Psychological resilience in young and older adults

P. A. Gooding, A. Hurst, J. Johnson and N. Tarrier

School of Psychological Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK

Correspondence to: Dr P. Gooding, Email: patricia.gooding@manchester.ac.uk

Current address: Dept. of Psychology, Institute of Psychiatry, Kings College London, De Crespigny Park, London SE5 8AF
Background: The goal of the current study was to investigate psychological resilience in the older adults
(>64 years) compared with that of the young ones (<26 years).
Methods: Questionnaire measures of depression, hopelessness, general health and resilience were
administered to the participants. The resilience measure comprised three subscales of social support,
emotional regulation and problem solving.
Results: The older adults were the more resilient group especially with respect to emotional regulation
ability and problem solving. The young ones had more resilience related to social support. Poor
perceptions of general health and low energy levels predicted low levels of resilience regardless of age.
Low hopelessness scores also predicted greater resilience in both groups. Experiencing higher levels of
mental illness and physical dysfunction predicted high resilience scores especially for the social support
resilience scale in the older adults. The negative effects of depression on resilience related to emotional
regulation were countered by low hopelessness but only in the young adults.
Conclusions: These results highlight the importance of maintaining resiliencerelated coping skills in
both young and older adults but indicate that different psychological processes underlie resilience
across the lifespan. Copyright 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Key words: psychological resilience; hopelessness; health; young; older adults
History: Received 21 October 2010; Accepted 9 February 2011; Published online 6 April 2011 in Wiley Online Library
(wileyonlinelibrary.com).
DOI: 10.1002/gps.2712
Introduction
Psychological resilience is considered to be a protective
mechanism that operates in the face of negative
stressors (Masten, 2001; Bonanno, 2004). However,
resilience has been investigated only to a small extent in
populations associated with some of the most serious
public health concerns. One such population is older
adults. The overarching goal of the current study was to
investigate psychological resilience in older adults
compared with that of young adults. We were
interested in whether the two groups would differ
with respect to resilience and also whether depression,
hopelessness and perceptions of ill health would
differentially predict resilience in these two groups.
Projections estimate that the population of those
older than 65 years will increase from 16% in 2008 to
23% by 2033 in the UK (Ofce for National Statistics,
2009). Because this is the time point in the lifespan
associated with a greater incidence of chronic physical
illnesses, neurological conditions and psychological
stressors, it could be argued that at this stage, developing
and maintaining psychological resilience may be the
most advantageous (Nygren et al., 2005; Lamond et al.,
2008). Studies that have investigated psychological
resilience in older adults are sparse. One study reported
that resilience reduced mortality rates by 6% for
individuals who were more selfapproving, who were
less anxious and who did not feel lonely or isolated
(Shen and Zeng, 2010). Another study indicated that a
resilient personality may counter the negative effects of
ill health (Windle et al., 2010). Two studies have shown
that resilience predicts mental health in older adults
(Nygren et al., 2005; Mehta et al., 2008). Work
examining predictors of resilience has found that
emotional health and wellbeing, selfrated successful
Copyright 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 2012; 27: 262270.
RESEARCH ARTICLE
ageing, social contact with family and friends, optimism
and a lack of cognitive failures predict psychological
resilience (Lamond et al., 2008; Netuveli and Blane,
2008).
Depression in later life is associated with factors
that are known to increase morbidity such as physical
and cognitive decline (Fiske et al., 2009). Because
geriatric depression is an enduring health concern, it
was important to examine the relationship between
depression and resilience in the current study.
Hopelessness is one aspect of depression that may
be particularly important in older adults because it
reects appraisals about the future. Indeed, mortality
rates were reported as being higher (7%) for older
Mexican Americans classied as hopeless compared
with lower rates (3%) for those who were hopeful
about their future (Stern et al., 2001). Optimism has
been found to be related to resilience in older adults
(Lamond et al., 2008), but no study to date has
looked at the relationship between hopelessness and
psychological resilience in them. The impact of
hopelessness has wider implications because it is also
a very strong predictor of suicidality (Chabrol and
Choquet, 2009; Rasmussen et al., 2010), a nding
that extends to older adults (e.g. Lau et al., 2010).
Hence, a measure of hopelessness was included in
this study.
The extant literature does not provide a clear
pattern of data that clarify the effect of illness on
resilience. For example, some evidence suggests that ill
health may not erode psychological resilience in older
adults (Lamond et al., 2008; Netuveli et al., 2008).
Other work indicates that there is a degree of
association between good physical health and high
resilience in this group (Wells, 2009). It was,
therefore, considered important to include a measure
of general health in our study.
We used a measure of psychological resilience,
namely, the Resilience Appraisals Scale (RAS), that
was originally developed for investigating resilience to
suicidality (Johnson et al., 2010). The choice of this
measure was guided by our interest in psychological
resilience to hopelessness. Because hopelessness has
been shown to be highly associated with, and
predictive of, suicidality (e.g. OConnor et al., 2004;
OConnor et al., 2008), the RAS seemed to be the
optimal measure for use in this study. A factor analysis
of the scale items of the RAS revealed three factors,
which were resilience related to social support,
resilience related to emotional regulation abilities
and resilience related to problem solving (Johnson
et al., 2010). All three factors are germane to older
adults (Windle et al., 2008; Bennett, 2010).
An important feature of the current study is that it
compared resilience in young adults and older adults.
No study to date has compared psychological
resilience in these two groups. There were three
main predictions. First, the older adults were
predicted to be more resilient than the young adults
especially with respect to emotional regulation
abilities and problem solving abilities. The second
prediction was somewhat exploratory, which was that
ill health would predict resilience but only in the
older adults. This was based on the argument that ill
health in the older adults is expected to some extent
and that there is peer group support for older people
experiencing ill health. The third prediction was also
exploratory, which was that high levels of depression
and hopelessness would interact with high levels of ill
health to predict the lowest levels of resilience, but
only in the young adults.
Method
Design
This study had a crosssectional questionnaire design.
There was one categorical variable of age group
(young, older). Outcome variables were measures of
resilience (total scale and three subscales). Predictor
variables were measures of depressive symptoms,
hopelessness, illhealth and age group.
Participants
Sixty older adults, 65 years or older, dwelling in
communities in the UK were recruited opportunisti-
cally from community and activity centres, such as
local libraries and communal gardens. Sixty young
participants, between 18 and 25 years old, were
opportunistically recruited from the rst and second
year psychology undergraduate cohorts at the Uni-
versity of Manchester. For both samples, the only
exclusion criterion was being a nonnative speaker
of English. Older participants were reimbursed with
5. Young participants received course credits for
their participation.
Measures
Geriatric Depression Scale (Yesavage et al., 1983). This is
a 30item questionnaire measuring symptoms of depres-
sion. Respondents use a vepoint Likert scale (1=not at all,
2=a little bit, 3=somewhat, 4=largely, 5=very much so)
263 Resilience in the young and the older adults
Copyright 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 2012; 27: 262270.
to respond to each item (e.g. Do you enjoy getting
up in the morning?). Cronbachs alpha, splithalf
reliability and testretest reliability measures have
been reported as 0.94, 0.94 and 0.85 (Yesavage et al.,
1983), respectively.
Beck Hopelessness Scale (Beck et al., 1974). This is a
20item questionnaire measuring future hopelessness.
Respondents indicate whether or not each statement
(e.g. I cant imagine what my life would be like in
ten years) applies to them. This scale was scored
using a vepoint Likert scale, where 1=not at all,
2=a little bit, 3=somewhat, 4=largely, 5=very much
so. An alpha coefcient of 0.88 has been reported
(Steed, 2001).
Resilience Appraisal Scale (Johnson et al., 2010). This
is a 12item measure of psychological resilience.
Participants indicate to what extent each statement
applies to them using a vepoint Likert scale (e.g.
I can put up with my negative emotions) ranging
from strongly disagree to strongly agree. This scale
comprises three subscales reecting social support,
emotional regulation skills and problem solving
ability (Johnson et al., 2010). Alpha reliabilities were
0.88 for the overall scale, 0.93 for the social sup-
port subscale, 0.92 for the problem solving subscale
and 0.92 for the emotion coping subscale (Johnson
et al., 2010).
The Medical Outcomes Study 36Item ShortForm
Health Survey (Ware and Sherbourne, 1992). This is
a general health survey comprising 36 items, which
assesses eight domains, namely, physical functioning,
problems due to physical limitations, problems due
to emotional issues, bodily pain, general mental
health issues, social functioning, energy and percep-
tions of general health (including health changes).
1
Cronbachs alpha has been found to range from
0.82 to 0.96 across the eight domains of questions
(Peek et al., 2004).
Procedure
At the start of the study, the participants gave basic
demographic information concerning their age, sex,
marital status and type of education. The ques-
tionnaires were completed in the order described
previously. The older participants were given the
option of reading and lling in the questionnaires
themselves or having the experimenter read out the
questionnaires and record responses for them. This
study was approved by the School of Psychological
Sciences Ethics Committee.
Analysis strategy
Differences in the dependent variables between the
two groups (older adults, young adults) were analysed
using a MANOVA. Predictors of resilience scores were
analysed using hierarchical multiple regression anal-
ysis for which all predictor variables were standardised
before entry into the model to avoid multicolinearity
effect (Frazier et al., 2004). Analyses were conducted
using SPSS version 16 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL).
Results
Participant characteristics
In the olderadult sample (M
Age
=75.6, SD=6.64),
there were 35 female participants (M
Age
=76.86, SD=
6.45) and 25 male participants (M
Age
= 73.84,
SD=6.64). In the youngadult sample (M
Age
=21.05,
SD=1.36), there were 52 female participants (M
Age
=
21.00, SD=1.31) and 8 male participants (M
Age
=
21.38, SD=1.69).
Group differences in resilience, hopelessness,
depression and ill health
A MANOVA was used to determine whether there
were differences in resilience, hopelessness and ill
health between the youngadult and the olderadult
subgroups. Table 1 illustrates the results.
The overall multivariate model was signicant,
F(15,104) =15.75, p <0.0001. Results supported the
rst prediction of the study. Signicant between
subject effects indicated that overall resilience and the
emotional regulation and problem solving subscales
were all higher in the older adults compared with those
of the young adults. However, resilience related to
social support was higher in the young adults compared
with that of the older adults (Table 1). Depression and
hopelessness did not differ between the two groups.
Predictors of resilience: elements of ill health
The second prediction was that ill health, including
issues related to physical functioning and mental
1
Question 3h was altered from Walking several blocks to Walking ve
or more miles and question 3i, Walking one block, was omitted to make
these questions understandable to UK residents.
264 P. A. Gooding et al.
Copyright 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 2012; 27: 262270.
health, would be positively related to resilience, but
only in the olderadult subgroup. This was tested
using a hierarchical multiple regression analysis with
nine domains of ill health, as determined by the
health questionnaire (the Medical Outcomes Study
36Item ShortForm Health Survey (MOS SF36)),
2
entered as predictor variables in the rst step of the
model. Interaction effects between these nine do-
mains and the youngadult group versus the older
adult group were entered in the second step of the
analysis.
When the total resilience scores were entered as the
outcome variable, the rst step of the model was
signicant, F(10,109) =5.50, p <0.0001, R
2
=0.34, but
the change in F was not signicant at the second step.
There were signicant effects of general health percep-
tions, B=1.28, SE=0.60 (95% CI =2.47 to 0.09),
=0.20, t =2.13, p <0.05; energy, B=1.18, SE=
0.55 (95% CI =2.27 to 0.08), =0.18, t =2.13,
p <0.05; and mental ill health, B=2.09, SE=0.64 (95%
CI =0.823.35), =0.32, t =3.28, p <0.001. Regardless
of age group, poor general health perceptions and low
energy levels predicted lower resilience overall, but
greater levels of mental ill health predicted higher
resilience overall. This analysis was repeated for each of
the three resilience subscales. For the emotional
regulation and problem solving subscales, a very simi-
lar pattern of results was observed.
3
For the analysis of
resilience related to social support, the rst step of the
model was signicant, F(10,109) = 2.18, p < 0.05,
R=0.17, and the change in F was significant at the
second step, F(9,100) =2.90, p <0.01, R
2
=0.17.
There was a signicant effect of physical functioning,
B = 3.27, SE = 1.17 (95% CI =5.59 to 0.94),
=1.02, t =2.79, p <0.01, which was qualied by
signicant interaction effects (Figures 1a and b)
between age group and physical functioning, B=4.25,
SE =1.29 (95% CI = 1.696.82), =1.07, t = 3.29,
p <0.001, and age group and mental health, B=
2.31, SE=0.68 (95% CI =0.953.66), =0.50, t =3.38,
p <0.001.
Table 1 Mean scores (with SDs in parenthesis) for the depression, hopelessness, resilience and health questionnaires
Older adults (N=60) Young adults (N=60) Total
Depression (GDS) 62.92 (16.16) 66.58 (15.41) 64.75 (15.83)
Hopelessness (BHS) 42.55 (13.49) 41.30 (9.22) 41.92 (11.52)
Resilience (RAS) 52.12 (7.25) 48.20 (5.05)*** 50.16 (6.53)
Social support 17.10 (3.90) 18.37 (2.15)* 17.73 (3.20)
Emotional regulation 17.15 (3.00) 14.08 (3.16)**** 15.62 (3.41)
Problem solving 17.87 (2.80) 15.75 (2.21)**** 16.81 (2.73)
Illhealth (MOS SF36) 64.25 (16.64) 60.08 (11.97) 62.17 (14.59)
General health (Q1, 2, 11a, 11b, 11d), 13.87 (2.49) 13.5 (2.60) 13.68 (2.54)
Change in health (Q11c) 2.53 (1.17) 3.57 (0.96)**** 3.05 (1.19)
Physical functioning (Q3) 15.07 (4.38) 10.05 (1.56)**** 12.56 (4.13)
Bodily pain (Q7, 8) 4.50 (1.90) 3.78 (1.60)* 4.14 (1.78)
Physical role limitations (Q4) 1.5 (1.55) 0.73 (1.25)** 1.12 (1.45)
Emotional role limitations (Q5) 0.6 (0.87) 1.03 (1.23)* 0.82 (1.09)
Social functioning (Q6, 10) 3.48 (1.68) 3.42 (1.43) 3.45 (1.56)
Mental health (Q9b, 9c, 9d, 9f, 9h) 33.43 (8.42) 30.85 (8.69) 32.14 (8.62)
Energy (Q9a, 9e, 9g, 9i) 14.62 (1.79) 13.62 (2.29)** 14.12 (2.10)
GDS, geriatric depression scale; BHS, Beck Hopelessness Scale; MOS SF36, Medical Outcomes Study 36Item ShortForm Health Survey.
High scores reect greater levels of depression, hopelessness resilience and ill health. The resilience scores are also shown for the three subscales of
social support, emotional regulation and problem solving. Scores for each domain of the health questionnaire are provided.
*p < 0.05.
**p < 0.01.
***p < 0.001.
****p < 0.0001.
2
Change in health was separated from general health perceptions making
nine, rather than eight, domains of the MOS SF36.
3
For emotional regulation scores, only the rst step of the model was,
again, signicant, F(10,109) =6.56, p <0.0001, R
2
=0.38. There were
signicant effects of age group, B=2.01, SE=0.76 (95% CI =0.51 to
3.52), =0.30, t =2.65, p <0.01; general health perceptions, B=0.63,
SE=0.31 (95% CI =1.24 to 0.03), =0.19, t =2.08, p <0.05); and
mental ill health, B=0.64, SE=0.32 (95% CI =0.004 to 1.28), =0.19,
t =1.99, p <0.05. For problemsolving scores, again, only the rst step of
the model was signicant, F(10,109) =5.57, p <0.0001, R
2
=0.34, and
there were signicant effects of age group, B=1.77, SE=0.62 (95%
CI =0.53 to 3.1), =0.33, t =2.74, p <0.01); general health percep-
tions, B=0.58, SE=0.25 (95% CI =1.08 to 0.03), =0.09, t =2.33,
p < 0.05); energy, B = 0.57, SE = 0.23 (95% CI = 1.02 to 0.11),
=0.21, t =2.46, p <0.05; and mental ill health, B=0.65, SE=0.27
(95% CI =0.12 1.18), =0.24, t =2.44, p <0.05).
265 Resilience in the young and the older adults
Copyright 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 2012; 27: 262270.
Predictors of resilience: interaction effects between ill
health, depression and hopelessness
It was predicted that high levels of depression and
hopelessness would interact with high levels of ill
health to predict the lowest levels of resilience,
particularly in the young adults. This prediction was
tested using hierarchical multiple linear regression
analyses with outcome variables of the total RAS
and then for each of the resilience subscales as
outcome variables. Age group, hopelessness, depres-
sion and illhealth scores were predictor variables.
All main and interaction effects were entered into
the model. The main effects were entered into the
rst step; the twoway interaction effects were
entered into the second step; the threeway
interaction effects were entered into the third step;
and the four way interaction effect was entered into
the fourth step.
When the RAS total score was entered as the
outcome variable, only the rst step of the model was
signicant. There were signicant main effects of age
group and hopelessness. The same pattern of data was
observed when the problem solving and social support
subscales were entered as the outcome variables
(Table 2).
4
For resilience overall, and for the problem
solving and social support subscales, hopelessness
inversely predicted resilience.
The results were more complicated for the emo-
tional regulation subscale scores. The rst step of the
model was signicant, and there were signicant
changes in F at the second and fourth steps.
5
At the
fourth step, there were signicant main effects of age
group and depression. Resilience relating to the ability
to regulate emotions was higher when depression
scores were lower. There was a signicant threeway
interaction effect among depression, illhealth and
hopelessness scores, which was qualied by a signi-
cant fourway interaction effect among these three
4
Only the rst step of the model was signicant for the RAS total scores,
F(4,115) =28.31, p <0.0001, R
2
=0.50. For problem solving, the rst step
of the model was signicant, F(4,115) =19.96, p <0.0001, R
2
=0.41, with
the remaining steps producing no signicant change in F. For social
support, the rst step of the model was signicant, and there was a
signicant change in F at the second step, F(4,115) =7.23, p <0.0001,
R
2
=0.20, for step 1; F(6,109) =2.28, p <0.05, R
2
=0.09 for step 2.
Despite the change in F at step 2 being signicant, no parameter estimate
reached signicance at the alpha level of 0.05.
5
F(4,115) =20.73, p <0.0001, R
2
=0.42 for step 1; F
change
(6,109) =2.50,
p <0.05, R
2
=0.07 for step 2; F
change
(1,104) =4.02, p <0.05, R
2
=0.02
for step 4.
Figure 1 (a) The effect of physical dysfunction on resilience scores related to social support for the youngadult and the olderadult subgroups.
(b) The effect of mental ill health on resilience scores related to social support for the youngadult and the olderadult subgroups.
266 P. A. Gooding et al.
Copyright 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 2012; 27: 262270.
Table 2 Results of the hierarchical regression analysis determining whether participant group, depression, hopelessness and ill health and the
interaction effects between these variables predicted resilience (total scores and the three subscales of problem solving, social support and emotional
regulation)
Step Outcome Variable entered SE B CI (95%) t
1
a
Total Dep 1.62 0.88 0.25 3.37 to 0.13 1.84
Problem solving 0.37 0.40 0.14 11.16 to 0.42 0.93
Social support 0.11 0.55 0.033 0.97 to 1.18 0.19
Emotional regulation 1.36 0.50 0.40 2.34 to 0.37 2.74*
Total Hope 2.81 0.78 0.43 4.35 to 1.27 3.61***
Problem solving 1.84 0.35 0.43 1.88 to 0.49 3.37**
Social support 1.23 0.48 0.38 2.18 to 0.278 2.56*
Emotional regulation 0.40 0.44 0.12 1.26 to 0.47 0.91
Total Hlth 0.12 0.62 0.02 1.11 to 1.35 0.20
Problem solving 0.19 0.28 0.07 0.37 to 0.74 0.67
Social support 0.23 0.38 0.07 0.98 to 0.53 0.59
Emotional regulation 0.16 0.35 0.05 0.53 to 0.85 0.46
Total Age group 3.92 0.86 0.30 2.21 to 5.62 4.55***
Problem solving 2.12 0.39 0.39 1.35 to 2.89 5.44***
Social support 1.27 0.531 0.20 2.32 to 0.22 2.39*
Emotional regulation 3.07 0.48 0.45 2.11 to 4.02 6.35***
2 Emotional regulation Dep 2.11 0.68 0.62 3.5 to 0.76 3.09*
Hope 0.01 0.58 0.004 1.163 to 1.14 0.03
Hlth 0.11 0.52 0.03 1.14 to 0.93 0.20
Age group 3.17 0.47 0.47 2.24 to 4.10 6.79***
DepHope 0.56 0.35 0.26 1.24 to 0.13 1.6
DepHlth 0.31 0.51 0.14 0.70 to 1.31 0.60
Hope Hlth 0.69 0.47 0.31 0.24 to 1.62 1.47
Age groupHope 0.74 0.88 0.15 2.49 to 1.01 0.84
Age groupHlth 0.04 0.71 0.01 1.45 to 1.37 0.06
Age groupDep 1.61 0.96 0.33 0.30 to 3.52 1.67
3 Emotional regulation Dep 2.00 0.70 0.58 3.39 to 0.62 2.86**
Hope 0.16 0.60 0.05 1.34 to 1.03 0.26
Hlth 0.33 0.56 0.10 1.44 to 0.79 0.58
Age group 3.2 0.57 0.47 2.084.32 5.66***
DepHope 0.43 0.52 0.20 1.47 to 0.61 0.82
DepHlth 0.34 0.72 0.16 1.77 to 1.09 0.48
Hope Hlth 0.82 0.74 0.37 0.66 to 2.29 1.10
Age groupHope 0.38 0.93 0.08 2.22 to 1.46 0.41
Age groupHlth 0.07 0.75 0.015 1.56 to 1.42 0.10
Age groupDep 1.37 1.00 0.28 0.62 to 3.35 1.37
DepHlthHope 0.16 0.14 0.22 0.12 to 0.43 1.13
AgeDepHope 0.44 0.71 0.14 1.86 to 0.97 0.62
AgeDepHlth 1.18 1.04 0.30 0.88 to 3.24 1.14
AgeHope Heath 0.68 0.98 0.17 2.62 to 1.26 0.69
4 Emotional regulation Dep 1.86 0.69 0.54 3.24 to 0.49 2.69**
Hope 0.34 0.60 0.10 1.53 to 0.85 0.57
Hlth 0.58 0.57 0.17 1.70 to 0.54 1.03
Age group 2.68 0.62 0.39 1.46 to 3.90 4.56***
DepHope 0.46 0.52 0.21 1.48 to 0.57 0.88
DepHlth 0.55 0.72 0.25 1.98 to 0.87 0.77
Hope Hlth 0.51 0.75 0.23 0.98 to 1.99 0.68
Age groupHope 0.25 0.92 0.05 2.06 to 1.57 0.27
Age groupHlth 0.45 0.79 0.09 1.11 to 2.01 0.58
Age groupDep 1.54 0.99 0.32 0.42 to 3.51 1.56
DepHlthHope 0.35 0.17 0.51 0.02 to 0.69 2.10*
AgeDepHope 0.16 0.72 0.05 1.59 to 1.26 0.23
AgeDepHlth 1.44 1.03 0.36 0.61 to 3.48 1.39
AgeHope Heath 0.11 1.01 0.03 2.1 to 1.89 0.11
AgeHope HeathDep 0.58 0.29 0.33 1.15 to 0.01 2.00*
Dep, depression; Hlth, ill health; Hope, hopelessness.
If the second, third and fourth steps of the analyses were not signicant, then results for these steps are not shown.
*p < 0.05.
**p < 0.01.
***p < 0.0001.
267 Resilience in the young and the older adults
Copyright 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 2012; 27: 262270.
variables and age group at the fourth step (Table 2). To
understand this latter effect, we repeated the analysis on
data from the youngadult and olderadult subgroups
separately. The main effect of depression, B=1.86,
SE = 0.67 (95% CI = 3.21 to 0.52), = 0.59,
t =2.78, p <0.01, and the threeway interaction effect
among depression, ill health and hopelessness scores
(Figure 2), B=0.35, SE =0.16 (95% CI =0.030.68),
=0.71, t =2.17, p <0.05, were signicant only for the
youngadult subgroup (F(7,52) = 6.6, p < 0.0001,
R=0.47, for the overall model). For this group,
resilience reecting emotional regulation was the
lowest with high levels of depression and ill health
regardless of hopelessness, and it was the highest when
depressed mood was low, regardless of hopelessness
and ill health. However, low levels of hopelessness
appeared to counter the effects of high levels of de-
pressed mood on resilience related to emotional
regulation, but only when levels of ill health were low.
Discussion
The rst prediction of this study was that the older
adults would be more resilient than the young adults,
especially for the emotional regulation and problem
solving subscales of the resilience measure. This was,
indeed, found to be the case. The young adults,
however, had stronger resilience related to social
support than the older adults. The small number
of studies that have examined psychological resilience
in older adults has not compared young adults with
older adults. Nevertheless, these ndings are in accord
with the work that has compared these two groups on
measures of quality of life and found that older
participants have more positive ratings in some
circumstances (Trief et al., 2003; Bauer et al., 2008).
The second prediction was related to the effects of ill
health on resilience. Based on the ndings showing that
quality of life is often perceived positively in older adults
despite themfacing health issues and stressors associated
with loss and bereavement (Lamond et al., 2008;
Netuveli and Blane, 2008), it was expected that ill health
in this group, but not in the young adults, would predict
greater levels of resilience. Perceptions of ill health in
general and low energy levels were both associated with
lower levels of resilience overall regardless of age group.
Experiencing a mental illness was related to higher levels
of resilience overall. Adifferential effect of age was found
in line with the second prediction, but only for health
related questions that probed perceptions of physical
function and mental illness and only for the subscale of
resilience related to social support (i.e. the ability to be
able to turn to people in the face of problems). In the
older adults, high levels of physical dysfunction and
mental illness predicted higher levels of resilience
compared with lower levels of illness. This nding
concurs with the work showing that resilience is not
associated with ill health (Lamond et al., 2008) and that
quality of life is not negatively affected by a decline in
health (Netuveli and Blane, 2008).
Figure 2 Emotional regulation resilience scores for low and high depression and illhealth scores split by low and high hopelessness scores for the
young group.
268 P. A. Gooding et al.
Copyright 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 2012; 27: 262270.
The third prediction was that high levels of
depression, hopelessness and ill health would interact
such that they would be associated with the lowest levels
of resilience, especially so for the youngadult group.
This was not found to be the case. For the resilience scale
overall, and for the social support and problem solving
subscales, high hopelessness scores were associated with
low resilience scores irrespective of age and irrespective
of levels of depression and ill health. That hopelessness
rather than depression was a predictor of low resilience
indicates that negative futureoriented thinking may be a
mechanism that detrimentally affects resilience to a
greater extent than depression. This underscores the
importance of including measures of hopelessness in
studies of psychological resilience in older adults and of
developing interventions that aim to increase future
related optimism in this group (OConnor et al., 2004;
OConnor et al., 2007).
For the emotional regulation subscale and for the
youngadult group only, resilience was the lowest
when levels of depression and ill health were the
highest, which is partially consistent with the third
prediction. Low levels of hopelessness appeared to
counter the negative effects depression on resilience
related to emotional regulation, but only when
health was robust. For young individuals, the effects
of ill health appeared to be particularly pernicious.
One issue to be addressed is why this interaction
effect was prominent for the emotional regulation
subscale of the resilience measure and not for the
other two subscales. This may be linked to the older
adults developing more effective coping strategies,
which utilise aspects of social support, especially with
respect to aspects of ill health (Trief et al., 2003).
This nding can also be interpreted in terms of their
own and peer group expectations. For young people,
ill health, especially if chronic, may neither be part of
their expectations nor the expectations of their peer
groups. If this disparity in expectation also feeds into
a negative appraisal system, then it seems plausible
that feelings of hopelessness and depression may
ensue (Johnson et al., 2010).
A number of limitations of this study warrant
discussion. First, the design was crosssectional. In
future work, it will be important to use longitudinal
designs to determine the extent to which psycholog-
ical resilience is evident before the manifestation of
numerous stressors and also to determine the extent
to which resilience changes over the time frame in
which the stressors are present. Second, a question-
naire measuring health in general was used in the
current study. Although this questionnaire comprised
nine domains, there was no attempt made to probe
further into the nature of healthrelated issues in
either group. Third, the study compared a sample of
students with a sample of communitydwelling older
people. The two groups differed with respect to sex,
with a greater percentage of female participants
(87%) comprising the youngadult sample compared
with that of the olderadult sample (58%). The
groups may also have differed with respect to other
variables, such as living conditions, available support
networks, nancial support and so on. Hence, these
results may not be generalised to young people who
are not students. Similarly, they may also not be
applicable to older individuals who are not commu-
nity dwelling. Future work would benet from
comparing psychological resilience in a diverse range
of samples across the lifespan, which also measure
differences in a number of potentially crucial control
variables. Fourth, the study used only one measure
of resilience, namely, the RAS (Johnson et al., 2010).
This scale was chosen because one focus of the study
was resilience to hopelessness and the RAS was
developed to measure psychological resilience to
suicidality. Hopelessness is one of the strongest
predictors of suicidality (e.g. OConnor and
OConnor, 2003; OConnor et al., 2004). Hence,
the RAS seemed to be the most pertinent measure.
However, the use of this scale does make the current
results difcult to compare with studies that have
used other measures of psychological resilience (e.g.
Lamond et al., 2008; Mehta et al., 2008).
In conclusion, hopelessness emerged as a strong
predictor of low levels of resilience for both age groups
and forms a common target for health intervention
programmes. The older adults were more resilient than
the young adults. Communitydwelling older people
may be equipped with the ability to harness social
support resources in the face of ill health.
Conict of interest
None declared.
Key points

The older individuals are more resilient than

the young ones.

Low levels of hopelessness predict resilience in

the young adults and the older adults.

Low levels of hopelessness can counter some

forms of resilience only in the young adults.
269 Resilience in the young and the older adults
Copyright 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 2012; 27: 262270.
References
Bauer I, Wrosch C, Jobin J. 2008. Im better off than most other people: the role of
social comparisons for coping with regret in young adulthood and old age. Psychol
Aging 23(4): 800811.
Beck AT, Weissman A, Lester D, Trexler L. 1974. The measurement of pessimism:
The hopelessness scale. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 42: 861865.
Bennett KM. 2010. How to achieve resilience as an older widower: turning points or
gradual change? Ageing Soc 30: 369382.
Bonanno GA. 2004. Loss, trauma, and human resilience: have we underestimated
the human capacity to thrive after extremely aversive events? Am Psychol 59(1):
2028.
Chabrol H, Choquet M. 2009. Relationship between depressive symptoms,
hopelessness and suicidal ideation among 1547 high school students. Encephale-
Revue 35(5): 443447.
Fiske A, Wetherell JL, Gatz M. 2009. Depression in older adults. Annu Rev Clin
Psychol 5: 363389.
Frazier PA, Tix AP, Barron KE. 2004. Testing moderator and mediator effects in
counseling psychology research. J Couns Psychol 51(1): 115134.
Johnson J, Gooding PA, Wood AM, Tarrier N. 2010. Resilience as positive coping
appraisals: testing the schematic appraisals model of suicide (SAMS). Behav Res
Ther 48(3): 179186.
Lamond AJ, Depp CA, Allison M, et al. 2008. Measurement and predictors of resilience
among communitydwelling older women. J Psychiatr Res 43(2): 148154.
Lau R, Morse CA, Macfarlane S. 2010. Psychological factors among elderly women
with suicidal intentions or attempts to suicide: a controlled comparison. J Women
Aging 22(1): 314.
Masten AS. 2001. Ordinary magic: resilience processes in development. Am Psychol
56(3): 227238.
Mehta M, Whyte E, Lenze E, et al. 2008. Depressive symptoms in late life:
associations with apathy, resilience and disability vary between youngold and old
old. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 23(3): 238243.
Netuveli G, Blane D. 2008. Quality of life in older ages. Br Med Bull 85: 113126.
Netuveli G, Wiggins RD, Montgomery SM, Hildon Z, Blane D. 2008. Mental health
and resilience at older ages: bouncing back after adversity in the British Household
Panel Survey. J Epidemiol Community Health 62(11): 987991.
Nygren B, Alex L, Jonsen E, et al. 2005. Resilience, sense of coherence, purpose
in life and selftranscendence in relation to perceived physical and mental
health among the oldest old. Aging Ment Health 9(4): 354362.
OConnor RC, OConnor DB. 2003. Predicting hopelessness and psychological
distress: the role of perfectionism and coping. J Couns Psychol 50(3): 362372.
OConnor RC, OConnor DB, OConnor SM, Smallwood J, Miles J. 2004.
Hopelessness, stress, and perfectionism: the moderating effects of future thinking.
Cogn Emot 18(8): 10991120.
OConnor RC, Whyte MC, Fraser L, et al. 2007. Predicting shortterm outcome in
wellbeing following suicidal behaviour: the conjoint effects of social perfectionism
and positive future thinking. Behav Res Ther 45(7): 15431555.
OConnor RC, Fraser L, Whyte MC, MacHale S, Masterton G. 2008. A
comparison of specic positive future expectancies and global hopelessness as
predictors of suicidal ideation in a prospective study of repeat selfharmers.
J Affect Disord 110(3): 207214.
Ofce for National Statistics. 2009. http://www.statistics.gov.uk/CCI/nugget.asp?
ID=1352. Accessed on 20 August 2010.
Peek MK, Ray L, Patel K, StoebnerMay D, Ottenbacher KJ. 2004. Reliability and
validity of the SF36 among older Mexican Americans. Gerontologist 44(3):
418425.
Rasmussen SA, Fraser L, Gotz M, et al. 2010. Elaborating the cry of pain model of
suicidality: testing a psychological model in a sample of rsttime and repeat self
harm patients. Br J Clin Psychol 49: 1530.
Shen K, Zeng Y. 2010. The association between resilience and survival among
Chinese elderly. Demogr Res 23: 105115.
Steed L. 2001. Further validity and reliability evidence for Beck Hopelessness Scale scores
in a nonclinical sample. Educ Psychol Meas 61(2): 303316.
Stern SL, Dhanda R, Hazuda HP. 2001. Hopelessness predicts mortality in older
Mexican and European Americans. Psychosom Med 63(3): 344351.
Trief PM, Wade MJ, Pine D, Weinstock RS. 2003. A comparison of healthrelated
quality of life of elderly and younger insulintreated adults with diabetes. Age
Ageing 32(26): 613618.
Ware JE, Sherbourne CD. 1992. The Mos 36item ShortForm Health Survey
(SF36). 1. Conceptualframework and item selection. Med Care 30(6): 473483.
Wells M. 2009. Resilience in rural communitydwelling older adults. J Rural Health
25(4): 415419.
Windle G, Woods R, Markland D. 2008. The effect of psychological resilience on the
relationship between chronic illness and subjective wellbeing. Gerontologist 48:
179179.
Windle G, Woods RT, Markland DA. 2010. Living with illhealth in older age: the
role of a resilient personality. J Happiness Stud 11(6): 763777.
Yesavage JA, Brink TL, Rose TL, et al. 1983. Development and validation of a geriatric
depression screening scale a preliminary report. J Psychiatr Res 17(1): 3750.
270 P. A. Gooding et al.
Copyright 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 2012; 27: 262270.