Skip to main content
Download PDF

The role of resilience in the relationship between role stress and psychological well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic: a cross-sectional study

BMC Psychology volume 11, Article number: 45 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Stress resistance resources, such as social support and resilience, have been found to be important in promoting psychological well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, most prior research studies have conceptualized stress resistance resource variables as having a mediating or moderating role. Cooper (2018) proposed a model of the relationship between stress and health which posits that coping resources are always present and not only invoked in the face of adversity. Thus, we hypothesize that coping resources are causally antecedent to stressors and influence well-being indirectly via the stressor. We focused specifically on school teachers due to them being at the frontlines of service provision during the pandemic. Teaching was already identified as a highly stressful profession prior to COVID-19 and disease containment measures placed additional strain on teachers who had to adapt to emergency remote teaching.

Aim

The current study tests this hypothesis by examining the indirect effects of resilience on indices of psychological health via role stress.

Methods

Participants (N = 355) were teachers who completed the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale-10, the Role Stress Scale, the Satisfaction with Life Scale, the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory-Trait Scale, and the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale. An electronic version of the questionnaires was distributed to teachers via Facebook and to officials from the Department of Education, who assisted with distribution of the electronic link to the survey. Participants were mostly women (76.6%) and mean number of years in the teaching profession was 15.7.

Results

Structural equation modelling results demonstrated significant direct effects of resilience on life satisfaction, anxiety, and depression, which indicates that resilience is beneficial for psychological health even in the absence of stress. Resilience also had a significant indirect effect on indices of psychological well-being via role ambiguity but not role conflict.

Conclusion

These findings have theoretical implications for the understanding of the role of resilience in promoting psychological health among educators. Practical implications include an empirical contribution to education policy and information that can inform interventions aimed to promote resilience among educators.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

In South Africa, as in the rest of the world, the COVID-19 pandemic has severely impacted schooling, leading to severe consequences for teachers and pupils. When the pandemic first hit South Africa in March 2020, the government swiftly introduced a 5-level lockdown system, in which alert level 5 is the most restrictive and alert level 1 the least restrictive. Level 5 features drastic lockdown measures intended to contain the spread of the virus, including complete school closures [1]. Over the subsequent two years, the country rotated between the various lockdown levels depending on the spread of the virus and the health system’s readiness to deal with the pandemic. During this period, teaching and learning were limited as the government introduced various measures to protect teachers and learners, including a rotational learning system in which pupils attended school on alternate dates.

These disruptions to learning led to an unprecedentedly chaotic situation for teachers as their formerly structured work suddenly became unstructured, and the situation may have been exacerbated for many teachers due to lack of communication or miscommunication. In such a context, there is a significant likelihood of role stress for teachers. Role stress theory proposes that all individuals occupy roles that are associated with a range of expectations. When these expectations are conflicting or ambiguous, it leads to role conflict and role ambiguity [2, 3]. If the expectations associated with a role are incompatible, the result is role conflict, whereas expectations that are inconsistent, confusing, or unclear lead to role ambiguity [3]. Role conflict and role ambiguity have been associated with a range of adverse work-related behaviors (e.g., work engagement[4], job satisfaction and turnover intention [5], job performance [6]), psychological well-being [7,8,9], and burnout [4, 6, 10]. Mérida-López and Rey [8], in a pre-pandemic study, found that role conflict and role ambiguity were positively related to adverse mental health outcomes including depression, anxiety and stress among a sample of Spanish school teachers. Similarly, [9] reported that high role conflict and high role ambiguity along with low social support was associated with depressive symptoms among Japanese school teachers.

Different individuals who are exposed to the same levels of stress or adverse circumstances will not necessarily have the same reaction to these negative environmental conditions (e.g., negative psychological health outcomes or burnout). Differential vulnerability is the concept that personal and environmental coping resources ensure a differentiated response to adverse circumstances. Examples of the variables that make individuals differentially vulnerable to adverse conditions include social support [11, 12], willingness to use social support [13], locus of control [14, 15], problem-solving appraisal [16, 17], appraisals of safety [18], and career calling [6]. These variables are conceptualized to have either a direct, moderating, or mediating effect.

The direct effect hypothesis proposes that coping resources or protective factors have a direct relationship with psychological well-being that exists independently of the level of adversity experienced by an individual. The direct effect hypothesis is also referred to as the health-sustaining model [19]. In its simplest formulation, the health-sustaining model posits that the coping resource or protective factor does not only operate under adverse conditions; rather, having high levels of these resources is generally good for psychological health. Moderator variables interact with adverse circumstances to impact psychological health. A variable is said to operate as a moderator if the negative association between the adverse condition and psychological health decreases as the level of the coping resource increases. A mediator variable is a pathway through which the adverse condition impacts psychological health. In a mediated pathway, the adverse condition is causally antecedent to the mediator [20].

The construct of resilience has not been well-defined in the literature with some studies conceptualizing it as a “trait” which is stable and enduring while others view it as a “state” phenomenon which is dynamic and malleable. Recent definitions of resilience view it as a dynamic process through which the individual positively adapts to stressful events or adverse circumstances [21]. For the present study, we adopt Fergus and Zimmerman’s [22] conceptualization which separates resilience into personal assets (e.g., emotional regulation ability, tendency to use active coping strategies, self-esteem, locus of control, etc.) and resources which are external to the individual (e.g., social support networks). The process of resilience entails the individual utilizing both assets and resources to cope with stressors and achieve positive outcomes.

Resilience has been related to role conflict in several studies [23, 24]. One study found that resilience weakened the negative effect of role conflict on the performance of frontline service providers [25]. De Clercq [26] found that high resilience reduces role ambiguity. Employees with high resilience have high energy levels; in the absence of resilience, that energy would contribute to a stress response due to a lack of information about role descriptions. Researchers have also suggested that resilience positively contributes to life satisfaction [27], and some studies have indicated that resilience plays a mediating role in the relationship between career adaptability and life satisfaction [28]. Moreover, resilience has been found to be inversely associated with depression and anxiety among individuals affected by the COVID-19 pandemic [29]. Resilience may also be a protective factor for anxiety and depression due to resilient individuals’ ability to retain a positive attitude or outlook despite life-threatening events [30].

The direct, moderating, and mediating roles of protective factors have been the most common focus of studies on job stress; however, Cooper and colleagues [31, 32] proposed and found empirical support for an “indigenous” model of the relationship between stress and physical and psychological health, in which coping resources are causally antecedent to job stressors, which implies that coping resources determines how stress is experienced, which in turn positively impacts psychological well-being. Since the concept of an “indigenous” model might be slightly misleading we hereafter refer to it as the Cooper model. This model proposes that coping resources are always present and influence the ways in which stressors are perceived or managed. Moyle [33] refers to the Cooper model as the indirect effects hypothesis and argues that people bring certain personality dispositions to the work place that influence their experiences and interpretations of the work setting. In the Cooper model or indirect effects hypothesis, the mediated pathway is work-related stress rather than coping resources.

Protective factors, including resilience, have been found to positively affect psychological well-being [26]. Yildirim [34] found positive associations between resilience and life satisfaction, positive affect, affect balance, and flourishing. Social support has been associated with high resilience to stress [35], which may lead to improved psychological well-being. Other protective factors include locus of control [15] and sense of coherence [36], both of which have been found to be beneficial for psychological well-being.

The current study used path analysis to examine the indirect role of resilience in psychological well-being. Resilience is operationalized as a predictor variable that indirectly impacts psychological well-being via role stress as the mediated pathway (Cooper model). The indices of psychological well-being in the current study include life satisfaction, anxiety, and depression. The following direct effects hypotheses are examined:

H1: High levels of resilience will be associated with low levels of role conflict and role ambiguity.

H2: High levels of resilience will be associated with high levels of life satisfaction, low levels of anxiety and low levels of depression.

The negative effect of adverse factors on psychological well-being has been well documented in the literature [37], and several studies have demonstrated the mediating role of resilience, as reported in a systematic review by Li and Hasson [38]. For example, Zeng and colleagues [39] found that resilience mediated the relationship between mindset and psychological well-being in a sample of students. Another study found that resilience fully mediated the relationship between fear of happiness and life satisfaction [34]. Resilience has also been found to mediate the relationship between traumatic events and post-traumatic stress disorder [40]. However, it is important to note that in these studies, the adverse factor was presumed to be antecedent to resilience. Based on the Cooper model, we propose that resilience is not only invoked in the presence of adversity but is always present; therefore, it influences the way in which an adverse event or stressor is perceived and managed, which in turn impacts psychological well-being. We therefore propose the following hypotheses related to the Cooper model:

H3: High levels of resilience will be associated with low levels of role conflict, which in turn will be associated with low levels of anxiety, low levels of depression and high levels of life satisfaction.

H4: High levels of resilience will be associated with low levels of role ambiguity, which in turn will be associated with high levels of life satisfaction low levels of anxiety, low levels of depression and high levels of life satisfaction.

Method

Participants

School teachers were recruited to participate in the study. To be included in the study, they needed to have been active professionally during the pandemic. The study respondents (N = 355) were school teachers in South Africa. The majority of respondents worked at schools in the Western Cape Province (82.3%) and were women (76.6%). Their mean number of years in the teaching profession was 15.7 (SD = 11.8, range: 23–73) and the majority of respondents taught at primary schools (61.1%). The mean age of the sample was 41.9 years (SD = 12.4, range: 1–48). A fuller description of the sample is presented in Table 1.

Table 1 Description of sample
Full size table

Measures

Respondents completed the short form of the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC-10 [41]), the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS [42]), the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory-Trait Scale (STAI-T [43]), the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D [44]), the Role Stress Scale [3]), and a brief demographic survey. The original version of the CD-RISC consists of 25 items. However, the short 10-item form has been found to be a reliable and valid measure of resilience [45,46,47]. In these studies, reliability coefficients (Cronbach’s alpha) ranged from 0.83 to 0.88, which reflects satisfactory internal consistency. The association between resilience and similar constructs—such as ego resilience, self-efficacy, and psychological well-being—supports the validity of the CD-RISC-10. Responses to the CD-RISC-10 items are scored on a 5-point Likert scale with options ranging from not true at all (0) to true nearly all of the time (4). The CD-RISC-10 has been used in South Africa studies [48, 49] that have reported Cronbach’s alphas of 0.80 and 0.95, respectively. Pretorius and Padamanabhanunni [49] also found strong evidence for the unidimensionality and validity of the CD-RISC-10 using both classical test theory and item response theory.

The SWLS comprises 5 items that are used to measure the cognitive component of subjective well-being [50]. The items are scored using a 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). The SWLS has been translated into many languages and used in various geographical contexts. Overall, sufficient evidence of the reliability, validity, and unidimensionality of the SWLS has been reported [51, 52]. In South Africa, Padmanabhanunni and Pretorius [53] reported satisfactory reliability estimates (α and ω = 0.89) for the SWLS among a sample of young adults.

The STAI-T is a measure of trait anxiety consisting of 20 items that are assessed on a 4-point Likert scale that ranges from almost never (1) to almost always (4). Evidence for the reliability and validity of the STAI-T has been well documented [54,55,56]. Padmanabhanunni and Pretorius [57] reported a satisfactory Cronbach’s alpha of 0.92 for the STAI-T among a sample of university students in South Africa.

The Role Stress Scale measures occupational stress and assesses two components of role stress, namely role conflict (RC) and role ambiguity (RA). The scale consists of 14 items, 8 of which measure RC and 6 of which measure RA. RC refers to the discordance between expectations of the role, whereas RA refers to uncertainty about the required actions to meet the expectations of the role [58]. The items of the Role Stress Scale are scored on a 6-point scale that ranges from definitely not true of my job (1) to definitely true of my job (6). Recent studies have reported satisfactory estimates of internal consistency for the Role Stress Scale [59, 60]; however, comprehensive assessments of the psychometric properties of the scale are outdated. Research studies from the 1990s have confirmed the reliability and validity of the Role Stress Scale [61,62,63].

Procedure

The period of data collection for the current study was May–July 2021, which coincided with the period when the Delta variant was prevalent. An electronic version of the questionnaires was compiled and distributed to teachers via a post on a Facebook group for South African school teachers. The post consisted of a brief explanation of the aims of the study, invited participation and provided the electronic link to the survey. In addition, we presented the aims and objectives of the study to officials from the provincial Department of Education, who assisted with distribution of the electronic link.

Ethics

The institutional review board of the University of the Western Cape provided ethical approval for the study (ethics reference number: HS21/3/8). Participation was voluntary. The survey was anonymous, and access to the survey was granted only after participants provided informed consent. Given the nature of the questionnaires and the possibility that study participation might evoke distress, respondents were provided with the contact details for psychological support services in case such distress was experienced.

Data analysis

IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows (version 27) was used to obtain the correlations between study variables, as well as the reliabilities (Cronbach’s alpha and McDonald’s omega) and descriptive statistics. Structural equation modelling and bootstrapped confidence intervals (95%) were performed and calculated using IBM SPSS AMOS (version 27) to examine the direct and indirect effects of resilience on indices of psychological well-being.

Results

The estimates of reliabilities, descriptive statistics, and intercorrelations are reported in Table 2. All the scales demonstrated satisfactory reliability (α: 0.82–0.95, ω: 0.83–0.95).

Table 2 Descriptive Statistics, Reliabilities, and Intercorrelations of Study Variables
Full size table

Role ambiguity was positively associated with anxiety (r353 = 0.34, p < 0.001, 95% CI [0.25, 0.43]) and depression (r353 = 0.38, p < 0.001, 95% CI [0.29, 0.47]) and negatively associated with life satisfaction (r353 = − 0.42, p < 0.001, 95% CI [0.29, 0.47]). The coefficients can be regarded as medium effect sizes. This finding indicates that high levels of role ambiguity were associated with high levels of anxiety and depression and low levels of life satisfaction. Role conflict was positively associated with anxiety (r353 = 0.27, p < 0.001, 95% CI [0.17, 0.36]) and depression (r353 = 0.23, p < 0.001, 95% CI [0.12, 0.32]) but not associated with life satisfaction. In all instances the coefficients can be regarded as medium effect sizes. These findings indicate that high levels of role conflict were associated with high levels of depression and anxiety. Resilience was positively associated with life satisfaction (r353 = 0.45, p < 0.001, 95% CI [0.37, 0.53]) and negatively associated with anxiety (r353 = − 0.53, p < 0.001, 95% CI [− 0.60, − 0.45]) and depression (r353 = − 0.48, p < 0.001, 95% CI [− 0.56, − 0.40]). With the exception of the correlation between resilience and anxiety, the coefficients can be regarded as medium effect sizes. In the case of the association between resilience and anxiety, the coefficient can be regarded as a large effect size. Thus, high levels of resilience were associated with high levels of life satisfaction and low levels of anxiety and depression.

The path analytical model that was used to examine the direct and indirect effects of resilience on indices of psychological well-being is presented in Fig. 1. In this model, resilience is conceptualized as the independent variable and indices of psychological well being as the dependent variable, while role stress is conceptualized as the pathway through which resilience impacts the indices of well-being.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Path Analysis Model of the Direct and Indirect Effects of Resilience

Full size image

The indices associated with the direct and indirect effects resulting from the model in Fig. 1 are reported in Table 3. These indices reflect that all the direct effects of resilience were significant except the relationship between resilience and role conflict. Resilience was positively associated with life satisfaction (β = 0.35, p < 0.001, 95% CI [0.27, 0.43]) and negatively associated with role ambiguity (β = −0.36, p < 0.001, 95% CI [− 0.45, − 0.28]), anxiety (β = −0.47, p < 0.001, 95% CI [− 0.55, − 0.40]), and depression (β = −0.40, p < 0.001, 95% CI [− 0.48, − 0.32]). All of the regression coefficients in respect of the direct effects can be regarded as medium effects. These findings partially support Hypotheses 1–2 regarding the direct effects of resilience, but they do not support the part of the hypotheses related to the association between resilience and role conflict.

Table 3 Direct and Indirect Effects of Resilience on Role Stress and Psychological Well-being
Full size table

Regarding the indirect effects of resilience, Table 3 reflects that the role ambiguity paths were significant, whereas the role conflict paths were not significant. Resilience indirectly impacted life satisfaction (β = 0.11, p = 0.001, 95% CI [0.06, 0.14]), anxiety (β = −0.06, p = 0.003, 95% CI [− 0.12, − 0.04]), and depression (β = −0.08, p = 0.001, 95% CI [− 0.19, − 0.08]). These findings support Hypothesis 4.

Discussion

The aim of this study was to explore the indirect effects of resilience on indices of psychological well-being via role stress. The majority of research on resilience during the pandemic has investigated its mediating role in the association between stress and burnout, stress and quality of life and social isolation and wellbeing [64,65,66]. Furthermore, these studies on resilience have largely focused on frontline medical care workers with few studies investigating resilience among other population groups differentially impacted by the pandemic. This study aims to extend research on resilience through its focus on school teachers and its role in the relationship between role stress and indices of psychological well-being [38, 67]. Role ambiguity was negatively associated with life satisfaction and positively associated with anxiety and depression. Role conflict was positively associated with anxiety and depression. The structural equation modelling results demonstrated significant direct effects of resilience on psychological well-being, which highlights the health-sustaining role of resilience. These findings indicate that resilience is beneficial even in the absence of adverse circumstances or negative events.

Consistent with the Cooper model of the stress and health relationship, resilience indirectly impacted psychological well-being via role ambiguity. Thus, resilience was found to be antecedent to role ambiguity. As explained by Cooper and Baglioni [32], this finding indicates that resilience is not only invoked in times of adversity but is always present. An individual’s level of resilience determines whether they experience their work environment as ambiguous, which in turn is associated with psychological well-being.

A further finding was that resilience did not impact psychological well-being via role conflict. It is probable that teachers in the study were able to rationalize that the COVID-19 pandemic placed additional demands on all frontline workers and this meant greater responsibilities. This finding is similar to that of a study of a U.S. disaster response workforce, in which role ambiguity was found to be a stronger predictor of psychological well-being (specifically burnout) than role conflict [68]. New and exacerbated challenges brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic and the unclear role expectations established in responding to the pandemic might explain the significance of role ambiguity in predicting psychological well-being. Alyahya and colleagues [69] have argued that continuous changes in COVID-19 policies have likely created role ambiguity, which makes it difficult for individuals to adapt to rapid changes that affect their roles. Worlu and colleagues suggest that effectively classifying roles may assist in dealing with role ambiguity [70]. In this regard, they suggest that roles where the confines and jurisdiction are clearly delineated, will assist in reducing role ambiguity. For role conflict, they suggest that role scheduling, whereby expectations about one’s role do not clash, has been found to reduce role conflict and relieve the pressure that results from role conflict [70]. However, role conflict has also been found to be positively and directly associated with creativity by stimulating receptive and divergent ways of thinking [71]. Several studies have confirmed that role conflict encourages flexible thought processes and allows for the generation of new ideas [72, 73]. This is achieved through high levels of mindfulness, which is beneficial for making cognitive adjustments at work. A mindful employee is motivated to use energy to obtain work-related knowledge and skills, which are then used to invoke creative responses to conflicting role demands [71].

De Clercq [26] has suggested that the uncertainty stemming from lack of information about job responsibilities is minimized when resources related to resilience, task interdependence, and emotion sharing are present. Resilience enables individuals to cope with ambiguous work situations because they can view such situations as learning opportunities, and task interdependence demonstrates the interconnectedness between tasks performed at work, which allows employees to learn from each other. Emotion sharing describes the extent to which employees share their emotional experiences with each other, which promotes healthy functioning [26]. These personal, task-based, and relational resources invoke positive energy that enable individuals to engage in creative behaviors despite role ambiguity [74].

Limitations

The study has certain limitations. First, the use of an electronic survey may have led to response bias in that respondents who were more familiar with information communication technology may have been more inclined to respond than others. Second, the use of a cross-sectional design limits the conclusions that can be made about causal relationships. A longitudinal analysis is necessary to examine the causal processes that underlie the relationship between resilience, role stress, and indices of psychological distress. Third, the sample was mostly comprised of female participants from one geographical location, and this lack of heterogeneity may limit the generalizability of the results. Finally, the data was collected during the COVID-19 outbreak and it is probable that the results do not reflect the interactions between these variables in non-pandemic conditions.

Conclusion

The current study examined the indirect effects of resilience on indices of psychological health via role stress among a sample of school teachers. Even when work-related stressors are absent resilience was found to be a protective factor that had a significant indirect effect on indices of psychological well-being via role ambiguity but not role conflict. Accordingly, policy makers and management teams should be proactive in reducing sources of role ambiguity for teachers. Management teams could foster resilience through knowledge sharing, provision of written documentation detailing roles, and promotion of awareness of the inter-relationships between job tasks.

Data Availability

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this article.

References

  1. South African Government. : About alert system. Government Gazette 43599 edn. Pretoria; 2020.

  2. Kahn RL, Wolfe DM, Quinn RP, Snoek JD, Rosenthal RA. Conflict and ambiguity: studies in organizational roles and individual stress. Int J Stress Manag. 1964;1:309–22.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Rizzo JR, House RJ, Lirtzman SI. Role conflict and ambiguity in Complex Organizations. Adm Sci Q. 1970;15(2):150–63. https://doi.org/10.2307/2391486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Chiara PP, Luca CC, Annalisa PP, Chiara RR. Emotional exhaustion among healthcare professionals: the effects of role ambiguity, work engagement and professional commitment. Acta Biomed Ateneo Parm. 2019;90(Suppl 6):60–7. https://doi.org/10.23750/abm.v90i6-S.8481.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Dalimunthe I, Absah Y, Salim SRA. The Effect of Interpersonal Relationships and Role Ambiguity on Job Satisfaction and Its Impact Toward Employees’ Intention to Leave in Event Organizer Services Provider in Medan. In: 1st Economics and Business International Conference 2017 (EBIC 2017): 2018: Atlantis Press; 2018: 346–352.

  6. Wu G, Hu Z, Zheng J. Role stress, Job Burnout, and Job Performance in Construction Project Managers: the moderating role of Career calling. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16(13):2394. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16132394.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Bowling NA, Khazon S, Alarcon GM, Blackmore CE, Bragg CB, Hoepf MR, Barelka A, Kennedy K, Wang Q, Li H. Building better measures of role ambiguity and role conflict: the validation of new role stressor scales. Work and stress. 2017;31(1):1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2017.1292563.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Mérida-López S, Extremera N, Rey L. Emotion-regulation ability, role stress and teachers’ mental health. Occup Med (Oxford). 2017;67(7):540–5. https://doi.org/10.1093/occmed/kqx125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Nakada A, Iwasaki S, Kanchika M, Nakao T, Deguchi Y, Konishi A, Ishimoto H, Inoue K. Relationship between depressive symptoms and perceived individual level occupational stress among japanese schoolteachers. Ind Health. 2016;54(5):396–402. https://doi.org/10.2486/indhealth.2015-0195.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Ma H, Qiao H, Qu H, Wang H, Huang Y, Cheng H, Teng C, Diao K, Zhang X, Zhang N. Role stress, social support and occupational burnout among physicians in China: a path analysis approach. Ind Health. 2020;12(3):157–63. https://doi.org/10.1093/inthealth/ihz054.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Pretorius T. Gender and the health-sustaining and stress-reducing functions of social support: a south african study. J Soc Behav Pers. 1996;11(5):193.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Szkody E, Stearns M, Stanhope L, McKinney C. Stress-buffering role of Social Support during COVID‐19. Fam Process. 2021;60(3):1002–15. https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12618.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Pretorius T. Network orientation and social support as moderators of the stress-depression relationship: a south african study. J Soc Behav Pers. 1994;9(1):1.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Pedron S, Schmaderer K, Murawski M, Schwettmann L. The association between childhood socioeconomic status and adult health behavior: the role of locus of control. Soc Sci Res. 2021;95:102521. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2020.102521.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Strong SL, Gore JS. The mediating role of locus of control between social resource stability and psychological well-being. J Appl Soc Psychol. 2020;50(8):464–75. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12674.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Heppner PP, Heppner MJ, Wang Y-W, Lee D-G. Creating a positive life: The role of problem-solving appraisal. In: Positive psychological assessment: A handbook of models and measures edn. Edited by Gallagher MW, Lopez SJ: American Psychological Association; 2019: 111–124.

  17. Heppner PP, Pretorius TB, Wei M, Lee D-G, Wang Y-W. Examining the generalizability of problem-solving appraisal in Black South Africans. J Couns Psychol. 2002;49(4):484. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000138-008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Padmanabhanunni A, Campbell J, Pretorius TB. Gendered role of appraisals of Safety in Psychological Outcome in Relation to Trauma. J Psychol Trauma. 2017;9(5):518–25. https://doi.org/10.1037/tra0000167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Shumaker SA, Brownell A. Toward a theory of social support: closing conceptual gaps. J Soc Issues. 1984;40(4):11–36. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1984.tb01105.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Pretorius TB. Pathways to health: conceptual clarification and appropriate statistical treatment of mediator, moderator, and indirect effects using examples from burnout research. S Afr J Psychol. 2020;50(3):320–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/0081246320943498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Stainton A, Chisholm K, Kaiser N, Rosen M, Upthegrove R, Ruhrmann S, Wood SJ. Resilience as a multimodal dynamic process. Early Interv Psychiatry. 2019;13(4):725–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/eip.12726.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Fergus S, Zimmerman MA. Adolescent resilience: a framework for understanding healthy development in the face of risk. Annu Rev Public Health. 2005;26(1):399–419. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.26.021304.144357.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Eun S, Jin H. Effects of role conflict and ambiguity, and fatigue on self-resilience in clinical nurses: after the MERS outbreak. Korean J Occup Health Nurs. 2018;27(2):77–88. https://doi.org/10.5807/kjohn.2018.27.2.77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Lee SH, Seol R, Kim MH. Effect of role conflict on job satisfaction by comprehensive nursing Care Service Ward Nurse: moderating and mediating Effect of Resilience. J Korean Crit Care Nurs. 2021;14(3):50–61. https://doi.org/10.34250/jkccn.2021.14.3.50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Yang Y, Lee PKC, Cheng TCE. Operational improvement competence and service recovery performance: the moderating effects of role stress and job resources. Int J Prod Econ. 2015;164:134–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2015.03.014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. De Clercq D. Getting Creative with Resources: how Resilience, Task Interdependence, and emotion sharing mitigate the damage of employee role ambiguity. J Appl Behav Sci. 2019;55(3):369–91. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886319853803.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Prayag G, Spector S, Orchiston C, Chowdhury M. Psychological resilience, organizational resilience and life satisfaction in tourism firms: insights from the Canterbury earthquakes. Curr Issues Tour. 2020;23(10):1216–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2019.1607832.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Santilli S, Grossen S, Nota L. Career Adaptability, Resilience, and life satisfaction among italian and belgian Middle School Students. Career Dev Q. 2020;68(3):194–207. https://doi.org/10.1002/cdq.12231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Zhang J, Yang Z, Wang X, Li J, Dong L, Wang F, Li Y, Wei R, Zhang J. The relationship between resilience, anxiety and depression among patients with mild symptoms of COVID-19 in China: a cross‐sectional study. J Clin Nurs. 2020;29(21–22):4020–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.15425.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Kim GM, Lim JY, Kim EJ, Park SM. Resilience of patients with chronic diseases: a systematic review. Health Soc Care Community. 2019;27(4):797–807. https://doi.org/10.1111/hsc.12620.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Cooper CL, Kirkcaldy BD, Brown J. A model of job stress and physical health: the role of individual differences. Pers Individ Differ. 1994;16(4):653–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(94)90194-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Cooper CL, Baglioni AJ. A structural model approach toward the development of a theory of the link between stress and mental health. In: Managerial, Occupational and Organizational Stress Research edn. Edited by Cooper C. New York: Routledge; 2018: 45–60.

  33. Moyle P. The role of negative affectivity in the stress process: tests of alternative models. J Organ Behav. 1995;16(S1):647–68. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030160705.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Yildirim M. Mediating role of Resilience in the Relationships between fear of happiness and affect balance, satisfaction with life, and flourishing. Eur J Psychol. 2019;15(2):183–98. https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v15i2.1640.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Ozbay F, Johnson DC, Dimoulas E, Morgan CA, Charney D, Southwick S. Social support and resilience to stress: from neurobiology to clinical practice. Psychiatry (Edgmont). 2007;4(5):35. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2921311/.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Jakovljevic M. Empathy, sense of coherence and resilience: bridging Personal, Public and Global Mental Health and conceptual synthesis. Psychiatr Danub. 2018;30(4):380–4. https://doi.org/10.24869/psyd.2018.380.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. De Kock JH, Latham HA, Leslie SJ, Grindle M, Munoz S-A, Ellis L, Polson R, O’Malley CM. A rapid review of the impact of COVID-19 on the mental health of healthcare workers: implications for supporting psychological well-being. BMC Public Health. 2021;21(1):104–18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-020-10070-3.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Li Z-S, Hasson F. Resilience, stress, and psychological well-being in nursing students: a systematic review. Nurse Educ Today. 2020;90:104440–0. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2020.104440.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Zeng G, Hou H, Peng K. Effect of growth mindset on School Engagement and Psychological Well-Being of Chinese Primary and Middle School students: the mediating role of Resilience. Front Psychol. 2016;7:1873–3. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01873.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Lee J-S, Ahn Y-S, Jeong K-S, Chae J-H, Choi K-S. Resilience buffers the impact of traumatic events on the development of PTSD symptoms in firefighters. J Affect Disord. 2014;162:128–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2014.02.031.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Campbell-Sills L, Stein MB. Psychometric analysis and refinement of the connor-davidson resilience scale (CD-RISC): validation of a 10-item measure of resilience. J Trauma Stress. 2007;20(6):1019–28. https://doi.org/10.1002/jts.20271.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Diener E, Emmons RA, Larsen RJ, Griffin S. The satisfaction with Life Scale. J Pers Assess. 1985;49(1):71–5. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Spielberger CD, Gorsuch RL, Lushene RE. Manual for the state-trait anxiety inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press; 1970.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Radloff LS. The CES-D scale: a self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Appl Psychol Meas. 1977;1(3):385–401. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F014662167700100306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Chen W, Liang Y, Yang T, Gao R, Zhang G. Validity and longitudinal invariance of the 10-Item Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC-10) in chinese left-behind and Non-Left-Behind Children. Psychol Rep. 2021;3329412110135–531. https://doi.org/10.1177/00332941211013531.

  46. Kavčič T, Zager Kocjan G, Dolenc P. Measurement invariance of the CD-RISC-10 across gender, age, and education: a study with slovenian adults. Curr Psychol (New Brunswick NJ). 2021;1–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-01564-3.

  47. Kuiper H, van Leeuwen C, Stolwijk-Swüste JM, Post MW. Measuring resilience with the Connor–Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC): which version to choose? Spinal Cord. 2019;57(5):360–6. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41393-019-0240-1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Fatoki O. The impact of entrepreneurial resilience on the success of small and medium enterprises in South Africa. Sustain (Basel Switzerland). 2018;10(7):2527. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10072527.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Pretorius TB, Padmanabhanunni A. Validation of the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale-10 in South Africa: Item Response Theory and classical test theory. Psychol Res Behav Manag. 2022;15:1235–45. https://doi.org/10.2147/PRBM.S365112.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Pavot W, Diener E. The satisfaction with Life Scale and the emerging construct of life satisfaction. J Posit Psychol. 2008;3(2):137–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760701756946.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Berrios-Riquelme J, Pascual-Soler M, Frias-Navarro D, Maluenda-Albornoz J. Psychometric properties and factorial invariance of the satisfaction with life scale in latino immigrants in Chile, Spain, and United States. Ter Psicol. 2021;39(2):199–218. https://doi.org/10.4067/s0718-48082021000200199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Cerezo MV, Soria-Reyes LM, Alarcón R, Blanca MJ. The satisfaction with life scale in breast Cancer patients: Psychometric Properties. Int J Clin Health Psychol. 2022;22(1):100274–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijchp.2021.100274.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Padmanabhanunni A, Pretorius TB. The loneliness–life satisfaction relationship: the parallel and serial mediating role of hopelessness, depression and ego-resilience among young adults in south africa during covid-19. Int J Environ Res Public. 2021;18(7):3613. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18073613.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Bann CM, Parker CB, Grobman WA, Willinger M, Simhan HN, Wing DA, Haas DM, Silver RM, Parry S, Saade GR, et al. Psychometric properties of stress and anxiety measures among nulliparous women. J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol. 2017;38(1):53–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/0167482X.2016.1252910.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Hashim E, Hasyila W, Ang Y, Helmy A, Husyairi H. Psychometric properties of the malay translated Spielberger State-Trait anxiety inventory in exploring parental anxiety. Med Health. 2018;13:106–16. https://doi.org/10.17576/MH.2018.130.1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Ortuno-Sierra J, Garcia-Velasco L, Inchausti F, Debbane M, Fonseca-Pedrero E. New approaches on the study of the psychometric properties of the STAI. 2016, 44(3):83–92. https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/1509074

  57. Padmanabhanunni A, Pretorius T. Behaviour is the key in a pandemic: the direct and indirect effects of Covid-19-related variables on psychological wellbeing. Psychol Rep. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1177/00332941211025269.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Örtqvist D, Wincent J. Prominent consequences of role stress: a Meta-Analytic Review. Int J Stress Manag. 2006;13(4):399–422. https://doi.org/10.1037/1072-5245.13.4.399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Parayitam S, Usman SA, Namasivaayam RR, Naina MS. Knowledge management and emotional exhaustion as moderators in the relationship between role conflict and organizational performance: evidence from India. J Knowl Manag. 2021;25(6):1456–85. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-03-2020-0184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Orgambídez A, Almeida H. Exploring the link between structural empowerment and job satisfaction through the mediating effect of role stress: a cross-sectional questionnaire study. Int J Nurs Stud. 2020;109:103672–2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2020.103672.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Gonzalez-Roma V, Lloret S, .‘s. Construct Validity of Rizzo (1970) Role Conflict and Ambiguity Scales: A Multisample Study. Appl. Psychol 1998, 47(4):535–545. https://doi.org/10.1080/026999498377737

  62. Kelloway EK, Barling J. Item Content Versus Item Wording: disentangling role conflict and role ambiguity. J Appl Psychol. 1990;75(6):738–42. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.75.6.738.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Netemeyer RG, Johnston MW, Burton S. Analysis of Role Conflict and Role Ambiguity in a structural equations Framework. J Appl Psychol. 1990;75(2):148–57. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.75.2.148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Duarte I, Alves A, Coelho A, Ferreira A, Cabral B, Silva B, Peralta J, Silva J, Domingues P, Nunes P, et al. The mediating role of resilience and life satisfaction in the relationship between stress and burnout in Medical students during the COVID-19 pandemic. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(5):2822. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19052822.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  65. Alhawatmeh H, Alsholol R, Dalky H, Al-Ali N, Albataineh R. Mediating role of resilience on the relationship between stress and quality of life among jordanian registered nurses during COVID-19 pandemic. Heliyon. 2021;7(11):e08378–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e08378.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  66. Sapanci A. The Mediating Role of Resilience and personality traits in the relationship between social isolation and Psychological Well-Being in the COVID-19 pandemic. Int j psychol educ Stud. 2022;9(2):462–78. https://doi.org/10.52380/ijpes.2022.9.2.724.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Malik M, Saidin N, Abd Wab R, Nordin N. Investigating the relationship between stress and Psychological Well-Being among Foundation students of UiTM. Int J Acad Res Bus Soc. 2020;10(14):93–101. https://doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v10-i14/7366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Merlo KL, Conen KM, Scott B, Jones K, Dunn EA, Marshall J. Burnout in the disaster response workforce: the impact of work roles and the COVID-19 pandemic. J Emerg Manag. 2021;19(9):81–90. https://doi.org/10.5055/jem.0593.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Alyahya SA, Al-Mansour KA, Alkohaiz MA, Almalki MA. Association between role conflict and ambiguity and stress among nurses in primary health care centers in Saudi Arabia during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic: a cross-sectional study. Med (Baltim). 2021;100(37):e27294–4. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000027294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Worlu RE, Olokundun AM, Akinbode M, Amaihian A, Inelo F. Stress arising from work roles and impediments to organizational performance. Res J Med Sci. 2016;10(1):1–5. https://doi.org/10.36478/rjmsci.2016.1.5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Montani F, Setti I, Sommovigo V, Courcy F, Giorgi G. Who responds creatively to Role Conflict? Evidence for a curvilinear relationship mediated by Cognitive Adjustment at Work and Moderated by Mindfulness. J Bus Psychol. 2019;35(5):621–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-019-09644-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Tang Y-T, Chang C-H. Impact of role ambiguity and role conflict on employee creativity. Afr J Bus Manag. 2010;4(6):869–81. https://doi.org/10.5897/AJBM.9000334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Usman M, Xiao S. How role ambiguity and role conflict effect creativity of employees in local domestic manufacturing industry: Evidence from Pakistan. In: 2017 4th International Conference on Industrial Economics System and Industrial Security Engineering (IEIS): 2017: IEEE; 2017: 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1109/IEIS.2017.8078603

  74. Zhou Q, Martinez LF, Ferreira AI, Rodrigues P. Supervisor support, role ambiguity and productivity associated with presenteeism: a longitudinal study. J Bus Res. 2016;69(9):3380–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.02.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

None.

Funding

This study received no external funding.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, University of the Western Cape, Bellville, South Africa

    Anita Padmanabhanunni & Tyrone B Pretorius

  2. School of Public Health, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa

    Natasha Khamisa

  3. University of the Western Cape, Private Bag X17, 7535, Bellville, Republic of South Africa

    Anita Padmanabhanunni

Authors
  1. Anita Padmanabhanunni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tyrone B Pretorius
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Natasha Khamisa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Conceptualization and methodology: AP & TP; Analysis and data curation: TP. All authors discussed and interpreted obtained results. All authors contributed to the writing and editing of the manuscript over several iterations.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anita Padmanabhanunni.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Humanities and Social Science Research Ethics Committee of the University of the Western Cape (Ethics reference number HS21/3/8 14 May 2021). Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing Interests

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

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 11, 45 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-023-01082-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-023-01082-w

Keywords

BMC Psychology

ISSN: 2050-7283

Contact us