UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY

Resilience and Self-Talk in University Students

by

Ronaye Coulson

A THESIS

SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES

IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE

DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE

DIVISION OF APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY

CALGARY,ALBERTA

NOVEMBER, 2006

© Ronaye Coulson, 2006

 Abstract

One of the conceptual developments in the field of resilience is the recognition that individuals

have the potential to actually benefit and thrive from adversity. Hence, the concept of four levels

of resilience has been suggested - succumbing, surviving, recovering, thriving. Numerous

variables have been postulated to account for individual differences in level of resilience; one

that has not received attention is self-talk. Resilient self-talk is introduced as a specific type of

positive self-talk utilized during difficult times in our lives (e.g., "Everything happens for a

reason"). University students (N = 291) completed a questionnaire that assessed their (a) self-

perceived level of personal resilience (the 4 levels); (b) frequency of engaging in resilient self-

talk and its importance to them; (c) variables related to use of resilient self-talk, including 25

characteristics of resilient individuals (e.g., optimism, problem-solving ability); reasons for

engaging in resilient self-talk (e.g., motivation, focus), experience oflife difficulty; and (d)

demographic information. The relationship between frequency of self-talk and perceived level

of resilience is considerably stronger than for importance; e.g. frequency (but not importance) of

self-talk distinguishes between levels of resilience. A number of variables were also related to

the use of resilient self-talk, particularly reframing and social support (characteristics of

resilience), and motivation (a reason for using resilient self-talk).

111
 Acknowledgements

First and foremost, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my incredible

supervisor, Dr. Gregory Fouts. His inspiration, unfailing support, and encouragement both

fostered my passion and enthusiasm for research, and greatly enriched my graduate experience.

Thanks to Greg, I have been shown what makes an incredible supervisor and mentor. Thank

you for providing me with priceless feedback and guidance that has inspired me more than you

will ever know.

I would like to thank my thesis committee, Dr. John Mueller, Dr, Marilyn Samuels, and

Dr. Jim Paul, for taking the time out of their busy schedules to provide me with thoughtful

feedback. I would also like to thank all of the individuals who participated in this research study,

because without them this research would not be possible.

A very special thanks goes to my family, Droy, Sharole, and Jollean, who provided me

with the positive encouragement, unfailing support, and understanding that only a family could.

Thank you for being there unconditionally throughout this entire process, cheering me on every

step of the way. Your belief in me provided me with unforgettable inspiration and motivation,

allowing me to dream big and follow through!

To my partner, Josh, thank you for your consistently encouraging words and

understanding throughout this process. Your daily support was priceless in fostering the

motivation to 'get' er done!' Also, a special thanks to my friends and colleagues for their support

and for being there for me throughout this process.

Finally, I would also like to thank Devon, Chris, and Debby for their valuable assistance

in helping me to create the Web Page for this study. Your creativity, time, and knowledge was

very much appreciated.

lV
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Approval page ................................................................................................. .ii

Abstract ......................................................................................................... iii

Acknowledgements .......................................................................................... .iv

Table of Contents .............................................................................................. v

List of Figures ................................................................................................ vii

List of Tables ................................................................................................ viii

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ........................................................................ 1

Resilience .............................................................................................. 3
Self-Talk ............................................................................................... 8
Variables Related to Resilient Self-Talk ......................................................... 14
Overview of the Present Study .................................................................... 18

CHAPTER TWO: METHOD .............................................................................. 20

Recruitment and Participants ..................................................................... 20

Questionnaire ....................................................................................... 20
Procedure ............................................................................................ 26

CHAPTER THREE: RESULTS ........................................................................... 28

Levels of Resilience ................................................................................ 28

Resilient Self-Talk .................................................................................. 29
Variables Related to Resilient Self Talk .......................................................... 33

CHAPTER FOUR: DISCUSSION ........................................................................ 46

Levels of Resilience ................................................................................. 46

Resilient Self-Talk .................................................................................. 47
Variables Related to Resilient Self-Talk ......................................................... 50
Implications for Counselling and Education ..................................................... 55
Limitations of Study ................................................................................. 57
Suggestions for Future Research ................................................................... 59

REFERENCES ............................................................................................... 63

APPENDIX A: Questionnaire ............................................................................. 73

V
APPENDIX B: Consent Form ............................................................................. 87

APPENDIX C: Debriefing Form .......................................................................... 90

APPENDIX D: Information Page ......................................................................... 91

APPENDIX E: Mean Frequency and Importance of the 36 Resilient Self-Statements ............ 93

Vl
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Levels of Resilience ............................................................................... 5

Figure 2. Percent of Participants at Each Point on the Perceived Resilience Scale .................. 28

Figure 3. Frequency and Importance of Resilient Self-Talk, Males and Females ................... 29

Figure 4. Relationships Between Perceived Resilience and Frequency and Importance of

Resilient Self-Talk Using the 10-point Perceived Resilience Scale ....................... 30

Figure 5. Relationships Between Levels of Perceived Resilience and Frequency and

Importance of Resilient Self-Talk ............................................................... 31

Vll
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Twenty-five Resiliency Characteristics ......................................................... 15

Table 2. Correlations Between the 25 Resilient Characteristics and Frequency and

Importance of Resilient Self-Talk ............................................................... 34

Table 3. Percentages of Participants Experiencing Difficulty in Four Realms of Life ............. 38

Table 4. Correlations Between Life Difficulty Variables and Resilient Self-Talk

Frequency and Importance ....................................................................... 39

Table 5. Percentages and Means for Responding to Reasons for Self-Talk ......................... .42

Table 6. Correlations Between Reasons for Self-Talk and Frequency and

Importance of Resilient Self-Talk .............................................................. .43

vm
 Resilience and Self-Talk in University Students

Most individuals face adverse circumstances or challenges. As a result, many experience

stress and interruptions in their lives but eventually "bounce back" to their previous levels of

functioning; some actually benefit and experience positive changes, while others experience

relatively long-term impairment. One area of research that addresses these differing levels of

adaptation to adversity is "resilience." Early research focused on vulnerability, risk and

psychopathology (e.g., Garmezy, 1971, 1974; Radke-Yarrow & Brown, 1993; Rutter, 1985;

Werner & Smith, 1982). However, in the past several years, researchers have increasingly

focused on the different competencies or strengths, adaptation strategies, and kinds of

invulnerability (O'Leary & Ickovics, 1995) that help individuals mitigate and possibly benefit

from the potentially harmful effects of adversity (e.g., Benard, 2004; Conrad & Hammen, 1993;

Luthar, Doernberger, & Zigler, 1993; Masten & Powell, 1993; Werner & Smith, 2001).

Resilience associated with a variety of adverse life events has been investigated, e.g., war

(Fontana & Rosenheck, 1998); criminal victimization (McMillen, Smith, & Fisher, 1997);

bereavement (Calhoun & Tedeschi, 1989-1990); breast cancer (Snodgrass, 1998); rape (Burt &

Katz, 1987); stroke (Thompson, 1991); divorce (Quinney & Fouts, 2003; Wallerstein, 1986);

political imprisonment (Maerker & Schutzwohl, 1997); disaster (Thompson, 1985); and reverse

culture shock (Coulson & Fouts, 2004). The conclusion from this research is that a majority of

people possess an intrinsic potential for long-term positive growth and learning; there are

" ... some fundamental systems characteristic of human functioning that have great adaptational

significance across diverse stressors and threatening situations" (Masten & Powell, 2003, p.15).

Many variables have been found to contribute to resilience, e.g., optimism and hope

(Park, Cohen, & Murch, 1996; Tedeschi & Calhoun, 1996; Jew, Green, & Kroger, 1999);
 2

internal locus of control (Jew et. al., 1999; Park, 1998; Werner & Smith, 1992); self esteem, self

worth and self efficacy (Hunter & Chandler, 1999; Kumpfer, 1999; Siebert, 1996); confidence in

problem solving skills, adaptiveness and flexibility (Carver, 1998; Werner & Smith, 1992);

intellectual functioning (Masten et al., 1999); spirituality or religiousness (Park et al., 1996);

empathy (Werner, 1992); having a support group (Carbonelli, Reinherz, & Giaconia, 1998); and

having a sense of humour (Kumpfer, 1999; Vaillant, 2000; Wolin & Wolin, 1993). One variable

that has received no research attention is how we talk to ourselves when facing adversity. Past

research has shown that self-talk plays an important role in mediating between events and our

reactions to the events (Calvete & Cardefioso, 2002) as well as in shaping our thoughts and

feelings and directing our behaviour (Morin, 1993; Pedersen, 1999). Nevertheless, the

relationship between resilient self-talk (e.g., "I know I can get through this," "There's a silver

lining to every dark cloud") and resilience is unknown, i.e., whether resilient self-talk contributes

to resilience. Therefore, the purpose of the present study was to assess the relationship between

engaging in resilient self-talk and level of resilience in university students. A second purpose

was to assess the relationships between several variables that may be positively associated with

engaging in resilient self-talk; these were demographic (e.g., age, gender) and personal

characteristics (e.g., optimism, reframing, flexibility), difficulty of adversity experienced (e.g., in

relationships, school, work), and reasons for engaging in resilient self-talk (e.g., for motivation,

to focus attention on a personal strength).

This research is important for four reasons. First, Park (1998) suggested that an important

challenge for research is to determine why people differ in resilience. The present study

attempted to discover whether engaging in resilient self-talk may, in part, account for this

variability. Second, there is considerable research indicating that positive self-talk is related to
 3

one's sense of well-being and ability to adapt (e.g., Ingram, Kendall, Siegle, Guarino, &

McLaughlin, 1995; Ingram & Wisnicki, 1988; Meichenbaum, 1972; Philpot & Bamburg, 1996).

If engaging in resilient self-talk can be shown to be related to higher levels of resiliency, this has

implications for mental health practitioners, e.g., using intervention/prevention strategies that

foster the learning and/or use of resilient self-talk for those experiencing adversity. Third, the

identification of several individual difference variables (e.g., gender, personal characteristics)

and circumstances (e.g., level of difficulty in experiencing adversity, reasons for self-talk) may

facilitate the individualization of counselling interventions that use resilient self-talk. Fourth,

introducing the concept of resilience into the self-talk literature potentially expands future

research and theory development in both areas.

The remainder of this introduction is organized in the following way. First, the research

regarding resilience is briefly reviewed; this is followed by how resilience was measured in the

present study and the posing of research questions. The second section reviews the research on

self-talk, with special attention given to resilient self-talk and its measurement. The hypothesized

relationship between resilient self-talk and level of resilience is discussed. The third section

outlines several variables assumed to be related to engaging in self-talk: demographic variables,

resilient personal characteristics, level of difficulty in experiencing adversity, and reasons for

engaging in resilient self-talk. After presenting each variable, its measurement and hypotheses or

research questions are posed. The final section presents an overview of the design of the present

study.

Resilience

In the past, researchers in resilience focused primarily on the negative sequelae after

experiencing stressful and traumatic events, especially during childhood. There is a long history
 4

of resilience research regarding childhood developmental psychopathology and vulnerability,

including longitudinal work involving at-risk youth (e.g., Garmezy & Tellegen, 1984; Masten,

1994; Radke-Yarrow & Brown, 1993; Werner, 1992; Werner & Smith, 1982). This early work

was later augmented by an increased focus on competence, adaptation and invulnerability

(Luthar et al., 1993; Masten et al., 1999; O'Leary & Ickovics, 1995). At the present time, the

commonly accepted conclusion is that most people possess the potential for long-term positive

growth and learning and many do bounce back from very stressful times (e.g., Blunt Bugental,

2004; Carver, 1998; O'Leary & Ickovics, 1995; Park, 1998).

Rutter (1987) suggested that resilience has four functions. Being resilient reduces the risk

of experiencing negative consequences following adverse events; it reduces the likelihood of

chain reactions or the cascading of negative sequelae; it helps to establish/maintain self-esteem

and efficacy; and it enhances growth-promoting opportunities. At least three different

mechanisms underlying resilience have been suggested (Werner, 2000) - compensation,

immunization and challenge; these may not be mutually exclusive. In the compensatory model,

the outcome following adversity is determined by some additive combination of stress and

protective (resilient) personal qualities; i.e., stress or risk factors can be counteracted by resilient

qualities and social support systems (Garmezy, Masten, & Tellegen, 1984). In the immunity

model, resilience operates indirectly to influence outcome (O'Leary, 1998); i.e., it moderates the

impact of stress on the individual, but resilience may not be obvious in the absence of stress.

The challenge model posits that a stressor can be viewed as a potential enhancer of successful

adaptation as long as it is not excessive (Garmezy et al., 1984), with very high levels of stress

resulting in dysfunction and too little stress not being challenging enough. Thus, moderate levels

of stress challenge individuals and when overcome, can result in strengthened competence
 5

(O'Leary, 1998), thereby preparing them for future challenges. Resilience, however, is not

considered a personality characteristic or trait, but rather, a dynamic process or phenomenon,

with numerous mitigating factors (Luthar, 1991). Similarly, O'Leary and Ickovics (1995) point

out that although an individual may emerge from adversity with benefit and positive change,

there is no guarantee that the same outcome will occur with concurrent or successive challenges.

Levels of resilience. In the mid- l 990s, a new conceptual development occurred in the

area of resilience; the notion of "levels" of resilience was introduced (e.g., Carver, 1998;

O'Leary & Ickovics, 1995). In an article discussing women's health, O'Leary and Ickovics

(1995) proposed a model of resilience that went beyond the view of resilience being merely a

homeostatic return to equilibrium following a challenge. They proposed four different outcomes

(levels) that could result from experiencing adversity (Figure 1) - succumbing, survival, recovery

and thriving. These four levels were further developed by Carver (1998).

Figure 1. Levels of resilience.

Well-being
baseline

Succumber Survivor Recoverer Thriver

Succumbing is described as a continual downward slide in which an individual eventually

succumbs or "gives up" after facing adversity (Carver, 1998). This level is likely due to an

individual finding the adversity too challenging or overwhelming. Examples of potential

 6

outcomes are turning to drugs or alcohol, experiencing clinical depression and committing

suicide. Survivors are those who are unable to achieve or return to a healthy level of

psychological and emotional functioning following adversity. That is, the effects of

experiencing adversity are so debilitating that they are unable to fully recover and are impaired

or diminished in some respect (O'Leary & Ickovics, 1995). These individuals may experience

long-term negative feelings, thoughts and/or behaviours, e.g., inability to engage in close

personal relationships, reduced job satisfaction, depression (Carver, 1998). Recoverers are

individuals who are able to return ("bounce back") to the psychological and emotional levels of

functioning and adaptation experienced prior to the adversity (Carver, 1998; O'Leary &

Ickovics, 1995), although there may be some minimal, residual long-term effects. Thus,

recoverers re-engage with activities and often reintegrate their lives; they represent what is

commonly referred to as "resilient individuals." Thrivers not only return to their previous level

of functioning after experiencing adversity, they actually surpass this level in some respect

(Carver, 1998). That is, the process of engaging and coping with the challenge brings about

qualities that leave an individual better off (O'Leary & Ickovics, 1995) or at a higher level of

functioning (Caver, 1998). O'Leary and Ickovics (1995) view thriving as a transformative

process that adds value to life. This may be manifested behaviourally, cognitively and/or

emotionally, e.g., with increased sense of purpose in life, clarity of vision, or reordering of role

priorities (O'Leary & Ickovics, 1995) as well as new skill development or strengthening of

personal relationships (Carver, 1998).

Park (1998) presented an overview of the literature describing thriving. She concluded

that there is convincing evidence that many people do, in fact, experience genuine growth

following adversity. On the other hand, Cohen, Cimbolic, Armeli and Hettler (1998) suggested
 7

that the evidence for positive change following adversity is still in an inchoate stage and refer to

this positive change as "stress-related growth" rather than "thriving." Park (1998; Park et al.,

1996) pointed out that these two terms are often used interchangeably due, in part, to the lack of

a standard lexicon in the area. In the present study, "growth" is used to refer to "any number of

positive changes a person reports experiencing following stressful experiences" (e.g., positive

changes in values, goals, relationships, philosophy); "thriving" is used to refer to "a higher level

of functioning in some life domain following a stressful encounter" (Park, 1998, p. 269).

Although stress-related growth likely leads to thriving, research has not yet documented this

assumption. The focus of the current study is on thriving.

In the present study, level of resilience was assessed using a global (non-situational) self-

report measure which was very similar to that developed by Coulson and Fouts (2004) and Fouts

and Mottosky (2004) for university students. It has considerable reliability (Chronbach a= .95)

and validity; e.g., it delineates levels of resilience that are related to characteristics of resilient

individuals (Coulson & Fouts, 2004; Fouts & Mottosky, 2004) and it predicts level of post-stress

adjustment (Coulson & Fouts, 2004). Students are asked to read general descriptions of the four

levels of resilience and to rate themselves as to which description most closely resembles them.

This scale is based on the following assumptions: (a) The self-report measure allows individuals

to report how they perceive their own level of resilience across situations; (b) it allows them to

use their own personally constructed baseline of resilience; and (c) measuring change in level of

resilience is consistent with the view that resilience may differ across situations (O'Leary &

Ickovics, 1995).

Research questions and hypotheses. The following research questions were posed:
 8

(a) What percentages of university students occur at the four levels of self-perceived resilience?

(b) Are there age and/or gender differences in self-perceived resilience?

It was hypothesized that there will be an over-representation of higher levels of resilience

(recoverers and thrivers) in university students. This hypothesis was based on (a) the assumption

that this particular group (those who have succeeded academically) likely possess a myriad of

skills and characteristics that would contribute to successfully navigating difficult circumstances;

and (b) findings from previous research (studying students who have studied abroad) that found

the vast majority perceived themselves as thrivers or in transition to thriving (Coulson & Fouts,

2004). It was also hypothesized that women may report higher levels of perceived resilience

than men; this is based on the research by Tedeschi and Calhoun (1996), who found that women

are more likely than men to report stress-related growth.

Self-Talk

There is a considerable theoretical and research literature defining and conceptualizing

self-talk and assessing its functions and importance. Its early beginnings started with Albert Ellis

and Aaron Beck (1976); since then, researchers have systematically examined the role of self-

talk in many areas of life. Self-talk has been defined as a cognitive product that reflects what

people say to themselves (inner speech) and represents their beliefs and thoughts regarding

themselves, others and the world (Calvete & Cardefioso, 2002). Meichenbaum (1977; cited in

Pedersen, 1999) described this inner speech as:

Soundless, mental speech, arising at the instant we think about something, plan, or solve

problems in our minds, recall books read or conversations heard, read and write

silently ... The elements of inner speech are found in all our conscious perceptions,
 9

actions, and emotional experiences, where they manifest themselves as verbal sets,

instructions to oneself, or as verbal interpretation of sensations and perceptions (p.12).

Self-talk influences our behaviour in a way similar to that of statements made by others

(Pedersen, 1999); i.e., it shapes our thoughts, feelings and behaviours (Morin, 1993). As

described by Pedersen (1999), "The world is as it is only because we tell ourselves that it is so as

we talk with ourselves and maintain our worldview with our own internal talk" (p.10). Research

has demonstrated that self-talk affects many aspects of our daily functioning. For example, self-

statements influence mood (Burgess & Haaga, 1994; Ingram & Wisnicki, 1988; Ohrt, Sjodin, &

Thorell, 1999; Philpot & Bamburg, 1996; Philpot, Holliman, & Madonna, 1995); anxiety level

(Ingram & Wisnicki, 1988; Ohrt et. al., 1999; Philpot & Bamburg, 1996); motivation and

behaviour (Ingram & Wisnicki, 1988; Philpot & Bamburg, 1996); self-esteem (Philpot et al.,

1995); athletic performance (Hardy, Hall, & Hardy, 2004); therapy process due to therapist self-

talk (Nutt-Williams & Hill, 1996); and psychological adjustment in adolescents (Calvete &

Cardefioso, 2002).

Various authors have proposed different functions of self-talk. For example, Morin

(1993, 1995) summarized research that revealed functions such as self-regulation, planning,

problem-solving, mediation of self-awareness, focusing attention on tasks and carrying

information in general. Pederson (1999) suggested that self-talk provides a way to "actively

manipulate the environment, evaluate ourselves, find meaning, and direct our behaviour

accordingly" (p. 12); while Calvete and Cardefioso (2002) proposed that self-talk plays an

important role as a mediator between emotions, events and our reactions to events. Fields (2002)

stated that silent repetition of a word or phrase can be useful because repetition maintains a high

priority of the problem or problematic situation throughout our cognitive system, especially
 10

when the coping process is not successful; i.e., repetitive self-talk highlights and labels issues as

important for us.

There are several kinds of self-talk, e.g., positive, negative, self-affirmations. The most

common distinction is between positive and negative self-talk (e.g., Calvete & Cardefioso, 2002;

Ingram & Wisnicki, 1988; Philpot & Bamburg, 1996); several measures have been developed to

assess them. For example, the Automatic Thoughts Questionnaire (ATQ; Hollon & Kendall,

1980) was developed as a brief measure of automatic negative thoughts often related to

depression (e.g., "I'm a failure," "What's wrong with me?"); it became one of the most widely

used measures of negative cognitions. Years later, the Positive Automatic Thoughts

Questionnaire (ATQ-P; Ingram et al., 1995) was developed to assess the frequency of positive

self-statements in a manner complementary and comparable to the ATQ (e.g., "I have a good

sense of humour," "I am happy with the way I look"). Both the ATQ and ATQ-P have high

reliability and validity (Hollon & Kendall, 1980; Ingram & Wisnicki, 1988; Ingram et al., 1995;

Ohrt et al., 1999) and were later combined to create the Automatic Thoughts Questionnaire-

Revised (ATQ-R; Kendall, Howard, & Hays, 1989).

Research examining the functions of positive and negative self-talk has revealed different

functions, especially as they relate to psychological well-being (Calvete & Cardefioso, 2002).

For example, Calvete and Cardefioso have suggested that positive self-talk has a more significant

impact on psychological wellness than does negative self-talk. On the other hand, it has been

proposed that the absence of negative thinking, rather than the presence of positive thinking, has

the more powerful effect on psychological health (Kendall, 1984; Kendall & Hollon, 1981 ).

More recently, the focus has been on the proportion of positive-to-negative self-statements

(Kendall et al., 1989; Schwartz & Michaelson, 1987). Often referred to as the States-of-Mind
 11

model (e.g., Calvete & Cardefioso, 2002), proponents have reported that the optimal ratio

(positive self-statements+ by positive+ negative self-statements) for psychological well-being

falls between .67 and .90. Cognitive-behavioural interventions have been designed to modify

positive and negative cognitions through associated self-talk to develop a more adaptive belief

system and cognitive structure. A review of the intervention research (Philpot & Bamburg, 1996)

revealed that increasing positive self-statements and/or decreasing negative self-statements is

effective in (a) decreasing scores on depression scales, (b) decreasing self-defeating behaviours,

(c) decreasing stress scores, and (d) increasing self-esteem. Thus, learning how to change the

way we talk to ourselves positively impacts our well-being and our interactions with the world

around us.

Resilient self-talk. The major purpose of this study was to suggest that there may be a

specific kind of positive self-talk (resilient self-talk) and that it may be related to resilience.

Resilient self-talk is defined as a type of deliberate, self-directed speech that (a) focuses

individuals on their positive resources, beliefs and abilities (e.g., "I have to look at the big

picture," "I can handle this"); (b) highlights their belief and ability that they can "get through"

difficult times (e.g., "I have the strength to get through this"); and (c) helps them endure the

negative aspects of adversity without long-term detrimental effects (e.g., "Everything happens

for a reason"). This definition is consistent with the definition of resilience as an individual's

overall ability and disposition to positively adjust in the face of a major adversity (Jew et al.,

1999; McMillen, 1999; Siebert, 1996).

Resilient self-talk can be distinguished from the positive self-statements commonly

discussed in the self-talk research literature. There are three distinctions. First, resilient self-talk

directly or indirectly addresses the negativity of the challenge/adversity or an individual's

 12

experience of it; it also possesses a quality that infuses the situation or emotion with positivity.

To illustrate, compare positive self-statements taken from the Automatic Thoughts

Questionnaire-Positive (e.g., "I'm fun to be with," "My social life is terrific;" Ingram &

Wisnicki, 1988) to resilient self-talk items in the scale developed for the present study; e.g.,

"There is a silver lining to every dark cloud," "I can handle this." All resilient self-talk involves

positive self-statements, but not all positive self-statements are resilient in nature. Second, the

content of resilient self-talk reflects a philosophy, belief or quality of the self that the individual

deems useful when faced with difficult times; e.g., "Make the best of a bad situation," "If I get

knocked down, I get back up again." This is in contrast with positive self statements in the ATQ-

p that are not directly associated with adversity (e.g., "I take good care of myself," "My life is

running smoothly"). Third, the level of deliberateness differs. Researchers regard positive and

negative self-talk as operating automatically regardless of whether it is initiated with or without

awareness (Ingram et. al., 1995). As Patterson (1988) states, "Automaticity has been identified

as a condition that allows previously learned mental functioning to occur with minimal drain on

our limited capacity attentional mechanism" (cited in Pedersen, 1999; p.10). Thus, positive and

negative self-statements occur with relatively little focus of attention or cognitive energy. On the

other hand, resilient self-statements are based on a type of awareness and deliberation similar to

what Fields (2002) refers to as "reflective deliberation;" i.e., " ... a distinguishing feature of the

sort of reasoning that we call deliberate, other than our awareness of it, is that it takes time. We

reason deliberately about problems for which we are not experts - expert reasoning is fluent and

fast as well as largely unconscious" (p. 264). When we come across new challenging or

distressing situations, we are not experts in dealing with them; therefore, unless there is denial,

some deliberative process takes place to ameliorate or mediate its negativity. One way is by
 13

deliberately using resilient self-statements that acknowledge the negative experience and

mobilize one's cognitive resources to deal with the situation.

In the present study, there were two measures of resilient self-talk using a self-report

methodology - its frequency and its perceived importance to the individual's belief system. Two

measures were used because (a) it is unknown whether the frequency of use or its importance is

more highly related to perceived resilience, and (b) the relationship between frequency and

importance of use is unknown. The resilient self-talk instrument was developed by initially

creating lists of presumed resilient self-statements derived from several sources, including

popular and resilience literature (e.g., Budd & Rothstein, 2000; Park et al., 1996; Peale, 1952),

and presenting them to graduate students in Counselling Psychology. They were asked to

indicate which self-statements they said to themselves during difficult times; they could also

suggest additional resilient self-statements. Several waves of this process occurred until a final

list of 36 statements appeared to reflect relatively frequent use to the student volunteers.

Research questions and a hypothesis. There were four main research questions: (a) What

percentage of university students engage in resilient self-talk; (b) how often do they use resilient

self-statements and how important are they to their belief systems; (c) are there age and/or

gender differences in the frequency and importance of resilient self-talk; and (d) which resilient

self-statements are the most highly used/important to university students? Age and gender

differences in resilient self-talk usage were of interest because it is unknown whether age-related

experience and/or gender socialization differences may impact the frequency or importance of

resilient self-statements.

It was hypothesized that there will be a linear relationship between frequency and

importance of resilient self-talk and level of self-perceived resilience, i.e., succumbers <
 14

survivors< recoverers < thrivers. This is based on the rationale that such statements likely (a)

focus individuals on their positive resources, beliefs and abilities; (b) make salient their belief

and ability that they can "get through" difficult times; and (c) motivate them to endure the

negative aspects of adversity. A related research question was, how much does resilient self-talk

contribute to self-perceived resilience?

Variables Related to Resilient Self-Talk

The relationships between three variables and their relative contributions to resilient self-

talk were investigated. The variables were the resilient characteristics of individuals, the degree

of difficulty they had experienced when facing different kinds of adversity, and the different

reasons they had for engaging in resilient self-talk.

Resilient personal characteristics. Resilience researchers have identified several

personal characteristics and behaviours associated with resilient individuals, e.g., ability to

reframe, determination, spirituality, core strength, sense of humour, growth orientation, optimism

(e.g., Kumpfer, 1999; Siebert, 1996; Vaillant, 2000; Werner & Smith, 1992). Park (1998)

suggested that these characteristics may operate indirectly in producing resilience or that their

effect on overall resilience is mediated by variable(s) associated with the "coping process." One

such variable may be resilient self-talk; i.e., particular resilient characteristics result in using and

believing in particular kinds of resilient self-talk, which then contributes to resilience in the

individual. For example, being able to reframe may be associated with a resilient self-statement

such as "Every dark cloud has a silver lining;" determination may be associated with "When the

going gets tough, the tough get going;" spirituality with "I just have to have faith;" core strength

with "I have the strength to get through this;" a growth orientation with "What can I learn from
 15

this;" and optimism with "Always look on the bright side oflife." These self-statements may

then have attentional, informational and motivational properties that result in greater resilience.

In the present study, 25 resilient characteristics were assessed to determine their

relationship to resilient self-talk. This was done using the 50-item Resiliency Questionnaire

(Fouts, LaTosky, Quinney, & Knight, 2000) that assesses each characteristic that past research

has identified (e.g., Jew et al. 1999; Kumpfer, 1999; Werner & Smith, 1992); e.g., determination,

spirituality, connectedness, social support, courage, growth orientation, optimism. The 25

resilient characteristics are presented in Table 1. The Resiliency Questionnaire has high internal

consistency (Chronbach a= .95, Fouts & Mottosky, 2004; a= .88, Coulson & Fouts, 2004). It

also has high construct validity. For example, it distinguishes among thrivers, recoverers and

survivors after experiencing a major adversity (Fouts & Mottosky, 2004); identifies

characteristics necessary for positive adjustment and resilience following divorce (Quinney &

Fouts, 2003); and predicts students' adjustment after experiencing reverse culture shock

(Coulson & Fouts, 2004).

Table 1

Twenty-Five Resilience Characteristics

Resilience Characteristics
Locus of Control Support
Special Connection Spirituality
Attunement Self-Awareness
Flexibility/Adaptability Self-Esteem
Identity Courage
Empathy Core Strength
Optimism Forgiveness
Emotion Regulation Emotion Communication
Transcendence Problem Solving
Self-Perception of Thriving Growth Orientation
Reframing Meaning of Life
Physical Awareness Determination
Letting Go
 16

Research questions. Two general research questions were posed: (a) Which resilient

characteristics are related to the frequency and importance of resilient self-talk in university

students; and (b) what are the relative contributions of the resilient characteristics to the

frequency and importance of resilient self-talk in university students?

Degree of difficulty in experiencing adversity. Several authors have suggested that how

individuals perceive challenges can influence their resilience (e.g., Carver, 1998; O'Leary &

Ickovics, 1995). For example, Park (1998) argued that regardless of the "objective" difficulty of

a challenge, it is an individual's appraisal of the stressor that ultimately determines the response;

e.g., some individuals may perceive a challenge as highly stressful and overwhelming while

others may find the same challenge only mildly distressing. She further suggested that this

difference in appraisal may depend on how controllable they feel the situation to be and to what

extent they feel they have the resources to handle it. Garmezy and colleagues (1984) discussed

how perceiving situations as overwhelming can prevent individuals from learning and growing

from them, thereby diminishing their competence. O'Leary and Ickovics (1995) described the

latter situation as one that prevents one from thriving.

A purpose of this study was to assess the relationship between perceived difficulty in

experiencing adversity and the use of resilient self-talk. Of particular interest was whether the

degree of perceived difficulty would influence individuals' overall use and importance of

resilient self-talk and whether this, in tum, leads to different levels of resilience; i.e., is resilient

self-talk a mediator? Also of interest was whether different degrees of perceived difficulty in

different areas oflife may differentially influence one's use ofresilient self-talk. For example,

perhaps challenges related to loss (e.g., divorce, death) may result in individuals using more
 17

and/or different kinds of resilient self-talk than doing poorly in a course or having financial

difficulties.

Park and colleagues (1996) have reported that college students do experience highly

stressful events and most have experienced such an event within the last five months (at time of

assessment). In the present study, students' self-ratings of degree of difficulty were used since it

is their personal appraisals of stressfulness that determine their resulting behaviour (Carver,

1998). Several measures of perceived difficulty were used since perceived difficulty can vary

over time and across different challenging situations. They were as follows: (a) A single measure

of degree of perceived difficulty they are experiencing in their lives at the time of participation in

the study; (b) a single measure of perceived difficulty experienced across their lives in

comparison to their cohorts; and (c) separate measures that assess degree of perceived difficulty

in four areas of experience appropriate for university students - relationships, school, work and

psychological (Miloti, 2004; Park et al., 1996).

Research questions. Two research questions were posed: (a) What are the relationships

between the six measures of degree of perceived difficulty and the frequency and importance of

resilient self-talk in university students; and (b) what are the relative contributions of the six

areas of perceived difficulty to the frequency and importance of resilient self-talk in university

students?

Reasons for engaging in resilient self-talk. Individuals may have different reasons for

engaging in resilient self-talk when experiencing adversity, e.g., to keep focused and motivated,

to comfort themselves, to remind themselves of personal strengths and beliefs. This is consistent

with the definition of resilient self-talk in terms of having awareness and being deliberate in their

use of such self-statements. These reasons may influence the frequency of use of resilient self-
 18

statements and their importance to them. For example, individuals who are aware of their

motivational needs may engage in particular kinds of resilient self-talk, e.g., "When the going

gets tough, the tough get going," "Just do it." On the other hand, individuals who are dealing

with grief and trying to understand the loss may use a more philosophical kind of resilient self-

talk, e.g., "Everything happens for a reason." Thus, particular kinds of reasons for engaging in

resilient self-talk may influence the kinds of self-statements selected which, in turn, may

influence their level of resilience. It is also possible that individuals who pose no reasons for

engaging in self-talk (lack awareness) may be those who consequently have lower levels of

resilience.

For the present study, a 10-item measure was developed that attempted to assess nine

different reasons for engaging in resilient self-talk during difficult times. There was one item for

each reason, including having "no reason." Individuals were also allowed to add their own

perceived reason for engaging in resilient self-talk.

Research questions. Two research questions were posed: (a) What are the relationships

between the different kinds of reasons for engaging in resilient self-talk and the frequency and

importance of resilient self-talk in university students; and (b) what are the relative contributions

of the different kinds of reasons to the frequency and importance of resilient self-talk in

university students.

Overview of the Present Study

The purposes of the present study were to assess (a) the relationship between resilient

self-talk and self-perceived resilience in university students; and (b) the relationships between

several variables that may be positively associated with resilient self-talk (demographic and

resilient characteristics, degree of perceived difficulty when experiencing adversity and reasons
 19

for engaging in resilient self-talk). A questionnaire was designed to measure the following

variables:

• Demographic variables - age and gender;

• Resilient personal characteristics - 25 characteristics;

• Degree of perceived difficulty in experiencing adversity - relationships, school, work,

psychological, overall level and current level;

• Level of self-perceived resilience - succumber, survivor, recoverer and thriver;

• Resilient self-talk - frequency of use and its importance using 36 resilient self-

statements; and

• Reasons for engaging in resilient self-talk - motivation, comfort, acknowledging of

personal strengths/beliefs, affirmation, tap inner strengths, tap core beliefs, reassurance,

keep focus and "no purpose."

The measures of resilient personal characteristics (Fouts et al., 2000), level of self-

perceived resilience (Coulson & Fouts, 2004; Fouts & Mottosky, 2004; O'Leary & Ickovics,

1995), and degree of perceived difficulty (Miloti, 2004) used existing or slight modifications of

existing measures. The other measures were developed specifically for the present study; their

internal reliabilities and validity were examined.

University students taking undergraduate psychology classes were recruited for the study.

Those who volunteered as participants completed the questionnaire as a web-based study and

received course credit.

 20

Method

Recruitment and Participants

Participants were solicited through an advertisement on the Department of Psychology

(University of Calgary) electronic experiment scheduling system. Students were informed that

(a) the research was approved by the University of Calgary Conjoint Faculties Research Ethics

Board, (b) the study involved anonymously participating in a web-based study looking at

personality and how we talk to ourselves during difficult times, and (c) they would receive 2%

bonus credit towards their psychology course(s) by participating in the project. Interested

students signed up through a web-based sign-up system and were instructed to e-mail the

researcher to receive additional information about their participation.

Three hundred undergraduates initially participated in the web-based study; however,

nine were deleted from the study due to incomplete information. Thus, the final sample

contained 291 students (81.3% female, 18.7% male); their ages ranged from 17 to 54 years of

age, with a mean age of21.7 years (SD = 4.2). Their ethnic/racial backgrounds were 64.5%

Caucasian, 25.2% Asian, 5.2% East Indian, and approximately 5% came from other ethnic

backgrounds. For 82% of the participants, English was their first language. In terms of marital

status, 89% were single, 5.8% were in common-law relationships, 4.5% were married, and 1%

were either divorced or separated. In terms of year of study at university, 10% reported being in

their first year, 14.8% in second year, 24.8% in third year, and 33.8% in fourth year, with 16.6%

being in their fifth or more year of post-secondary education.

Questionnaire

The questionnaire (Appendix A) had five sections - Demographics, Self-Description,

How I Talk to Myself, Reasons for Self-Talk, and How I See Myself. They are presented below
 21

in the order they appreared in the questionnaire. Self-perceived resilience (measured under Self-

Description and immediately after demographic information) was assessed before the other

major variables in an effort to decrease any potential contamination of this variable; e.g.,

references to strengths and self-talk could possibly influence how resilient participants believed

they were. Similarly, resilient self-talk was assessed immediately after self-perceived resilience

so that it would not be contaminated by answering questions associated with the remaining

variables.

Demographics. This section assessed demographic variables and life experience (types

and degree of difficulties experienced thus far in a participant's life). The demographic variables

were age (in years); gender; ethnicity (Caucasian, East Indian, Asian, Aboriginal, Black,

Hispanic, Other); marital status (single, married, divorced/separated, common law,

widow/widower); year of education (1, 2, 3, 4, 5+); major at university (indicated by participant);

country of citizenship (Canadian, Other - indicated by participant); and first spoken language

(English, Other - indicated by participant). Life experience was assessed by asking participants

whether they had experienced difficulties in four major life experience areas typical of university

students - school, relationships, work/employment and psychologically/personally. These four

life areas were chosen based on (a) the life difficulty questionnaire used by Miloti (2004), and

(b) the research by Park et al. (1996) that found the most frequently reported stressful

experiences for college students fell primarily within these four categories. Participants were

asked to indicate whether they had experienced difficulty in each area (e.g., "Most people

experience difficult times in their lives. Please indicate if you have ever experienced significant

difficult times in any of the following areas"); if they indicated "yes," they were asked to

indicate the degree of difficulty experienced using a 5-point Likert scale ("Not at all difficult" to
 22

"Very difficult"). If the participant had experienced more than one difficult time in any realm,

they were asked to "rate the most difficult time." Two final questions assessed participants'

perceptions of (a) their overall level of experiencing life difficulties relative to others their age

("Compared to most people my age, I've experienced difficult times") and (b) their current level

of experiencing difficulties ("How difficult of a time are you going through right now?"). They

answered each question using a 5-point Likert scale, respectively, from "A lot less" to "Much

more" and from "Not at all difficult" to "Very difficult."

Self-description. This section assessed each participant's level of self-perceived

resilience using the four levels identified by past researchers (succumber, survivor, recoverer and

thriver; e.g., Carver, 1998; O'Leary & Ickovics, 1995). Each level had a brief description of the

presumed characteristics, perceptions, feelings and attitudes associated with that level; these

descriptions were very similar to those used in past research (Coulson & Fouts, 2002, 2004;

Fouts & Mottosky, 2004). This research empirically assessed these levels and found that they (a)

have considerable validity, e.g., significantly discriminate university students' perceptions of

people experiencing adverse life events, relate to life adjustment in university students as well as

the general population; and (b) significantly relate to a highly reliable measure of resiliency.

Each description was presented in the first-person and was similar in length (3-4 sentences each)

and format. The four descriptions were:

• Succumber - "When I go through difficult times, in the end, it is very hard for me to get

past them. Difficult events or circumstances usually continue to get me down and

sometimes I even need to do things to distract myself. Sometimes I feel really stuck. For

me, difficult times usually have a really negative effect on me, and it doesn't seem to

change very much as time goes on."

 23

• Survivor - "When I go through difficult times, in the end, I often feel weaker somehow.

Sometimes I find ways to adapt, but I keep feeling like I haven't gotten back to where I

was before these events or circumstances happened. It almost feels like I am missing

'something' that I had before the difficult times. I suppose you can say that I just

'survive' after difficult times."

• Recoverer - "When I go through difficult times, in the end, I feel that I basically get back

to where I was before the difficult times occurred in my life. I basically recover from

difficult events and circumstances, and I have the inner resources to adjust and get on

with my life. I am generally able to 'bounce back' from difficult times and usually it feels

like my life is back on track."

• Thriver - "When I go through difficult times, in the end, I feel like I have gained a lot

from the experience. I know I have the inner resources to grow from difficult events or

circumstances, and it seems like I am better in some way for having experienced the

events or circumstances. I feel like a 'new and improved' me as a result of difficult

times."

Before responding to these four descriptions, the instruction attempted to ensure that each

level of resiliency was normalized as equally as possible: "When people look upon their negative

and difficult experiences and the result of having gone through them, there are four ways they

usually view themselves. These four ways are described below; please read the following four

descriptions carefully." After reading the four descriptions, participants were asked to indicate

the description that most closely resembled them and the way they felt about themselves; a 10-

point Likert scale was used, anchored by succumber (1 ), survivor (4), recoverer (7) and thriver
 24

(10), with the numbers between the anchors permitting a choice falling between two

descriptions.

How I talk to myself. This section assessed resilient self-talk using an instrument

specifically developed for the study. An initial list of 43 self-statements was generated from

informal polls of fellow graduate students in Counselling Psychology, current popular literature

on personal affirmations (e.g., Bower & Bower, 1991; Budd & Rothstein, 2000; Peale, 1952), the

Automatic Thought Questionnaire- Positive (6 ATQ-P items; Ingram & Wisnicki, 1988), and

the researcher's personal experience. The items appeared to have face validity, i.e., reflected

underlying attitudes, beliefs and/or philosophies assumed that, over time, could assist individuals

experiencing difficult circumstances; e.g., "When the going gets tough, the tough get going,"

"Change is inevitable," "Always look on the bright side oflife."

Seventeen informal pilot participants (e.g., graduate students in Counselling Psychology)

were asked to respond to the list with the instruction, "Indicate which of the following

sayings/statements you might say to yourself to help you get through challenging times in your

life by marking with either (1) an 'X' to indicate that the saying is almost exactly what you say to

yourself, or (2) an 'x' if it is close to what you say to yourself (if any)." They were also given an

opportunity to write any additional self-statements they believed to reflect resilience. Their rating

responses were examined for degree of endorsement and their written responses for possible

inclusion in the list. A final list of 36 items was developed: 32 were retained (including 2 from

the ATQ-P); 4 items were added due to the commonality of suggestions across the pilot

participants (e.g., "It's going to be okay," "Trust in yourself'). Additional examples are "Don't

sweat the small stuff," "Everything happens for a reason," and "I won't give up." The 36 items

were presented in random order.

 25

Study participants were instructed to read each item carefully and to indicate which (if

any) they had used to help them get through difficult times. The instruction was, "Please read

each item below carefully and indicate which statements (or those that are similar) you may have

used to help you get through difficult times or events (if any)". They did this by marking two

scales for each self-talk item: (a) Frequency - "Using the "How Often I Say This to Myself'

scale, please indicate how often you say this statement to yourself' (5-point Likert scale,

"Never" to "Most of the time"); and (b) Importance - "Regardless of how often you say this

statement to yourself, using the "How Important This is to Me" scale, please indicate how

important the statement is to you" (5-point Likert scale, "Zero importance" to "Very important").

After responding to the 36 items, participants were (a) given an opportunity to write their own

self-talk statements (up to two) that were not in the list and (b) asked to complete both the

frequency and importance scales for these additional statements (if any).

Reasons I talk to myself. This section assessed reasons participants engaged in resilient

self-talk during difficult times (if they did talk to themselves); this instrument was specifically

developed for the study. An examination of the self-talk literature (e.g., Fields, 2002; Pedersen,

1999) and the researcher's own experience resulted in the development of nine reasons for self-

talk. Three examples are, "To motivate me," "To acknowledge my personal strengths or beliefs,"

and "To reassure me." Participants were asked to indicate their degree of agreement with each

item. The instruction was, "Most people do talk to themselves during difficult times or

circumstances. If you do, why, in general, do you think you do it?" For each item, participants

used a 5-point Likert scale ("Definitely not" to "Definitely yes"). After responding to the nine

items, participants were (a) given an opportunity to write their own reason (only one) that was
 26

not in the list and (b) asked to indicate on the same 5-point scale how much they agreed with this

reason (if any written).

How I see myself. This section assessed 25 resilient characteristics using the Resiliency

Questionnaire (RQ) developed by Fouts et al. (2000); the 25 characteristics are presented in

Table 1. The scale is highly reliable (Chronbach's alpha between .88 and .95; Coulson & Fouts,

2004; Fouts & Mottosky, 2004; Quinney & Fouts, 2003) and has been shown to (a) possess

construct and predictive validity (using university students and the general population) and (b)

clearly distinguish thrivers, recoverers and survivors (Fouts & Mottosky, 2004). The RQ

consists of 50 items (25 characteristics X 2 items); the items are presented in random order.

Examples of the items are, "I have the courage to face any type of difficulty" (courage), "I know

that my life will ultimately be successful" (optimism), and "I can find humour in difficult

situations" (transcendence). Participants were asked to read each item and respond in a manner

that "most closely describes your view of yourself." They responded to each item using a 5-point

Likert scale ("Strongly agree" to "Strongly disagree").

Procedure

The entire study was (a) converted into HTML format and placed into a secure file

accessible only by the researcher, (b) uploaded onto the Department of Psychology server, and

(c) pilot-tested online for ease of use. The study then went live on the Internet, giving students

the opportunity to participate in the study. Each participant was assigned a unique user name and

password; this allowed them to access the password-protected website. Upon entering the

website, participants were exposed to the following sequence of events: (a) they read a consent

form (Appendix B) and, upon agreeing to participate, were taken to the on-line questionnaire

(Appendix A); (b) they either completed and submitted their responses or withdrew from the
 27

study by clicking a link that prevented their data from being recorded; and (c) all were

automatically directed to the debriefing page (Appendix C) and an optional information page

(Appendix D) if they wished additional information. Participants' questionnaire responses were

sent to a secure data file established by the researcher; no identifying information such as IP

address or computer location/type was sent to this file, thus assuring anonymity.
 28

Results

Levels of Resilience

Self-perceived resilience was measured by participants rating themselves on a 10-point

scale after reading descriptions depicting the four levels of resilience (succumbing, surviving,

recovering, thriving). The percentages of participants at each point on the scale are presented in

Figure 2. Participants were categorized into four levels - thrivers (ratings 9 + 10), recoverers

(6+7+8), survivors (3+4+5) and succumbers (1 +2). An examination of Figure 2 reveals that

approximately 38% of the participants identified themselves as thrivers, 44% identified as

recoverers, 12% as survivors, and 5% succumbers. These findings indicate that the distribution

of perceived resilience in this sample of university students is highly skewed, with a large

majority (82%) viewing themselves as highly resilient (recoverers and thrivers). There was no

significant gender difference in perceived level of resilience [females, M = 7 .3, SD = 2.25;

males, M= 7.7, SD = 1.82; t(284) = 1.34,p ~ .05]; nor was there an age effect (r = .l l,p = .065).

Figure 2

Percent of Participants at Each Point on the Perceived Resilience Scale.

35

20
Percent
15

0
0 Ul CD ~ co en
L.
Cl)
> >
-~
::::,
Cl)
>
0
·c:
.s:::.
I-
(,)
Cl)
~

Self-Perceived Resilience

I •
 29

Resilient Self-Talk

There were 36 self-talk statements and participants indicated how often they used each

statement (frequency) and how important the statement was to them (importance). The internal

reliabilities (Cronbachs' a) for frequency and importance were each .89.

Frequency. Each participant reported having used, at least, nine self-talk statements; the

average was 30 statements (range 9 - 36) that they used "rarely" or more. The frequency of use

of each statement was rated on a scale from 1 = "Never" to 5 = "Most of the time;" the mean was

3.0 (SD = 0.5; range 1.3 - 4.4). The four most frequently used statements were, "Everything

happens for a reason" (M= 3.8), "I can handle this" (M= 3.7), "I am strong/I have the strength

to get through this" (M= 3.7), and "I won't give up/Don't give up" (M= 3.5). The mean

frequencies of all 36 statements are presented in Appendix E. Females had a higher frequency of

using self-talk (M= 3.1, SD = .51, n = 207) than males (M= 2.8, SD = .56, n = 50); t(255) = -

2.75,p = .006 (see Figure 3). Age was not significantly related to the frequency of self-talk (r =

.038, p >.05).

Figure 3

Frequency and Importance of Resilient Self-Talk, Males and Females

4
3.5
3 Ill Males
Mean 2.5 • Females

2
1.5
1
Frequency Importance
Resilient Self-Talk
 30

The relationship between perceived resilience and frequency of resilient self-talk was

examined using two measures of perceived resilience, i.e., their raw score on the 10-point scale

and their level of resilience (participants categorized into levels). The ratings of perceived

resilience at each point of the 10-point scale and the frequencies of the self-talk statements are

presented in Figure 4. The correlation between these two variables was significant, r = .25 (p <

.001). A linear regression was conducted to assess how much frequency of self-talk contributed

to perceived resilience, with the predictor variable being frequency of self-talk and the criterion

variable being perceived resilience. The regression was significant [F(l,254) = 19.8,p <.001],

with frequency of self-talk alone contributing 7.2% of the variance. This indicates that

individuals who see themselves as being able to bounce back or even thrive from facing

adversity talk to themselves resiliently more often than those who are less resilient.

Figure 4

Relationships Between Perceived Resilience and Frequency and Importance of Resilient Self-

Talk Using the 10-point Perceived Resilience Scale

- Frequency
- Importance
3.90

3.60

3.30

Mean 3.oo

2.70

2.40

2.10

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Self-Perceived Resiliency
 31

Using levels of resilience, a one-way ANOVA was conducted. However, due to small

numbers of participants in the succumbers and survivors groups, both groups were combined and

relabelled "succumber-survivors." Thus, the ANOVA used three resilience groups - thrivers

(scale ratings 9+10), recoverers (6+7+8), succumber-survivors (1-5); gender was not included

due to the small number of males participating in the study. There was a significant effect of

resilience groups; F(2,254) = 7.6,p = .001. Subsequent analyses revealed significant differences

between the succumber-survivor group (M= 2.8) and the thriver group (M= 3.l;p = .001).

However, the difference between the recoverer (M = 2.9) and thriver group just missed

significance at the .05 level (p = .058). There was no significant difference between the

succumber-survivor and recoverer groups (p = .135). These results indicate that thriving

individuals engage in resilient self-talk more frequently than individuals who have been

psychologically impaired (succumbers and survivors) after experiencing adversity. The

frequency of self-talk of recoverers is between that of thrivers and succumber-survivors, with

their frequency not differing from either.

Figure 5

Relationships Between Levels of Perceived Resilience and Frequency and Importance of

Resilient Self-Talk

3.5
3 Ill Succumber-
2.5 Survivors
2 • Recoverers
Mean _
15
1 • Thrivers
0.5
0
Frequency Importance
Resilient Self-Talk
 32

Importance. Each participant reported, at least, six statements that were important to

them; the average was 26 statements (range 6 - 36) that were endorsed as "somewhat" important.

The importance of each statement was rated on a scale from 1 = "Zero importance" to 5 = "Very

important;" the mean was 3.3 (SD = 0.5; range 1.8 - 4.6). The four most important statements

were, "I am strong" (M = 4.1 ), "I won't give up/Don't give up" (M = 4.0), "I can handle this" (M

= 4.0), and "What can I learn from this?" (M = 3.8). The mean importance ratings of all 36

statements are presented in Appendix E. Females attributed greater importance to self-talk (M =

3.3, SD = .52, n = 222) than males (M= 3.1, SD = .57, n = 51); t(271)= -2.43,p = .016 (see

Figure 3). Age was not significantly related to the importance of self-talk (r = -.019,p > .05).

The relationship between perceived resilience and the importance of the 36 self-talk

statements was examined. The ratings of perceived resilience at each point of the 10-point scale

and the importance of self-talk are presented in Figure 4. The correlation between these two

variables was r = .12 (p < .05). A linear regression was conducted to assess how much

importance of self-talk contributed to perceived resilience, with the predictor variable being

importance of self-talk and the criterion variable being perceived resilience. The regression was

significant [F(l,270) = 5.1,p = .03], with importance of self-talk contributing 1.8% of the

variance. This indicates that individuals who see themselves as being able to bounce back or

even thrive from facing adversity believe the resilient self-talk statements are important to them.

Using levels of resilience, a one-way ANOVA was conducted using the three resilience

groups (thrivers, recoverers, succumber-survivors); gender was not included due to the small

number of males. There was no significant effect of resilience groups; F(2,268) = 1.20, p > .05).

However, since specific predictions specified differences among the thriver, recoverer and

succumber-survivor groups, pre-planned comparisons were conducted. These analyses indicated

 33

no significant differences among the groups - succumber-survivor group (M = 3 .2), recoverer

group (M= 3.3), and thriver group (M= 3.3). These results are graphically presented in Figure 5.

These results indicate that people at all levels of resilience attribute the same amount of

importance to resilient self-statements and the messages they convey.

An additional analysis was conducted to examine the relationship between the frequency

and importance of self-talk. The correlation was r = .80 (p < .001), indicating that (a) the more

importance participants attributed to resilient self-talk, the greater the frequency of use during

difficult times, and/or (b) those who frequently use resilient self-talk are those who attribute

significance to it.

Variables Related to Resilient Self-Talk

Resilient personal characteristics. The internal reliability of the RQ scale was a = .91.

This high reliability is consistent with previous research indicating Cronbach alphas between .88

and .95 (Coulson & Fouts, 2004; Fouts & Mottosky 2004).

A correlation matrix was computed between the scores for the 25 resilient characteristics

and the frequency and importance of self-talk (see Table 2). An examination of this table reveals

that 23 of the 25 resilient characteristics were significantly correlated with the frequency of self-

talk; 87% of these correlations were at high levels of significance (p < .01 or .001). The five

highest correlations involved reframing (r = .40), core strength (r = .39), transcendence (r =

.381 ), meaning of life (r = .33), and physical awareness (r = .32). These findings indicate that the

self-statements used in this study were related to characteristics known to indicate resilience in

adults (e.g., Jew et. al. 1999; Park et. al., 1996; Tedeschi & Calhoun, 1996; Werner & Smith,

1992), thus providing evidence for (a) their validity as resilient self-talk statements, and (b)

individuals with resilient characteristics engage in resilient self-talk.

 34

Table 2

Correlations Between the 25 Resilient Characteristics and Frequency and Importance of Resilient

Self-Talk

Frequency of Self-Talk Importance of Self-Talk

Resilient Characteristic
Support .25*** .20**

Special Connection .28*** .25***

Spirituality .27*** .24***

Attunement .25*** .19**

Self-Awareness .30*** .24***

Flexibility/Adaptability .28*** .14*

Self-esteem .30*** .23***

Identity .25*** .23***

Courage .30*** .26***

Empathy .14* .06

Core Strength .39*** .32***

Optimism .15* .04

Forgiveness .15* .14*

Emotional Regulation .24*** .12

Emotional Communication .17** .11

Transcendence .38*** .21 ***

Problem Solving .26*** .17**

Self-Perception of Thriving .31 *** .23***

 35

Growth Orientation .18** .12*

Reframing .40*** .29***

Meaning of Life .33*** .30***

Physical Awareness .32*** .26***

Determination .27*** .24***

Letting go .07 -.01

Locus of Control .07 .07

*p < .05 **p < .01 ***p < .001

 36

Nineteen of the 25 resilient characteristics were significantly correlated with the

importance of self-talk; 84% of these correlations were at high levels of significance (p < .01 or

.001). The five highest correlations involved core strength (r = .32), meaning of life (r = .30),

reframing (r = .29), courage (r = .26), and physical awareness (r = .26). These findings provide

additional evidence for the validity of the self-statements reflecting resilience. They also indicate

that individuals having resilient characteristics tend to ascribe importance to resilient self-

statements and their corresponding messages.

The contributions of the 25 resilient characteristics to the frequency and importance of

self-talk were examined. Separate multiple regressions were conducted with the 25 resilient

characteristics being the predictor variables (entered simultaneously) and the criterion variable

being either the frequency or importance of self-talk (one outlier was identified and removed in

each analysis). The regression involving frequency was significant [F(25,221) = 5.11,p < .001],

with the variables accounting for 31. 4 % of the variance in frequency of self-talk. Four of the 25

resilient characteristics were significant unique predictors; they were reframing ( 1. 9% of the

variance), transcendence (1.7%), support (1.6%), and physical awareness (1.2%). These results

indicate that several personal characteristics contribute to their frequency of engaging in resilient

self-talk; especially important were their abilities to transcend the immediate situation and to

reframe, awareness of their physical selves, and the amount of social support they perceived.

The regression using importance of self-talk was significant [F(25,234) = 3.53, p < .001 ],

with the 25 characteristics accounting for 19 .6% of the variance. Three of the 25 resilient

characteristics were significant unique predictors; they were reframing ( 1. 7% of the variance),

support (1.6%), and core strength (1.2%). These results indicate that several personal

characteristics contribute to the importance of resilient self-talk statements; especially important

 37

were their ability to reframe, having a sense of core strength, and the amount of social support

they perceived.

Life difficulty. Three kinds of life difficulty were assessed. They were difficulties

experienced in four major realms of life, perceived difficulty compared to peers, and the degree

of difficulty being experienced at the time of participation. The internal reliability of this

measure was low, a = .61; therefore, these results should be viewed cautiously.

Realms of life. The percentages of participants experiencing difficulties in the four

realms of life are presented in Table 3. An examination of this table reveals that the percentages

of participants experiencing difficulty in the four realms (from high to low) are: relationship-

related (86.3%), psychologically-related (80.8%), school-related (75.6%) and work-related

(52.6%). The same order occurs when examining the modal responses regarding degree of

difficulty in each realm. These findings indicate that a majority of this sample of university

students have experienced difficulties in each of the realms, with the most difficult realms being

relationship- and psychologically-related.

A correlation matrix was computed between scores for experiencing difficulty in the four

realms and the frequency and importance of self-talk (see Table 4). An examination of this table

reveals no significant correlations for frequency; one of the four correlations was significant for

importance, i.e., school-related difficulty (r = .15, p < .05). These results indicate that the degree

of difficulty experienced in each of the realms is unrelated to how often they engage in resilient

self-talk, i.e., no evidence that the greater the difficulty, the greater the use of self-talk. This was

generally the case for importance, with the exception that the greater the difficulty they

experienced at school, the greater the importance they attributed to self-talk statements.
 38

Table 3

Percentages of Participants Experiencing Difficulty in Four Realms of Life

Degree of Difficulty

Percent Not at A Little Moderately Fairly Very Mean

having all Difficult Difficult Difficult Difficult
Life Realm had Difficult
difficulty

Relationship- 86.3 .8 5.1 20.6 26.1 47.4 4.1

related

Psychologically 80.8 2.1 16.0 23.5 30.3 28.2 3.7

-related

School-related 75.6 .9 11.9 33.3 37.0 16.9 3.6

Work-related 52.6 2.5 28.7 33.1 26.1 9.6 3.1

 39

Table 4

Correlations Between Life Difficulty Variables and Resilient Self-talk Frequency and

Importance

Frequency of Importance of
Self-Talk Self-Talk
Measure

School-related difficulty .10 .15*

Relationship-related difficulty .05 .05

Work-related difficulty -.04 .02

Psychologically-related difficulty -.09 -.03

Comparative overall life difficulty .02 -.03

Current difficulty .08 .16*

*p < .05 **p < .01 ***p < .001

 40

The actual contributions of the four realms to the frequency and importance of self-talk

were examined. Separate multiple regressions were conducted with the four realms being the

predictor variables (entered simultaneously) and the criterion variable being either the frequency

or importance of self-talk (one outlier was identified and removed in each analysis). Neither

regression was significant: frequency-F (4,248) = 1.2,p > 0.5; importance -F (4,265) = 1.3,p

> .05. These results confirm the overall findings involving the correlational analysis; i.e., the

use and importance of resilient self-talk statements is generally unrelated to the degree of

difficulty this sample of students experience in the important realms of their lives.

Comparison with peers. When asked to compare their overall experience to people their

own age, 41.6% believed they had experienced difficulties "about the same" as peers, 26.5% "a

little more" than peers, and 6.2% "much more" than peers. Only 4.5% believed they had

experienced difficulties "a lot less" than peers and 21.3% "somewhat less" than peers. These

results indicate that their level of difficulties in comparison with peers was normally distributed.

The correlations (Table 4) between comparison with peers and the frequency and importance of

resilient self-talk were not significant. This indicates that the degree of difficulty experienced in

comparison to peers is unrelated to their use and the importance of resilient self-talk.

At time ofparticipation. When asked the degree of difficulty they were experiencing at

the present time, 14.1 % of participants reported not going through a difficult time at all, 52.4%

reported a "little difficult," 21. 7% reported "moderate difficulty, and 10.0% reported "fairly

difficult," with only 1. 7% reporting currently experiencing a "very difficult" time. The

correlations (Table 4) between difficulty at the present time and the frequency and importance of

resilient self-talk revealed (a) no significant relationship for frequency; and (b) a significant

correlation for importance of self talk (r = .16,p < .05). The latter finding indicates that at the
 41

time of participation in the study, those who were experiencing more difficulty in their lives

attributed greater importance to resilient self-talk than those experiencing less difficulty.

An examination of the 12 correlations (Table 4) between experiencing difficulties in life

and the use and importance of resilient self-talk reveals only two significant relationships (both

associated with importance). This indicates that the degree of difficulty individuals experience in

their lives is unrelated to the frequency of using resilient self-talk; however, those experiencing

school-related difficulty (as previously mentioned) and current difficulty tend to attribute some

importance to resilient self-talk.

Reasons for engaging in self-talk. Participants were asked to evaluate eight reasons they

use for talking to themselves (a 5-point scale from "Definitely not" to "Definitely yes"); they

could also indicate having no reason for engaging in self-talk. The internal reliability of this

measure was low, a= .62; therefore, these results should be viewed cautiously. The percentages

of participants and means for responding to the reasons for self-talk are presented in Table 5. An

examination of this table reveals that the most used reason was to motivate themselves (M = 4.5),

reassurance (M = 4.4), to help keep focus (M = 4.3), for comfort (M = 4.3), to affirm something

to themselves (M= 4.1), to tap inner strength (M= 3.8), to acknowledge personal strengths or

beliefs (M = 3.8), and to tap core beliefs (M = 3.4). The theoretical midpoint is three; therefore,

these results indicate that individuals use all of the indicated reasons to talk to themselves to an

above-average degree.

A correlation matrix was computed between scores for reasons and the frequency and

importance of self-talk (see Table 6). An examination of this table reveals that eight of the nine

reasons for self-talk were positively and significantly correlated to frequency and importance of

self-talk; all the correlations were at high levels of significance (p < .01 or .001). This indicates
 42

Table 5

Percentages and Means for Responding to Reasons for Self-Talk

Definitely Probably Not sure Probably Definitely Mean

not no yes yes

Reason

Acknowledge
my personal
2.1 12.8 12.8 52.1 20.3 3.8
strengths or
beliefs
Affirm
something to .7 5.9 10.0 54.5 29.0 4.1
myself

Motivate me .7 3.5 3.5 33 .6 58.8 4.5

Tap my inner
1.4 11.7 22.1 36.6 28.3 3.8
strength

Tap my core
2.4 21.3 25.1 32.6 18.6 3.4
beliefs

Reassure
1.4 1.4 4.5 41.0 51.7 4.4
myself

Help me keep
.7 5.6 9.4 33.0 51.4 4.3
focused

Comfort me 1.4 5.5 7.2 38.3 47.6 4.3

No reason 61.9 16.2 16.5 4.5 1.0 1.7

 43

Table 6

Correlations Between Reasons for Self-Talk and Frequency and Importance of Resilient Self-

Talk

Frequency of Self-Talk Importance of Self-Talk

Reason
To acknowledge my .21 ** .24***
personal strengths or beliefs

To affirm something to .20** .20**

myself

.36*** .34***
To motivate me

.31 *** .30***

To tap my inner strength

.32*** .33***
To tap my core beliefs

.23*** .21 ***

To reassure myself

.31 *** .29***

To help me keep focused

.23*** .19**
To comfort me

-.21** -.08
No reason for self-talk

*p < .05 **p < .01 ***p < .001

 44

that the more participants had particular reasons for engaging in self-talk, the more frequently

they used self-talk and believed it was important. There was a significant negative correlation

between having no reason for self-talk and frequency of self-talk, with the correlation for

importance being negative but not significant. This complements the previous correlations,

indicating that having no particular reason for self-talk is associated with a lower frequency of

talking to themselves in a resilient manner.

A multiple regression was performed to determine the relative contributions of the eight

reasons and having no reason to the frequency and importance of self-talk. Separate multiple

regressions were conducted with the nine variables being the predictor variables (entered

simultaneously) and the criterion variable being either the frequency or importance of self-talk

(one outlier was identified and removed in each analysis). The regression was significant [F

(9,243) = 9.36,p < .001] for frequency, with the nine variables accounting for 23.0% of the

variance. Four of the nine variables significantly and uniquely predicted frequency of self-talk

(presented from highest to lowest contribution) - motivation (3.0% of the variance), to tap core

beliefs (2.3%), to help keep focus (2.0%), and to tap inner strengths (1.7%). These results

indicate that several reasons for engaging in self-talk contributed to using self-talk during

difficult times, with motivation, tapping their core beliefs and inner strengths, and keeping

focused being of particular relevance

The regression using importance of self-talk was also significant [F(9,258) = 9.8, p <

.001], with the nine variables accounting for 22.9% of the variance. Five of the nine variables

significantly and uniquely contributed to the importance of self-talk (in decreasing order) -

motivation (3.6% of the variance), tapping core beliefs (2.4%), keeping focus (2.0%), tapping

inner strengths (1.7%), and affirming something to themselves (1.5%). These results indicate that
 45

several reasons for engaging in self-talk contributed to the importance of self-talk statements,

with motivation, tapping core beliefs and inner strengths, keeping focus, and affirmational

reasons being of particular importance.

 46

Discussion

The main purpose of this study was to examine the possible relationship between resilient

self-talk and self-perceived resilience. Several variables that may be related to using resilient

self-talk (demographic, life difficulty, resilient characteristics, reasons for self-talk) were also

examined. The following discussion presents the findings of the study followed by their

implications. Some of the limitations of the study are presented; these are followed by

suggestions for future research.

Levels ofResilience

An examination of the number of participants who identified themselves at the four levels

of resilience (succumber, survivor, recoverer, thriver) revealed that 44% identified themselves as

recoverers and 38% as thrivers. In other words, over 80% of this sample perceived themselves as

resilient and able to "bounce back" after facing difficult times in their lives. This finding was

expected for two reasons. First, university students likely have higher levels of self-efficacy,

intelligence and other characteristics conducive to entering university and achieving academic

success; these characteristics are related to resilience (e.g., Masten, Best, & Garmezy, 1990;

Masten et al., 1999; Tedeschi & Calhoun, 1995). Second, university students have a variety of

supports that help them navigate the inevitable challenges and stresses encountered, for example,

social (e.g., family, friends), financial (e.g., student loans), and psychological (e.g., student

counselling). This high level of resilience in post-secondary students is consistent with past

research. For example, Park et al. (1996) found that a majority of college students report that

"stressful/upsetting" events do indeed produce considerable growth in themselves; Coulson and

Fouts (2004) found that 71 % of university/college students experiencing distress (associated with

returning home from studying abroad) were thrivers or in transition to thriving.

 47

It was hypothesized that female participants would report higher levels of perceived

resilience than males. This was based upon the finding of Tedeschi and Calhoun (1996) who

found that women are more likely to report stress-related growth than men. In the present study,

there was no gender difference in perceived resilience. This may be due to a conceptual

distinction between thriving (measured in the current study) and "stress-related growth;" i.e.,

"stress-related growth" may be a construct referring to more short-term adjustment, with thriving

to more long-term adjustment. Thus, it is possible that women report more positive outcomes

from adversity in the short-term (Tedeschi & Calhoun, 1996) but the gender difference

disappears with longer-term adjustment. This is consistent with longitudinal research (Park et

al., 1996) that found that although women reported more stress-related growth than males in the

short term, there was no gender difference six months later.

Resilient Self-Talk

The basic purpose of this study was to suggest that a specific kind of positive self-talk

(resilient self-talk) may be related to resilience. The method for assessing resilient self-talk used

the "endorsement method" (Glass & Arnkoff, 1997); i.e., participants were given a list of items

and they checked the frequency of use. This method is the most frequently used type of cognitive

assessment and has high construct validity (Glass & Arnkoff, 1982; Kendall & Chansky, 1991).

However, a criticism of this method is whether it also measures importance (Kendall & Chansky,

1991 ). The present study addressed this concern by separately assessing the frequency and

importance of resilient self-talk.

All participants reported using several of the 36 resilient self-statements during difficult

times. Two statements that were almost universally used were, "Everything happens for a

reason" and "I have the strength to get through this." A majority reported the average frequency
 48

for the self-statements at or above the mid-point on the scale (i.e., more frequently than

"sometimes"). These two findings indicate that all the participants engaged in resilient self-talk.

They also reported that resilient self-talk was important to their belief system; the average level

of importance was at or above the mid-point on the scale (i.e., greater than "somewhat

important"). This level of importance suggests that resilient self-statements are likely related to

participants' beliefs or philosophies about themselves and how they deal with life's challenges.

Thus, overall, resilient self-talk is frequent and important to university students.

The frequency of use and importance of resilient self-talk was greater for women than

men. This finding differs from some of the research on positive self-talk in which gender

differences in frequency have not been found (e.g., Ingram, Slater, Atkinson, & Scott, 2000;

Ingram & Wisnicki, 1988). On the other hand, a meta-analytic examination of studies found that

women engage in more coping strategies than men, with one of the most robust coping strategies

being positive self-talk (Tamres, Janicki, & Helgeson, 2002). Therefore, in the present study,

women's greater use and importance of resilient self-talk may reflect their overall level of coping

skills when faced with difficult life experiences. For example, women are generally socialized to

express feelings more to others and themselves than men, who are often discouraged to

recognize and express feelings, especially feelings about problems (Tamres et al., 2002). The

latter suggests that when faced with emotional and psychological challenges, men may be less

likely to acknowledge and express their negative feelings and, therefore, be less likely to engage

in resilient self-talk or believe in its importance.

A linear relationship was hypothesized between the frequency of resilient self-talk and

level of self-perceived resilience. This relationship was examined using different analyses. Both

the correlation (r = .25) and regression (7 .2% of variance) analyses indicated a positive,
 49

significant relationship. An ANOVA (using 3 groups - thrivers, recoverers and succumber-

survivors) revealed the same significant trend, thrivers > recoverers > succumber-survivors.

Thus, there is consistent support for the hypothesis. This relationship may be viewed in five

ways. First, engaging in resilient self-talk may remind individuals that they possess important

qualities and/or beliefs that are valuable and beneficial in helping them through their difficulties.

This awareness makes these characteristics more salient and accessible and, therefore, more

useable as a protective mechanism. Second, several studies have shown the benefits of positive

self-talk (e.g., Burgess & Haaga, 1994; Ingram & Wisnicki, 1988; Ingram et al., 1995). Since

resilient self-talk is a sub-class of positive self-talk, the same or similar processes may be

involved, e.g., as a mediator between emotions, events and our reactions to events (Calvete &

Cardefioso, 2002). Third, the nature of resilient self-talk (e.g., positive, motivational, keeping

focused) may help individuals to maintain a positive outlook and patience while experiencing

difficulties, thereby maximizing the likelihood that they will discover constructive ways to

resolve them, mature and benefit from them. Fourth, resilient self-talk statements may infuse a

difficult situation with a sense of meaning (e.g., "Everything happens for a reason," "What

doesn't kill you makes you stronger"). McMillen (1999) stated poignantly, "An adverse event,

once perceived as meaningful or understandable, seems less harsh to the person who experienced

it" (p. 460). Carl Jung believed that in order for an individual to develop through suffering, there

must be some coherence (meaning) and hope during the period of suffering (Young-Eisendrath,

1996). Fifth, it may be the case that individuals have several characteristics that make them

resilient (e.g., determination, intelligence); and through being resilient, they discover strategies

(such as self-talk) to maintain and/or increase their resilience

 50

The relationship between importance of resilient self-talk and perceived resilience was

examined. Both the correlation (r = .12) and regression (1.8% of variance) analyses indicated a

weak but significant, positive relationship; the ANOVA (using 3 groups - thrivers, recoverers

and succumber-survivors) was not significant. Comparing these findings with those for

frequency, the relationship between importance of self-talk and perceived resilience is

considerably weaker than for frequency. This may be due to three reasons. First, repeating

resilient statements to the self may focus cognitive energy on one's strengths and adaptive

philosophies, making them more salient in the cognitive system (Fields, 2002); this may allow

for these strengths to be mobilized for navigating adversity and allowing for growth. Second,

engaging in resilient self-talk is a behaviour and behaviours tend to require antecedents such as

motivation and intention (Johnson, 2001). Perhaps the behaviour of engaging in resilient self-

talk, rather than just believing in resilient statements, marshalls other processes beneficial in

navigating difficult times. Third, changes in behaviour during difficult times (i.e., increased

repetition of resilient self-talk) may strengthen the relationship between belief and resilience; this

is in contrast to the fact that belief in resilient statements is not repetitive and would not

necessarily change in times of adversity.

Variables Related to Resilient Self-Talk

Characteristics of resilience. Twenty-three of the 25 resilient characteristics were related

to frequency of resilient self-talk. For example, individuals who have a sense of core self and

physical awareness and those who are able to reframe, transcend their difficulties and/or find

meaning in life are those who use resilient self-talk. Nineteen of the 25 characteristics were

related to the importance of self-talk. All of the characteristics related to importance were also

related to its frequency, with the former correlations being lower than those for frequency. These
 51

findings indicate that how often individuals use resilient self-talk and their belief in such self-talk

are indeed related to characteristics known to indicate resilience in adults (e.g., Jew et al., 1999;

Park et al., 1996; Tedeschi & Calhoun, 1996; Werner & Smith, 1992); this provides evidence for

the validity of the self-statements reflecting resilience. This finding is also consistent with the

previous finding of a relationship between resilient self-talk and perceived resilience; thus, two

measures of resilience (perceived and characteristics) provide evidence of this positive

relationship. All these findings are consistent with the view that (a) having resilient

characteristics results in the greater use and belief in resilient self-talk during difficult times, (b)

engaging in resilient self-talk increases or maintains resilience, and/or (c) there may be a bi-

directional relationship between resilient individuals and resilient self-talk.

The contributions of these characteristics to the frequency and importance of self-talk

were examined. For frequency, the characteristics contributed approximately 31 % of the

variance in resilient self-talk, with these characteristics contributing a lesser amount to its

importance (approximately 20%). The characteristics that uniquely contributed to self-talk were

reframing (frequency and importance), social support (frequency and importance), transcendence

(frequency), physical awareness (frequency), and core strength (importance). The ability to

reframe contributed the most to resilient self-talk and it did so consistently across the two

measures (frequency and importance). This is consistent with the considerable evidence

regarding the positive benefits of reframing in resolving conflicts and personal issues (Ching,

2002; Lustig, 2002). It is also congruent with a fundamental assumption underlying the concept

of resilience - being able to cognitively and affectively transform a negative experience into

something positive, e.g., seeing something positive in what is perceived and experienced as
 52

negative. The present study supports the view that reframing is an ability that allows one to be

resilient and even thrive in the face of adversity.

Perceiving social support was also found to uniquely contribute to both the frequency and

belief in the importance of resilient self-talk. Morin (1993) speculated that talking to ourselves

allows for the internalization of others' perspectives, e.g., often through repeating or

paraphrasing comments made by others. Therefore, when individuals have internalized and

subsequently use these statements, they perceive those around them as "there for them,"

supporting and encouraging them. On the other hand, the reverse relationship may also exist; i.e.,

those who perceive social support from others may be more likely to internalize and verbalize

their encouraging statements, statements which have resilient contents (e.g., "You have the

strength to get through this," "Hang in there").

Three other characteristics (transcendence, physical awareness and core strength)

contributed to resilient self-talk. Both transcendence and physical awareness contributed to the

frequency (but not importance) of self-talk. Transcendence allows for individuals to remove or

distance themselves from the immediate experience of pain or negative emotions (Neill, 2002),

which may allow them to shift their focus to an adaptive resource. The ability to transcend the

immediate situation is likely reflected in two kinds of resilient self-statements. First, there are

those that reflect the distancing or transcending; e.g. "I have to look at the big picture," "Where

to from here?" Second, there are resilient self-statements that focus attention on other "adaptive

resources;" e.g., "I am strong," "I won't give up." Being physically aware of one's body may

contribute to resilient self-talk through awareness of physical states (e.g., muscle tension, upset

stomach, feeling fatigued) that occur from stress or negative emotions (Duvall, 2001; Herman &

Lester, 1994). This biological feedback may allow individuals to more quickly and effectively
 53

engage in adaptive strategies (such as resilient self-talk) to prevent themselves from being

overwhelmed by the situation. And finally, possessing core strength was related to the

importance (but not frequency) of resilient self-talk. This suggests that individuals who know

they have the inner strength to endure and get through any difficulty may believe in the

importance of resilient self-talk that reflects this strength; e.g., "If I get knocked down, I get back

up again," "What doesn't kill you, makes you stronger."

Life difficulty. The participants in this study had indeed faced difficulties in their lives.

This was evidenced by several measures. For example, approximately 86% reported life was a

"little difficult" (or worse) at the time of participation, with 74% reporting that their overall level

of difficulties in life were about the same as or greater than their peers. A majority reported

having difficulties in all four realms assessed (relationships, psychological, school, work). That

is, they reported experiencing relationship-related difficulty the most, followed by psychological-

and school-related difficulty. This closely matches the findings of other research that assessed

stress-related growth (Park et al., 1996). For example, they found that when students were asked

to describe the year's most stressful events, the three most highly reported events were (in

descending order), problems in romantic relationships (relationship-related), death of significant

other (psychological-related) and problems in academic performance (school-related).

Approximately half the students in the present study had experienced work-related difficulties;

these difficulties were not in the top-10 list of difficult events reported in the Park et al. study.

These findings are noteworthy for two reasons. First, the concept of resilience is based

on the assumption that one has experienced adversity or difficulty at some time and has

attempted to adjust. Second, since the vast majority of participants had experienced difficult

times in their lives, their responses to questions regarding perceived resilience and resilient self-
 54

talk are likely based on these experiences. This adds validity to these assessments in the current

study.

An examination of relationships between each of the six measures of life difficulty and

resilient self-talk revealed little consistent evidence for such a relationship. That is, there were no

significant correlations using frequency of self-talk, although there were two small but

significant correlations using importance - the more difficulty they experienced at school and at

the time of participation, the more importance they ascribed to resilient self-talk. These findings

may be viewed in two ways. First, the degree of difficulty experienced by individuals is

unrelated to how often they engage in resilient self-talk. Thus, whether one experiences

difficulty, not how difficult it is, may be more important in eliciting the need for resilient self-

talk. This is consistent with the finding that even in those realms in which the most difficulty

occurs (relationships and psychological), there was no relationship between degree of difficulty

and either the frequency or importance of self-talk. Second, some difficult situations appear to

evoke the belief in resilient self-talk while others do not; thus, the importance of resilient self-

talk may be situation-specific. For example, since the participants were students and participating

in research, school-related difficulties and current level of difficulty (at time of participation)

may have been more salient.

Reasons for engaging in resilient self-talk. Eight reasons for engaging in resilient self-

talk were examined. The most used reason was to motivate themselves, followed by (in

descending order) reassurance, to help keep focus, for comfort, to affirm something to

themselves, to tap inner strength, to acknowledge personal strengths or beliefs, and to tap core

beliefs. Thus, the findings indicate that individuals recognize a variety of reasons for engaging in

resilient self-talk.
 55

An examination of the relationships between these reasons and the frequency and

importance of resilient self-talk revealed that each reason was positively and significantly

correlated to the frequency and importance of self-talk. This indicates that the more participants

had particular reasons for engaging in resilient self-talk, the more frequently they used it and

believed it was important. There was also evidence for the converse; i.e., participants indicating

having no reason for engaging in resilient self-talk had a lower frequency of self-talk. These

findings suggest that when individuals have awareness of and intent for resilient self-talk, they

do engage and believe it is important for them in getting through adversity.

An examination of the contributions of these reasons to resilient self-talk revealed that

23 % of the variance in both frequency and importance were attributed to the reasons. In both

regressions, to motivate, to keep focus and to tap core beliefs were the greatest contributors. Of

these, motivation was the largest contributor to resilient self-talk. According to Hardy et al.

(2001), who studied positive self-talk in athletes, there are three motivational functions of self-

talk - arousal, mastery and drive. The arousal function helps to control arousal levels and to

"psych up" one's self. The mastery function refers to mental focus, confidence, and toughness.

The drive function helps to achieve one's goals by "staying on track." Translating these

functions to resilient self-talk, it functions to monitor and control arousal and to "psych"

ourselves for the challenges we face; it focuses us on our strengths and beliefs and makes us

confident that we can be successful; and it helps us to stay the course until a successful

adaptation/resolution has occurred. Interestingly, these functions also coincide with the two other

major reasons for resilient self-talk, keeping focus and tapping core beliefs.

Implications for Counselling and Education

 56

Park (1998) stated that the challenge is to understand why some people thrive in the face

of adversity while others become impaired. The present study attempted to illuminate this issue

by focusing on resilient self-talk and the variables influencing it. The findings indicate that how

often we talk to ourselves in resilient ways and how important we believe in the self-statements

are related to perceptions of our own resilience. Also, there are several factors related to the

occurrence and importance of resilient self-talk. There are several counselling and educational

implications of these findings.

First, resilient self-talk significantly contributes to perceived resilience level; it also

differentiates between individuals varying in level of resilience. Park (1998) proposed that some

of the suffering that people experience following adversity (e.g., trauma) could be ameliorated or

alleviated if methods could be developed to help them identify or cultivate their positive

resources. Resilient self-talk may be such a resource. Therefore, counselling interventions for

individuals experiencing difficult times should assess the occurrence and importance of positive

self-talk and especially resilient self-talk. For example, applying Meichenbaum's (1972)

procedure of cultivating awareness of self-talk, one can assess negative self-talk and the

presence/absence ofresilient self-talk. When one is of aware of the nature of one's inner speech,

it is then possible for a counsellor to model and teach inner speech that replaces negative self-

talk with positive and resilient self-talk, thereby influencing resilience.

Second, interventions using resilient self-talk may be facilitated by awareness of the

specific resilient characteristics of an individual. That is, helping individuals cultivate their

positive resources and strengths may allow such resources to become more accessible during

times of adversity (such as in form of resilient self-talk). For example, modelling or assisting an

individual to reframe negative situations may help him/her to adopt this skill as a part of their
 57

coping repertoire; such an individual may come to both believe and tell themselves that there is

"A silver lining to every dark cloud" the next time they encounter adversity.

Third, the finding that degree of difficulty experienced was generally unrelated to the use

of self-talk suggests that counselling approaches may not need to focus as much on situational

factors that are beyond their control (degree or type of difficulty), but rather, focus on potentially

alterable factors, e.g., teaching and reinforcing specific resilience self-statements, supporting and

enhancing particular resilient characteristics.

Fourth, the finding that the more participants had particular reasons for engaging in

resilient self-talk, the more frequently they used it and believed it was important, also has

important applications. This finding suggests that if individuals are educated to recognize and

understand the potential benefits of positive self-talk, including resilient self-talk, they may

engage in such behaviour more often. For example, athletes are often taught the beneficial

effects of positive self-talk on their competitive performance (Hardy et al., 2004); so too could

individuals facing challenge be taught to utilize resilient self-talk to promote a resilient outcome

of growth and thriving.

Fifth, there is one particularly important implication regarding the finding that the

relationship between frequency of self-talk and perceived resilience is considerably stronger than

for importance of self-talk. It suggests that frequency of self-talk may be particularly important

as a targeted behaviour in working with individuals struggling with difficult times. This may be

facilitated by what clients often believe from exposure to "pop psychology;" e.g., "You are what

you say," "Fake it 'til you make it."

 58

Limitations ofStudy

There are several theoretical and methodological limitations of this study; six are

presented. First, all of the measures involved self-report; thus, they are subject to inaccuracies,

distortions and deliberate masking (Gaw, 2000). One specific validity concern involves the use

of self-reported measures of positive outcomes (e.g., Lehman et al., 1993; Park et al., 1996), in

this case, participants' report of perceived resilience.

Second, the role of social desirability on participants' responses is unknown. Past

research has shown that social desirability may not be a concern. For example, Park and

colleagues (1996) found that scores on their Stress-Related Growth Scale were not significantly

related to social desirability; Baldree, Ingram, and Saccuzzo (1991) and Bruch, Mattia, Heimberg

and Holt (1993) found little effect of social desirability on reporting of positive self-talk.

Nevertheless, the influence of social desirability on the measures of perceived resilience and

resilient self-talk developed for this study is unknown.

Third, there are some methodological issues. For example, it is unknown whether the

order of sections of assessment (e.g., assessing perceived resiliency before resilient self-talk)

may have influenced responses. The use of a web site on the Internet to collect data may have

been problematic. Although it has advantages (e.g., interviewer error is minimized, anonymity

permitting honest answers), there are two specific disadvantages - internet-based participation

may have led to the self-selection of more "technologically savvy" participants (Sills & Song,

2002), and the anonymity may have permitted deception and/or attempts to sabotage the study.

Fourth, many of the resilient statements used to assess resilient self-talk used "I"

statements. It is possible that individuals from other cultures (e.g., collectivistic) and those

holding non-individualistic beliefs may not identify with such statements, with their perceptions
 59

being more focused on group membership or those around them than themselves. This may

result in ambiguous and inaccurate responding.

Fifth, the current study employed a correlational approach and, therefore, was unable to

assess the directionality of relationships. For example, characteristics of resilience may

influence how often we use resilient self-talk, but use of resilient self-talk may also reinforce

individual strengths and resources; a bi-directional relationship is plausible.

Sixth, utilization of a post-secondary undergraduate sample raises the issue of

generalizability of the results to the general population. For example, there was a highly skewed

distribution of level of resilience in this sample; this may be due to undergraduates possessing

characteristics or have access to resources that the general population does not. Replication of

the study' s findings would increase confidence that the results are reliable and generalizable.

Suggestions for Future Research

There are several suggestions for research. First, researchers may wish to develop a

standard lexicon for resilience. For example, longitudinal studies should be undertaken to

systematically discriminate between stress-related growth and thriving. Such research could help

to clarify whether stress-related growth and thriving are the same concepts, over-lapping

concepts, or perhaps dove-tailing concepts; e.g., does stress-related growth evolve into thriving

over time or with repeated successful experiences?

Second, the present study only used self-reported measures; this is a particular limitation

when it comes to measuring positive outcomes. Therefore, future research may wish to (a)

incorporate corroborating sources (e.g., parents, spouse) to obtain less subjective measures of

resilience, (b) assess participants' resilience pre- and post-event to observe changes over time,

and/or (c) obtain a qualitative description of their level of resilience.

 60

Third, the frequency and importance of resilient self-talk are highly correlated; other

analyses suggested that the two measures are also moderately independent, e.g., the frequency

but not importance distinguished between levels of resilience. Researchers may wish to use these

two measures and determine whether they may be differentially related to the development of

resilience; e.g., perhaps frequency is important in earlier stages of development and importance

develops later.

Fourth, further research is required to validate the measure of resilient self-talk utilized in

the present study. It may be helpful to employ factor analysis of this measure and

correspondingly utilize a larger sample size to help clarify (a) categories of resilient self-talk and

(b) their relationships to variables influencing the frequency and importance of use of resilient

self-talk.

Fifth, the present study was not designed to discern the directionality of relationships.

That is, although this study initially assumed that resilient self-talk influences level of resilience,

the opposite direction of influence is possible - people who are resilient discover and use self-

talk to maintain or increase their existing level of resilience. Assessing the directionality of

influence is an important area for future research.

Sixth, this study focused on resilient self-talk but did not examine self-talk that may be

detrimental to resilience ("anti-resilient"); e.g., "This is way too much for me to handle," "I'm

not strong enough to deal with this," "If anything can go wrong, it will." Just as previous

research on self-talk began with examining negative self-talk (e.g., Hollon & Kendall, 1980) and

progressed to look at the importance of positive self-talk (e.g., Ingram et al., 1995; Ingram &

Wisnicki, 1988), so should research on resilient self-talk attempt to include statements of

opposite polarity that may actually hinder our ability to recover or grow from adversity.
 61

Seventh, this study examined perceived resilience, not actual resilience. Therefore,

research is needed to examine the relationships between resilient and "anti-resilient" self-talk on

the actual resilience of individuals by examining several indices of resilience, e.g., physical and

psychological health, life satisfaction, global competence, positive changes in relationships/life

philosophy.

Eighth, particular resilience characteristics were found to contribute to resilient self-talk.

An examination of these characteristics (e.g., reframing, transcendence) reveals that they are

modifiable. Research is needed to examine whether and how strengthening these characteristics

may lead to increased resilient self-talk as well as resilience (perceived and actual) so that

individuals may benefit from the negative experiences they encounter.

Ninth, Park et al. (1996) suggested that appraisals of the controllability of events may be

related to stress-related growth; Carver (1998) stated that whether an adversity is perceived as a

threat determines an individual's response. In the present study, the degree of difficulty

experienced in different realms of life was found unrelated to the frequency of resilient self-talk.

Research is needed to examine (a) which kinds of situations (e.g., content, degree of difficulty,

degree of control) evoke resilient self-talk and which ones do not; and (b) in which kinds of

situations resilient self-talk is beneficial.

Summary

The current study proposed a new category of self-talk, i.e., resilient self-talk. Resilient

self-talk was found to be related to one's level ofresilience following adverse experiences. The

findings suggest that not only can resilient self-talk increase one's ability to "bounce back" from

adversity, but also to grow, thrive and benefit from events or situations that could otherwise be

construed as negative. The results also indicate that the frequency of speaking to oneself in a
 62

resilient manner is more conducive to resilience than whether or not one believes in the

importance of such self-talk. Since self-talk is an alterable behaviour, there are many counselling

interventions and self-improvement applications that could include the use of resilient self-talk to

optimize an individual's potential to flourish and thrive from adversity.

 63

References

Baldree, B. F., Ingram, R. E., & Saccuzzo, D. P. (1991). Cross-validation and social desirability

bias in automatic positive cognitions. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the

American Psychological Association, San Francisco.

Beck, A. T. (1976). Cognitive therapy and the emotional disorders. New York: Harper & Row.

Benard, B. (2004). Resiliency: What we have learned. San Francisco: WestEd.

Blunt Bugental, D. (2004). Thriving in the face of early adversity. Journal ofSocial Issues,

60(1), 219-235.

Bower, S. A., & Bower, G. H. (1991). Asserting yourself: A practical guide for positive change.

Cambridge, MA: Da Capo Press.

Bruch, M. A., Mattia, J. I., Heimberg, R. G., & Holt, C. S. (1993). Cognitive specificity in social

anxiety: Supporting evidence and qualifications due to affective confounding. Cognitive

Therapy and Research, 17, 1-21.

Budd, M., & Rothstein, H. (2000). You are what you say: The proven program that uses the

power of language to combat stress, anger, and depression. New York: Three Rivers

Press.

Burgess, E. & Haaga, D. A .F. (1994). The Positive Automatic Thoughts Questionnaire and

Automatic Thoughts Questionnaire - Revised: Equivalent measures of positive thinking?

Cognitive Therapy and Research, 18, 15-24.

Burt, M. R. & Katz, B. L. (1987). Dimensions of recovery from rape: Focus on growth

outcomes. Journal ofInterpersonal Violence, 2, 57-81.

Calhoun, L. G., & Tedeschi, R. G. (1989-1990). Positive aspects of critical life problems:

Recollections of grief. Omega, 29, 265-272.

 64

Calvete, E. & Cardefi.oso, 0. (2002). Self-talk in adolescents: Dimensions, states of mind, and

psychological maladjustment. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 26(4), 473-485.

Carbonelli, Reinherz & Giaconia (1998). Risk and resilience in late adolescence. Child and

Adolescent Social Work Journal, 15(4 ), 251 - 2 73.

Carver, C. S. (1998). Resilience and thriving: Issues, models, and linkages. Journal of Social

Issues, 54(2), 245-266.

Ching, S. Y. (2002). Coping of Chinese women with breast cancer: Psychological adjustment

through reframing. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and

Engineering, 62(10-B), pp. 4462.

Cohen, L. H., Cimbolic, K., Armeli, S. R., & Hettler, T. R. (1998). Quantitative Assessment of

Thriving. Journal ofSocial Issues, 54(2), 323-335.

Conrad, M. & Hammen, C. (1993). Protective and resource factors in high- and low-risk

children: A comparison of children with unipolar, bipolar, medically ill, and normal

mothers. Development and Psychopathology, 5, 593-607.

Coulson, R., & Fouts, G. (2002, November). Returning home from abroad: Resiliency and

reverse culture shock. Paper presented to the Canadian Bureau of International

Education, Ottawa, Ontario.

Coulson, R., & Fouts, G. (2004, June). Re-entry shock and resiliency in university students.

Poster session presented at the Canadian Psychological Association, St. John's,

Newfoudland.

Duvall, C. K. (2001 ). The relationship between thinking patterns and physiological symptoms of

stress. Social Behavior and Personality, 29(6), 537-545

Fields, C. (2002). Why do we talk to ourselves? Journal ofExperimental & Theoretical Artificial
 65

Intelligence, 14, 255-272.

Fontana, A., & Rosenheck, R. (1998). Psychological benefits and liabilities of traumatic

exposure in the war zone. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 11, 485-503.

Fouts, G., LaTosky, R., Quinney, D., & Knight, J. (2000). Resiliency: A scale assessing thriving,

recovery, and survival in adults. Unpublished scale; University of Calgary, Calgary,

Alberta.

Fouts, G., & Mottosky, R. (2004, April). Perceptions of resilience by university students.

Presentation to the W estem Psychological Association, Phoenix, AZ.

Garmezy, N. (1971). Vulnerability research and the issue of primary prevention.

American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 41, 101-116.

Garmezy, N. (1974). Children at risk: The search for the antecedents to

schizophrenia: Part II. Ongoing research programs, issues and intervention.

Schizophrenia Bulletin, 9, 55-125.

Garmezy, N., Masten A. S., & Tellegen, A. (1984). The study of stress and competence in

children: A building block for developmental psychopathology. Child Development, 55,

97-111.

Garmezy, N. & Tellegen, A. (1984). Studies of stress-resistant children: Methods, variables, and

preliminary findings. In F. Morrison, C. Lord, & D. Keating (Eds.), Advances in applied

developmental psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 231-287). New York: Academic Press.

Gaw, K. F. (2000). Reverse culture shock in students returning from abroad. International

Journal ofIntercultural Relations, 24, 83-104.

Glass, C. R., & Arnkoff, D. B. (1997). Questionnaire methods of cognitive self-statement

assessment Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65(6), 911-927.

 66

Glass, C. R., & Arnkoff, D. B. (1982). Think cognitively: Selected issues in cognitive assessment

and therapy. In P. C. Kendall (Ed.), Advances in cognitive-behavioral research and

therapy, (Vol. 1, pp. 35-71). New York: Academic Press.

Hardy, J., Hall, C.R., & Hardy, L. (2004). A note on athletes' use of self-talk. Journal of

Applied Sport Psychology, 16, 251-257.

Herman, S. L; & Lester, D. (1994). Physical symptoms of stress, depression, and suicidal

ideation in high school students. Adolescence, 29(1 l 5), 639-641.

Hollon, S. D. & Kendall, P. C. (1980). Cognitive self-statements in depression: Development of

an Automatic Thoughts Questionnaire. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 4(4), 383-395.

Hunter, A. J., & Chandler, G. E. (1999). Adolescent resilience. Image: Journal ofNursing

Scholarship, 31(3), 243-247.

Ingram, R. E., Kendall, P. C., Siegle, G., Guarino, J., & McLaughlin, S. C. (1995). Psychometric

properties of the Positive Automatic Thoughts Questionnaire. Psychological Assessment,

7(4), 495-507.

Ingram, R. E., Slater, M. A., Atkinson, J. H., & Scott, W. (1990). Positive automatic cognition in

major affective disorder. Psychological Assessment: A Journal of Consulting and

Clinical Psychology, 2, 209-211.

Ingram, R. E. & Wisnicki, K. S. (1988). Assessment of automatic positive cognition. Journal of

Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56, 898-902.

Jew, C. L., Green, K. E., & Kroger, J. (1999). Development and validation of a measure of

resiliency. Measurement and Evaluation in Counselling and Development, 32, 75-89.

Johnson, J. T. (2001). On weakening the strongest link: Attributions and intervention strategies

for behavior change. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(4), 408-422.
 67

Kendall P. C. (1984). Behavioral assessment and methodology. In G. T. Wilson, C. M. Franks,

K. D. Brownell, & P. C. Kendall (Eds.), Annual review ofbehavior therapy: Theory and

practice (Vol. 9, pp. 39-94). New York: Guilford.

Kendall, P. C., & Chansky, T. E. (1991). Considering cognition in anxiety-disordered children.

Journal ofAnxiety Disorders, 5, 167-185.

Kendall, P. C. & Hollon, S. D. (1981). Assessing self-referent speech: Methods in the

measurement of self-statements. In P. C. Kendall & S. D. Hollon (Eds.), Assessment

strategies for cognitive-behavioral interventions (pp. 85-118). New York: Academic

Press.

Kendall, P. C., Howard, B. L., & Hays, R. C. (1989). Self-referent speech and psychopathology:

The balance of positive and negative thinking. Cognitive Therapy & Research, 13, 583-

598.

Kumpfer, K. L. (1999). Factors and Processes Contributing to Resilience: The Resilience

Framework. In M. D. Glantz (Ed.), Resilience and development: Positive life adaptations

(pp. 179-224). Hingham, MA: Kluwer Academic.

Lehman, D., Davis, C., Delongis, A., Wortman, C., Bluck, S. Mandel, D., & Ellard, J. (1993).

Positive and negative life changes following bereavement and their relations to

adjustment. Journal ofSocial and Clinical Psychology, 12, 90-112.

Lustig, D. C. (2002). Family coping in families with a child with a disability. Education &

Training in Mental Retardation & Developmental Disabilities, 3 7(1 ), 14-22.

Luthar, S. (1991). Vulnerability and resilience: A study of high-risk adolescents. Child

Development, 62, 600- 616.

Luthar, S. S., Doemberger, C. H. & Zigler, E. (1993). Resilience is not a unidimensional

 68

construct: Insights from a prospective study of inner-city adolescents. Development and

Psychopathology, 5, 703-717.

Maeker, A., & Schutzwohl, M. (1997). Posttraumatic personal growth: Speculations and

empirical findings. Paper presented at the Fifth European Conference on Traumatic

Stress, Maastricht, The Netherlands.

Masten, A. S. (1994). Resilience in individual development: Successful adaptation despite risk

and adversity. In M. C. Wang & E.W. Gorden (Eds.), Educational resilience in inner-

city America (pp. 3- 25). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Masten, A. S., Best, K. M., & Garmezy, N. (1990). Resilience and development: Contribution

from the study of children who overcome adversity. Development and Psychopathology,

2,425 -444.

Masten, A. S., Hubbard, J. J., Gest, S. D., Tellegen, A., Garmezy, N. & Ramirez, M. (1999).

Competence in the context of adversity: Pathways to resilience and maladaptation from

childhood to late adolescence. Development and Psychopathology, 11, 143-169.

Masten, A. S., & Powell, J. L. (2003). A resilience framework for research, policy, and practice.

In S. Luthar (Ed.), Resilience and vulnerability: Adaptation in the context of childhood

adversities (pp. 1-25). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Meichenbaum, D. H. (1972). Cognitive modification of test-anxious college students. Journal of

Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 39, 370-390.

McMillen, J. C. (1999). Better for it: How people benefit from adversity. Social Work, 44(5),

456-467.

McMillen, J. C., Smith, E. M., & Fisher, R. (1997). Perceived benefit and mental health after

three types of disaster. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65, 733-739.
 69

Miloti, A. (2004). Stress, emotion competence, and coping resources in university students.

Unpublished master's thesis, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

Morin, A. (1993). Self-talk and self-awareness: On the nature of the relation. The Journal of

Mind and Behavior, 14(3), 223-234.

Morin, A. (1995). Characteristics of an effective internal dialogue in the acquisition of self

information. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 15(1 ), 45-48.

Neill, J. (2002). Transcendence and transformation in the life patterns of women living with

rheumatoid arthritis. Advances in Nursing Science, 24(4), 27-47

Nutt-Williams, E. & Hill, C. E. (1996). The relationship between self-talk and therapy process

variables for novice therapists. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 43(2) 170-177.

Ohrt, T., Sjodin, I. & Thorell, L. (1999). Cognitive distortions in panic disorder and major

depression: Specificity for depressed mood. Nordic Journal ofPsychiatry, 53, 459-464.

O'Leary, V. E. (1998). Strength in the face of adversity: Individual and social thriving. Journal

ofSocial Issues, 54(2), 425-446.

O'Leary, V. E., & Ickovics, J. R. (1995). Resilience and thriving in response to a challenge: An

opportunity for a paradigm shift in women's health. Women's Health Research on

Gender, Behavior, and Policy, 1(2), 121-142.

Park, C. L. (1998). Stress-related growth and thriving through coping: The roles of personality

and cognitive processes. Journal of Social Issues, 54(2), 267-277.

Park, C. L., Cohen, L. H., & Murch, R. L. (1996). Assessment and prediction of stress-related

growth. Journal ofPersonality, 64(1), 71-105.

Peale, N.V. (1952). The power ofpositive thinking. New York: Prentice-Hall.

Pedersen, P. (1999). Internal dialogue as an underutilized psychoeducational resource: Hearing

 70

the anticounselor. Asian Journal of Counselling, 6(1), 7-34.

Philpot, V. D. & Bamburg, J. W. (1996). Rehearsal of positive self-statements and restructured

negative self-statements to increase self-esteem and decrease depression. Psychological

Reports, 79, 83-91.

Philpot, V. D., Holliman, W. B. & Madonna, S., Jr. (1995). Self-statements, locus of control, and

depression in predicting self-esteem. Psychological Reports, 76, 1007-1010.

Quinney, D. M., & Fouts, G. T. (2003). Resilience and divorce adjustment in adults participating

in divorce recovery workshops. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 40(1/2), 55-68.

Radke-Yarrow, M. & Brown, E. (1993). Resilience and vulnerability in children of multiple-risk

families. Development and Psychopathology, 5, 581-592.

Rutter, M. (1985). Resilience in the face of early adversity: Protective factors and resistance to

psychiatric disorders. British Journal ofPsychiatry, 147, 598-611.

Rutter, M. (1987). Psychosocial resilience and protective mechanisms. American Journal of

Orthopsychiatry, 57, 316-331.

Schwartz, R. M., & Michaelson, L. (1987). States of mind model: cognitive balance in the

treatment of agoraphobia. Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology, 55, 557-565.

Segal, J. (1986). Winning life's toughest battles: Roots of human resilience. New York:

McGraw-Hill.

Siebert, A. (1996). The survivor personality:. New York: Berkley Publishing Group.

Sills, S. J. & Song, C. (2002). Innovations in survey research: An application of web-based

surveys. Social Science Computer Reviews, 20(1), 23-30.

Snodgrass, S. E., (1998). A personal account. Journal of Social Issues, 54(2) 373- 380.

Tamres, L. K., Janicki, D., & Helgeson, V. S. (2002). Sex differences in coping behaviour: A
 71

meta-analytic review and an examination of relative coping. Personality and Social

Psychology Review, 6(1 ), 2-30.

Tedeschi, R. G., & Calhoun, L. G. (1995). Trauma and transformation: Growing in the

aftermath ofsuffering. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Tedeschi, R. G., & Calhoun, L. G. (1996). The Posttraumatic Growth Inventory: Measuring the

positive legacy of trauma. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 9(3), 455-471.

Thompson, S. C. (1985). Finding positive meaning in a stressful event and coping. Basic and

Applied Social Psychology, 6, 279-295.

Thompson, S. C. (1991 ). Finding positive meaning in stressful event and coping. Basic and

Applied Social Psychology, 6, 279-295.

Vaillant, G. E. (2000). Adaptive Mental Mechanisms: Their Role in a Positive Psychology.

American Psychologist, 55(1), 89-98.

Wallerstein, J. (1986). Women after divorce: Preliminary report from a ten-year follow-up.

American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 56, 65-77.

Werner, E. E. (1992). The children of Kauai: Resiliency and recovery in adolescence and

adulthood. Journal ofAdolescent Health, 13(4), 262-268.

Werner, E. E. (2000). Protective factors and individual resilience. In J. P. Shonkoff & S. J.

Meisels (Eds.), Handbook of early childhood intervention (pp. 115-132). Cambridge,

England: Cambridge University Press.

Werner, E. E., & Smith, R. S. (1982). Vulnerable but invincible: A study of resilient children.

New York: McGraw-Hill.

Werner, E. E. & Smith, R. S. (1992). Overcoming the odds: High risk children from birth to

adulthood. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

 72

Werner, E. E. & Smith, R. S. (2001). Journeys from childhood to midlife: Risk, resilience, and

recovery. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Wolin, S. J., & Wolin, S. (1993). Bound and Determined: Growing up resilient in a troubled

family. New York: Villard Press.

Young-Eisendrath, P. (1996). The resilient spirit: Transforming suffering into insight and

renewal. New York: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company Inc.

 73

Appendix A

Questionnaire

Personality and Self-Talk

rI Please complete this questionnaire as completely and honestly as possible. It is only through accurate information
I that we can begin to understand the way university students deal with difficult times and events. Your answers are
! anonymous and are held in the strictest of confidence; only the researcher will see your answers.
I
~
If you, at any time, would like
. • •··•· •· .
to .withdraw from this ··study,
. . ······••·•.
please
..
click here: "I do not want·····
to······participate".
. .. . .... .

!Part I - Demographics .
!General Instructions: Please answer the following questions by either clicking the appropriate boxes or typing your
Janswer in the corres:1:1?.~~~ng space provided.

Username:L.-- j IF DIFFERENT from "selftalk"

Password:L J IF DIFFERENT from "study"

1. Gender: 0 Male
0 Female

2. What is your age: • years

3. How would you describe yourself:

0 Caucasian O East Indian
0 Aboriginal O Asian
0 Black O Other; (please specify): L....,. ., . _ . _
0 Hispanic

4. Year at University:
0 I
0 2
0 3
0 4
0 5+

5. What is your major? L

,. ., ., ,, . ...... . ,.,-........... " i
. •... ,, ....,. ..!

6. How many psychology courses have you taken? t _ . J

7. Marital Status:
0 Single
0 Married
0 Divorced/Separated
0 Common Law
0 Widow/Widower

8. Country of Citizenship:
 0 Canada
74
0 Other; (please specify): L., ,,,, - ~, ..
9. First language:
0 English
0 Other; (please specify):

10. Most people experience difficult times in their lives. Please indicate if you have ever experienced significant difficult times in any of the
following areas:

a)School-related (e.g., failed a class, started school after a long break)

0 No
0 Yes --> Ifyes, please indicate below how difficult this time was for you. If there was more than one time, rate the most difficult time:
0 Not at all difficult O A little difficult O Moderately difficult O Fairly difficult O Very difficult

b) Relationship-related (e.g., break-up of a romantic relationship, a major blow-up with a family member)
0 No
0 Yes --> Ifyes, please indicate below how difficult this time was for you. If there was more than one time, rate the most difficult time:
0 Not at all difficult O A little difficult O Moderately difficult O Fairly difficult O Very difficult

c) Work/Finances-related (e.g., financial difficulties, loss of an importantjob)

0 No
0 Yes --> Ifyes, please indicate below how difficult this time was for you. lfthere was more than one time, rate the most difficult time:
0 Not at all difficult O A little difficult O Moderately difficult O Fairly difficult O Very difficult

d) Psychological-related ( e.g., grief over a loss, felt pretty "blue" or depressed for several days, issues related to sexuality)
0 No
0 Yes --> Ifyes, please indicate below how difficult this time was for you. Ifthere was more than one time, rate the most difficult time:
0 Not at all difficult O A little difficult O Moderately difficult O Fairly difficult O Very difficult

e) Other? (different in nature from the above areas)

Please indicate: I . _,-.,.'" , "" ., .
· -•-✓-"···" · · ·- -·
--> Please indicate how difficult this time was for you:
0 Not at all difficult O A little difficult O Moderately difficult O Fairly difficult O Very difficult

11. Compared to most people my age, I've experienced difficult times: 0 A lot less
0 Somewhat less
0 About the same
0 A little more
O Muchmore

12. How difficult of a time are you going through right now? 0 Not at all difficult
0 A little difficult
0 Moderately difficult
0 Fairly difficult
0 Very difficult

Part II - Self Description

1. Instructions: When people look upon their negative and difficult experiences and the result of having gone
through them, there are four ways they usually view themselves. These four ways are described below; please read
the following four descriptions carefully, then follow the instructions below them.
••• ••••••• .. ••• •• ••• ••• ••• • - •••• •H •• • ••••••H••• •• • HO O O ••• • •• ••• •• • •• • •-• ••- 0 0000000-• H OOO

DESCRIPTION A:

When I go through difficult times, in the end, it is very hard for me to get past them. Difficult events or circumstances usua
:continue to get me down and sometimes I even need to do things to distract myself. Sometimes I feel really stuck. For me,
 75
difficult times usually have a really negative effect on me, and it doesn't seem to change very much as time goes on:

DESCRIPTION B:

When I go through difficult times, in the end, I often feel weaker somehow. Sometimes I find ways to adapt, but I keep feel
like I haven't gotten back to where I was before these events or circumstances happened. It almost feels like I am missing
'something' that I had before the difficult times. I suppose you can say that I just 'survive' after difficult times.

DESCRIPTION C:

!When I go through difficult times, in the end, I feel that I basically get back to where I was before the difficult times occurr
!in my life. I basically recover from difficult events and circumstances, and I have the inner resources to adjust and get on w
my life. I am generally able to 'bounce back' from difficult times and usually it feels like my life is back on track.

DESCRIPTION D:

!When I go through difficult times, in the end, I feel like I have gained a lot from the experience. I know I have the inner
!resources to grow from difficult events or circumstances, and it seems like I am better in some way for having experienced
!events or circumstances. I feel like a 'new and improved' me as a result of difficult times.

Instructions: On the scale below, please rate yourself according to which description most closely matches you and
way you feel about yourself in general. Do this by clicking on the appropriate button. NOTE: If a description matches
!you see yourself, click the corresponding button below; If you fall somewhere between the descriptions, click the
\appropriate button between the descriptions.

DESCRIPTION: A B C D
0 ---- 0 ---- 0 ---- 0 ---- 0 ---- 0 ---- 0 ---- 0 ---- 0 ---- 0

:General Instructions: When you think of the difficult times you have faced in your life, how would you rate yourself
ji~ de.~1.~~~ .' !.i.~~ t~en:t? S~~~.~ !~~ ~~.~r.~~p<>~~i.i.tg b11tt.o~ t~a.t.}s t.he closest to how y<>u .s~~ your.self: .
•• • •• •• .. • · • •••· • • •• •• •••• • •h • •• •• O • •••• ••• ••• •• •••••• • •••••••r• •• •• • •• •
...
•• •••• • •
..
•
. .
•••• • •-•••• ••• •

0 This statement is very like me

2. On average, I cope and deal with my negative or difficult experiences. However, I 0 This statement is somewhat like me
continue to have some difficulty with them and find it difficult to bounce back to where I 0 Undecided
was before having the difficult experiences. 0 This statement is somewhat unlike me
0 This statement is ve.ry unlike me .
. -· ··
.O This statement is very like me
0 This statement is somewhat like me
3. On average, I end up bouncing back to where I was before having the negative or
0 Undecided
difficult experiences. I get on well with my life after each experience.
·O This statement is somewhat unlike me
0 Th~s.~~~t~rt1~n\~s.~~1?' unlike me .
0 This statement is very like me
4. On average, I end up being stuck in my negative or difficult experiences. I continue to 0 This statement is somewhat like me
experience the negative effects, thoughts, and feelings of each experience. Sometimes I 0 Undecided
just want to give up. 0 This statement is somewhat unlike me
?. This statem_~nt is ve!Y unl~ke me
 76
0 This statement is very like me
0 This statement is somewhat like me
5. On average, I end up benefiting from my negative or difficult experiences. I am stronger
0 Undecided
or better in some way for having had each experience.
0 This statement rs somewhat unlike me
0 This statement is very unlike me
... --~ .... .

Part III - How I Talk to Myself

General Instructions: Most of us have had major negative or difficult events in our lives.(e.g., relationship
breakup, major school or work problems, loss of a loved one). People often privately say things to themselves to get
through these times. Below is a list of sayings, statements, and sentences that you may have said to yourself to help
you get through difficult times.

NOTE: The wordng of a statement/saying may not be exactly like yours, but just as long as it is reasonably close.

!DIRECTIONS: Please read each item below carefully and indicate which statements (or those that are similar)
[you may have used to help you get through difficult times or events (if any):

1. Using the "How Often I Say This to Myselr' scale, please indicate how often you say this
statement to yourself:
1 = Never, 2 = Rarely/Once in a while, 3 = Sometimes, 4 = Often, 5 = Most of the time.

2. Regardless of how often you say this statement to yourself, using the " How Important This is to Me"
scale, please indicate how important the statement is to you:
1 = Zero importance, 2 = A little important, 3 = Somewhat important, 4 = Important, 5 = Very
important

How Often I Say How Important

This to Myself This Is to Me
0 Never 0 Zero importance
0 Rarely/Once in a while 0 A little important
1. There is a silver lining to every dark cloud. 0 Sometimes 0 Somewhat important
0 Often 0 Important
0 Very important
0 Never 0 Zero importance
0 Rarely/Once in a while 0 A little important
2. I am strong / I have the strength to get through this. 0 Sometimes ! 0 Somewhat important
0 Often 0 Important
0 Most of the time .0 Very important
0 Never '0 Zero importance
0 Rarely/Once in a while 0 A little important
3. When the going gets tough, the tough get going. 0 Sometimes 0 Somewhat important
0 Often 0 Important
0 Very important
0 Never 0 Ze-ro importance
0 Rarely/Once in a while 0 A little important
4. If I get knocked down, I get back up again. 0 Sometimes 0 Somewhat important
0 Often 0 Important
0 Most of the time 0 Very important
0 Never 0 Zero importance
5. Always look on the bright side of life. 0 Rarely/Once in a while 0 A little important
0 Sometimes 0 Somewhat important
 I 77
• 0 Often . 0 Important
0 Most of the time ; 0 Very important
How Often I Say How Important
This to Myself This Is to Me
0 Never 0 Zero Importance
0 Rarely/Once in a while 0 A little important
0 Sometimes 0 Somewhat important
6. The sun will come out tomorrow.
·0 Often 0 Important
0 Most of the time 0 Very important
0 Never 0 Zero Importance
0 Rarely/Once in a while 0 A little important
7. This too shall pass. 0 Sometimes 0 Somewhat important
0 Often 0 Important
0 Most of the time 0 Very important
•0 Never 0 Zero importance
0 Rarely/Once in a while 0 A little important
0 Sometimes 0 Somewhat important
8. What can I learn from this?
0 Often 0 Important
0 Most of the time 0 Very important
0 Zero importance
.0 Rarely/Once in a while 0 A little important
·0 Sometimes 0 Somewhat important
9. I just have to have faith.
•0 Often 0 Important
0 Most of the time 0 Very important
0 Never 0 Zero importance
0 Rarely/Once in a while 0 A little important
0 Sometimes 0 Somewhat important
10. Make the best of a bad situation.
0 Often 0 Important
0 Most of the time 0 Very important
How Often I Say How Important
This to Myself This Is to Me
0 Never 0 Zero importance
0 Rarely/Once in a while 0 A little important
11. Everything happens for a reason. 0 Sometimes 0 Somewhat important
0 Often 0 Important
0 Most of the time 0 Very important
0 Never 0 Zero .importance
0 Rarely/Once in a while .0 A little important
0 Sometimes 0 Somewhat important
12. Take one day at a time / one step at a time.
0 Often :0 Important
0 Most of the time 0 Very important
0 Never 0 Zero importance
0 Rarely/Once in a while 0 A little important
13. I trust that everything will work out. 0 Sometimes :0 Somewhat important
0 Often 0 Important
0 Most of the time 0 Very important
0 Never 0 Zero imort&nce
0 Rarely/Once in a while •0 A little important
14. Ifl was able to get through (a previous difficult situation), 0 Sometimes 0 Somwhat important
then I can get through this. 0 Often 0 Important
0 Most of the time 0 Very Important
0 Never .0 Z~ro importance
0 Rarely/Once in a while 0 A little important
15. What doesn't kill you makes you stronger. 0 Sometimes .0 Somewhat important
•0 Often ·0 Important
.0 Very important
How Often I Say How Important
This to Myself This Is to Me
 78

0 Never 0 Zero importance

0 Rarely/Once in a while 0 A little important
16. Will this really matter in 1 month (or another • 0 Sometimes 0 Somewhat important
period of time)? 0 Often 0 Important
0 Most of the time 0 Very important
0 Never 0 Zero importance
0 Rarely/Once in a while :0 A little important
0 Sometimes 0 Somewhat important
17. Don't sweat the small stuff.
0 Often 0 Important
0 Very important
0 Never
0 Rarely/Once in a while
18. I have to look at the big picture. 0 Sometimes
0 Often
0 Most of the time
0 Never 0 Zero importance
0 Rarely/Once in a while 0 A little important
19. God helps those who help themselves. 0 Sometimes 0 Somewhat important
0 Often 0 Important
0 Most of the time 0 important
0 Never 0 Zero importance
0 Rarely/Once in a while 0 A little important
0 Sometimes 0 Somewhat important
20. Where to from here?
0 Often 0 Important
0 Most of the time 0 Very important
How Often I Say How Important
This to M self This Is to Me
0 Never 0 Zero importance
0 Rarely/Once in a while 0 A little important
21. There's nothing to worry about. 0 Sometimes 0 Somewhat important
0 Often 0 Important
0 Most of the time 0 Very important
0 Never 0 Zero importance
0 Rarely/Once in a while 0 A little important
22. I won't give up/Don't give up. 0 Sometimes 0 Somewhat important
0 Often 0 Important
0 Most of the time 0 Very important
0 Never 0 Zero importance
0 Rarely/Once in a while 0 A little important
0 Sometimes 0 Somewhat important
23. I can handle this.
0 Often 0 Important
0 Most of the time 0 Very important
0 Zero importance
0 Rarely/Once in a while 0 A little important
0 Sometimes 0 Somewhat important
24. Just stay positive / Try to stay positive.
0 Often 0 Important
0 Most of the time b Very important
0 Never 0 Zero importance
0 Rarely/Once in a while 0 A little important
25. I'm okay/ Its going to be okay. 0 Sometimes 0 Somewhat important
0 Often 0 Important
0 Most of the time 0 Very important
How Often I Say How Important
This to Myself This Is to Me

0 Never 0 Zero importance

0 Rarely/Once in a while 0 A little important
26. Change is inevitable.
0 Sometimes :0 Somewhat important
0 Often .0 Important
 79

0 .Very i111portar1t .
·- --················· ·······················•··...... .... ... ..
0 Never 0 Zero importance
0 Rarely/Once in a while •0 A little important
27. I can do it/ You can do it/ Just do it. 0 Sometimes 0 Somewhat important
0 Often •0 Important
,0 Most of the time '0 Very important
·0 Never 0 Zero importance
0 Rarely/Once in a while 0 A little important
28. I need to get through this so I can be closer to my goal. 0 Sometimes 0 Somewhat important
0 Often 0 Important
0 Most of the time 0 Very important
0 Never 0 Zero importance
0 Rarely/Once in a while 0 A little important
29. There's a light at the end of the tunnel. 0 Sometimes 0 Somewhat important
0 Often :0 Important
.0 Very important
0 Never 0 Zero importance
0 Rarely/Once in a while 0 A little important
30. God will take care of me/is looking out for me. 0 Sometimes 0 Somewhat important
0 Often 0 Important
•0 Most of the time .0 Very important
How Often I Say How Important
This to Myself This Is to Me
....... ····· · ···•········· ······· .................... ......................... ....... .
0 Never •i O Zero importance
0 Rarely/Once in a while ! 0 A little important
31. This won't last forever. 0 Sometimes ! 0 Somewhat important
0 Often '! 0 Important
0 Most of the time ./ 0 Very important
0 Never 0 Zero importance
0 Rarely/Once in a while 0 A little important
32. Shit happens. 0 Sometimes 0 Somewhat important
0 Often .0 Important
0 Most of the time :0 Very important
0 Never 0 Zero importance
0 Rarely/Once in a while 0 A little important
33. How can I correct this/ How can I fix this? !C Sometimes 0 Somewhat important
·0 Often 0 Important
0 Most of the time 0 Very important
0 Never 0 Zero importance
0 Rarely/Once in a while 0 A little important
34. Hang in there. 0 Sometimes 0 Somewhat important
0 Often 0 Important
0 Most of the time 0 Very important
0 Never 0 Zero importance
0 Rarely/Once in a while 0 A little important
35. Trust in yourself. 0 Sometimes 0 Somewhat important
0 Often 0 Important
0 Most of the time 0 Very important
0 Never 0 Zero importance
0 Rarely/Once in a while 0 A little important
36. When life hands you lemons, make lemonade. •0 Sometimes 0 Somewhat important
0 Often 0 Important
0 Most of the time 0 Very important

How Often I Say How Important

This to Myself This is to Me
Is there a particular saying or statement ( not presented above ) that you say 0 Never 0 Zero importance
to yourself in difficult times? If so, type here, and complete the two scales:
0 Rarely/Once in a while 0 A little important
 80
37. Other:
0 Sometimes 0 Somewhat important
0 Often 0 Important
0 Most of the time 0 Very important

38. Another saying or statement V!:J!lpresented above)? 0 Never 0 Zero importance

0 Rarely/Once in a while 0 A little important
0 Sometimes 0 Somewhat important
0 Often 0 Important
0 Most of the time '· 0 Very important

39. For some people, self-talk may take the form of a song or a phrase in a song. Is there a particular phrase/verse from a song that you
say or sing to yourself when you are going through difficult times?

0 No ---> Ifno, go to Part lV

0 Yes ---->If~, type the name of the song, the artist(s), the phrase/verse of the song, and please complete the two scales below:

How Often I Say How Important

This to Myse If T'
his is to Me
c.. ........ .. ..
···· ···

39. a) Song name (if known): .

.
•

.
., .•. ... ····· .•.
b) Song artist (if known): .
0 Never 0 Zero importance
0 Rarely/Once in a while 0 A little important
0 Sometimes 0 Somewhat important
0 Often 0 Important
,.. - ...... , . , ••• • , ...., ...... ....... y- .... ,•
0 Most of the time 0 Very important
c) Phrase/verse:

l
:

:
:,
,.. ,•... ,.. - - -•··-

'
l

£MM¥¥- ¥i¥i#§§@f •. 1ft ™

JUST TWO MORE SECTIONS TO GO- YOU ARE MORE THAN HALF-WAY
DONE!!!!

Part IV - Reasons I Talk to Myself

 81
General Instructions: Most people do talk to themselves during difficult times or circumstances.
If you do, why, in gen~ral, do you think you do it? Please answer each item:
r . ..

0 Definitely not
0 Probably not
1. To acknowledge my personal strenghts or beliefs. 0 Not sure
0 Probably yes
0 Definitely yes
0 Definitely not
0 Probably not
2. To affirm something to myself, i.e., tell myself it is true. 0 Not sure
0 Probably yes
0 Definitely yes
··· ····················,····-·
0 Definitely not
0 Probably not
3. To motivate me. 0 Not sure
0 Probably yes
0 Definitely yes
0 Definitely not
0 Probably not
4. To tap my inner strength. 0 Not sure
0 Probably yes
0 Definitely yes
0 Definitely not
0 Probably not
5. To tap my core beliefs. 0 Not sure
0 Probably yes
0 Definitely yes
0 Definitely not
0 Probably not
6. To reassure myself. 0 Not sure
0 Probably yes
0 Definitely yes
0 Definitely not
0 Probably not
7. To help me keep focused. 0 Not sure
0 Probably yes
0 Definitely yes
0 Definitely not
0 Probably not
8. To comfort me. 0 Not sure
0 Probably yes
0 Definitely yes
0 Definitely not
0 Probably not
9. No purpose. 0 Notsure
0 Probably yes
C Definitely yes
0 Definitely not
0 Probably not
0 Not sure .
0 Probably yes
0 Definitely yes

£00
 82
JUST ONE MORE SECTION... YOU ARE ALMOST DONE!!!!

Part IV - How I See Myself

General Instructions: We are interested in obtaining an accurate picture of how you view yourself. Please
respond as completely and honestly as you can, by selecting the answers that most closely describe your view of
yourself (strongly agree, agree, undecided, disagree, strongly disagree). There are no right or wrong answers .
. - - ·········•·······•····· ···-·--

0 Strongly Agree
0 Agree
1. I know that my life will ultimately be successful 0 Undecided

0 Strongly Agree
0 Agree
2. When I have difficult experiences, I can usually find something positive about them. 0 Undecided
0 Disagree
0 Strongly Disagree
0 Strongly Agree
0 Agree
3. I have the will to conquer difficulties. 0 Undecided
0 Disagree
0 Strongly Disagree
0 Strongly Agree
0 Agree
4. I have faced major problems in my life and have benefited from them. 0 Undecided
·0 Disagree
0 Strongly Disagree
0 Strongly Agree
0 Agree
5. I can take the perspective of others quite easily. 0 Undecided
0 Disagree
0 Strongly Disagree
0 Stro~gly Agree
0 Agree
6. I know that I matter and influence the lives of others. 0 Undecided
0 Disagree
0 Strongly Disagree
.................... .................
0 Strongly Agree
0 Agree
7. I think past problems have prevented me from growing as a person. 0 Undecided
0 Disagree
0 Strongly Disagree
0 Strongly Agree
0 Agree
8. I know I have a purpose in life. 0 Undecided
. 0 Disagree
'0 Strongly Disagree
···•······ :·.... :.:: ..... :.:... :.;:............. ----·- ·········•·· ..:................. ••- ...... . . . . .. ······~- ··•· _:_ ·· ·• ··•· ·· · .:
0 Strongly Agree
0 Agree
9. When I have a problem, I have no one I can really share it with. 0 Undecided
0 Disagree
0 Strongly Disagree
 I 83
·0 Strongly Agree
0 Agree
10. I feel comfortable sharing my deeper feelings. .0 Undecided
0 Disagree
0 Strongly Disagree
0 Strongly Agree
0 Agree
11. I believe that all of us are connected in some way, even though we may
0 Undecided
not be aware of how at this time.
0 Disagree
0 Strongly Disagree
0 Strongly Agree
0 Agree
12. I believe that I am truly connected with my inner self even though I may not
0 Undecided
be able to exactly explain what that is.
0 Disagree
0 Strongly Disagree
0 Strongly Agree
0 Agree
13. I have the courage to face any type of difficulty. 0 Undecided
0 Disagree
0 Strongly Disagree
,, 0 Strongly Agree
0 Agree
14. I have difficulty letting go of the past. 0 Undecided
0 Disagree
0 Strongly Disagree
0 Strongly Agree
0 Agree
15. It is important to find some balance between my uniqueness as an individual
0 Undecided
and connectedness as a member of humanity.
0 Disagree
0 Strongly Disagree
0 Strongly Agree
0 Agree
16. I am basically the master of my own fate and what happens to me. 0 Undecided
0 Disagree
0 Strongly Disagree
0 Strongly Agree
0 Agree
17. I know ways to relax when I'm stressed. 0 Undecided
0 Disagree
·. 0 Strongly Disagree
0 Strongly Agree
0 Agree
18. I can find humor in difficult situations. 0 Undecided
0 Disagree
0 Strongly Disagree
...... .... ,, .......... ...
'0 Strongly Agree
0 Agree ·
19. I know there is an inner strength inside me that can sustain
'O Undecided
me no matter what happens.
0 Disagree
0 Strongly Disagree
0 Strongly Agree
0 Agree
20. I have the ability to anticipate major issues or problems before
0 Undecided
they become too serious.
0 Disagree
0 Strongly Disagree

0 Strongly Agree
21. I get stressed when my daily routine is changed without notice. 0 Agree
0 Undecided
 84
0 Disagree
0 Strongly Disagree
0 Strongly Agree
0 Agree
22. My body lets me know when things aren't going well. 0 Undecided
0 Disagree
0 Strongly Disagree
0 Strongly Agree
0 Agree
23. I tend to hold grudges. 0 Undecided
0 Disagree
0 Strongly Disagree
0 Strongly Agree
•• 0 Agree
24. I have had at least one inspiring role model in my life. 0 Undecided
0 Disagree
0 Strongly Disagree
0 Strongly Agree
0 Agree
25. There are times that I feel so connected to someone or something,
0 Undecided
that I feel we are one.
0 Disagree
0 Strongly Disagree
. ··• •·• ....... ·• ·- • •· -~--- -.
i O Strongly Agree
:: 0 Agree
26. There are times when I feel hopeless. I: 0 Undecided
: 0 Disagree
:i O Strongly Disagree
0 Strongly Agree
.0 Agree
27. I tackle problems as though they are challenges. •0 Undecided
0 Disagree
0 Strongly Disagree
0 Strongly Agree
0 Agree
28. I am determined to succeed in my life. 0 Undecided
0 Disagree
0 Strongly Disagree
0 Strongly Agree
0 Agree
29. I have ultimately benefited from the problems in my life. 0 Undecided
0 Disagree
0 Strongly Disagree
0 Strongly Agree
0 Agree
30. I cannot seem to tell when someone is hurt or upset. 0 Undecided
0 Disagree
0 Strongly Disagree
0 Strongly Agree
0 Agree
31. I feel good about what I have accomplished thus far in my life. 0 Undecided
0 Disagree
0 Strongly Disagree
0 Strongly Agree
0 Agree
32. I know that I can learn some important lessons from failures. 0 Undecided
0 Disagree
0 Strongly Disagree
 85
0 Strongly Agree
;, 0 Agree
33. We all contribute to the world in unique and collective ways. .; 0 Undecided
•• 0 Disagree
•0 Strongly Disagree
•0 Strongly Agree
0 Agree
34. I seek out supportive relationships. 0 Undecided
0 Disagree
0 Strongly Disagree
.. ...................... .............. · ·--······
0 Strongly Agree
0 Agree
35. I know I can clearly communicate my feelings to others. 0 Undecided
0 Disagree
0 Strongly Disagree
0 Strongly Agree
0 Agree
36. I have a deep respect and appreciation for all things. 0 Undecided
0 Disagree
0 Strongly Disagree
0 Strongly Agree
0 Agree
37. I have an intuitive sense about many things. 0 Undecided
0 Disagree
0 •·
Strongly
..... .
Disagree
-- .

0 Strongly Agree
0 Agree
38. I have the strength to be vulnerable. 0 Undecided
0 Disagree
0 Strongly Disagree
·0 Strongly Agree
0 Agree
39. I spend time thinking about what I could have done differently in the past. 0 Undecided
0 Disagree
0 Strongly Disagree
0 Strongly Agree
,, 0 Agree
40. I believe that I know who I am, which includes my strengths and weaknesses. · 0 Undecided
0 Disagree
0 Strongly Disagree
0 Strongly Agree
0 Agree
41. The choices that I make everyday influence how my life is unfolding. 0 Undecided
0 Disagree
0 Strongly Disagree
,0 Strongly Agree
0 Agree ·
42. When I am feeling angry or sad, I know I can work it out. 0 Undecided
0 Disagree
'0 Strongly Disagree
;0 Strongly Agree
0 Agree
43. There are times that I can go beyond the immediate experience 0 Undecided
and understand the bigger picture.
0 Disagree
0 Strongly Disagree

0 Strongly Agree
44. I believe that I could continue to grow as a person if I had an incurable illness. 0 Agree
0 Undecided
 86
0 Disagree
0 Strongly Disagree
0 Strongly Agree
0 Agree
45. I have good skills in identifying and resolving major issues that come my way. 0 Undecided
·0 Disagree
0 Strongly Disagree
0 Strongly Agree
0 Agree
46. I know that people are different from me; that's what makes life interesting. 0 Undecided
0 Disagree
0 Strongly Disagree
0 Strongly Agree
0 Agree
47. No matter what happens, I know that I can find the physical
0 Undecided
strength to face the challenge.
0 Disagree
0 Strongly Disagree
0 Strongly Agree
0 Agree
48. I can find it in my heart to forgive people who have hurt me. 0 Undecided
·. 0 Disagree
·• 0 Strongly Disagree
:.. : . .....::............ .. ... .:·..: ___ . ·::::. .... -·-··.

•. 0 Strongly Agree
•0 Agree
49. I have at least one special ability that makes me truly unique. 0 Undecided
0 Disagree
0 Strongly Disagree
0 Strongly Agree
0 Agree
50. I have connected with another person to the point where I got so caught up
0 Undecided
in the moment that I lost all track of time and place.
·0 Disagree
0 Strongly Disagree

In the space below, you may wish to write a comment about the study before pressing the submit button below:

SUBMIT ANSWERS

Thank you for your participation in this study! If you would like to submit your answers,
please click the "Submit Answers" button above. If you chose to not submit your answers,
please click the "I do not want to participate" link at the top of the page.
 87

Appendix B

Consent Form

hi
Name of Researcher, Faculty, Department, Telephone & Email:

Ronaye Coulson, Master of Science Graduate Student

Division of Applied Psychology
(403) 220-7787
rcoulson@ucalgary.ca

Supervisor:
Greg Fouts, Ph.D.,
Department of Psychology
(403) 220-5573
gfouts@ucalgary.ca

Title of Project:
Personality and Self-Talk

This consent form, a copy of which has been given to you, is only part of the process of informed
consent. If you want more details about something mentioned here, or information not included
here, you should feel free to ask. Please take the time to read this carefully and to understand
any accompanying information.

The University of Calgary Conjoint Faculties Research Ethics Board has approved this research
study.

Purpose of the Study:

The purpose of this study is to assess personality characteristics, personal perceptions, and
how students talk to themselves during difficult times in their lives. The importance of this study
is that it may enhance our understanding of how people talk to themselves and how this may
influence the process of dealing with difficult times. We want to examine a general post-
secondary population of students, which is why you have been asked to participate.
 88

What Will I Be Asked To Do?

Participation in this study will require approximately 35-45 minutes of your time. This study
includes reading this consent form, filling out a questionnaire, and reading a debriefing page
(there will also be an optional information page provided for your own interest). For the
questionnaire, you will be asked to (1) provide some demographic information (e.g., age,
gender, major); (2) indicate kinds of self-talk you have engaged in (e.g., by checking statements
from a list); and (3) complete two measures tapping aspects of personality.

Your participation is completely voluntary and anonymous. If you do not wish to answer a
particular question, you are not obligated to do so. You may withdraw from this study at any
time by simply not submitting your answers to the questionnaire; that is, instead of clicking the
"Submit" button, click the link that says, "I do not wish to participate in this study."

What Type of Personal Information Will Be Collected?

Should you agree to participate, you will be asked to provide your gender, age, academic major
and year of university. Therefore, no personal identifying information will be collected in this
study. The remaining information (self-talk and personality) will also be completely anonymous.

All of the information will be collected and stored so that no identifying information is associated
with it. Because domains of your IP address are personalized, the server collecting the data
has been programmed so that IP addresses, computer location or type, or any other potentially
identifying information will not be collected.

Are there Risks or Benefits if I Participate?

There is minimal risk associated with your participation in this study; that is, it does not involve
any kind of risk that participants do not experience in their everyday lives. When answering
questions about yourself, you may be reminded of unpleasant memories from your personal life
and feel uncomfortable. If you prefer not to answer questions about yourself, you are free to
decline participation by simply clicking out of the website or clicking on the link that says, "I do
not wish to participate in this study."

There are two particular benefits to participating in this study: (1) In exchange for your time, you
will gain some understanding of research and some of the ideas being currently explored in
psychology; and (2) once you have been debriefed, you can choose to click on a link that will
take you to an information page that provides resources (e.g., articles, books, webpage links)
that may be of interest to you in learning more about how and why people talk to themselves,
and our current understanding of what kinds of self-talk are the most beneficial.

If you experience distress as a result of your participation in this study, we advise you that the
university offers a confidential counselling service to all current students. Students may receive
three sessions free per academic year. The Counselling Centre is located at MacEwan Student
Centre - Room 375 and will accept either walk-in or telephone calls (220-5893) to make an
Intake appointment with a counsellor.
 89

What Happens to the Information I Provide

Participation is completely voluntary, anonymous and confidential. You are free to discontinue
participation at any time during the study by simply not submitting the questionnaire. No one
except the researcher will be allowed to see any of the answers to the questionnaire. There are
no names on the questionnaire. Only group information will be summarized for any
presentation or publication of results. The research materials will be stored with complete
security throughout the entire investigation. The questionnaire answers will be stored for five
years on a computer disk, at which time, it will be permanently erased.

Your responses, along with other students who choose to participate, will be used to help
researchers to better understand how individuals talk to themselves and how this may be
related to how they deal with difficult times.

Consent

Clicking on the "I Agree" button below indicates that you (1) understand to your satisfaction the
information provided to you about your participation in this research project, and (2) agree to
participate as a research subject.

In no way does this waive your legal rights nor release the investigators, sponsors, or involved
institutions from their legal and professional responsibilities. You are free to withdraw from this
research project at any time. You should feel free to ask for clarification or new information
throughout your participation.

Questions/Concerns

If you have any further questions or want clarification regarding this research and/or your
participation, please contact:

Ms. Ronaye Coulson

Division of Applied Psychology
(403) 220-7787 rcoulson@ucalgary.ca

Dr. Greg Fouts

Department of Psychology
(403) 220-5573 gfouts@ucalgary.ca

If you have any concerns about the way you've been treated as a participant, please contact
Patricia Evans, Associate Director, Research Services Office, University of Calgary at (403)
220-3782; email plevans@ucalgary.ca.

A copy of this consent form can be printed off to keep for your records and reference. The
investigator will also retain a copy of the consent form.
 90

Appendix C

Debriefing Page

Thank you very much for your participation in this study. This debriefing page is designed to
explain the purposes of this study.

When students experience challenging or difficult times in their lives, there are a number of ways
they attempt to decrease the negative effects of the events, e.g., seeking support or advise from
others, problem-solving, even talking to themselves. In this study, we were looking at the kinds
of things students say when talking to themselves (e.g., self-statements, quotes, singing a song)
to motivate, validate and support themselves.

The specific purposes of this study were to (a) systematically assess what students say to
themselves during difficult times; and (b) relate what they say to themselves to their personal
strengths (e.g., sense of humour, seeking support from others, spirituality, optimism) and
demographic variables (e.g., age, gender, marital status). One personal strength focused upon
was students' perceived ability to "bounce back" from challenges and whether of not they
perceive any benefits from life's challenges.

There will be practical implications and applications of the results of this study. For example, we
shall be able to see how different kinds of self-talk are related to how students deal with
challenges and their ability to get on with their lives. We believe that understanding the role of
self-talk and other personal strengths is important in understanding the overall process of
bouncing back from difficult events or circumstances. Eventually, this information will be used
to develop ways to help prevent and/or minimize the negative effects of the difficult events we
all experience in life.

The questionnaire you completed asked some personal questions; and as a result, some feelings
may have been aroused that could have been distressing. If you experienced any distress as a
result of your participation in this study, or if you have other questions, you may contact Dr.
Greg Fouts (my research supervisor) at 220-5573 or by e-mailing him (gfouts@ucalgary.ca). Or,
you may contact the Counselling and Student Developmental Centre, located at MacEwan
Student Centre (Room 375). It is a free, confidential counselling service for all current students
and will accept either walk-in or telephone calls (220-5893) to make an in-take appointment
with a counsellor.

If you are interested in learning more about this subject, please click here to be automatically
directed to an information page that may be of interest to you. It contains information regarding
self-talk and the process of "bouncing back" from challenging events, as well as resources that
you may seek out to learn more about these topics.

Thank you again for your participation!

 91

Appendix D

Information Page

For your interest ...

What does self-talk do?

Most of us talk to ourselves, usually silently. It has been suggested by several authors that self-
talk may be uniquely human. For example, self-dialogue may be a critical defining characteristic
of any thinking human being, but that it often goes unnoticed.

It has been suggested that the way we talk to ourselves affects our behaviour. Researchers have
proposed that our self-talk helps us make sense of our environment, help us to achieve goals that
we have set for ourselves, and directs our behaviours accordingly.

Why pay attention to our self-talk?

Because of the potentially powerful effects of our internal dialogue, it is important to understand
the relationship between the way we talk to ourselves and how we interact with and react to the
world around us. It has been claimed that if you become aware of your inner dialogue and begin
to manage it, you will directly influence your emotions and indirectly influence your behaviour.
For example, some studies have shown that the kind of self-talk we engage in (e.g., negative vs.
positive) can influence such things as our moods, stress levels, self-esteem, and scholastic
achievement.

If you are interested in learning more about this topic, below are some references:

Articles:

Neck, C. P. & Manz, C. C. (1992). Thought self-leadership: The influence of self-talk and mental
imagery on performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 681-699.

Philpot, V. D. & Bamburg, J. W. (1996). Rehearsal of positive self-statements and restructured

negative self-statements to increase self-esteem and decrease depression. Psychological
Reports, 79(1), 83-91.

Gilgun, J. F. (1999). Mapping resilience as process among adults with childhood adversities. The
Dynamics of Resilient Families, 4, 41-70.

Books:
 92

Firestone, R. (2002). Conquer your critical inner voice: A revolutionary program to end negative
self-talk and live free from imagined limitations. New York: New Harbinger.

Anderson, M. B. (2000). Doing Sport Psychology. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Web sites:

http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/dept/coachsci/csa/vol l l 4/basic.htm

http://www.saskworld.com/bodymindspirit/editionl 9/06 a

http://www.pe2000.com/anx-selftalk.htm
 93

Appendix E

Mean Frequency and Importance of the 36 Resilient Self-Statements

Self-Talk Statement Frequency Importance

Mean Standard Mean Standard
Deviation Deviation
There is a silver lining in every
2.6 1.2 3.1 1.2
dark cloud.
I am strong/I have the strength to
3.7 1.0 4.1 1.0
get through this.
When the going gets tough the
2.4 1.1 2.6 1.2
tough get going
If I get knocked down, I get back
3.0 1.2 3.5 1.2
up agam
Always look on the bright side of
3.4 1.2 3.7 1.1
life
The sun will come out tomorrow.
2.6 1.3 2.9 1.2

This too shall pass. 3.2 1.2 3.4 1.1

What can I learn from this? 3.3 1.2 3.9 1.1

I just have to have faith 2.8 1.4 3.0 1.4

Make the best of a bad situation 3.0 1.3 3.4 1.1

Everything happens for a reason.

3.8 1.1 3.8 1.3

Take one day at a time/one step at

3.2 1.2 3.4 1.1
a time.
I trust that everything will work
3.3 1.1 3.5 1.2
out.
IfI was able to get through (a
3.5 1.2 3.7 1.0
previous difficult situation), then I
 94

can get through this.

What doesn't kill you, makes you
3.1 1.1 3.3 1.3
stronger.

Will this really matter in 1 month

2.8 1.1 3.0 1.2
(or other period of time)?

Don't sweat the small stuff. 2.5 1.1 2.8 1.2

I have to look at the big picture. 3.1 1.1 3.3 1.1

God helps those who help

1.8 1.2 2.1 1.3
themselves

Where to from here? 2.3 1.1 2.5 1.2

There's nothing to worry about. 2.4 1.1 2.6 1.2

I won't give up/Don't give up. 3.5 1.1 4.0 1.0

I can handle this. 3.7 .9 4.0 1.0

Just stay positive/Try to stay

3.2 1.1 3.7 1.1
positive.

I'm okay/I'm going to be okay. 3.5 1.1 3.6 1.1

Tomorrow is a new day. 2.9 1.3 3.1 1.2

I can do it!/Just do it. 3.4 1.1 3.6 1.1

I need to get through this so I can

3.3 1.3 3.6 1.2
be closer to my goal
There's a light at the end of the
2.9 1.2 3.2 1.3
tunnel.
God will take care of me/is
2.3 1.5 2.6 1.6
looking out for me.

This won't last forever. 3.1 1.1 3.3 1.2

 95

Shit Happens. 3.2 1.3 2.8 1.3

How can I correct this/How can I

3.3 1.0 3.6 1.2
fix this?

Hang in there. 3.0 1.1 3.1 1.1

Trust in yourself. 3.1 1.2 3.6 1.2

When life hands you lemons,

2.2 1.2 2.7 1.2
make lemonade.