The Role of Happiness in the Relationship between Psychological Resilience and Life Satisfaction: A Field Study

Öz

Aim: This research is based on examining whether there is a relationship between psychological resilience, happiness, and life satisfaction in university students. The conceptual model of the research, which is a descriptive study based on the relational survey model, was created based on the relationships between the variables as a result of the literature review. Method: The research data were collected through an online self-report questionnaire technique. The questionnaire consists of two parts. The first part includes a personal information form, and the second includes a life satisfaction scale, psychological resilience scale, and happiness scale. The scales used in the research are those that have been previously applied in scientific studies and whose psychometric validity and reliability have been tested. The data set obtained was analyzed with the Jamovi 1.8.4 statistical program and the Process Macro plug-in developed by Andrew F. Hayes. Results: As a result of the analysis conducted in the study, it was determined that life satisfaction levels of university students had a direct statistical effect on psychological resilience and an indirect statistical effect on happiness. Conclusion: The findings obtained within the scope of the research are discussed in the light of the literature and suggestions for related researchers are given.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Psychological Resilience
• Happiness
• Life Satisfaction
• University Student
• Process Macro

Psikolojik Dayanıklılık ve Yaşam Tatmini İlişkisinde Mutluluğun Rolü: Bir Alan Araştırması

Öz

Amaç: Bu araştırma, üniversite öğrencilerinde, psikolojik dayanıklılık, mutluluk ve yaşam tatmini arasında ilişki olup olmadığını incelemeyi temel almıştır. İlişkisel tarama modeline dayalı betimsel bir çalışma olan araştırmanın kavramsal modeli, literatür taraması sonucu değişkenler arasındaki ilişkilere dayalı olarak oluşturulmuştur. Yöntem: Araştırma verileri, çevrimiçi ortamda öz bildirime dayalı anket tekniği ile toplanmıştır. Anket iki bölümden oluşmaktadır. Birinci bölümde kişisel bilgi formu, ikinci bölümde yaşam tatmini ölçeği, psikolojik dayanıklılık ölçeği ve mutluluk ölçeği yer almaktadır. Araştırmada kullanılan ölçekler, bilimsel çalışmalarda daha önce uygulanan ve psikometrik açıdan geçerliliği ve güvenilirliği test edilmiş ölçeklerdir. Elde edilen veri seti, Jamovi 1.8.4 istatistik programı ile Andrew F. Hayes’in geliştirdiği Process Macro eklentisi ile analiz edilmiştir. Bulgular: Araştırmada yapılan analiz sonucunda, üniversite öğrencilerinin yaşam tatmin düzeylerinin, psikolojik dayanıklılık üzerinde doğrudan, mutluluk üzerinden de dolaylı istatistiksel etkisinin olduğu belirlenmiştir. Sonuç: Araştırma kapsamında elde edilen bulgular, literatür ışığında tartışılmış olup, ilgili araştırmacılar için önerilere yer verilmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Psikolojik Dayanıklılık
• Mutluluk
• Yaşam Tatmini
• Üniversite Öğrencileri
• Process Macro

Kaynakça

1. AKBAR, M., AKRAM, M., AHMED, M., HUSSAIN, M. S., LAL, V. VE IJAZ, S. (2014). Relationship between resilience and life satisfaction among nomadic, International Journal of Innovation and Applied Studies, 6(3), 515-529. Erişim adresi: https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/relationship-between-resilience-life satisfaction/docview/1550522215/se-2.
2. ALFONSO V. C., ALLISON, D. B., RADER, D. E. ve GORMAN, B. S. (1996). The extended satisfaction with life scale: Development and psychometric properties, Social Indicators Research, 38(3), 275-301. Erişim adresi: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00292049.
3. ALİBEKİROĞLU, P. B., AKBAŞ, T., ATEŞ, F. B. ve KIRDÖK, O. (2018). Üniversite öğrencilerinde yaşam doyumu ile psikolojik sağlamlık arasındaki ilişkide öz anlayışın aracı etkisi, Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 27(2), 1-17. Erişim adresi: https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/cusosbil/issue/39773/471215.
4. ANDREWS, F. M. ve WITHEY, S. B. (1976). Social indicators of well-being: America's perception of life quality, New York: Plenum.
5. ARGYLE, M. ve CROSSLAND, J. (1987). The dimensions of positive emotions, The British Journal of Social Psychology, 26(2), 127-137. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1987.tb00773.x.
6. ARSLAN, H. (2019). Psikolojik danışmanların mutluluk, psikolojik sağlamlık ve bağımlılık durumları arasındaki ilişkiler, Sağlık Bilimlerinde Eğitim Dergisi, 1 (1) , 17-35. Erişim adresi: https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/jedihes/issue/41418/516596.
7. BONANNO, G. A., ROMERO, S. A. ve KLEIN, S. I. (2015). The temporal elements of psychological resilience: An integrative framework for the study of individuals, families and communities, Psychological Inquiry, 26(2), 139-169. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2015.992677.
8. CALLAHAN, C. D. (2000). Stress, coping and personality hardiness in patients with temporomandibular disorders, Rehabilitation Psychology, 45 (1), 38-48.

9. CANTEZ, E. (2018). Üniversite öğrencilerinin mutluluk, psikolojik sağlamlık ve öz yeterlik düzeyleri arasındaki ilişki. Aydın İnsan ve Toplum Dergisi, 4(2), 61-76. Erişim adresi: https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/aitdergi/issue/43705/536156.
10. CAMPBELL, A., CONVERSE, P. E. ve RODGERS,W. L. (1976). The quality of American life: Perceptions, evaluations, and satisfactions. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Erişim adresi: https://books.google.com.tr.
11. COHN, M. A., FREDRICKSON, B. L., BROWN, S. L., MIKELS, J. A. ve CONWAY, A. M. (2009). Happiness unpacked: Positive emotions increase life satisfaction by building resilience, Emotion, 9(3), 361-368. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015952.
12. COLEMAN, J. ve HAGELL, A. (Eds.). (2007). Adolescence, risk and resilience: Against the odds (Vol. 3). John Wiley & Sons. Erişim adresi: https://books.google.com.tr/.
13. COLLINS, A. B. (2009). Life experiences and resilience in college students: A relationship influenced by hope and mindfulnes. Doktora Tezi, Texas A&M University. Erişim adresi:https://www.proquest.com/docview/305117567?pqorigsite=gscholar&fromopenview=true&sourcetype=Dissertations%20&%20Theses.
14. DENEVE, K.M. ve COOPER, H. (1998). The happy personality a metaanalysis of 137 personality traits and subjective well-being, Psychological Bulletin, 124, 197-229. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.124.2.197
15. DEMİRCİ, İ. ve EKŞİ. H. (2018). Keep calm and be happy: A mixed method study from character strengths to well-being, Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 18(29), 303-354. doi: https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2018.2.0799.
16. DİKMEN, A. A. (1995). İş doyumu ve yaşam doyumu ilişkisi, Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi, 50(03), 115-140. doi: https://doi.org/10.1501/SBFder_0000001851.
17. DIENER, E. (1984). Subjective Well-Being, Psychological Bulletin, 95(3), 542-575. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.95.3.542.
18. DIENER E.D., EMMONS, R.A., LARSEN, R J. ve GRIFFIN, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale, Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1), 71-75. doi: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13.
19. DIENER, E. ve DIENER, M. (1995). Cross-cultural correlates of life satisfaction and self-esteem, Journal of Personality And Social Psychology, 68(4), 653-663. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.68.4.653.
20. DIENER, E., SUH, E. ve OISHI, S. (1997). Recent findings on subjective well-being, Indian Journal of Clinical Psychology, 24(1), 25-41. Erişim adresi: https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1997-43193-002.
21. DIENER, E. ve LUCAS, R. E. (2000). Explaining differences in societal levels of happiness: Relative standards, need fulfillment, culture, and evaluation theory, Journal of Happiness Studies: An Interdisciplinary Forum on Subjective Well-Being, 1(1), 41-78. doi: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010076127199.
22. DIENER, E. ve BISWAS-DIENER, R. (2002). Will money increase subjective well-being? A literature review and guide to needed research, Social Indicators Research, 57(2), 119-169. doi: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014411319119.
23. DIENER, E. (2006). Guidelines for national indicators of subjective well-being and ill-being, Journal of Happiness Studies: An Interdisciplinary Forum on Subjective Well-Being, 7(4), 397–404. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-006-9000-y.
24. FRISH, M. B. (2006). Quality of life therapy: Applying a life satisfaction approach to positive psychology and cognitive therapy. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. Erişim adresi: https://books.google.com.tr.
25. FLETCHER, D. ve SARKAR, M. (2013). Psychological resilience: A review and critique of definitions, concepts, and theory, European Psychologist, 18(1), 12-23. doi: https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000124.
26. FLANAGAN, J. C. (1978). A research approach to improving our quality of life, American Psychologist, 33(2), 138-147. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.33.2.138.
27. GROSS, J. J. ve JOHN, O. P. (2003). Individual differences in two emotion regulation processes: Implications for affect, relationships and well-being, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(2), 348-362. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.2.348.
28. GUNDELACH, P. ve KREİNER, S. (2004). Happiness and life satisfaction in advanced European countries. Cross-cultural research, 38(4), 359-386. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1069397104267483.
29. HAYBRON, D. M. (2000). Two philosophical problems in the study of happiness, Journal of Happiness Studies, 1, 207-225. doi: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010075527517.
30. HUEBNER, E. S., SULDO, S. M., SMITH, L. C., ve MCKNIGHT, C. G. (2004). Life satisfaction in children and youth: Empirical foundation sandimplications for school psychologists, Psychology in the Schools, 41(1), 81-93. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.10140.
31. HU, T., ZHANG, D. ve WANG, J. (2015). A meta-analysis of the trait resilience and mental health, Personality and Individual Differences, 76, 18-27. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.11.039.
32. SHİN, J., TAYLOR, M. S. ve SEO, M. G. (2012). Resources for change: The relationships of organizational inducements and psychological resilience to employees' attitudes and behaviors toward organizational change. Academy of Management journal, 55(3), 727-748. doi: https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.0325
33. KARAIRMAK, Ö. (2006). Psikolojik sağlamlık, risk faktörleri ve koruyucu faktörler. Türk Psikolojik Danışma ve Rehberlik Dergisi, III(26), 129-139.
34. KASHDAN, T. B. (2004). The assessment of subjective well-being (issues raised by the oxford happiness questionnaire), Personality and Individual Differences, 36(5), 1225-1232. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(03)00213-7.
35. KESSLER, R.C., FOSTER, C.L., SAUNDERS, W.B. ve STAND, P.E. (1995). Social consequences of psychiatric disorders: I. Educational attainment, American Journal of Psychiatry, 152, 1026-1032.
36. KOBASA, S. C. (1979). Stressful life events, personality, and health: An inquiry into hardiness, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(1), 1-11. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.37.1.1.
37. KOSAKA, M. (1996). Relations between hardiness and psychological stress response, Journal of Performance Studies, 3, 35-40.
38. LEE, J. H., NAM, S. K., KIM, A. R., KIM, B., LEE, M. Y. ve LEE, S. M. (2013). Resilience: A meta‐analytic approach, Journal of Counseling & Development, 91(3), 269-279. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6676.2013.00095.x.
39. LIU, Y., WANG, Z. ve LU, W. (2013). Resilience and affect balance as mediators between trait emotional intelligence and life satisfaction, Personality and Individual Differences, 54(7), 850–855. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.12.010.
40. LUCAS, R. E., DIENER, E. ve SUH, E. (1996). Discriminant validity of well-being measures, Journal of Personality And Social Psychology, 71(3), 616-628. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.71.3.616.
41. LYUBOMIRSKY, S., KING, L. ve DIENER, E. (2005). The benefits of frequent positive affect: Does happiness lead to success?, Psychological Bulletin, 131(6), 803–855. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.131.6.803.
42. MAK, W. W., NG, I. S. ve WONG, C. C. (2011). Resilience: enhancing well-being through the positive cognitive triad, Journal of Counseling Psychology, 58(4), 610-617. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025195.
43. MATHENY, K. B., CURLETTE, W. L., AYSAN, F., HERRINGTON, A., GFROERER, C. A., THOMPSON, D. ve HAMARAT, E. (2002). Copingresources, perceivedstress, and life satisfaction among Turkish and American University students, International Journal of Stress Management, 9(2), 81-97. doi: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014902719664
44. MASTEN, A. S. ve REED, M.J. (2002). Resilience in development. In C. R. Snyder, ve S. J. Lopez (Eds.). The Handbook of Positive Psychology. Oxfort University Pres. Erişim adresi: https://books.google.com.tr/.
45. NEMATI, S. ve MEHDIPOUR, F. (2016). The Relationship between life satisfaction and happiness: The mediating role of resiliency, International Journal of Psychological Studies, 8(3), 194-201. doi: https://doi.org/10.5539/ijps.v8n3p194.
46. PRAYAG, G., SPECTOR, S., ORCHISTON, C. ve CHOWDHURY, M. (2020). Psychological resilience, organizational resilience and life satisfaction in tourism firms: Insights from the Canterbury earthquakes, Current Issues in Tourism, 23(10), 1216-1233. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2019.1607832.
47. PAVOT, W., DIENER, E. D., COLVIN, C. R. ve SANDVIK, E. (1991). Further validation of the satisfaction with life scale: Evidence for the cross-method convergence of well-being measures, Journal of Personality Assessment, 57(1), 149-161. Erişim adresi: https://eds.s.ebscohost.com/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=0&sid=383ef79d-d07d-4be2-baa0-94981ba42d40%40redis.
48. PAVOT, W. ve DIENER, E. (1993). The affective and cognitive context of self reported measures of subjective well-being, Social Indicators Research, 28, 1-20. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01086714.
49. RICKWOOD, D., DEANE, F. P., WILSON, C. J. ve CIARROCHI, J. (2005). Young people’s help-seeking for mental health problems, Australian e-Journal for the Advancement of Mental Health, 4(3), 218-251. doi: https://doi.org/10.5172/jamh.4.3.218.
50. RUTTER, M. (2006). Implications of resilience concepts for scientific understanding, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1094(1), 1-12. doi: https://doi.org/10.1196/annals.1376.002.
51. SHIN, D. C. ve JOHNSON, D. M. (1978). Avowed happiness as an overall assessment of the quality of life, Social Indicators Research, 5(4), 475-492.
52. SMITH, B. W., DALEN, J., WIGGINS, K., TOOLEY, E., CHRISTOPHER, P. ve JENNIFER BERNARD, J. (2008). The brief resilience scale: Assessing the ability to bounce back. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 15, 194-200. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/10705500802222972.
53. UZ BAŞ, A. ve YURDABAKAN, İ. (2017). Psikolojik sağlamlık ve okul ikliminin ortaokul öğrencilerinin yaşam doyumunu yordama gücü, Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 1(41), 202-214. doi: https://doi.org/10.21764/efd.32175
54. ULUKAN, M. (2020). Öğretmenlerin mutluluk ile psikolojik sağlamlık düzeyleri arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesi, Journal Of International Social Research, 13(73). Erişim adresi: https://eds.s.ebscohost.com/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=0&sid=bd3d173c-61cd-4956-860a-7a48363c111c%40redis.
55. VEENHOVEN, R. (1991). Is happiness relative?, Social Indicators Research, 24(1), 1-34. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00292648.
56. VEENHOVEN, R. ve EHRHARDT, J. (1995). The cross-national pattern of happiness: Test of predictions implied in three theories of happiness, Social Indicators Research, 34, 33-68. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01078967.
57. VEENHOVEN, R. (1996). Developments in satisfaction-research, Social Indicators Research, 37, 1-46. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00300268.
58. VEENHOVEN, R. (1997). “Advances in understanding happiness, Revue Québécoise de Psychologie, 18(2), 29-74.
59. TOPRAK, H. (2014). Ergenlerde mutluluk ve yaşam doyumunun yordayıcısı olarak psikolojik sağlamlık ve psikolojik ihtiyaç doyumu, Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Sakarya Üniversitesi, Sakarya.
60. ZHENG, W., HUANG, Y. ve FU, Y. (2020). Mediating effects of psychological resilience on life satisfaction among older adults: A crosssectional study in China, Health ve Social Care in the Community, 28(4), 1323-1332. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/hsc.12965.