Personality and Individual Differences 127 (2018) 54–60

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Personality and Individual Differences

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

Resilience and Big Five personality traits: A meta-analysis☆ T

a,⁎ b c d
Atsushi Oshio , Kanako Taku , Mari Hirano , Gul Saeed
a
Faculty of Letters, Arts, and Sciences, Waseda University, Tokyo, Japan
b
Department of Psychology, Oakland University, MI, USA
c
Faculty of Humanities, Tokyo Kasei University, Tokyo, Japan
d
Department of Psychology, McGill University, Montreal, Canada

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The current review synthesized studies investigating the relationships between resilience and Big Five person-
Ego-resiliency ality traits and aimed to investigate how the relationships vary according to the two types of resiliency, psy-
Trait resilience chological resilience and ego-resiliency. Thirty studies with a total sample size of 15,609 met the inclusion
Big Five criteria to be used for the current meta-analysis. Results indicated that overall, estimated average correlation
Personality
coefficients for resilience were: r = −0.46 with Neuroticism, r = 0.42 for Extraversion, r = 0.34 for Openness,
Meta-analysis
r = 0.31 for Agreeableness, and r = 0.42 for Conscientiousness. When comparing the differences between the
two types of resiliency, a stronger negative relationship with Neuroticism, and stronger positive relationships
with Openness and Agreeableness were obtained with ego-resiliency, compared with trait resilience. However,
there was a lack of homogeneity in effect sizes across studies especially for ego-resilience. Directions for future
research regarding resilience and the limitations of present research are discussed.

1. Introduction 1.1. Ego-resiliency

After a highly stressful and potentially traumatic life event, some
people adjust well by showing a stable trajectory with healthy func-
tioning, while some people may experience distress in the immediate
aftermath of the event. This phenomenon is referred to as resilience, a
dynamic process that encompasses positive adaptation within the
context of significant adversity (Luther, Cicchetti, & Becker, 2000).
Resilience involves the capacity, processes, and/or outcomes of suc-
cessful adaptation in the context of significant threats to functioning or
development (Masten, Best, & Garmezy, 1990). Resilience or “psycho-
logical resilience” (see Bonanno, Romero, & Klein, 2015, for review) is,
however, a complex construct that involves traits, outcomes, and pro-
cesses related to recovery, and thus it has been defined differently in the
context of individuals, families, organizations, societies, and cultures
(Southwick, Bonanno, Masten, Panter-Brick, & Yehuda, 2014). One
such perspective focuses on resilience as personality characteristics that
moderate the negative effects of stress and promote adaptation. How-
ever even from this perspective, there have been two approaches—ego-
resiliency (Block & Turula, 1963) and trait resilience (Connor &
Davidson, 2003; Ong, Bergeman, Bisconti, & Wallace, 2006; Wagnild &
Young, 1993).
The first approach, ego-resiliency, is derived from the theoretical
model of personality development that was formulated by Block and his
colleagues, which centered on two fundamental constructs: ego-control
and ego-resiliency (Block, 2002; Block & Turula, 1963). Ego-control
refers to the individual's characteristic response to behavioral or at-
tentive impulses. Specifically, an undercontroller tends to be highly ex-
pressive or attentive to internal pushes and pulls, whereas overcontroller
tends to be constricted in behavioral or attentive impulses, and thus
constrained and disciplined (Letzring, Block, & Funder, 2005). This
dimension reflects different life styles and has been indicated to be
unrelated to adjustment or competence, as they both tend to be mala-
daptive. Laufer, Johnson, and Hogan (1981), for example, showed that
the dimension of ego control discriminates drug offenders from mur-
derers. Drug offenders showed lower ego control and were more im-
pulsive and changeable, whereas murderers were more controlled,
conservative, and preferred familiarity, structure, and order.
In contrast, ego-resiliency refers to the individual's adaptive reserve,
a dynamic ability to temporarily change the reactions and perceptions
to meet the situational demands of life. Ego-resiliency modifies the level
of control in response to the environmental context. Ego-resilient
people would reduce or increase behavioral control and expand or

☆
This research was funded in part by JSPS KAKENHI, Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C) No. 17K04376.
⁎
Corresponding author at: Faculty of Letters, Arts, and Sciences, Waseda University, 1-24-1 Toyama, Shinjuku, Tokyo 162-8644, Japan.
E-mail address: oshio.at@waseda.jp (A. Oshio).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.01.048
Received 22 November 2017; Received in revised form 29 January 2018; Accepted 31 January 2018
Available online 09 February 2018
0191-8869/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A. Oshio et al.
narrow attention to regress and progress in the service of the ego (Block
& Block, 2006). Individuals at the higher end of ego-resiliency are,
therefore, often resourceful in adapting to novel situations. They are
capable of shifting their behaviors with a versatile set of cognitive and
social procedures in the search for adaptation and are generally quick to
adapt to changes. Conversely, those at the lower end tend to be brittle
and exhibit little adaptive flexibility when encountering novel or
stressful situations, and therefore, have difficulty in recovering from
stress. Causadias, Salvatore, and Sroufe (2012), for instance, used a
longitudinal study and demonstrated that ego-resiliency, but not ego-
control, was a powerful predictor of adaptive functioning later in life.
Overall, highly resilient people are more likely to be competent and
comfortable in the fuzzy interpersonal world (Block & Kremen, 1996).
Causadias et al. (2012) also suggested that when confronted by stressful
circumstances, people with a low level of resiliency may act in a stiff
and perseverative manner or chaotically and diffusely, and in either
case, the resulting behavior is likely to be maladaptive.
By taking a typological approach, three basic personality types have
been identified in the literature: ego-resilients, vulnerable over-
controllers, and unsettled undercontrollers (Robins, John, Caspi,
Moffitt, & Stouthamer-Loeber, 1996; Steca, Alessandri, & Caprara,
2010). The findings about these three types have been replicated in
cross-cultural studies (Alessandri et al., 2014; Specht, Luhmann, &
Geiser, 2014). Four types have been also found by applying cluster
analysis, namely (1) those with high ego-resiliency and low ego-control,
(2) those with above-average ego-resiliency and high ego-control, (3)
those with below-average ego-resiliency and low ego-control, and (4)
those with low ego-resiliency and high ego-control (Gramzow et al.,
2004).This four-profile configuration of personality types has been
validated, and more recently, have been suggested to provide greater
coherence and predictive ability than the three-profile model (Isler,
Fletcher, Liu, & Sibley, 2017; Isler, Liu, Sibley, & Fletcher, 2016).
1.2. Trait resilience
The second approach has been derived from a series of studies fo-
cusing on trait orientation or personality characteristics of resiliency
(Connor & Davidson, 2003; Ong et al., 2006). Wagnild and Young
(1993) defined resilience as a positive personality characteristic that
enhances individual adaptation. These authors developed the Resilience
Scale. Unlike the concept of ego-resiliency that was developed to cap-
ture the wide range of individual differences as a continuum from ego-
brittle to ego-resilient, their 25-item Resilience Scale was developed by
identifying the characteristics that are typically observed among
people, mostly adults, who had adapted successfully following a major
life event. The Resilience Scale items were originally selected from the
theoretical definition to reflect five components of resilience by using
the theoretical definition, namely equanimity (a balanced perspective
of life and experiences), perseverance (willingness to continue the
struggle to reconstruct one's life and remain involved in the midst of
adversity), self-reliance (being able to rely on one's own strengths and
capabilities), meaningfulness (realization that life has a purpose and
recognition that there is something for which to live for), and ex-
istential aloneness (realization that each person is unique and that
while some experiences can be shared, others must be faced alone).
Although two-factor structure—acceptance of self and life, and in-
dividual competence—was found for a sample of adults, most studies
use the overall score to reflect the characteristics of resilience (see
Wagnild, 2009a, for review). This is consistent with the studies using
the 14-item version (Wagnild, 2009b), which also relies on the overall
score (Aiena, Baczwaski, Schulenberg, & Buchanan, 2015).
Similarly, Connor and Davidson (2003) developed the self-rated
assessment scale, the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC), but
emphasize the aspect of ability or capacity to successfully cope with the
adversity. The contents of the Scale were drawn from several studies,
including the concept of hardiness (strong commitment and control;
55
Personality and Individual Differences 127 (2018) 54–60
Kobasa, 1979); protective factors for mental disorders possibly trig-
gered by the negative life experiences; adaptability to change, self-ef-
ficacy, sense of humor, and support of others (Rutter, 1985); and po-
sitive adjustment following trauma, that is, resilience (Lyons, 1991). By
reflecting the numerous theory-based aspects, resilience has been con-
sidered a multi-dimensional concept (Connor & Davidson, 2003). Al-
though the CD-RISC is used to assess the resilience for treatment, it has
also been widely used to assess the resilience as a personality trait
(Benetti & Kambouropoulos, 2006).
In addition, Oshio and his colleagues developed the Adolescent
Resilience Scale to measure the psychological features of resilient
adolescents (Oshio, Kaneko, Nagamine, & Nakaya, 2003; Oshio,
Nakaya, Kaneko, & Nagamine, 2002). The scale contains 21 items with
a three-factor structure (Novelty Seeking, Emotional Regulation, and
Positive Future Orientation), derived from the literature (Rutter &
Quinton, 1984; Thompson, 1994; Wolin & Wolin, 1993). Although this
scale was originally designed for Japanese youth; it has been translated
into multiple languages and applied in other populations.
There are other resiliency scales (see Prince-Embury, Saklofske, &
Vesely, 2015), such as the Resilience Scale for Adults (Friborg, Hjemdal,
Rosenvinge, & Martinussen, 2003) and the Resiliency Scale for Young
Adults (Prince-Embury, Saklofske, & Nordstokke, 2017), which focus on
the resources that protect against the development of psychiatric dis-
turbances and promote resilience. Although some differences should be
noted (e.g., the Resilience Scale for Adults includes the measurement of
social factors known to be essential to withstand life stress), overall, all
these scales are all assessing the individual characteristics that are as-
sociated with the status of being resilient.
In sum, trait resilience (Connor & Davidson, 2003; Oshio et al.,
2003; Wagnild & Young, 1993) has been studied by identifying the
personality characteristics and abilities that are specific to those who
are able to successfully cope with a highly stressful life event. On the
other hand, ego-resiliency (Block & Turula, 1963) has been studied by
using the scales that are designed to evaluate more general psycholo-
gical characteristics, such as the California Q-set (Funder, Block, &
Block, 1983; Westenberg & Block, 1993). The California Q-set, for in-
stance, consists of 100 statements about personality and social char-
acteristics. Similarities between the participants' actual Q descriptions
and the criteria that was pre-determined by researchers to indicate
prototypical ego-resilient individuals are used as an index (Funder &
Block, 1989). Other scales directly measuring ego-resiliency, such as
the Ego-Resiliency Scale (Block & Kremen, 1996; Vecchione, Alessandri,
Barbaranelli, & Gerbino, 2010), were also derived from non-specific
psychological inventories, including the California Psychological In-
ventory (Gough, 1956) and Minnesota Multiphasic Personality In-
ventory (Hathaway & McKinley, 1951). This is different from the way
the measurements were developed to assess trait resilience.
1.3. Present study
Ego-resiliency and trait resilience are grounded on different theo-
retical backgrounds, even though they both capture the individual
differences in resiliency. The constructs of ego-resiliency emphasize
normative development in personality during the childhood (Huey &
Weisz, 1997), invoking as modulating the desires of the individual to
adapt to external restrictions and constraints (Block & Block, 1980;
Block & Kremen, 1996). Research on trait resilience, on the other hand,
has been developed by focusing on children who show good adjustment
in the face of risk or adversity (Masten, 2001). Studies have summar-
ized the differences between ego-resiliency and trait resilience by fo-
cusing on their assessment and the methodological standpoints of as-
sessments (Windle, Bennett, & Noyes, 2011). However, little research
has been conducted to conceptually understand the differences between
these two constructs to further clarify the nature of resiliency as a
personality characteristic. The purpose of the current study is to ex-
amine the differences between ego-resiliency and trait resilience by
A. Oshio et al.
synthesizing the studies investigating the relationships between both
types of resilience and Big Five personality dimensions using meta-
analyses. Several meta-analytical studies have been conducted to in-
vestigate the relationships between resiliency and mental health out-
comes such as depression (Ávila, Lucchetti, & Lucchetti, 2017) and to
identify the moderating factors (Hu, Zhang, & Wang, 2015). However,
the relationships with Big Five personality dimensions have not been
systematically synthesized thus far.
The Five Factor Model of personality includes Neuroticism (or
Emotional Stability), Extraversion, Openness, Agreeableness, and
Conscientiousness, and it has been established psycho-lexically and
through questionnaire approaches by applying the factor analytical
model (O'Connor, 2002, for review). The Big Five taxonomy serves an
integrative function because it can represent the various diverse sys-
tems of personality description in a common framework (John,
Naumann, & Soto, 2008, for review). In contrast to the person-centered
approach, which describes configurations of personality traits within
the individual, such as Block and his colleagues' ego-control/ego-re-
siliency model, the Five-Factor Model has been developed as a variable-
centered approach. However, by combining these two approaches, the
configuration of personality types originally derived from the person-
centered approach can be observed and expressed within the person-
ality dimensions (Isler et al., 2017). Studies have, in fact, applied the
cluster analyses of the Big Five dimensions to identify the personality
types that match the combinations of ego-control and ego-resilience
(Gramzow et al., 2004; Sava & Popa, 2011). These studies often de-
monstrate that the ego-resilient people tend to have a higher level of
Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Openness, and a lower
level of Neuroticism. Similarly, trait resilience has been investigated to
examine the relationships with the Big Five (Di Fabio & Saklofske,
2014; Nakaya, Oshio, & Kaneko, 2006). Despite this, there has been
little meta-analytical research that systematically combines the pre-
vious studies; thus, it is unknown whether the correlations between
resilience and Big Five personality traits are common across the studies.
Moreover, it is unclear how the correlations may differ depending on
the different types of resilience—ego resiliency and trait resilience. The
current study aims to draw conclusions regarding the relationships
between resilience and Big Five personality traits by synthesizing the
studies.
2. Method
2.1. Literature search
An electronic search was conducted on PsycINFO and EBSCOhost
databases using the key phrases “personality traits and resilience (and
resiliency),” “Five Factor model and resilience,” and each of the Big
Five personality traits, their facets (according to the Revised NEO
Personality Inventory, NEO-PI-R; Costa & McCrae, 1992) and resilience
(all text and abstract search). The databases were searched for all ex-
isting literature until the year 2016. Inclusion criteria were that the
article contains (1) a measure of at least one of the big five personality
factors (i.e., Neuroticism or Emotional Stability, Extraversion, Open-
ness, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness), (2) a measure of resi-
lience, and (3) a Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient be-
tween the Big Five personality factor(s) and resilience. Of the 40 articles
identified, 10 were excluded as they failed to meet the inclusion criteria
(e.g., they did not report the correlations between the Big Five per-
sonality traits and resilience). The final sample consisted of 30 studies
(references are listed in the supplementary document). Details of the
studies and sample characteristics are given in Table 2. Additionally,
Table 1 illustrates the measures and indicators of the Big Five person-
ality traits and resilience used in the studies that were included in the
current meta-analysis.
56
Personality and Individual Differences 127 (2018) 54–60
2.2. Data analysis
There are two common ways of meta-analysis—a fixed effect model
and a random effects model. These models are different in theoretical
assumptions and the ways that mean of effect sizes and the significance
are calculated (Hedges & Vevea, 1998). The fixed effects model assumes
a priori that the same population value underlies all studies in the meta-
analysis, while the random effects model allows for the possibility that
population parameters vary from study to study (Schmidt, Oh, & Hayes,
2009). The current study used a random effect model (Borenstein,
Hedges, Higgins, & Rothstein, 2010; Lipsey & Wilson, 2001; Yamada &
Inoue, 2012), because of the variability of sample characteristics, scales
assessing constructs, and countries where the studies were conducted.
Data analysis was performed using Microsoft Excel and mathematical
formulae of the random effects model (Borenstein et al., 2010; Lipsey &
Wilson, 2001; Yamada & Inoue, 2012).
3. Results
3.1. Cumulative correlation coefficients between resilience and Big Five
personality traits
Estimated average correlations (rm) and estimated population cor-
relations after excluding measurement error (rc) between resilience and
Big Five personality traits were obtained by using the random effects
model (Table 3). They all were statistically significant and showed the
moderate effect size. The factor with the largest correlation with re-
siliency was Neuroticism (rm = −0.46 and rc = −0.49), and the factor
with the smallest correlation was Agreeableness (rm = 0.31 and
rc = 0.32). Assessment of Cochran's Q, which indicates statistical het-
erogeneity, showed that the Q statistic was significant for Neuroticism,
Openness, and Conscientiousness, and marginally significant for
Agreeableness, confirming that the random effects model was appro-
priate and that the size of the correlation varied among the studies. On
the other hand, the Q statistics was not significant in Extraversion,
suggesting that the correlations were relatively consistent between the
studies.
3.2. Differences of correlation coefficients between ego-resiliency and trait
resilience
Selected studies were classified into two groups: ego-resiliency and
trait resilience. Ego resiliency includes the studies using the California
Adult Q-set, California Child Q-set, and the Ego-Resiliency Scale (ER-
89), whereas trait resilience includes those using the Resilience Scale,
CD-RISC, Adolescent Resilience Scale, and the Resilience Scale for
Adults. The estimated average correlations (rm) and estimated popula-
tion correlations after excluding measurement error (rc) between Big
Five personality traits and each type of resilience were obtained sepa-
rately (Table 4). The results demonstrated that the Neuroticism had a
stronger relationship with ego-resiliency (rm = −0.56 and rc = −0.63)
than with trait resilience (rm = −.41and rc = 0.44), and the difference
in rm was significant (z = 11.32, p < .001). Similarly, Openness
showed a stronger correlation (z = 10.74, p < .001) with ego-re-
siliency (rm = 0.46 and rc = 0.50) than with trait resilience (rm = 0.28
and rc = 0.34), and the same was the case for Agreeableness (rm = 0.39
and rc = 0.42 with ego-resiliency; rm = 0.27 and rc = 0.32 with trait
resilience; z = 6.84, p < .001). Only small or no substantial differences
were found in Extraversion (rm = 0.44 and rc = 0.47 with ego-re-
siliency; rm = 0.40 and rc = 0.42 with trait resilience; z = 2.78,
p < .01) and Conscientiousness (rm = 0.42 and rc = 0.45 with ego-re-
siliency; rm = 0.42 and rc = 0.45 with trait resilience; z = 0.00, n.s.).
The Q statistics were, however, all significant for ego-resiliency, in-
dicating that the correlations were likely to vary depending on the
studies. However, they were not significant for trait resilience, sug-
gesting that the correlations were relatively consistent between Big Five
A. Oshio et al.
Table 1
Measures of Big Five personality factors and resilience.
Resilience scales Neuroticism
Adolescent Resilience Scale 5-PFs
Asian Resilience Scale BFI
California Adult Q-Set BFQ
California Child Q-Set EPI
Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale FFM
Dispositional Resilience Scale IPIP
ER-89 (-R) IPIP-NEO
PRM NEO-FFI
Resilience Scale for Adults NEO-PI (−R)
The Resilience Questionnaire
The Resilience Scale
Wagnild and Young Resilience Scale
Note: ER-89 = Ego Resilience Scale; ER-89-R = 10-item Ego Resilience Revised Scale; PRM = 15-item Psychological Resilience Measure; 5-PFs = 5 Personality Factor Questionnaire;
BFI = Big Five Inventory; BFQ = Big Five Questionnaire; EPI = The Eysenck Personality Questionnaire: Brief Version; FFM = Five Factor Model; IPIP = International Personality Item
Pool; IPIP-NEO = International Personality Item Pool NEO; NEO-FFI = NEO-Five-Factor Inventory; NEO-PI = NEO-Personality Inventory; NEO-PI-R = NEO-Personality Inventory
Revised.
personality traits and measurements used in studies focusing on trait
resilience.
4. Discussion
The current study examined the relationships between resiliency
and Big Five personality traits by synthesizing the studies that focused
on ego-resiliency (Block & Turula, 1963) and trait resilience (Connor &
Davidson, 2003; Ong et al., 2006; Wagnild & Young, 1993). To our best
knowledge, this is the first meta-analytical study that compared two
different types of resiliency by examining their relationships with the
Big Five. Overall, resilience showed the negative correlations with
Neuroticism and positive correlations with the remaining four person-
ality traits, that is, Extraversion, Openness, Agreeableness, and Con-
scientiousness. The population correlation coefficients with resilience
were above 0.40 for Conscientiousness and Extraversion, and below
−0.40 for Neuroticism, suggesting that the core elements of the overall
resilience include a higher level of self-control and motivation toward
accomplishments, higher level of positive emotions and engagement
with social activity, and a higher level of emotional stability or lower
level of negative emotions. These results seem to be consistent with the
notion given by Block's (2001) notion that the characteristics of ego-
resiliency appear to overlap with one of the two higher order “super-
factors” of the Big Five (Carroll, 2002), which involves socially con-
fidence, adaptableness, perceptiveness, originality, and sensibility.
Self-esteem is considered to be one of the most important pillars of
healthy personality development (Harter, 1999) and there is a positive
relationship between self-esteem and resiliency (Liu, Wang, Zhou, & Li,
2014; Mak, Ng, & Wong, 2011) and ego-resiliency (Cramer, 2000). The
present study suggests the associations between resiliency and Big Five
traits are similar to the association between self-esteem and Big Five
traits. A previous study reported that self-esteem showed positive re-
lationships with Conscientiousness and Extraversion, negative re-
lationships with Neuroticism (Robins, Tracy, Trzesniewski, Potter, &
Gosling, 2001), and relatively weak relationships with Openness and
Agreeableness (Bono & Judge, 2003, for review). Therefore, resiliency
seems more likely than self-esteem to be characterized by the traits such
as being forgiving, straightforward, warm, having wide interests, and
being unconventional, which are represented by Openness and Agree-
ableness (John et al., 2008; John & Srivastava, 1999). As self-esteem
has been defined as the aspect of self-knowledge that reflects how much
individuals like themselves (Brown & Marshall, 2006), it is not sur-
prising given that the resiliency is associated more with Big Five di-
mensions than self-esteem and assumed to include a wider variety of
psychological functioning. In fact, “researchers have measured resi-
lience in a variety of ways. Most have selected multiple indicators and
Personality and Individual Differences 127 (2018) 54–60
Extraversion Openness Agreeableness Conscientiousness
5-PFs 5-PFs 5-PFs 5-PFs
BFI BFI BFI BFI
BFQ BFQ BFQ BFQ
EPI
FFM FFM FFM FFM
IPIP IPIP IPIP IPIP
IPIP-NEO IPIP-NEO IPIP-NEO IPIP-NEO
NEO-FFI NEO-FFI NEO-FFI NEO-FFI
NEO-PI-R NEO-PI-R NEO-PI-R NEO-PI-R
instruments to measure resilience including self-esteem, morale, life
satisfaction, sense of coherence, and so forth” (Wagnild, 2009a, p. 105).
Perhaps, these conceptual differences between self-esteem and re-
siliency are the reasons why the latter shows stronger associations with
all aspects of the Big Five.
The current study also revealed that the sizes of the correlations
were relatively consistent among the studies regarding the relationships
between resiliency and both Extraversion and Agreeableness by asses-
sing the heterogeneity, regardless of the number of items and back-
ground of each measurement. However, the correlations are likely to
vary across the studies between resiliency and Neuroticism, Openness,
and Conscientiousness, as indicated by the significant Q statistics. These
results might be due to the differences between ego-resiliency and trait
resilience in their conceptualization, measurements, and theoretical
background; thus, the population correlation coefficients with the Big
Five traits were subsequently analyzed separately with ego-resiliency
and trait resilience to elucidate the heterogeneity. The results indicated
that, although only a small or no differences were found in Extraversion
or Conscientiousness, ego-resiliency showed stronger relationships with
Neuroticism, Openness, and Agreeableness than did trait resilience.
Given that the Q statistics were not significant for trait resilience, the
correlations were consistent between the Big Five personality traits and
trait resilience across the studies. As shown in Table 2, the studies in-
cluded in the current meta-analyses were conducted with a variety of
samples with differing ages and cultural backgrounds, and yet, the re-
sults did not yield significant heterogeneity. The findings suggest that
trait resilience, a characteristic that serves as a protective factor in the
face of adversity, is consistently associated with Agreeableness, Extra-
version, Conscientiousness, Openness, and Emotional Stability (or
lower level of Neuroticism; shown in Table 4).
The studies of trait resilience used a variety of scales that have
different theoretical bases, while the studies of ego-resilience used
scales with the same theory (Block, 2002; Block & Turula, 1963). In
spite of the varied backgrounds of the scales, the consistency of the
correlation coefficients across studies regarding trait resilience in-
dicates that these scales assess common meanings of resilience. Here,
resilience theoretically and empirically represents the personality
characteristic, with low Neuroticism and high Extraversion and Con-
scientiousness, to cope with a highly stressful life event (Connor &
Davidson, 2003; Oshio et al., 2003; Wagnild & Young, 1993). Many of
the trait resilience scales have sub-traits, and each sub-trait has its own
psychological function. In future research, it may be needed to explore
the super-factor of resilience from the variety of sub-traits of the various
resilience scales, and to examine the characteristics of the super-factor.
The disparities between the studies were then likely to be due to the
ego-resiliency, as indicated by the significant Q statistics. The
57
A. Oshio et al. Personality and Individual Differences 127 (2018) 54–60

Table 2
Study information (author, year, sample size, Big Five related measure or indicator, resilience measure or indicator and correlation coefficients).

ID Author Year Big Five Measure of resilience Type of Sample size Sample characteristics Correlation coefficients
Scale resilience
N E O A C

1 Huey & Weisz 1997 FFM CCQ E 116 Clinically referred children in the −0.75 0.26 0.47 0.59 0.64
U.S.
2 Horner 1998 EPQ ER-89 E 284 College students in the U.S. −0.75 0.37
3 Gramzow et al. 2004 BFI CAQ E 199 University students in the U.S. −0.48 0.42 0.20 0.33 0.27
4 Friborg et al. 2005 5-PFs RSA T 482 Military school applicants in −0.33 0.33 0.19 0.38 0.43
Norway
5 Nakaya et al. 2006 NEO-PI-R ARS T 130 University students in Japan −0.59 0.37 0.40 0.17 0.48
6 Campbell-Sills et al. 2006 NEO-FFI CDRISC T 132 University students in the U.S. −0.65 0.61 0.20 0.15 0.46
7 Fayombo 2010 IPIP PRM-15 T 397 Secondary school students in −0.29 0.18 0.24 0.32 0.46
Barbados
8 Liu & Liu 2010 NEO-FFI Asian Resilience Scale T 646 University students in China −0.54 0.44 0.30 0.13 0.57
9 Zhang et al. 2011 EPQ RSA T 99 University students in China −0.27 0.46
10 Zhang et al. 2011 EPQ CDRISC T 99 University students in China −0.27 0.39
11 Alessandri et al. 2012 BFQ ER-89-R E 1576 University students in Italy −0.37 0.36 0.43 0.20 0.27
12 Alessandri et al. 2012 BFQ ER-89-R E 1057 University students in Spain −0.37 0.44 0.30 0.24 0.34
13 Alessandri et al. 2012 NEO-PI-R ER-89-R E 808 University students in the U.S. −0.38 0.41 0.42 0.31 0.30
14 Lei et al. 2012 EPQ-SS RS-14 T 565 University students in China −0.23 0.23
15 Peng et al. 2012 EPQ-R CDRISC T 1998 Medical students in China −0.49 0.55
16 Liu et al. 2012 NEO-FFI ER-89 E 282 University students in China −0.38
17 Kardum et al. 2012 BFI DRS T 597 Adults in Croatia −0.38 0.41 0.40 0.24 0.28
18 Baldwin-Kirchoff & 2013 EPI CDRISC T 66 University students in the U.S. −0.32 0.29
Ansburg
19 Zeb et al. 2013 NEO-PI-R ER-89 E 92 Men soldiers with amputation in −0.88 0.77 0.86 0.79 0.82
Pakistan
20 Womble et al. 2013 NEO-FFI Resilience T 83 University students in the U.S. −0.57 0.36 0.16 0.34 0.49
Questionnaire
21 Brelsford & Ciarrocchi 2013 IPIP-NEO ER-89 E 318 Adults in the U.S. −0.39 0.52 0.39 0.35 0.36
22 Rudow et al. 2014 NEO-FFI CDRISC T 835 Liver and kidney donors in the −0.49 0.47 0.15 0.20 0.55
U.S.
23 Lü et al. 2014 NEO-FFI CDRISC T 289 University students in China −0.39 0.40
24 Di Fabio & Saklofske 2014 BFQ CDRISC T 164 High school students in Italy −0.38 0.37 0.42 0.18 0.28
25 Shi et al. 2015 BFI RS-14 T 2925 Medical students in China −0.27 0.23 0.36 0.46 0.42
26 Foumani et al. 2015 NEO-PI-R CDRISC T 388 Adult women in Iran −0.24 0.20 0.18 0.11
27 Sarubin et al. 2015 NEO-FFI CDRISC T 201 Adults in Germany −0.48 0.55
28 Mansouri et al. 2015 NEO-FFI CDRISC T 400 Femele highschool students in −0.42 0.44 0.34 0.27 0.42
Iran
29 Fushimi & Imori 2015 NEO-FFI Resilience scale T 151 University students in Japan −0.48 0.62 0.29 0.33 0.52
30 Hsieh et al. 2016 EPQ RS-14 T 230 Nurses in Taiwan −0.47 0.43

Note: CCQ = California Child Q-Set; ER-89 = Ego-Resilience Scale; CAQ = California Adult Q-Set; RSA = Resilience Scale for Adults; ARS = Adolescent Resilience Scale;
CDRISC = Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale; PRM-15 = 15-item Psychological Resilience Measure; ER-89-R = 10-item Ego Resilience Revised Scale; RS14 = Wagnild and Young
Resilience Scale; DRS = Dispositional Resilience Scale; FFM = Five Factor Model; EPQ = Eysenck Personality Questionnaire; BFI = Big Five Inventory; 5-PFs = 5 Personality Factor
Questionnaire; NEO-PI-R = NEO-Personality Inventory Revised; NEO-FFI = NEO-Five-Factor Inventory; IPIP = International Personality Item Pool; BFQ = Big Five Questionnaire; EPQ-
SS = Short Scale version of EPQ; EPQ-R = Revised version of EPQ; Eysenck Personality Inventory; EPI = The Eysenck Personality Questionnaire: Brief Version; IPIP-NEO = International
Personality Item Pool Representation of the NEO PI-R; E = Ego-resiliency; T = Trait resilience; N = Neuroticism; E = Extraversion; O = Openness; A = Agreeableness;
C = Conscientiousness.

Confidence Interval (95% CI) for the correlations between Openness
and ego-resiliency were, for instance, 0.32 to 0.60, as opposed to the
95% CI for the correlation between Openness and trait resilience, 0.22
to 0.34. The possible source of this heterogeneity was the number of
studies included coupled with the variability of the samples. Fewer
studies were selected for ego-resiliency with a wider age range, such as
clinic-referred children in the US (Huey & Weisz, 1997), college
students in China (Liu, Wang, & Li, 2012), Italy, Spain, and the US
(Alessandri, Vecchione, Caprara, & Letzring, 2012), adults between the
ages of 18 and 86 years in the US (Brelsford & Ciarrocchi, 2013), and
soldiers with amputations in Pakistan (Zeb, Naqvi, & Zonash, 2013).
Ego-resiliency has been suggested to be relatively stable between the
ages of 16 and 20 years (Vecchione et al., 2010), after which it un-
dergoes a phase of relative increase (Alessandri, Eisenberg, Vecchione,

Table 3
Meta-analysis of the relationship between the Big Five personality traits and resilience.

Big Five k N rm 95% CI rc Q df p

Lower Upper

Neuroticism 30 15,609 −0.46 −0.52 −0.39 −0.49 53.23 29 0.00

Extraversion 29 15,379 0.42 0.36 0.47 0.44 30.14 28 0.36
Openness 20 11,420 0.34 0.28 0.41 0.36 43.24 19 0.00
Agreeableness 19 11,032 0.31 0.24 0.39 0.32 27.70 18 0.07
Conscientiousness 20 11,420 0.42 0.35 0.49 0.45 32.68 19 0.03

Note: k = number of correlation studies; N = sample size; rm = estimated average correlation; CI = confidence interval of rm; rc = estimated population correlation with excluding
measurement error.

58
A. Oshio et al. Personality and Individual Differences 127 (2018) 54–60

Table 4
Meta-analysis of the relationship between the Big Five personality traits and resilience for each type of resilience.

Big Five Model k N rm 95% CI rc Q df p

Lower Upper

Neuroticism Ego-resilience 9 4732 −0.56 −0.71 −0.41 −0.63 18.52 8 0.02

Psychological-resilience 21 10,877 −0.41 −0.48 −0.35 −0.44 19.47 20 0.49
Extraversion Ego-resilience 9 4732 0.44 0.36 0.52 0.47 30.14 8 0.00
Psychological-resilience 20 10,647 0.40 0.32 0.48 0.42 14.08 19 0.78
Openness Ego-resilience 7 4090 0.46 0.32 0.60 0.50 19.72 6 0.00
Psychological-resilience 13 7330 0.28 0.22 0.34 0.29 10.56 12 0.57
Agreeableness Ego-resilience 7 4090 0.39 0.27 0.52 0.42 17.39 6 0.01
Psychological-resilience 12 6942 0.27 0.18 0.36 0.32 5.43 11 0.91
Conscientiousness Ego-resilience 7 4090 0.42 0.30 0.55 0.45 20.36 6 0.00
Psychological-resilience 13 7330 0.42 0.34 0.50 0.45 12.80 12 0.38

Note: k = number of correlation studies; N = sample size; rm = estimated average correlation; CI = confidence interval of rm; rc = estimated population correlation with excluding
measurement error.

Caprara, & Milioni, 2016). Alessandri et al. (2016) also suggested that,
based on the ten-year longitudinal study, the trajectory of ego-re-
siliency from ages 15 to 19 years was predicted by self-efficacy beliefs
in managing negative emotions but the trajectory from ages 19 to
25 years was predicted by support and self-efficacy beliefs in expressing
positive emotions at age 15. These findings indicate that the relation-
ships between ego-resilience and other psycho-social factors may de-
pend on developmental stages or age; thus, the between-study hetero-
geneity for the relationships between ego-resilience and the Big Five
personality traits found in the current study might be due to the wide
age range. However, the small number of studies did not allow us to
further conduct sub-group analyses, to compare the population corre-
lation coefficients among different age groups. Meta-analyses should be
performed to identify the source of the heterogeneity with more data.
4.1. Limitations, future research, and conclusions
The current meta-analytical study synthesized the studies in-
vestigating the relationships between resiliency and the Big Five per-
sonality traits by distinguishing ego-resiliency from trait resilience.
Although the databases were searched for all existing literature with
diverse samples around the world, it should be noted that the studies
included were those published until the year 2016. As the research is
ongoing, another meta-analytical investigation will be needed. Due to
the limited amount of studies, it is not clear why significant Q statistics
were only obtained for ego-resiliency. We speculate that this is due to
the effects of age, but future research should be conducted by using sub-
group analyses. In addition, the current review grouped the studies into
two categories: ego-resiliency and trait resilience. However, both ap-
proaches view resilience as personality characteristics that moderate
the negative effects of stress and promote adaptation. Ego-resiliency is,
therefore, sometimes used as synonymous to trait resilience (Cohn,
Fredrickson, Brown, Mikels, & Conway, 2009; Waugh, Fredrickson, &
Taylor, 2008), as opposed to the process-focused resiliency (Bonanno
et al., 2015; Luther et al., 2000). Future studies should resolve whether
resiliency should be understood as a single factor or multiple factor
model and as a personality characteristic that could be observed in
everyone on a continuum, regardless of their life circumstances.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.01.048.
References1
291–300. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2014.951445.
Alessandri, G., Eisenberg, N., Vecchione, M., Caprara, G. V., & Milioni, M. (2016). Ego-
resiliency development from late adolescence to emerging adulthood: A ten-year
longitudinal study. Journal of Adolescence, 50, 91–102. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
adolescence.2016.05.004.
Alessandri, G., Vecchione, M., Caprara, G. V., & Letzring, T. D. (2012). The Ego Resiliency
Scale revised: A crosscultural study in Italy, Spain, and the United States. European
Journal of Psychological Assessment, 28, 139–146. http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/1015-
5759/a000102.
Alessandri, G., Vecchione, M., Donnellan, B. M., Eisenberg, N., Caprara, G. V., & Cieciuch,
J. (2014). On the cross-cultural replicability of the resilient, undercontrolled, and
overcontrolled personality types. Journal of Personality, 82, 340–353. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1111/jopy.12065.
Ávila, M. P. W., Lucchetti, A. L. G., & Lucchetti, G. (2017). Association between de-
pression and resilience in older adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 32, 237–246. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/
gps.4619.
Benetti, C., & Kambouropoulos, N. (2006). Affect-regulated indirect effects of trait anxiety
and trait resilience on self-esteem. Personality and Individual Differences, 41, 341–352.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2006.01.015.
Block, J. (2001). Millennial contrarianism: The five-factor approach to personality de-
scription 5 years later. Journal of Research in Personality, 35, 98–107. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1006/jrpe.2000.2293.
Block, J. (2002). Personality as an affect-processing system: Toward an integrative theory.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Block, J., & Block, J. H. (2006). Venturing a 30-year longitudinal study. American
Psychologist, 61, 315–327. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.61.4.315.
Block, J., & Kremen, A. M. (1996). IQ and ego-resiliency: Conceptual and empirical
connections and separateness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70,
349–361. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.2.349.
Block, J., & Turula, E. (1963). Identification, ego control, and adjustment. Child
Development, 34, 945–953. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1126537.
Block, J. H., & Block, J. (1980). The role of ego-control and ego-resiliency in the orga-
nization of behavior. In W. A. Collins (Vol. Ed.), Minnesota symposia on child psy-
chology. Vol. 13. Minnesota symposia on child psychology (pp. 39–101). Hilsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Bonanno, G. A., Romero, S. A., & Klein, S. I. (2015). The temporal elements of psycho-
logical resilience: An integrative framework for the study of individuals, families, and
communities. Psychological Inquiry, 26, 139–169. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
1047840X.2015.992677.
Bono, J. E., & Judge, T. A. (2003). Core self-evaluations: A review of the trait and its role
in job satisfaction and job performance. European Journal of Personality, 17, S5–S18.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/per.481.
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J., & Rothstein, H. R. (2010). A basic introduction
to fixed-effect and random-effects models for meta-analysis. Research Synthesis
Methods, 1, 97–111. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.12.
Brelsford, G. M., & Ciarrocchi, J. (2013). Spiritual disclosure and ego resiliency:
Validating spiritual competencies. Counseling and Values, 58, 130–141. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1002/j.2161-007X.2013.00029.x.
Brown, J. D., & Marshall, M. A. (2006). The three faces of self-esteem. In M. H. Kernis
(Ed.). Self-esteem issues and answers: A sourcebook of current perspectives (pp. 4–9). New
York, NY: Psychology Press.
Carroll, J. B. (2002). The five-factor personality model: How complete and satisfactory is
it? In H. I. Braun, D. N. Jackson, & D. E. Wiley (Eds.). The role of constructs in psy-
chological and educational measurement (pp. 97–126). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Causadias, J. M., Salvatore, J. E., & Sroufe, L. A. (2012). Early patterns of self-regulation
as risk and promotive factors in development: A longitudinal study from childhood to
adulthood in a high-risk sample. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 36,

Aiena, B. J., Baczwaski, B. J., Schulenberg, S. E., & Buchanan, E. M. (2015). Measuring
resilience with the RS-14: A tale of two samples. Journal of Personality Assessment, 97,
1
Articles used for meta-analysis are listed on Supplementary document.

59
A. Oshio et al.
293–302. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0165025412444076.
Cohn, M. A., Fredrickson, B. L., Brown, S. L., Mikels, J. A., & Conway, A. M. (2009).
Happiness unpacked: Positive emotions increase life satisfaction by building resi-
lience. Emotion, 9, 361–368. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0015952.
Connor, K. M., & Davidson, J. R. T. (2003). Development of a new resilience scale: The
Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC). Depression and Anxiety, 18, 76–82.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/da.10113.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Professional manual for the Revised NEO
Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI). Odessa, FL:
Psychological Assessment Resources.
Cramer, P. (2000). Development of identity: Gender makes a difference. Journal of
Research in Personality, 34, 42–72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jrpe.1999.2270.
Di Fabio, A., & Saklofske, D. H. (2014). Promoting individual resources: The challenge of
trait emotional intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 65, 19–23. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.01.026.
Friborg, O., Hjemdal, O., Rosenvinge, J. H., & Martinussen, M. (2003). A new rating scale
for adult resilience: What are the central protective resources behind healthy ad-
justment? International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 12, 65–76. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1002/mpr.143.
Funder, D. C., & Block, J. (1989). The role of ego-control, ego-resiliency, and IQ in delay
of gratification in adolescence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57,
1041–1050. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.6.1041.
Funder, D. C., Block, J. H., & Block, J. (1983). Delay of gratification: Some longitudinal
personality correlates. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 1198–1213.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.44.6.1198.
Gough, H. G. (1956). California psychological inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting
Psychologists Press (Form 480).
Gramzow, R. H., Sedikides, C., Panter, A. T., Sathy, V., Harris, J., & Insko, C. A. (2004).
Patterns of self-regulation and the Big Five. European Journal of Personality, 18,
367–385. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/per.513.
Hathaway, S. R., & McKinley, J. C. (1951). Minnesota multiphasic personality inventory,
manual (revised). New York, NY: The Psychological Corporation.
Harter, S. (1999). The construction of the self: A developmental perspective. New York, NY:
Guilford Press.
Hedges, L. V., & Vevea, J. L. (1998). Fixed- and random-effects models in meta-analysis.
Psychological Methods, 3, 486–504. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.3.4.486.
Hu, T., Zhang, D., & Wang, J. (2015). A meta-analysis of the trait resilience and mental
health. Personality and Individual Differences, 76, 18–27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
paid.2014.11.039.
Huey, S. J., & Weisz, J. R. (1997). Ego control, ego resiliency, and the Five-Factor Model
as predictors of behavioral and emotional problems in clinic-referred children and
adolescents. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 106, 404–415. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1037/0021-843X.106.3.404.
Isler, L., Fletcher, G. J. O., Liu, J. H., & Sibley, C. G. (2017). Validation of the four-profile
configuration of personality types within the five-factor model. Personality and
Individual Differences, 106, 257–262. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.10.058.
Isler, L., Liu, J. H., Sibley, C. G., & Fletcher, G. J. O. (2016). Self-regulation and per-
sonality profiles: Empirical development, longitudinal stability and predictive ability.
European Journal of Personality, 30, 274–287. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/per.2054.
John, O. P., Naumann, L. P., & Soto, C. J. (2008). Paradigm shift to the integrative Big
Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and conceptual issues. In O. P. John, R.
W. Robins, & L. A. Pervin (Eds.). Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp.
114–158). (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement,
and theoretical perspectives. In L. A. Pervin, & O. P. John (Eds.). Handbook of per-
sonality: Theory and research (pp. 102–138). (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Kobasa, S. C. (1979). Stressful life events, personality, and health: An inquiry into
hardiness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1–11. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/0022-3514.37.1.1.
Laufer, W. S., Johnson, J. A., & Hogan, R. (1981). Ego control and criminal behavior.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 179–184. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
0022-3514.41.1.179.
Letzring, T. D., Block, J., & Funder, D. C. (2005). Ego-control and ego-resiliency:
Generalization of self-report scales based on personality descriptions from acquain-
tances, clinicians, and the self. Journal of Research in Personality, 39, 395–422. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2004.06.003.
Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
publications.
Liu, Y., Wang, Z., Zhou, C., & Li, T. (2014). Affect and self-esteem as mediators between
trait resilience and psychological adjustment. Personality and Individual Differences,
66, 92–97. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.03.023.
Liu, Y., Wang, Z. H., & Li, Z. G. (2012). Affective mediators of the influence of neuroticism
and resilience on life satisfaction. Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 833–838.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.01.017.
Luther, S. S., Cicchetti, D., & Becker, B. (2000). The construct of resilience: A critical
evaluation and guidelines for work. Child Development, 71, 543–562. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1111/1467-8624.00164.
Lyons, J. (1991). Strategies for assessing the potential for positive adjustment following
trauma. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 4, 93–111. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
BF00976011.
Mak, W. W. S., Ng, I. S. W., & Wong, C. C. Y. (2011). Resilience: Enhancing well-being
through the positive cognitive triad. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 58, 610–617.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0025195.
Masten, A. S. (2001). Ordinary magic: Resilience process in development. American
60
Personality and Individual Differences 127 (2018) 54–60
Psychologist, 56, 227–238. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0003-066X.56.3.227.
Masten, A. S., Best, K. M., & Garmezy, N. (1990). Resilience and development.
Contributions from the study of children who overcome adversity. Development and
Psychopathology, 2, 425–444. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0954579400005812.
Nakaya, M., Oshio, A., & Kaneko, H. (2006). Correlations for adolescent resilience scale
with big five personality traits. Psychological Reports, 98, 927–930. http://dx.doi.org/
10.2466/pr0.98.3.927-930.
O'Connor (2002). A quantitative review of the comprehensiveness of the five-factor model
in relation to popular personality inventories. Assessment, 9, 188–203. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1177/10791102009002010.
Ong, A. D., Bergerman, C. S., Bisconti, T. L., & Wallace, K. A. (2006). Psychological re-
silience, positive emotions and successful adaptation in later life. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 730e749. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0024791.
Oshio, A., Kaneko, H., Nagamine, S., & Nakaya, M. (2003). Construct validity of the
Adolescent Resilience Scale. Psychological Reports, 93, 1217–1222. http://dx.doi.org/
10.2466/pr0.2003.93.3f.1217.
Oshio, A., Nakaya, M., Kaneko, H., & Nagamine, S. (2002). Development and validation of
an Adolescent Resilience Scale. Japanese Journal of Counseling Science, 35, 57–65.
Prince-Embury, S., Saklofske, D. H., & Nordstokke, D. W. (2017). The Resiliency Scale for
Young Adults. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 35, 276–290.
Prince-Embury, S., Saklofske, D. H., & Vesely, A. K. (2015). Measures of resiliency. In G. J.
Boyle, D. H. Saklofske, & G. Matthews (Eds.). Measures of personality and social psy-
chological constructs (pp. 290–321). San Diego: Academic Press.
Robins, R. W., John, O. P., Caspi, A., Moffitt, T. E., & Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (1996).
Resilient, overcontrolled, and undercontrolled boys: Three replicable personality
types. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 157–171. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1037/0022-3514.70.1.157.
Robins, R. W., Tracy, J. L., Trzesniewski, K., Potter, J., & Gosling, S. D. (2001). Personality
correlates of self-esteem. Journal of Research in Personality, 35, 463–482. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1006/jrpe.2001.2324.
Rutter, M. (1985). Resilience in the face of adversity: Protective factors and resistance to
psychiatric disorders. British Journal of Psychology, 147, 598–611. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1192/bjp.147.6.598.
Rutter, M., & Quinton, D. (1984). Long-term follow-up of women institutionalized in
childhood: Factors promoting good functioning in adult life. British Journal of
Developmental Psychology, 18, 225–234. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-835X.
1984.tb00925.x.
Sava, F. A., & Popa, R. I. (2011). Personality types based on the Big Five model: A cluster
analysis over the Romanian population. Cognition, Brain, Behavior: An Interdisciplinary
Journal, 15, 359–384.
Schmidt, F. L., Oh, I. S., & Hayes, T. L. (2009). Fixed- versus random-effects models in
meta-analysis: Model properties and an empirical comparison of differences in re-
sults. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 62, 97–128. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1348/000711007X255327.
Southwick, S. M., Bonanno, G. A., Masten, A. S., Panter-Brick, C., & Yehuda, R. (2014).
Resilience definitions, theory, and challenges: Interdisciplinary perspectives.
European Journal of Psychotraumatology, 5, 25338. http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/ejpt.
v5.25338.
Specht, J., Luhmann, M., & Geiser, C. (2014). On the consistency of personality types
across adulthood: Latent profile analyses in two large-scale panel studies. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 107, 540–556. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
a0036863.
Steca, P., Alessandri, G., & Caprara, G. V. (2010). The utility of a well-known personality
typology in studying successful aging: Resilients, undercontrollers, and over-
controllers in old age. Personality and Individual Differences, 48, 442–446. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2009.11.016.
Thompson, R. A. (1994). Emotional regulation: A theme in search of definition.
Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 59, 25–52.
Vecchione, M., Alessandri, G., Barbaranelli, C., & Gerbino, M. (2010). Stability and
change of ego resiliency from late adolescence to young adulthood: A multi-
perspective study using the ER89-R scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 92,
212–221. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00223891003670166.
Wagnild, G. M. (2009a). A review of the Resilience Scale. Journal of Nursing Measurement,
17, 105–113. http://dx.doi.org/10.1891/1061-3749.17.2.105.
Wagnild, G. M. (2009b). The Resilience Scale User's Guide for the US English version of The
Resilience Scale and The 14-Item Resilience Scale (RS-14). Worden, MT: The Resilience
Center.
Wagnild, G. M., & Young, H. M. (1993). Development and psychometric evaluation of the
Resilience Scale. Journal of Nursing Measurement, 1, 165–178.
Waugh, C. E., Fredrickson, B. L., & Taylor, S. F. (2008). Adapting to life's slings and
arrows: Individual differences in resilience when recovering from an anticipated
threat. Journal of Research in Personality, 42, 1031–1046. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.jrp.2008.02.005.
Westenberg, P. M., & Block, J. (1993). Ego development and individual differences in
personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 792–800. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1037/0022-3514.65.4.792.
Windle, G., Bennett, K. M., & Noyes, J. (2011). A methodological review of resilience
measurement scales. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 9, 8. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1186/1477-7525-9-8.
Wolin, S. J., & Wolin, S. (1993). Bound and determined: Growing up resilient in a troubled
family. New York: Villard Press.
Yamada, T., & Inoue, S. (2012). Meta-bunseki nyuumon. Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press.
Zeb, N., Naqvi, I., & Zonash, R. (2013). Big-Five personality traits and ego-resilience in
Amputee soldiers. Journal of Behavioural Sciences, 23, 102–116.