2015
DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2015.03.028
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Neuroticism and extraversion as mediators between positive/negative life events and resilience

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

4
22
0
2

Year Published

2015
2015
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 45 publications
(28 citation statements)
references
References 27 publications
(36 reference statements)
4
22
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…NEO Five Factor Inventory) have obtained similar correlation coefficients (e.g. Olesen, Thomsen, & O'Toole, 2015;Sarubin et al, 2015), the correlation we obtained between these two traits suggests that some of our findings should be considered with caution.…”
Section: Initial Analysessupporting
confidence: 77%
“…NEO Five Factor Inventory) have obtained similar correlation coefficients (e.g. Olesen, Thomsen, & O'Toole, 2015;Sarubin et al, 2015), the correlation we obtained between these two traits suggests that some of our findings should be considered with caution.…”
Section: Initial Analysessupporting
confidence: 77%
“…However, an exclusive focus on negative affectivity may fail to capture elements of personality associated with personal growth following stressful events (e.g., Fredrickson, 2004). Over longer timespans, changes in neuroticism may result from exposure to life events (Sarubin et al, 2015).…”
Section: Traits For Resiliencementioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, despite there being a great number of studies on the psychometric properties of the CD-RISC, there is still a great lack of consensus on the internal structure of the scale, since most studies in the literature reveal different factorial structures. Empirical evidence has supported the onedimensional model (Arias-Gonzalez, Crespo-Sierra, Arias-Martinez, Martinez-Molina & Ponce, 2015;Burns and Anstey, 2010;Campbell-Sills & Stein, 2007;Gucciardi, Jackson, Coulter & Mallett, 2011;Notario-Pacheco et al, 2011;Ponce-Cisternas, 2015;Sarubin et al, 2015), the twodimensional model (Fu, Leoutsakos & Underwood, 2013;Green et al, 2014;Jorgensen & Seedat, 2008;Perera & Ganguly, 2016), the three-dimensional model (Karairmak, 2010;Mealer, Schmiege & Meek 2016;Menezes de Lucena et al, 2006;Serrano-Parra et al, 2012;Xie, Peng, Zuo & Li, 2016;Yu & Zhang, 2007), the four-dimensional model (Crespo et al, 2014;Khoshouei, 2009;Lamond et al, 2008;Singh & Yu, 2010;Solano et al, 2016), the five-dimensional model (Fujikawa et al, 2013;Gillespie, Chaboyer, Wallis & Grimbeek, 2007;Jung et al, 2012;Manzano-García & Ayala-Calvo, 2013) and the second-order model (Yu et al, 2011). According to the above list, one could believe that the CD-RISC presents a different factorial configuration between studies, countries or sample types and therefore it would lead one to further believe that, in each case, one is measuring different constructs.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 97%