Next Article in Journal
Responding to the HIV Health Literacy Needs of Clients in Substance Use Treatment: The Role of Universal PrEP Education in HIV Health and Prevention
Previous Article in Journal
Medical Care Management Based on Disaster Medicine for the Triathlon Events at the XXXII Olympiad and Tokyo 2020 Paralympic Games
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJERPH
Volume 20
Issue 19
10.3390/ijerph20196892
ijerph-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Resilience, Positivity and Social Support as Perceived Stress Predictors among University Students

by
Kamila Litwic-Kaminska
1,*,
Aleksandra Błachnio
1,
Izabela Kapsa
2,
Łukasz Brzeziński
3,
Jakub Kopowski
4,
Milica Stojković
5,
Darko Hinić
6,
Ivana Krsmanović
5,
Benedetta Ragni
7,
Francesco Sulla
7 and
Pierpaolo Limone
7
1
Faculty of Psychology, Kazimierz Wielki University, 85-867 Bydgoszcz, Poland
2
Faculty of Political Science and Administration, Kazimierz Wielki University, 85-671 Bydgoszcz, Poland
3
Faculty of Pedagogy, Kazimierz Wielki University, 85-064 Bydgoszcz, Poland
4
Faculty of Computer Science, Kazimierz Wielki University, 85-064 Bydgoszcz, Poland
5
Faculty of Technical Sciences, University of Kragujevac, 34000 Kragujevac, Serbia
6
Department of Psychology, University of Kragujevac, 34000 Kragujevac, Serbia
7
Department of Humanistic Studies, Learning Science Hub, University of Foggia, 71122 Foggia, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20(19), 6892; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20196892
Submission received: 31 May 2023 / Revised: 29 September 2023 / Accepted: 3 October 2023 / Published: 7 October 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Mental Health)
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Since the COVID-19 pandemic, researchers have been trying to identify which personal resources can contribute to minimizing the mental health costs in students incurred due to the restrictions that disrupted safety and predictability in their academic lives. The aim of the study was to verify if and how individual factors (resilience and positivity) and socio-environmental factors (social support and nationality) allow prediction of the level of perceived stress. University students (n = 559) from Poland, Serbia, and Italy were surveyed using the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS-10), the Brief Resilience Scale (BRS), the Positivity Scale (PS), and the Interpersonal Support Evaluation List (ISEL-12). Personal resources—positivity, resilience, and support—were found to be positively interrelated and significantly associated with stress levels. Additionally, gender and nationality differentiated stress levels. A general linear model (GLM) showed that levels of perceived stress are best explained by resilience, positivity, tangible support, and gender. The results obtained can strengthen students’ awareness of personal resources and their protective role in maintaining mental health, as well as contribute to the creation of prevention-oriented educational activities. Nationality was not a significant predictor of the level of perceived stress, which highlights the universality of examined predictors among university students from different countries and suggests that interventions aimed at enhancing these resources could benefit students across different cultural contexts.

1. Introduction

COVID-19 must be considered a critical event in the educational biographies of the nearly 1.6 billion students who experienced the long-term closure of educational facilities [1]. For institutions, it has led to a hastily introduced technological revolution [2,3,4], shifting from the tradition of ‘face-to-face’ teaching to new ‘e-learning experiences’ hosted on digital platforms. These digital platforms, in turn, were perpetuated not by results, but by the extended duration of their use. Meanwhile, the students, as direct beneficiaries, have completely transitioned to distance learning in order to maintain the continuity of their studies. They had to cope with the acquisition of hardware and software to be able to participate in IT-based activities. For many, the COVID-19 lockdown resulted in a significant reduction or loss of their previous livelihoods. The hours spent in front of the computer caused an overload on the body (for many, this was associated with headaches and increased fatigue). Moreover, they were losing a sense of control over their lives and their educational process. This new and challenging situation, coupled with the fear of COVID-19, intensified their experience of stress [5]. Much academic effort has been dedicated to research investigating the extent of the mental and social health burden across various contexts. There is a current focus on finding resources that can reduce the costs associated with student ill-being (depression, anxiety, stress [5,6,7], and subsequent academic failure).

1.1. Defining and Measuring Resilience and Its Relations to the Perceived Stress

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to a situation that allows psychologists to observe competences and means that people employ in coping with adverse and even challenging conditions. The concept of resilience, introduced to psychology by Jack and Jeanne Block [8], refers to these competences.
Initially, resilience, seen as a set of fixed individual assets, was investigated through the use of psychometric questionnaires. One of these, the Dispositional Resilience Scale [9], was based on a theory of resilience-hardness encompassing three traits: commitment, control, and challenge [10]. Over time, both the definition of the concept and the measurement tools have evolved. The more recent and popular Resilience Scale [11] acknowledges resilience as an enduring characteristic of a person that manifests itself in two dimensions: personal competence and acceptance of self and life.
Then, a new perspective on resilience was introduced in The Connor–Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC), which recognizes that the level of resilience is not constant, and may change depending on different experiences, states of health, and general functioning [12]. This questionnaire contains five factors: personal competence, spiritual influences, sense of internal control, affective tolerance, and acceptance of change, all of which are related to resilience.
Nowadays, the term resilience is no longer understood only as a feature of an individual (when it is used in this sense, the proper term is “resiliency”) [8,13,14,15] but as a process (in this case, the term “resilience” is used) [16,17,18,19]. Perceived as a process, resilience refers to efficiently overcoming difficult phenomena and events that affect a person throughout their life. Some researchers focus on critical phenomena, pointing out that resilience refers to a dynamic process of positive adaptation in the face of emerging adversities [20]. Others view resilience as a set of traits, an outcome, or a dynamic process that involves exposure to stress or adversity, followed by successful adaptation [21]. Despite the ambiguity of the terms, the literature commonly employs a broad definition of the term resilience [19,22,23].
In this study, we consider resilience as a process of positive adaptation to unfavorable conditions that are a source of stress [19,21] or as the “ability to cope with difficulties and recover from stress” [24]. The intertwined relationship between stress and resilience was more closely observed in the conditions of the pandemic and is well described in the quote: “Resilience is nurtured, developed, and mobilized in times of stress” [25]. In this sense, a resilient person is ready for positive adaptation and functioning despite prolonged exposure to stressors and disadvantages [26], such as the circumstances in the context of COVID-19.

1.2. The Concept of Positivity

Another concept that is being investigated in relation to stress is positivity [27,28,29]. In most research studies, the construct of positivity means possessing a positive outlook and openness to new and unfamiliar experiences [30]; it involves being stable in happiness despite environmental change [31] or adopting a favorable, hopeful, and confident perspective of the future, while considering adverse events as temporary [32]. It is also related to having optimistic, positive expectations about the future and holding positive views of self, others, the future, and life [33,34]. Some researchers identify positivity with positive thinking, indicating that it is at the core of individuals’ confidence in their future [35], while others describe it as a tendency to evaluate aspects of life in general as good [36].
Interest in positivity has been steadily growing over the past few decades and many studies have proven the relationship between positivity and such outcomes as mental health [37,38,39], physical health and hedonic balance [40,41], quality of relationship styles [42], positive affect [43], prosociality [44], and resilience [45]. In the context of COVID-19, some researchers have explored the correlation between positivity and fear or presented attitudes towards the circumstances and consequences of the pandemic [46,47,48], including among university students [49,50,51,52].

1.3. Definition and Measure of Social Support in the Relations to the Perceived Stress

Social support is an important health-related and communicative process, encompassing verbal and nonverbal behaviors aimed at assisting another person in need [53]. It is also categorized as perceived social support, meaning perceived availability and adequacy of supportive ties [54] or the resources that are provided by others [55]. Social support can relate to stress and stress outcomes in different ways: by directly affecting the occurrence of stress events, perceived stress, or stress outcomes [54,56,57].
The protective role of social support, recognized as a key resource in coping with stress, has attracted the interest of researchers, who have developed various scales to measure it. For example, the scale developed by Cohen and Hoberman [58] measures an individual’s perceived availability of social support and consists of four distinct subscales: tangible support, sense of belonging, self-esteem, and appraisal. This scale has been used for testing various groups of respondents, including students [59,60], and most recently during the COVID-19 pandemic [61].

1.4. In the Search for Cultural Differences in Students’ Experience of Stress

In emerging adulthood, it is crucial to connect with colleges and communities that contribute to well-being by supporting contexts and providing opportunities for social-emotional development [62]. However, the COVID-19 pandemic and the series of restrictions that accompanied it made this impossible [63]. Students, being a vulnerable population [64], were forced into long-term isolation. They feared for their physical health and expressed concerns for the continuity of their studies [7]. As a result, rates of depression, anxiety, stress, sleep disorders, and even suicide attempts have dramatically increased in the student population [1,65]. Ongoing research highlights the significant costs incurred by a large number of students as a result of the pandemic restrictions, which have disrupted safety and predictability in their academic lives. At the same time, researchers are trying to identify which personal resources can contribute to minimizing the costs of mental health and recovery [7].
It is worth examining in more detail to what extent personal resources facilitate students’ emotional balance among students of different cultures. Existing reports indicate cultural diversity in emotional functioning, personal characteristics and resources, and the way social support is given and perceived, along with other factors that influence the experience of stressful situations [66,67,68,69]. Although previous studies have analyzed stress levels among university students in different countries during the pandemic, revealing high levels of stress, anxiety, and depression, they were either conducted as a qualitative study aimed at understanding how pandemic experiences have affected student well-being [7] or the analyses were limited to one country with narrow study profiles [5,70]. In this study, we adopted a systemic approach, considering two perspectives that encompass individual factors (such as gender and personal resources including resilience and positivity) as well as socio-environmental factors (including social support and nationality). By conducting a cross-country study encompassing Poland, Serbia, and Italy, we aim to explore potential variations in the relationships between resilience, positivity, social support, and perceived stress across different cultural settings. This cross-cultural approach allows us to examine whether these relationships hold true universally or are influenced by cultural factors, thereby contributing to a more comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon. Consequently, by taking both perspectives into consideration (personal and socio-environmental), our goal was to examine the extent to which internal resources and external support influence the level of stress during periods of isolation and social distancing amid the COVID-19 pandemic across different cultures. Thus, the study aimed to verify if and how resilience, positivity, and social support enable us to predict the level of perceived stress in Polish, Serbian, and Italian students.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Participants and Procedure

The survey was conducted in June 2022 among Polish, Serbian, and Italian students studying at three universities: Kazimierz Wielki University (Bydgoszcz, Poland), University of Kragujevac (Serbia), and the University of Foggia (Italy). Universities were purposively selected for their size and their region-specific location (average multi-profile universities in medium-sized cities). The research was conducted fully anonymously, on a voluntary basis, and entirely online. Data were collected by three independent web applications (one for each country) to which individual access links were assigned. Inclusion criteria were as follows: active full-time and part-time student, at all three levels of education (bachelor’s, master’s, or PhD), under 40 years of age, studying at one of the designated universities. A balanced distribution of students from a range of technical and non-technical (humanities/social sciences, medical) subjects was also taken into account. All the respondents provided their informed consent to participate in the study. The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.
The sample consisted of 559 students in total.
The Polish sample was comprised of 306 students (189 females, 62%) pursuing bachelor’s degrees (78%) and master’s studies (22%), aged 18–39 (M = 22.56, SD = 3.13). Most of the participants were full-time students (87%) and studied outside their hometown (69%). Regarding the field of study, the sample presents the following distribution: social sciences 67%, exact and natural sciences 22%, health sciences 6%, and humanities 5%.
The Serbian sample consisted of 175 students (130 females, 74%), pursuing bachelor’s (85%), master’s (10%), and PhD degrees (5%), aged 18–38 (M = 22.21, SD = 3.03). Most of the participants were full-time students (86%) and studied outside their hometowns (62%). The majority of the participants were studying in the field of social sciences and humanities (38%), followed by medical disciplines (26%), IT (22%), and engineering and natural sciences and technology (14%).
The Italian sample comprised 78 students (44 females, 56%) pursuing bachelor’s (50%), master’s (27%), and PhD degrees (23%), aged 19–39 (M = 27.76, SD = 5.35). Most of the participants were full-time students (86%) and studied in their hometown (68%). The majority of the participants were studying in the field of natural and applied sciences (47%), followed by social sciences (36%), humanities (11%), and business (6%). The fields of study were determined on the basis of the regulations applied in each country.

2.2. Measures

The Perceived Stress Scale (PSS-10) [71] was used to evaluate the intensity of perceived stress experienced by the participants during the previous month. The responses for the 10 listed items are given on a five-point scale, ranging from “never” to “always”. The general result is calculated after reversing positive items’ scores and then summing up all scores. The total sum ranges from 0 (no stress) to 40 points (extreme stress). The reliability of the measure in all language versions was, respectively: Polish α = 0.85, Italian α = 0.89, Serbian α = 0.72.
The Brief Resilience Scale (BRS) [24] was implemented to measure resilience (i.e., the ability to overcome and/or recover from stress). It consists of six items rated on a five-point Likert-type scale (from 1 = strongly disagree, to 5 = strongly agree). The total score is calculated as a mean of the six items (after reversing three negative items). In the original study, the BRS demonstrated good internal consistency (with Cronbach’s alpha ranging from 0.80 to 0.91). In our study, it was, respectively: Polish α = 0.82, Italian α = 0.79, Serbian α = 0.80.
The Positivity Scale [34] was used to measure individuals’ tendency to see their lives and experiences with a positive outlook. It consists of eight items rated on a five-point Likert-type scale (from 1 = strongly disagree, to 5 = strongly agree). Item 4 (“At times, the future seems unclear to me”) was reverse-coded before running the statistical analyses. The score is the total score; the higher it is, the higher the level of positive orientation, and the range of raw scores is from 8 to 40. In the original study, the internal consistency was acceptable (Cronbach’s alpha ranging from 0.77 to 0.78). In our study, it was, respectively: Polish α = 0.91, Italian α = 0.88, Serbian α = 0.87.
Finally, the short form of the Interpersonal Support Evaluation List (ISEL-12) [72] was used as a measure of social support. The responses to the 12 items on a four-point scale ranging from “definitely false” to “definitely true” allow us to calculate a total score (range 0–36) that describes the overall perceived social support. The three subscales (scores range 0–12) indicate the perceived accessibility of appraisal (advice or guidance), belonging (empathy, acceptance, concern), and tangible social support (help or assistance, such as material or financial aid) [72]. The reliability of the measure in all samples was respectively: Polish α = 0.87, Italian α = 0.91, Serbian α = 0.87.

2.3. Data Analysis

The analyses were performed using Statistica v. 13 (StatSoft, Tulsa, OK, USA). The normal distribution of dependent variables was verified with Shapiro–Wilk’s test, as well as skewness and kurtosis values. National and gender differences were evaluated using ANOVA. Spearman R correlation was applied to determine the relationship between all continuous variables. A general linear model (GLM) was conducted to verify the relationship between gender, positivity, resilience, types of support as independent variables, nationality as a control variable, and the level of perceived stress as the dependent variable. GLM results were presented as standardized β coefficients (Beta) with 95% CI to determine which parameters were the strongest predictors of the dependent variable. The internal consistency of measures was estimated with Cronbach’s alpha coefficient. Statistical significance was defined for p-value lower than 0.05.

3. Results

3.1. Partial Correlations

The level of perceived stress was negatively correlated with resilience, positivity, and all types of support. All personal resources, positivity, resilience, and support, were positively interrelated (Table 1).

3.2. Descriptive Statistics

Descriptive statistics for the personal resources and the stress level in the groups of students from the three countries are presented in Table 2. There were significant national and gender differences in most of the personal resources and in the stress level. The level of stress and resilience varied across nationalities (p < 0.01) and genders (p < 0.001). In terms of stress level, Polish students scored significantly higher than Serbian students (p = 0.017), and women scored higher than men (p < 0.001). Polish students exhibited lower resilience compared to Italian students (p = 0.019), while women showed lower resilience than men (p < 0.001). Polish students also reported lower positivity compared to Serbian and Italian students (p < 0.001). The analysis revealed significant differences between males and females in all types of support, with women indicating a higher level of all kinds of support then men (p < 0.05).
Moreover, when comparing the averages of all groups with the norms [71], it was observed that students indicated rather high levels of stress. Additionally, our students reported lower resilience (p < 0.001) compared to the results obtained during the validation of the BRS by Smith et al. [24].

3.3. Perceived Stress Predictors

The GLM analysis revealed a significant model for the perceived stress: R2 = 0.48; F(8, 546) = 62.22, p < 0.001. Resilience (ß = −0.39, p < 0.001) and positivity (ß = −0.38, p < 0.001) made the greatest contribution to the model. Nationality proved to be a non-significant factor (p > 0.05) (Table 3).

4. Discussion

Prior research has shown that students who are resilient successfully cope with the new and stressful situations of studying abroad, such as adjusting to a different university and in a different language [73]. Drawing from three different cultures—Serbian, Polish, and Italian—we sought to broaden the analysis of how resilience, positivity, and social support predict the level of stress experienced by students. Our results confirm that positivity, resilience, and support were positively interrelated and that they are significantly associated with stress levels. In our study, levels of perceived stress are best explained by resilience, positivity, tangible support, and gender. These findings are consistent with the results of previous studies that have emphasized the protective role of positivity against stress [27,37,43]. Some of these studies have proved that positivity plays an essential role in directly predicting the behaviors related to studying, learning, and performing under stress. Positivity is the dimension that enables maintenance of these competences despite the stress related to studying [50]. In another study, positivity was recognized as a significant factor supporting the use of self-regulated learning and COVID-19 psychosocial experience to cope with stress during the pandemic [51]. Additionally, other studies indicate that positivity is the most important predictor of emotional control (in terms of anger, depression, anxiety), allowing one to deal with these emotions [49], and resistance, hope and optimism are protective factors against depression [74], as well as a significant psychological source of strength, protecting against COVID-19-related mental issues [75].
International studies conducted among nursing students indicate that there are significant differences between nations in terms of depression and anxiety [76], mental health [77], as well as the level of anxiety suppression [49]. Similarly, in our study, we observed significant differences between students from different countries in terms of the level of stress and resilience. Notably, despite these differences, nationality was not a significant predictor of perceived stress. The resources such as resilience, positivity, and social support have a similar effect on stress in students regardless of nationality. While cultures can modify the experience of stress, their impact in the academic context may be tempered by the universalization of educational paths. In this context, the conducted research did not reveal critical patterns of different experiences of stress among young Serbs, Italians, or Poles. Future research should also explore the moderating and mediating role of other resource variables that reduce the direct and indirect negative impact of stress among students [78]. This underscores the universality of these factors in promoting resilience among university students and suggests that interventions aimed at enhancing these resources could benefit students across different cultural contexts. Similarly, our results are in line with those reported in the literature highlighting the significant role of resilience for student functioning [79,80,81]. We also further validated that resilience should be seen as a protective factor that reduces the level of perceived stress among students in all three educational contexts of Italy, Serbia, and Poland. These results are consistent with studies conducted on diverse student populations during the COVID-19 pandemic, which also demonstrated similar associations between resilience and stress levels [6,82,83,84,85]. Although, to our knowledge, there are no studies questioning the impact of resilience on coping with stress, there are researchers who propose a broader framework for understanding it. Padmanabhanunni et al. [86] perceive resilience as a protective factor that is beneficial for psychological health even if there is no stress [70].
The relationship between stress and other factors among students was also studied in relation to social support [82,87]. The results of this research indicate that social support is an important factor in coping with a stressful environment related to studying. However, the scope and forms of providing it at universities in different countries differ, as does the participation of students themselves in providing social support. Universities lack permanent strategies to legitimize and formalize student initiatives in this area, and the flow of information and popularization of good practices is limited.
Consistent with studies conducted in other countries during the pandemic [6,52,83,88,89], the respondents in our study reported high levels of stress and relatively low levels of resilience. Similarly to prior studies, higher levels of stress have also been identified among women [6,85,88], including the pre-pandemic period [90]. This highlights the importance of gender differences in understanding the stress levels among the student population.
Researchers have paid special attention to medical students as one of the most vulnerable groups in the context of COVID-19. Numerous studies showed that medical students demonstrated lower psychological resilience and higher perceived stress during the COVID-19 pandemic process [91,92,93,94,95]. Similar findings from students across various faculties in our study allow us to generalize these conclusions beyond the specific population. This suggests that the impact of the pandemic on students’ psychological well-being and coping abilities is a widespread phenomenon that extends beyond specific disciplines. However, on the other hand, it is worth revising the research framework so that, in addition to confirming the significant impact of resilience and positivity on distress, differences can also be seen. These differences may be conditioned by different approaches to studying, various access to resources, and current or hypothetical threats. For this reason, research needs to be replicated in different cultural, institutional, and social contexts.

Study Limitations and Directions for Future Research

Our study was conducted in three countries and involved students from three universities with a wide range of fields of study. We are aware that undertaking a survey at one university in each country limits the possibility of generalizing the results obtained only to samples with similar characteristics. It would be worthwhile to extend further measurements to different types of universities (e.g., state and private, traditional, metropolitan, specialized, and profiled universities). On the other hand, we took care to ensure a variety of fields of study and a comparable distribution of students from different technical and non-technical (humanities/social sciences, medical) professions, assuming that they may have responded differently to the remote learning environment. This provided us with valuable data from different fields of study, at different stages of education. This provides a basis for capturing the actual needs of students with a realistic assessment of the representativeness of their needs and their intensity. However, this diversity is also a limitation of the study, as it requires a larger sample size, potentially utilizing purposive sampling based on the study field. Another limitation is the fact that the data were collected in the period just before the exam session, which may have elevated stress levels due to the impending exams. Furthermore, in addition to the usual stress (experienced before an exam), there was one related to the pandemic context of evaluation. Further research conducted at different times of the academic year may help clarify these factors. These cross-sectional studies are subject to well-known limitations: no inference to causality, reliance on self-report measures, lack of heterogeneity or small size of the sample [96]. Nevertheless, our study was guided by the main advantages of cross-sectional studies—they are relatively quick and inexpensive to conduct and allow us to collect data from a larger sample of participants and compare differences between groups, providing guidance for subsequent measurements. Thus, the cross-cultural research on resilience, positivity, social support, and perceived stress should take into account more contextual variables that take into account the specificity of individual countries (political, demographic, and economic conditions). Another disadvantage of cross-sectional measurements is that all measurements for an individual are taken at one point in time, despite recruiting the entire sample over a longer period. In our study, the measurement period was narrowed down as much as possible. All students were surveyed in the month before the end of the academic year, so during the credit and examination session. In the following studies, longitudinal data should be collected not only to determine possible casual relationships but also to monitor the effects of implementing the results of cross-cultural research in student intervention programs.

5. Conclusions

The findings of this study are of value in discussing the role of resilience, positivity, and social support in reducing perceived stress levels among university students. These results contribute to strengthening students’ awareness of their personal resources and their protective role in maintaining mental health. These data became helpful for our team in designing peer support training programs for university help seekers from Poland, Serbia, and Italy and to strengthen university policies aimed at involving students themselves in self-help. We believe these findings may also be useful for other practitioners designing cross-cultural educational campaigns for mental health prevention.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, K.L.-K., A.B., I.K. (Izabela Kapsa), D.H., M.S., I.K. (Ivana Krsmanović), B.R., F.S. and P.L.; methodology, K.L.-K. and D.H.; data collection, K.L.-K., A.B., I.K. (Izabela Kapsa), Ł.B., J.K., M.S., D.H. and B.R.; literature search, K.L.-K., A.B., I.K. (Izabela Kapsa), Ł.B., J.K., M.S. and D.H.; data analysis, K.L.-K.; manuscript preparation, K.L.-K., A.B. and I.K. (Izabela Kapsa); review and editing, D.H., I.K. (Ivana Krsmanović), M.S., B.R., F.S. and P.L.; project administration, A.B., D.H. and I.K. (Ivana Krsmanović); funding acquisition, A.B., D.H. and P.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was co-funded by the European Union under the Erasmus+ Cooperation partnerships in higher education project “Enhancing digital and psychological resilience through peer networking in the online environment in times of crises—DigiPsyRes”; grant number 2021-1-RSO1-KA220-HED-32204. This publication reflects the views of the authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. It was approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee in Foggia University (protocol Number 36714) and the Ethics Committee for psychology research at University of Kragujevac (XXII-7, 21 May 2022). Ethical review and approval for this study in Poland were waived. According to the Polish legislation, written approval from the ethics committee in studies using retrospective questionnaires with minimal ethical risk (i.e., it does not violate the physical integrity of participants, or they do not have a temporary, fluctuating, or permanent impairment in or disturbance of the functioning of the mind or brain; the research group does not include particularly vulnerable individuals; and the data collected in the study is anonymized) is not necessary before the start of the study.

Informed Consent Statement

Patient consent was waived due to the anonymous nature of the research conducted via an online form.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Lisiecka, A.; Chimicz, D.; Lewicka-Zelent, A. Mental Health Support in Higher Education during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Case Study and Recommendations for Practice. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 4969. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Appolloni, A.; Colasanti, N.; Fantauzzi, C.; Fiorani, G.; Frondizi, R. Distance Learning as a Resilience Strategy during Covid-19: An Analysis of the Italian Context. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Cicha, K.; Rutecka, P.; Rizun, M.; Strzelecki, A. Distance Learning Support Measures for Teachers in Poland during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 8031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Stoian, C.E.; Farcasiu, M.A.; Dragomir, G.M.; Gherhes, V. Transition from Online to Face-to-Face Education after COVID-19: The Benefits of Online Education from Students’ Perspective. Sustainability 2022, 14, 2812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Colovic, S.; Bozovic, M.; Grujicic, M. Depression, Anxiety and Stress During the COVID-19 Pandemic Among Serbian University Students. Exp. Appl. Biomed. Res. EABR 2023, in press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Chen, T.H.; Lucock, M. The mental health of university students during the COVID-19 pandemic: An online survey in the UK. PLoS ONE 2022, 17, e0262562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Gogoi, M.; Webb, A.; Pareek, M.; Bayliss, C.D.; Gies, L. University Students’ Mental Health and Well-Being during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Findings from the UniCoVac Qualitative Study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 9322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Block, J.; Kremen, A.M. IQ and ego-resiliency: Conceptual and empirical connections and separateness. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1996, 70, 349–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Bartone, P.T.; Ursano, R.J.; Wright, K.M.; Ingraham, L.H. The impact of a military air disaster on the health of assistance workers—A prospective-study. J. Nerv. Ment. Dis. 1989, 177, 317–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Kobasa, S.C. Stressful life events, personality, and health—Inquiry into hardiness. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1979, 37, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Wagnild, G.M.; Young, H.M. Development and psychometric. J. Nurs. Meas. 1993, 1, 165–178. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  12. Connor, K.M.; Davidson, J.R.T. Development of a new resilience scale: The Connor-Davidson Resilience scale (CD-RISC). Depress. Anxiety 2003, 18, 76–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Fredrickson, B.L. The role of positive emotions in positive psychology—The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. Am. Psychol. 2001, 56, 218–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Klohnen, E.C. Conceptual analysis and measurement of the construct of ego-resiliency. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1996, 70, 1067–1079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Uchnast, Z. Prężność osobowa a egzystencjalne wymiary wartościowania. Rocz. Psychol. 1998, 1, 7–27. [Google Scholar]
  16. Luthar, S.S.; Cicchetti, D.; Becker, B. The construct of resilience: A critical evaluation and guidelines for future work. Child Dev. 2000, 71, 543–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Waller, M.A. Resilience in ecosystemic context: Evolution of the concept. Am. J. Orthopsychiatry 2001, 71, 290–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Rutter, M. Resilience as a dynamic concept. Dev. Psychopathol. 2012, 24, 335–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Chmitorz, A.; Kunzler, A.; Helmreich, I.; Tuscher, O.; Kalisch, R.; Kubiak, T.; Wessa, M.; Lieb, K. Intervention studies to foster resilience—A systematic review and proposal for a resilience framework in future intervention studies. Clin. Psychol. Rev. 2018, 59, 78–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Luthar, S.S.; Zelazo, L.B. Research on Resilience: An Integrative Review. In Resilience and Vulnerability: Adaptation in the Context of Childhood Adversities; Luthar, S.S., Ed.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2003; pp. 510–550. [Google Scholar]
  21. Pidgeon, A.M.; Rowe, N.; Stapleton, P.B.; Magyar, H.B.; Lo, B.C.Y. Examining characteristics of resilience among university students: An international study. Open J. Soc. Sci. 2014, 2, 14–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Kunzler, A.M.; Helmreich, I.; Chmitorz, A.; Konig, J.; Binder, H.; Wessa, M.; Lieb, K. Psychological interventions to foster resilience in healthcare professionals. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2020, 1, 165–17847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Cooper, C.L.; Flint-Taylor, J.; Pearn, M. Building Resilience for Success: A Resource for Managers and Organizations; Palgrave Macmillan: Basingstoke, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  24. Smith, B.W.; Dalen, J.; Wiggins, K.; Tooley, E.; Christopher, P.; Bernard, J. The brief resilience scale: Assessing the ability to bounce back. Int. J. Behav. Med. 2008, 15, 194–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Tait, M. Resilience as a Contributor to Novice Teacher Success, Commitment, and Retention. Teach. Educ. Q. 2008, 35, 57–75. [Google Scholar]
  26. Boon, H.J. Teachers’ Resilience: Conceived, Perceived or Lived-in. In Cultivating Teacher Resilience: International Approaches, Applications and Impact; Mansfield, C.F., Ed.; Springer: Singapore, 2020; pp. 263–278. [Google Scholar]
  27. Horiuchi, S.; Tsuda, A.; Yoneda, K.; Aoki, S. Mediating effects of perceived stress on the relationship of positivity with negative and positive affect. Psychol. Res. Behav. Manag. 2018, 11, 299–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Harris, M.; Wilson, J.C.; Holmes, S.; Radford, D.R. Perceived stress and well-being among dental hygiene and dental therapy students. Br. Dent. J. 2017, 222, 101–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Ferrari, G.R.A.; Mobius, M.; Becker, E.S.; Spijker, J.; Rinck, M. Working mechanisms of a general positivity approach-avoidance training: Effects on action tendencies as well as on subjective and physiological stress responses. J. Behav. Ther. Exp. Psychiatry 2018, 59, 134–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Vaingankar, J.A.; Subramaniam, M.; Seow, E.; Chang, S.; Sambasivam, R.; Luo, N.; Verma, S.; Chong, S.A.; van Dam, R.M. Youth Positive Mental Health Concepts and Definitions: A Systematic Review and Qualitative Synthesis. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 11506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Kozma, A.; Stone, S.; Stones, M.J. Stability in components and predictors of subjective well-being (SWB): Implications for SWB structure. Adv. Qual. Life Theory Res. 2000, 4, 13–30. [Google Scholar]
  32. Kern, M.L.; Benson, L.; Steinberg, E.A.; Steinberg, L. The EPOCH Measure of Adolescent Well-Being. Psychol. Assess. 2016, 28, 586–597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Caprara, G.V.; Steca, P.; Gerbino, M.; Paciello, M.; Vecchio, G.M. Looking for adolescents’ well-being: Self-efficacy beliefs as determinants of positive thinking and happiness. Epidemiol. E Psichiatr. Soc. Int. J. Epidemiol. Psychiatr. Sci. 2006, 15, 30–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Caprara, G.V.; Alessandri, G.; Eisenberg, N.; Kupfer, A.; Steca, P.; Caprara, M.G.; Yamaguchi, S.; Fukuzawa, A.; Abela, J. The Positivity Scale. Psychol. Assess. 2012, 24, 701–712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Scheier, M.F.; Carver, C.S. On the Power of Positive Thinking: The Benefits of Being Optimistic. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 1993, 2, 26–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Diener, E.; Napa-Scollon, C.K.; Oishi, S.; Dzokoto, V.; Suh, E.M. Positivity and the Construction of Life Satisfaction Judgments: Global Happiness is not the Sum of its Parts. J. Happiness Stud. 2000, 1, 159–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Yildirim, M.; Guler, A. Positivity explains how COVID-19 perceived risk increases death distress and reduces happiness. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2021, 168, 110347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Cattelino, E.; Testa, S.; Calandri, E.; Fedi, A.; Gattino, S.; Graziano, F.; Rollero, C.; Begotti, T. Self-efficacy, subjective well-being and positive coping in adolescents with regard to Covid-19 lockdown. Curr. Psychol. 2023, 42, 17304–17315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Ferreira, M.J.; Sofia, R.; Carreno, D.F.; Eisenbeck, N.; Jongenelen, I.; Cruz, J.F.A. Dealing with the Pandemic of COVID-19 in Portugal: On the Important Role of Positivity, Experiential Avoidance, and Coping Strategies. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12, 647984. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Caprara, G.V.; Steca, P.; Alessandri, G.; Abela, J.R.; McWhinnie, C.M. Positive orientation: Explorations on what is common to life satisfaction, self-esteem, and optimism. Epidemiol. Psichiatr. Soc. 2010, 19, 63–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Borsa, J.C.; Damasio, B.F.; de Souza, D.S.; Koller, S.H.; Caprara, G.V. Psychometric Properties of the Positivity Scale—Brazilian Version. Psicol. Reflex. Crit. 2015, 28, 61–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Castellani, V.; Perinelli, E.; Gerbino, M.; Caprara, G.V. Positive orientation and interpersonal styles. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2016, 98, 229–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Caprara, G.V.; Eisenberg, N.; Alessandri, G. Positivity: The Dispositional Basis of Happiness. J. Happiness Stud. 2017, 18, 353–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Kanacri, B.P.L.; Eisenberg, N.; Thartori, E.; Pastorelli, C.; Tirado, L.M.U.; Gerbino, M.; Caprara, G.V. Longitudinal Relations Among Positivity, Perceived Positive School Climate, and Prosocial Behavior in Colombian Adolescents. Child Dev. 2017, 88, 1100–1114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Milioni, M.; Alessandri, G.; Eisenberg, N.; Caprara, G.V. The role of positivity as predictor of ego-resiliency from adolescence to young adulthood. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2016, 101, 306–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Skinner, A.T.; Ciftci, L.; Jones, S.; Klotz, E.; Ondruskova, T.; Lansford, J.E.; Alampay, L.P.; Al-Hassan, S.M.; Bacchini, D.; Bornstein, M.H.; et al. Adolescent Positivity and Future Orientation, Parental Psychological Control, and Young Adult Internalising Behaviours during COVID-19 in Nine Countries. Soc. Sci. 2022, 11, 75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Angela, S.; Fonseca, G.; Lep, Z.; Li, L.J.; Serido, J.; Vosylis, R.; Crespo, C.; Relvas, A.P.; Zupancic, M.; Lanz, M. Profiles of emerging adults’ resilience facing the negative impact of COVID-19 across six countries. Curr. Psychol. 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Dymecka, J.; Gerymski, R.; Machnik-Czerwik, A.; Rogowska, A.M. Does Positive Thinking Help during Difficult Pandemic Times? The Role of Positive Orientation in the Relationship between Fear of COVID-19 and Perceived Stress. Eur. J. Investig. Health Psychol. Educ. 2023, 13, 151–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Kupcewicz, E.; Mikla, M.; Kaducakova, H.; Grochans, E.; Valcarcel, M.D.R.; Cybulska, A.M. Correlation between Positive Orientation and Control of Anger, Anxiety and Depression in Nursing Students in Poland, Spain and Slovakia during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 2482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. De la Fuente, J. A Path Analysis Model of Protection and Risk Factors for University Academic Stress: Analysis and Psychoeducational Implications for the COVID-19 Emergency. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12, 562372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Podlogar, N.; Juriševič, M. A comparative study of university students’ responses in the first and second COVID-19 pandemic waves. Horiz. Psychol. 2022, 31, 472–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Quaglieri, A.; Lausi, G.; Fraschetti, A.; Burrai, J.; Barchielli, B.; Pizzo, A.; Cordellieri, P.; De Gennaro, L.; Gorgoni, M.; Ferlazzo, F.; et al. “Stay at Home” in Italy during the COVID-19 Outbreak: A Longitudinal Study on Individual Well-Being among Different Age Groups. Brain Sci. 2021, 11, 993. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Faw, M.H.; Matter, M.M. Social Support. In The International Encyclopedia of Health Communication; Wiley-Blackwell: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2022; pp. 1–10. [Google Scholar]
  54. Barrera, M. Distinctions between social support concepts, measures, and models. Am. J. Community Psychol. 1986, 14, 413–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Cohen, S.; Syme, S.L. Issues in the study and application of social support. Soc. Support Health 1985, 3, 3–22. [Google Scholar]
  56. Baqutayan, S. Stress and Social Support. Indian J. Psychol. Med. 2011, 33, 29–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Maymon, R.; Hall, N.C. A Review of First-Year Student Stress and Social Support. Soc. Sci. 2021, 10, 472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Cohen, S.; Hoberman, H.M. Positive events and social supports as buffers of life change stress. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 1983, 13, 99–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. d’Arbeloff, T.C.; Freedy, K.R.; Knodt, A.R.; Radtke, S.R.; Brigidi, B.D.; Hariri, A.R. Emotion Regulation and the Experience of Future Negative Mood: The Importance of Assessing Social Support. Front. Psychol. 2018, 9, 2287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Hu, X.M.; Kim, A.; Siwek, N.; Wilder, D. The Facebook Paradox: Effects of Facebooking on Individuals’ Social Relationships and Psychological Well-Being. Front. Psychol. 2017, 8, 87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. DuPont, C.M.; Pressman, S.D.; Reed, R.G.; Manuck, S.B.; Marsland, A.L.; Gianaros, P.J. Does an Online Positive Psychological Intervention Improve Positive Affect in Young Adults During the COVID-19 Pandemic? Affect. Sci. 2023, 4, 101–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Larson, R.W. Toward a psychology of positive youth development. Am. Psychol. 2000, 55, 170–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Sahu, P. Closure of Universities Due to Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): Impact on Education and Mental Health of Students and Academic Staff. Cureus J. Med. Sci. 2020, 12, e7541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Kaparounaki, C.K.; Patsali, M.E.; Mousa, D.P.V.; Papadopoulou, E.V.K.; Papadopoulou, K.K.K.; Fountoulakis, K.N. University students’ mental health amidst the COVID-19 quarantine in Greece. Psychiatry Res. 2020, 290, 113111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Patsali, M.E.; Mousa, D.P.V.; Papadopoulou, E.V.K.; Papadopoulou, K.K.K.; Kaparounaki, C.K.; Diakogiannis, I.; Fountoulakis, K.N. University students’ changes in mental health status and determinants of behavior during the COVID-19 lockdown in Greece. Psychiatry Res. 2020, 292, 113298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Glazer, S. Social support across cultures. Int. J. Intercult. Relat. 2006, 30, 605–622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Ungar, M.; Theron, L. Resilience and mental health: How multisystemic processes contribute to positive outcomes. Lancet Psychiatry 2020, 7, 441–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Heikamp, T.; Alessandri, G.; Laguna, M.; Petrovic, V.; Caprara, M.G.; Trommsdorff, G. Cross-cultural validation of the positivity-scale in five European countries. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2014, 71, 140–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Mezulis, A.H.; Abramson, L.Y.; Hyde, J.S.; Hankin, B.L. Is there a universal positivity bias in attributions? A meta-analytic review of individual, developmental, and cultural differences in the self-serving attributional bias. Psychol. Bull. 2004, 130, 711–747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Li, Z.S.; Hasson, F. Resilience, stress, and psychological well-being in nursing students: A systematic review. Nurse Educ. Today 2020, 90, 104440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Cohen, S.; Kamarck, T.; Mermelstein, R. A global measure of perceived stress. J. Health Soc. Behav. 1983, 24, 385–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Cohen, S.; Mermelstein, R.; Kamarck, T.; Hoberman, H.M. Measuring the Functional Components of Social Support. In Social Support: Theory, Research and Applications; Sarason, I.G., Sarason, B.R., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1985; pp. 73–94. [Google Scholar]
  73. Sabouripour, F.; Roslan, S.B. Resilience, optimism and social support among international students. Asian Soc. Sci. 2015, 11, 159–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Shi, M.; Liu, L.; Wang, Z.Y.; Wang, L. Prevalence of depressive symptoms and its correlations with positive psychological variables among Chinese medical students: An exploratory cross-sectional study. BMC Psychiatry 2016, 16, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Gunaydin, H.D. The impact of social problem skills on academic motivation by means of COVID-19 fear A SEM Model: Social Problem Solving, Covid-19, Academic Motivation. Curr. Psychol. 2022, 41, 427–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Ochnik, D.; Rogowska, A.M.; Kusnierz, C.; Jakubiak, M.; Schutz, A.; Held, M.J.; Arzensek, A.; Benatov, J.; Berger, R.; Korchagina, E.V.; et al. A Comparison of Depression and Anxiety among University Students in Nine Countries during the COVID-19 Pandemic. J. Clin. Med. 2021, 10, 2882. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Ugurlu, Y.K.; Degirmenci, D.M.; Durgun, H.; Ugur, H.G. The examination of the relationship between nursing students’ depression, anxiety and stress levels and restrictive, emotional, and external eating behaviors in COVID-19 social isolation process. Perspect. Psychiatr. Care 2021, 57, 507–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Schimmack, U.; Radhakrishnan, P.; Oishi, S.; Dzokoto, V.; Ahadi, S. Culture, personality, and subjective well-being: Integrating process models of life satisfaction. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 2002, 82, 582–593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Onturk, Y.; Efek, E.; Yıldız, M. Investigating the Psychological Resilience of Students in Sports Sciences Faculty. Int. J. Educ. Methodol. 2020, 6, 393–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Hidalgo-Rasmussen, C.A.; Gonzalez-Betanzos, F. The Treatment of Acquiescence and the Factorial Structure of the Brief Resilience Scale (BRS) in Mexican and Chilean University Students. An. Psicol. 2019, 35, 26–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Jordan, R.K.; Shah, S.S.; Desai, H.; Tripi, J.; Mitchell, A.; Worth, R.G. Variation of stress levels, burnout, and resilience throughout the academic year in first-year medical students. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, 667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Labrague, L.J.; De los Santos, J.A.A.; Falguera, C.C. Social and emotional loneliness among college students during the COVID-19 pandemic: The predictive role of coping behaviors, social support, and personal resilience. Perspect. Psychiatr. Care 2021, 57, 1578–1584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Kohls, E.; Baldofski, S.; Moeller, R.; Klemm, S.L.; Rummel-Kluge, C. Mental Health, Social and Emotional Well-Being, and Perceived Burdens of University Students During COVID-19 Pandemic Lockdown in Germany. Front. Psychiatry 2021, 12, 643957. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Chang, T.F.H.; Ley, B.L.; Ramburn, T.T.; Srinivasan, S.; Hariri, S.; Purandare, P.; Subramaniam, B. Online Isha Upa Yoga for student mental health and well-being during COVID-19: A randomized control trial. Appl. Psychol. Health Well Being 2022, 14, 1408–1428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Ignjatović Ristić, D.; Hinić, D.; Banković, D.; Kočović, A.; Ristić, I.; Rosić, G.; Ristić, B.; Milovanović, D.; Janjić, V.; Jovanović, M.; et al. Levels of stress and resilience related to the COVID-19 pandemic among academic medical staff in Serbia. Psychiatry Clin. Neurosci. 2020, 74, 604–605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Padmanabhanunni, A.; Pretorius, T.B.; Khamisa, N. The role of resilience in the relationship between role stress and psychological well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic: A cross-sectional study. BMC Psychol. 2023, 11, 45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Brissette, I.; Scheier, M.F.; Carver, C.S. The role of optimism in social network development, coping, and psychological adjustment during a life transition. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 2002, 82, 102–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Daniali, H.; Martinussen, M.; Flaten, M.A. A Global Meta-Analysis of Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Before and During COVID-19. Health Psychol. 2023, 42, 124–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Puerta, J.G.; Malagon, M.C.G.; Gijon, M.K.; Simon, E.J.L. Levels of Stress, Anxiety, and Depression in University Students from Spain and Costa Rica during Periods of Confinement and Virtual Learning. Educ. Sci. 2022, 12, 660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. McLean, L.; Gaul, D.; Penco, R. Perceived Social Support and Stress: A Study of 1st Year Students in Ireland. Int. J. Ment. Health Addict. 2023, 21, 2101–2121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Çevik Özdemir, H.N.; Özyürek, P.; Kılıç, İ. The relationship between psychological resilience, perceived stress and anxiety levels of nursing students during the COVID-19 pandemic process. J. Psychiatr. Nurs. 2023, 14, 175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Lu, L.; Wang, X.B.; Wang, X.H.; Guo, X.X.; Pan, B.C. Association of Covid-19 pandemic-related stress and depressive symptoms among international medical students. BMC Psychiatry 2022, 22, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Haider, S.I.; Ahmed, F.; Pasha, H.; Farheen, N.; Zahid, M.T. Life satisfaction, resilience and coping mechanisms among medical students during COVID-19. PLoS ONE 2022, 17, e0275319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Forycka, J.; Pawlowicz-Szlarska, E.; Burczynska, A.; Cegielska, N.; Harendarz, K.; Nowicki, M. Polish medical students facing the pandemic-Assessment of resilience, well-being and burnout in the COVID-19 era. PLoS ONE 2022, 17, e0261652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Chakeeyanun, B.; Wongpakaran, N.; Wongpakaran, T.; Oon-arom, A. Resilience, Perceived Stress from Adapted Medical Education Related to Depression among Medical Students during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Healthcare 2023, 11, 237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Sedgwick, P. Cross sectional studies: Advantages and disadvantages. Br. Med. J. 2014, 348, g2276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. Pearson R correlation matrix for the continuous variables.
Table 1. Pearson R correlation matrix for the continuous variables.
ResiliencePositivityAppraisal SupportBelonging SupportTangible Support
Resilience1.000.460.200.250.20
Positivity0.461.000.410.460.31
Appraisal support0.200.411.000.630.64
Belonging support0.250.460.631.000.58
Tangible support0.200.310.640.581.00
Perceived stress−0.57−0.53−0.22−0.24−0.24
Note: All relationships statistically significant at the p < 0.001 level.
Table 2. Descriptive statistics of personal resources and stress in Polish, Serbian, and Italian students.
Table 2. Descriptive statistics of personal resources and stress in Polish, Serbian, and Italian students.
NationalityVariableMSDRangeSkewnessKurtosis
Polish
(n = 306)		Resilience2.870.861–5−0.03−0.18
Positivity3.240.931–5−0.32−0.49
Appraisal support3.130.771–4−0.58−0.54
Belonging support2.920.771–4−0.56−0.17
Tangible support3.250.681–4−0.730.09
Perceived stress23.167.192–40−0.17−0.33
Serbian
(n = 175)		Resilience3.020.751–50.20−0.26
Positivity3.730.791–5−0.690.23
Appraisal support3.070.781–4−0.70−0.10
Belonging support3.060.791–4−0.64−0.42
Tangible support3.220.631–4−0.680.42
Perceived stress21.206.044–36−0.02−0.17
Italian
(n = 78)		Resilience3.220.721–5−0.250.52
Positivity3.620.722–5−0.290.12
Appraisal support3.060.801–4−0.66−0.05
Belonging support2.950.791–4−0.49−0.15
Tangible support3.050.801–4−0.62−0.43
Perceived stress21.947.373–38−0.430.13
Table 3. Results of the GLM predicting the level of stress by resilience, positivity, support, gender, and nationality group.
Table 3. Results of the GLM predicting the level of stress by resilience, positivity, support, gender, and nationality group.
VariableBeta−95%; +95% CItp
Resilience−0.39−0.46; −0.32−10.700.000
Positivity−0.38−0.46; −0.30−9.420.000
Appraisal support0.01−0.08; 0.100.210.837
Belonging support0.090; 0.182.040.042
Tangible support−0.12−0.21; −0.04−2.950.003
NationalityItalian0.080; 0.171.900.058
Serbian−0.09−0.17; 0−1.920.056
Gender1−0.15−0.21; −0.09−4.610.000
Note: We used the following coding for groups: 1 = males, 2 = females; CI = confidence interval for coefficients.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Litwic-Kaminska, K.; Błachnio, A.; Kapsa, I.; Brzeziński, Ł.; Kopowski, J.; Stojković, M.; Hinić, D.; Krsmanović, I.; Ragni, B.; Sulla, F.; et al. Resilience, Positivity and Social Support as Perceived Stress Predictors among University Students. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 6892. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20196892

AMA Style

Litwic-Kaminska K, Błachnio A, Kapsa I, Brzeziński Ł, Kopowski J, Stojković M, Hinić D, Krsmanović I, Ragni B, Sulla F, et al. Resilience, Positivity and Social Support as Perceived Stress Predictors among University Students. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2023; 20(19):6892. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20196892

Chicago/Turabian Style

Litwic-Kaminska, Kamila, Aleksandra Błachnio, Izabela Kapsa, Łukasz Brzeziński, Jakub Kopowski, Milica Stojković, Darko Hinić, Ivana Krsmanović, Benedetta Ragni, Francesco Sulla, and et al. 2023. "Resilience, Positivity and Social Support as Perceived Stress Predictors among University Students" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 20, no. 19: 6892. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20196892

APA Style

Litwic-Kaminska, K., Błachnio, A., Kapsa, I., Brzeziński, Ł., Kopowski, J., Stojković, M., Hinić, D., Krsmanović, I., Ragni, B., Sulla, F., & Limone, P. (2023). Resilience, Positivity and Social Support as Perceived Stress Predictors among University Students. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 20(19), 6892. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20196892

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop