subjective well-being of college students in order to provide valuable information for improving quality of life of college students. The participants were 326 college students (183 females) living in Seoul and suburbs, whose ages ranged from 17 to 33, and average was 20.08 (SD=2.45). The various psychological tests were used to measure life stresses, ego-resilience, life satisfaction, subjective happiness, negative/positive emotion, life motivation, and life satisfaction expectancy. Life stress of college students were closely correlated with traditional variables of well-being. Ego-resilience accounted independently more variance of subjective well-being than life stress, and additional accountability of ego-resilience for variances of subjective well-being variables with life stress was significant as well. Although it was failed to find the moderating effect of ego-resilience on life stress and traditional variables of subjective well-being, whereas moderating effect of ego-resilience on life stress and life expectancy was found. Students in stressful circumstances had significant lower level of life expectancy than those in less stressful circumstance. But this was only for students with lower ego-resilience.

The present study reiterates roles of life stress and ego-resilience on subjective well-being, suggests buffering effect of ego-resilience on relationship between life stress and life satisfaction expectancy. (Korean J Str Res 2009;17:379∼387)

Key Words: Stress, Ego-resilience, Subjective well-being, Life satisfaction, Happiness

INTRODUCTION

Life stress threatened individual’s quality of life. Stressful si- tuations increase the likelihood of psychological problems, giving a rise to negative emotion such as anger, anxiety, and depression (Keinan et al., 1992). A plenty of previous studies empirically

found that life stresses cause mental health problems as well as physical ailments (Holmes, 1979; Dohrenwend et al., 1981;

Brown et al., 1989; Kessler et al., 1993). Ng et al.(2008) viewed that stresses appear to be an aversive feeling state that can diminish one’s well-being. It has been emphasized that stresses could be especially a negative maker of affective well-being.

Some researchers (Kim JH, 2006) viewed well-being as an opposite concept of stress. To understand the link of stresses and subjective well-being, consider how these two variables have an effect on individual’s life, because they could influence on per- son’s quality of life (Veenhoven, 2000). Stresses and subjective well-being are closely related to living conditions, such as

economical and social situation; life ability, for example task performance in school for a student. And, for stresses of college students may be related to value or future prospect (Chon KK et al., 2000). Thus, the life stress was chosen for the stress variable of college students to clarify the links between stresses and subjective well-being.

It has been explored to identify some variables which may have buffering effect on stress and health or well-being, such as social supports (Gilliand et al., 2001). Is there any other variable has the likelihood of buffering effect on their links? Some studies (Tugade et al., 2004; Ong et al., 2006) identified the association between ego-resilience and positive emotions. Lyubomirsky et al.(in press) assumed the influences of ego-resilience on positive emotions and happiness, and suggested intervention for enhancing resilience to improve happiness. Howard et al.(1999) defined the resilience as

“the inherent and nurtured capacity of individuals to deal with life’s stresses in ways that enable them to lead healthy and fulfilled lives.” Masten et al.(1990) viewed the resilience as “the process of, capacity for, or the outcome of successful adaptation despite challenging or threatening circumstances.” Resilience involves a process by which a person experiences positive emotions in the face of stressful situation (Carver, 1998). Fredrickson et al.(2003) found that high resilient individuals were efficiently able to recover from daily stresses.

But there were some contradictory findings which confronted with positive aspects of ego-resilience. In some studies (Burns, 1994; Luthar et al., 1997), high resilient children showed more symptoms of depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder. And, Ong et al.(2006) found that widows with high levels of resilience experience more negative emotions as well as positive emotions than those with low levels of resilience. The former group in their studies showed high emotional complexity while underlying stresses. They suggested that the adaptive consequence of resilience is a function of an increase in emotional complexity when stresses are present, and concluded resilient people showed the probability of maintaining their positive emo- tional experiences from daily hassles or life stresses. Thus, it is needed to clarify the links of these two variables, ego-resilience and subjective well-being, because previous studies have produced inconsistent results.

Traditionally, subjective well-being was comprised with fre-

quent positive affects, infrequent negative affects, high life sa- tisfaction, and high level of subjective happiness (Diener et al., 1999). Based on Motivational State Theory, Kim JH(2006) viewed stresses as the motivation frustration and anticipation of motivation frustration, whereas well-being as motivation fulfill- ment and anticipation of motivation fulfillment. And, he em- phasized that life satisfaction expectancy is one of very important variable in subjective well-being. Having an optimistic attitude could booster subjective well-being (King 2001; Sheldon et al., 2006), Sheldon et al.(2001) found that there was motivational factor, for example, developing and pursuing life goals, in subjective well-being. And, it was found that expectation for future life was very important for quality of life among college students (Suh KH et al., 2009). Life motivation and life expectancy of college students were explored as subjective well- being variables in present study.

This study aims to investigate the relationships between life stress, ego-resilience, and subjective well-being, and examine the moderating effect of ego-resilience on the relationship between life stress and subjective well-being of college students. To achieve this goal, author performed hierarchical regression analyses which examined main effects of life stress and ego-resilience on subjective well-being, and identify moderating effect of ego- resilience on life stress and subjective well-being. It was also explored how sub-variables of life stress and ego-resilience cor- relate to four traditional factors of subjective well-being including life motivation and expectancy among college students. To provide valuable information for improving quality of life of college students was ultimate goal of the present study.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

1. Participants

Participants of this study are 326 male and female college students who were studying at 2 colleges located in Seoul.

Hundred forty three (43.9%) were male and 183 (56.1%) were female students. Their ages ranged from 17 to 33, and average was 20.08 (SD=2.45).

2. Instruments

1) Life stress: To measure life stresses of college students, it

was used Revised Life Stress Scale for College Students, developed by Chon KK et al.(2000). This scale was constructed to include eight life stresses area of college students, such as relations with family, relations with boyfriend/girlfriend, relations with professor, relations with friends, task in school, economy, future prospect, and value. Items in this scale chose from responses of open questionnaire which asked experienced stresses in life of college students. All items describe negative life events, and each items were asked whether respondents experienced given life events within 12 months, using a three-point response scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 3 (frequently). This scale originally includes 50 items, researcher chose 24 items, 3 items with higher factor loadings for each factors in study for scale development. Means and standard deviations, and item correlations were also con- sidered for choosing these items, internal consistency (Cronbach’s α) of each sub-scales in present study was ranged from .71 to .83.

2) Ego-resilience: Items from California Personality Inventory (CPI) which were chosen for the ego-resilience measurement by Klohnen(1996), were used to evaluate ego- resilience of college students. Block(1961) originally concep- tualized ego-resilience and developed the California Adult Q-set (CAQ), which has been widely used set of 100 items that describe a broad range of important personality characteristics. Because it takes so much time and needs many skillful raters to measure ego-resilience with the CAQ, Klohnen(1996) developed a self- report scale for measuring ego-resiliency exclusively from items of the California Psychological Inventory, using a sample of under- graduate college students. He primarily dragged out 48 items which were .20 or more correlational coefficient to score of the CAQ, and then excluded 19 items which were highly correlated with other personality factor of the CPI. Final 29-item scale in several samples ranged from .81 to .88 at scale development.

Each item was using a four-point response scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (always). Internal consistency (Cronbach’s α) was .92 for total items in this study.

3) Life satisfaction: Participant’s level of life satisfaction was measured with Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) developed by Diener and his colleagues (Diener et al., 1985). The SWLS is an instrument designed to measure global cognitive judgments of one’s lives. Life satisfaction is distinguished from affective ap-

praisal in that it is more cognitively than emotionally driven. Life satisfaction can be assessed specific to a particular domain of life or globally. The SWLS consists of 5-items that are using the 1 (strongly disagree)∼7 (strongly agree) rating scale. In present study, internal consistency (Cronbach’s α) was around .86 for five items.

4) Subjective happiness: Researcher used Subjective Happiness Scale (SHS) for measuring subjective happiness of college students. The SHS, a kindness scale measuring its three components, and reports of daily happy and unhappy experiences, was developed by Lyubomirsky et al.(1999). It consists of four items, and the first item asks participants to characterize them- selves using absolute ratings from 1 (not a very happy person) to 7 (a very happy person). The second item asks participants to characterize themselves relatively to their peers from 1 (less happy) to 7 (more happy). The third item provides a general description of happy people, and asks them to rate how well this characterization describes themselves, from 1 (not at all) to 7 (a great deal). Finally, the fourth item is reverse worded, and similarly asks participants to what extent an unhappy cha- racterization fits them, also ranging from 1 to 7. In present study, the SHS had relatively satisfactory internal reliability (Cronbach’s α=.83).

5) Positive/Negative emotion: Negative emotions and positive emotions were measured with Emotion Frequency Test developed by Cho MH et al.(1998). This test asks participants how they frequently experienced negative affects and positive affects during the last one month, using ratings from 1 (not at all) to 7 (always). Participants respond four kinds of negative affects and positive affects. Fear, anger, grief, guilt are for negative emotions, and affection, joy, gratification, and pride for positive emotions. Internal consistencies (Cronbach’s α) were .72 for negative emotions and .83 for positive emotions in this study.

6) Life motivation: To measure life motivation, researcher used Life Motivation Scale (LMS) developed by Kim JH(2007). It includes modified items from Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS:

Diener et al., 1985). For examples, “In most ways my life is close to my ideal.” was modified to “I want to make my life close to my ideal in most ways.” This scale also consists of 5-items that are using the 1 (strongly disagree)∼7 (strongly agree) rating scale. Internal consistency (Cronbach’s α) in this study was .86.

Table 1. Correlational matrix of life stresses, ego-resilience, and subjective well-being (N=326).

Variables Life

satisfaction

Negative emotion

Positive emotion

Subjective happiness

Life motivation

Life

expectancy M (SD)

Life stress −.49^c .55^c −.45^c −.51^c −.05 −.39^a 42.22 (10.71)

In economic situation −.36^c .33^c −.31^c −.35^c −.02 −.19^c 5.72 (2.38)

With boyfriend −.10 .23^c −.15^b −.10 −.09 −.16^b 3.99 (1.74)

or girlfriend

With professor(s) −.29^c .33^c −.29^c −.29^c −.12^a −.28^c 5.01 (2.10)

With family −.38^c .42^c −.34^c −.41^c −.05 −.36^c 4.36 (1.71)

With future prospect −.33^c .34^c −.25^c −.33^c .06 −.16^b 6.57 (2.37)

With value −.46^c .50^c −.45^c −.48^c −.04 −.33^c 5.43 (2.17)

With task in school −.34^c .36^c −.24^c −.33^c .03 −.26^c 7.00 (2.26)

With friend(s) −.30^c .35^c −.34^c −.37^c −.11 −.35^c 4.15 (1.55)

Ego-resilience .51^c −.55^c .58^c .66^c .09 .47^c 104.01 (18.54)

Confidence .43^c −.49^c .49^c .56^c .10 .45^c 32.15 (6.33)

Efficiency in .30^c −.35^c .40^c .45^c .03 .31^c 28.33 (6.81)

interpersonal relations

Optimistic attitude .62^c −.59^c .64^c .78^c .12^a .51^c 36.95 (6.89)

Anger regulation .22^c −.36^c .22^c .28^c .02 .18^b 6.57 (2.04)

M (SD) 19.10 (6.22) 13.63 (5.05) 19.06 (5.03) 18.80 (4.96) 31.95 (4.37) 29.28 (6.31)

ap＜.05, ^bp＜.01, ^cp＜.001.

7) Life satisfaction expectancy: It was used Life Satis- faction Expectancy Motivation Scale (LEMS) developed by Kim JH(2007) to measure expectation for future life. It includes modified items from SWLS (Diener et al., 1985). For examples,

“In most ways my life is close to my ideal.” was modified to “In most ways my life will be close to my ideal in future.” This scale also consists of 5-items that are using the 1 (strongly disagree)∼

7 (strongly agree) rating scale. Internal consistency (Cronbach’s α) in this study was .95.

3. Procedures and data analysis

Data collection began and completed during May, 2009. The informed consent process were involved in this study. Researcher disclosed the potential research subjects’ information to facilitated the understanding of this study and to promote the voluntariness of the decision about whether or not to participate in the research. Each participant spent average of 20 minutes for this research.

SPSS 15.0 for Windows was used for all statistical analyses, and main statistical analyses the Pearson-Product Moment correla- tional analysis and the hierarchical regression analyses. ANOVA was also performed for simple main effect analyses. Higher 33.3%

group and lower 33.3% group of ego-resiliency were included for

simple main effect analyses.

RESULTS

1. Relationships of life stress/ego-resilience and subjective well-being

Researcher explored the relationships between the life stress/

ego-resilience of college students and their subjective well-being including their sub-variables. Correlational analysis showed that life stresses and ego-resilience were closely related to traditional factors of subjective well-being such as life satisfaction, nega- tive/positive emotions, and subjective happiness (Table 1). Life stresses and ego-resilience were also closely correlated with life expectancy, which means expectation for future life, but they were not significantly related to life motivation. Besides, level of college students’ life satisfaction was relatively low, compared to their life motivation and life expectancy. Average score from 5 items of life satisfaction was 19.10, while they got average of 31.95 for life motivation and 29.28 for life expectancy from same number of items.

Life stresses of college students was negatively correlated to life satisfaction (r=−.49, p＜.001). Most of sub-variables of life stresses, except stress with boyfriend or girlfriend, were signi-

Table 2. Results of hierarchical regression analyses of life stresses and ego-resilience for negative and positive emotion (N=326).

Criterion variable: negative emotion Criterion variable: positive emotion

Enter Predictors β F ΔR² Predictors β F ΔR²

1 Life stress (A) .55^a 138.11^a .299 Life stress (A) −.45^a 82.53^a .203

2 Ego-resilience (B) −.33^a 89.61^a .058 Ego-resilience (B) .51^a 81.51^a .132

3 A × B .01 59.56^a .000 A × B .22 55.33^a .005

ap＜.001.

Table 3. Results of hierarchical regression analyses of life stresses and ego-resilience for life satisfaction and subjective happiness (N=326).

Criterion variable: life satisfaction Criterion variable: subjective happiness

Enter Predictors β F ΔR² Predictors β F ΔR²

1 Life stress (A) −.49^a 104.39^a .244 Life stress (A) −.51^a 112.23^a .257

2 Ego-resilience (B) .32^a 68.68^a .054 Ego-resilience (B) .60^a 128.28^a .186

3 A × B −.08 45.79^a .001 A × B .01 85.26^a .000

ap＜.001.

ficantly related to life satisfaction. And, life stresses was positively correlated to negative emotions (r=−.55, p＜.001), and nega- tively to positive emotions (r=−.45, p＜.001). All of sub- variables of life stresses were significantly related to negative and positive emotions of college students. Life stress of participants of this study was negatively correlated to subjective happiness (r=

−.51, p＜.001). Most of sub-variables of life stress, except stress with boyfriend or girlfriend, were significantly related to sub- jective happiness.

Life stresses (r=−.49, p＜.001) and all of its sub-variables were negative correlated with life expectancy. Although, there were no significant relationship between life stresses and life motivation, stress with professors was negatively correlated with life motivation.

2. Effects of life stresses and ego-resilience on subjective well-being

In order to clarify the relationship between the life stress/

ego-resilience of college students and their subjective well-being, researcher examined the moderating effect of ego-resilience on the relationship between life stresses and subjective well-being. This kind of relationship indicates that dependent variable (C) is affected by independent variable (A) though; moderate variable (B) operating with independent variable has influence over

variance of dependent variable. In this study, researcher hypo- thesized ego-resilience has influence over variance of subjective well-being with moderating life stress of college students.

Hierarchical regression analyses, in which life stresses and ego-resilience were entered in sequence and input their interaction term the last, were performed to examine the differences in accountability for subjective well-being hypothesis of this study.

First, analysis with negative emotions as a criterion variable revealed that life stresses accounted for 29.9% of its variance (β

=.55, p＜.001), and ego-resilience (β=−.33, p＜.001) added accountability of its variance significantly (Table 2). But, it wasn’t found moderating effect of ego-resilience on the relationship between life stresses and negative emotions. And, life stresses accounted for 20.3% of variance of positive emotions (β=−.45, p＜.001), and ego-resilience added 13.2% accountability of its variance (β=.51, p＜.001). It wasn’t found moderating effect of ego-resilience on the relationship between life stresses and positive emotions, too.

Analysis with life satisfaction and subjective happiness as a criterion variable yielded similar results. Life stresses accounted for 24.4% (β=−.49, p＜.001) and 25.7% (β=−.51, p＜.001) of each variances of life satisfaction and subjective happiness, and ego-resilience added accountability of their variance significantly (Table 3). Ego-resilience, especially, added accountability of

Table 4. Results of hierarchical regression analyses of life stresses and ego-resilience for life motivation and life expectancy (N=326).

Criterion variable: life motivation Criterion variable: life expectancy

Enter Predictors β F ΔR² Predictors β F ΔR²

1 Life stress (A) −.05 .95 .003 Life stress (A) −.39^b 57.34^b .150

2 Ego-resilience (B) .11 1.42 .006 Ego-resilience (B) .40^b 48.71^b .082

3 A × B −.10 1.04 .001 A × B .34^a 34.41^b .011

ap＜.05, ^bp＜.001.

Fig. 1. Interaction of life stresses and ego-resiliency on life satisfaction expectancy.

18.6% variance of subjective happiness (β=.60, p＜.001). But, there were no significant interaction effects of ego-resilience on the relationship between life stresses and life satisfaction or subjective happiness.

Researcher chose life motivation and expectation for future life as the subjective well-being variable for college students, and performed hierarchical regression analyses, too (Table 4). Analysis with life motivation as a criterion variable revealed that life stresses, ego-resilience, and their interaction term couldn’t signi- ficantly predict life motivation. But, life stresses accounted for 15.0% of variance of life expectancy (β=−.39, p＜.001), and ego-resilience added 8.2% accountability of its variance (β=.40, p＜.001). And, additional accountability of interaction term of life stresses and ego-resilience was significant. It means there is moderating effect of ego-resilience on the relationship between life stresses and life expectancy.

Simple main effect analysis was performed, because there was interaction effect of life stress andego-resilience on life expectancy.

For simple main effect analysis, participants were divided in upper

33.3% and lower 33.3% groups by ego-resilience. Result of simple main effect analysis revealed that there was significant difference in life expectancy between students with low stress level and those with high stress level in lower 33.3% groups with ego-resilience (F=8.48, p＜.01). If students have lower ego- resilience, students in stressful situation got significant lower level of life expectancy than those with less stressful situation. But, it was not found this difference in higher 33.3% groups with ego-resilience (Fig. 1).

DISCUSSION

This study ensured links of life stresses and subjective well- being, and clarifies the negative influences of life stress of college students on their quality of life. Life stresses accounts around 25% of variance of traditional variables of subjective well-being of college students, especially correlational coefficient of life stress and negative emotions was .55. It supports Keinan’s explanation (Keinan et al., 1992) that stressful events or circumstances produce negative emotions and increases the likelihood of psy- chological problems.

Results of this study reiterate life stresses lead an aversive feeling state that could diminish person’s well-being (Ng et al., 2008). And, life stresses were closely related to life satisfaction expectancy of college students in this study. Life stresses of college students were negatively correlated to life expectancy. It suggests that stresses of college students are likely to diminish life satisfaction expectancy. Suh KH et al.(2009) found that life satisfaction expectancy of young people were determinant of state of well-being, especially for college students who hold off to have a job for better future.

Ego-resilience of college students accounts independently more variance of subjective well-being than life stresses in this study.

Correlational coefficient of ego-resilience and traditional variables of well-being was ranged from .55∼.66. With life stresses, additional accountability of ego-resilience for variance of subjective happiness was almost 19%. This result supports notion of Lyubomirsky et al.(in press) that ego-resilience could enhance individual’s happiness and improve his or her quality of life.

Previous study has produced inconsistent findings. Negative aspects of ego-resilience, especially for children were found in some studies (Burns, 1994; Luthar et al., 1997). In those studies, high resilient children showed more symptoms of depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder. And, Hunter et al.

(1999) discovered that resilience in childhood was to be dis- connected from untrustful individual, isolated from inadequate systems, and insulated because emotional pain was to much to endure. Earlier, Egeland et al.(1992) suggested children’s resilient responses are emotional disconnection to overcome adversities in their early childhood. In a study (Kim KH et al., 2005) with Korean children samples, the moderating effect of ego-resilience on the relationship between test stress and physical symptoms was found. The high ego-resilient group showed less stress responses and physical symptoms during the test period than the low ego-resilient group in the study.

And, researcher hypothesized the moderating effect of ego- resilience on the relationship between life stress and subjective well-being, and assumed ego-resilience plays a role of buffering effect on negative influences of life stresses. Lyubomirsky et al.(in press) believed resilience is the mechanism that allows a person to cope with and recover from the harmful effects of negative emotional appraisals that often accompany stresses in stressful situations. They proposed this mechanism is accomplished primarily by managing negative emotions and by encouraging appropriate behavioral reactions to improve the stressful circumstance (Folkman et al., 1980). Thus, resilient people are able to cope with life stresses and to take proactive behavioral actions to ensure more positive emotional appraisals of the events (Folkman et al., 1985), and the ego-resiliency could helps people to improve their quality of life and well-being.

Researcher failed to find the moderating effect of ego-resilience on life stresses and traditional variables of subjective well-being.

However, moderating effect of ego-resilience was found on the relationship between life stresses and life satisfaction expectancy.

This result suggested tat ego-resilience could buffer the negative effect of life stresses on life expectancy of college students.

Resilient person might have also been found to build supportive social relationships which facilitate coping stresses (Kumpfer, 1999). Based on their research, Reich et al.(1981) emphasized that increasing ego-resilience and subjective well-being could facilitate coping with future negative experiences. Results of this study revealed that ego-resilience is a desirable psychological characteris- tic, and suggested promoting this personal characteristic may help to improve quality of life among college students.

In spite of limitation of measurement and generalizability, this study reiterates the role of life stresses and ego-resilience on subjective well-being, suggests buffering effect of ego-resilience on relationship between life stresses and life satisfaction expectancy.

It may provide valuable information for improving subjective well-being of college students. Moreover, researcher hope that future studies would further elucidate the complexity of roles of ego-resilience and provide more information how ego-resilience can help to enhance well-being and quality of life of healthy people as well as clinical populations.

REFERENCES

Block J (1961) The Q-Sort Method in Personality Assessment and Psychiatric Research. Springfield, Illinois: C.C. Thomas. (Reprinted by Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, California in 1978).

Brown GW, Harris TO (1989) Life events and illness. Guilford, London.

Burns T (1994) From risk to resilience. TX: Marco-Polo Press, Dallas.

Carver CS (1998) Resilience and thriving: Issues, models and link- ages. J. Soc. Issues 54:245-266.

Cho MH, Cha KH (1998) International comparison of Quality of life.

Jipmmondang, Seoul.

Chon KK, Kim KH, Yi JS (2000) Development of the revised life stress scale for college students. J. Korean Health Psychol. 5:316- 335.

Diener E, Emmons RA, Larsen RJ et al. (1985) The satisfaction with life scale. J. Pers Assessment 49:71-75.

Diener E, Suh E, Lucas RE et al. (1999) Subjective well-being: three decades of progress. Psychol Bull 125:276-302.

Dohrenwend BS, Dohrenwend BP (1974) Stressful life events: Their nature and effects. Wiley, New York.

Egeland B, Kreutzer T (1992) A longitudinal study of the effects of

maternal stress and protective factors on the development of high risk children. In: Cummings E, Greene A, Karraker K. (Ed.) Life-span perspectives on stress and coping. P61-84. New York:

John Wiley.

Folkman S, Lazarus RS (1980) An analysis of coping in a middle- aged community sample. J. Health Soc Beh 21:219-239.

Folkman S, Lazarus RS (1985) If it changes it must be a process:

Study of emotion and coping during three stages of a college examination. J. Pers Soc Psychol 48:150-170.

Fredrickson BL, Tugade MM, Waugh CE et al. (2003) A prospective study of resilience and emotions following the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11th, 2002. J. Pers Soc Psychol.

84:365-376.

Gilliand MP, Bush HA (2001) Social support for family caregivers:

Toward a situation-specific theory. J. Theor Constr Test 5:53-62.

Holmes TH (1979) Development and application of a quantitative measure of life change magnitude. In: Barrett JE. (Ed.) Stress and mental disorder. P121-136. New York: Raven.

Howard S, Johnson B (1999) Tracking student resilience. Children Australia 24:14-23.

Hunter AJ, Chandler GE (1999) Adolescent resilience. J. Nurs Scholarship 31:243-247.

Keinan G, Ben-Zur H, Zilka M, Carel RS (1992) Anger in or out, which is healthier?: An attempt to reconcile inconsistent findings.

Psychol. Health 7:83-98.

Kessler RC, Magee WJ (1993) Childhood adversities and adult depression: basic patterns of association in a U.S. national survey.

Psychol Med 23:679-690.

Kim JH (2006) Integrative understanding of stress and well-being:

from the perspective of Motivational States Theory (MST). J.

Korean Health Psychol. 11:453-484.

Kim JH (2007) The relationship between life satisfaction/life satis- faction expectancy and stress/well-being: an application of Moti- vational States Theory. J. Korean. Health Psychol. 12:325-345.

Kim KH, Kwon SJ, Sim MY (2005) Test stress and the physical symptom of elementary school students: the moderating effect of ego-resiliency. J. Korean Health Psychol. 10:113-126.

King LA (2001) The health benefits of writing about life goals. Pers Soc Psychol. Bull 27:798-807.

Klohnen EC (1996) Conceptual analysis and measurement of the construct of ego-resiliency. J. Pers Soc Psychol. 70:1067-1079.

Kumpfer KL (1999) Factors and processes contributing to resilience:

The resilience framework. In: Glantz MD, Johnson JL. (Ed.) Resilience and development: Positive life adaptations. P179-222.

New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.

Luthar S, Burak J, Cicchetti D et al. (1997) Developmental psy- chopathology perspectives on adjustments, risk, disorder.

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Lyubomirsky S, Della Porta M (in press). Boosting happiness, but- tressing resilience: Results from cognitive and behavioral inter- ventions. In: Reich JW, Zautra AJ, Hall J. (Ed.) Handbook of adult resilience: Concepts, methods, and applications. New York:

Guilford Press.

Lyubomirsky S, Lepper HS. (1999) A measure of subjective happi- ness: Preliminary reliability and construct validation. Soc Indic Res 46:137-155.

Masten AS, Best KM, Garmezy N (1990) Resilience and develop- ment: Contributions from the study of children who overcome adversity. Development & Psychopathology 2:425-444.

Ng W, Diener E, Aurora R et al. (2008) Affluence, feelings of stress, and well-being. Soc Indic Res 10:1-15.

Ong AD, Bergeman CS, Bisconti TL et al. (2006) Psychological resilience, positive emotions, and successful adaptation to stress in later life. J. of Pers and Soc Psychol. 91:730-749.

Reich JW, Zautra A (1981) Life events and personal causation: some relationships with satisfaction and distress. J. Pers Soc Psychol. 41:

1002-1012.

Sheldon KM, Houser-Marko L (2001) Self-concordance, goal-attain- ment, and the pursuit of happiness: can there be an upward spiral? J. Pers Soc Psychol. 80:152-165.

Sheldon KM, Lyubomirsky S (2006) How to increase and sustain positive emotion: the effects of expressing gratitude and visuali- zing best possible selves. J. Positive Psychol. 1:73-82.

Suh KH, Oh KH (2009) The moderate effect of life satisfaction expectancy on life stress and health among college students. J.

Korean Health Psychol. 14:633-648.

Tugade MM, Fredrickson BL, Barrett LF (2004) Psychological re- silience and positive emotional granularity: examining the benefits of positive emotions on coping and health. J. Pers 72:1161-1190.

Veenhoven R (2000) The four qualities of life: ordering concepts and measures of the good life. J. Happiness Stud 1:1-39.

= 국문초록 =

본 연구는 대학생의 삶의 질을 개선할 수 있는 유용한 정보를 제공하기 위하여 대학생의 생활 스트레스, 자아탄력성 및 주관적 웰빙 간의 관계를 탐색하고, 생활 스트레스와 주관적 웰빙 관계에서 자아탄력성의 조절효과를 검증하는 것을 목적으로 하였다. 본 연구의 참여자는 수도권에 거주하는 대학생 362명(여: 183)이었고, 그들의 연령은 17세에 서 33까지 분포하고 있었으며 평균연령은 20.08 (SD=2.45)세였다. 다양한 심리검사를 사용하여 대학생의 생활 스트 레스, 자아탄력성, 삶의 만족, 주관적 행복, 부정/긍정 정서, 삶의 동기 및 삶의 기대를 측정하였다. 상관분석 결과, 대학생의 생활 스트레스는 주관적 웰빙의 전통적 변인들과 밀접한 관계가 있었다. 독립적으로 자아탄력성은 생활 스트레스보다 주관적 웰빙의 변량을 더 많이 설명하고 있었는데, 생활 스트레스에 더해 주관적 웰빙을 예언하는 자아탄력성의 추가적 설명량도 유의하였다. 한편, 생활 스트레스와 주관적 웰빙의 전통적 변인들 간의 관계에 대한 자아탄력성의 조절효과를 발견하지는 못하였지만, 생활 스트레스와 삶의 기대 간의 관계에서 자아탄력성의 조절효 과는 유의하였다. 생활 스트레스를 많이 경험하는 대학생이 적게 경험하는 대학생보다 삶의 기대 수준이 낮았는데, 이는 약한 자아탄력성을 가진 대학생들에게서만 유의했다. 본 연구는 주관적 안녕에 대한 생활 스트레스와 자아탄 력성의 역할을 재조명하고, 생활 스트레스와 삶의 기대 간의 관계에서의 자아탄력성의 완충작용을 시사하고 있다.

중심단어: 스트레스, 자아탄력성, 주관적 웰빙, 삶의 만족, 행복