Psychological Resilience and Coping Strategies of High

School Students Based on Certain Variables1

Sıla ŞAHİN2 & Zerrin Benal HEPSÖĞÜTLÜ3

ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study is to analyze psychological resilience levels and of coping strategies of high

school students in terms of certain variables, and the relationship between coping strategies and

psychological resilience. The study group of the research consisted of 229 Anatolian High School

students in Turkey. The data of the research was collected using the Child and Teenager Psychological

Resilience Scale, and the Teenagers' Coping Skills Scale. The data was analyzed using t-test, One-Way

ANOVA, and Kruskal Wallis H test. According to the findings, the students have good psychological

resilience, although they did not show the same results in active coping strategies. The psychological

resilience of the students did not show any significant difference based on their gender, income or

education levels of their parents, or the marital status of their parents; also, the students’ coping

strategies did not show any significant difference based on their gender, class level, preschool education,

income, or education levels of their father. It was found that when the class level increased,

psychological resilience decreased; with regard to the 12th grade students’ ages, this result was

considered notable. Students who had limited preschool education appear disadvantaged compared to

those who had no preschool education or those who received it continuously (with no breaks). Students

whose mothers attended primary school or were high school graduates used active coping strategies

more than those whose mothers held an undergraduate degree. Students whose parents were divorced,

on the other hand, tended to use avoidance strategies. A medium-level, positive relationship was found

between psychological resilience and active coping, and a medium-level, negative relationship was

found between psychological resilience and negative coping. In this sense, students of the 12th grade

should be educated about active coping in order to strengthen their psychological resilience.

Key Words: Resilience, Psychological resilience, Stress, Coping, Risk factors

DOI Number: http://dx.doi.org/10.22521/jesr.2018.82.2

1 This article was prepared for the 49. Research Projects Contest (2018) of TÜBİTAK for high school students under the supervision
of Z. Benal Hepsöğütlü who is a teacher; it was exhibited in the fair organized in Aegean Region and was awarded (March 12-
14, 2018). In addition, the study was exhibited and presented at MILSET (International Movement for Leisure Activities in
Science and Technology), Expo-Sciences Europe (ESE) organized in Poland, in July 16-22, 2018.
2 Student - İzmir Atatürk High School, İzmir, Turkey - [email protected]

3 Teacher - İzmir Atatürk and High School, İzmir, Turkey - [email protected]

ŞAHİN & HEPSÖĞÜTLÜ
Psychological Resilience and Coping Strategies of High School Students Based on Certain Variables

INTRODUCTION
Coping strategies become crucial in situations where stress cannot be avoided. Psychological
resilience is the skill of overcoming negativities that can cause stress (Oktan, 2012, p. 168; Terzi,
2008, p. 297). Psychological resilience, which is a subject regarding positive psychology, is
examined in the literature with concepts such as power of gathering one’s self (Terzi, 2006,
p. 77, 2008, p. 297), indomitableness and psychological endurance (Basım & Çetin, 2011, p. 4).
Psychological resilience is defined as the adaptation to negativeness, and the application of
coping strategies and recovery skills (Basım & Çetin, 2011, p. 4; Oktan, 2012, p. 1692; Terzi,
2008, p. 297). Coping, on the other hand, is the attitude displayed towards handling the
problems of stress and the strategies employed in order to recover and feel better. Bedel, Işık,
and Hamarta (2014) defined these strategies as active problem solving, avoiding problems or
as negative attitudes displayed towards the problem.
Psychological resilience is the ability to stay strong against the existence of negativities.
Adaptation skills of an individual in negative situations are the effects of risk factors and
protective factors (Karaırmak, 2006, p. 130). Students who are at risk are those confronted with
problematic parents, serious illness, violence, war, terror, trauma, parental divorce, natural
disasters, poverty, and migration or moving, and they may exhibit recovery skills against such
situations. In that sense, multiple risk factors should be taken in to account while examining
psychological resilience (Karaırmak, 2006, p. 132). Risk factors may be examined in three
groups: individualistic risks, risks rooted in the family, and social risks (Terzi, 2006, p. 78).
Individualistic risks include lack of self-confidence, lack of effective coping strategies, lack of
self-control, aggressive characteristics, alienation to society, and nonoccurrence. Risks that are
rooted in the family include poverty, illness that runs in the family, sexual assault, divorce,
socioeconomic difficulty, domestic violence, low parental educational levels, being motherless
or fatherless, and domestic relational problems. Social risks include natural disasters, terror,
war, and migration.
Besides the general risk factors, factors particular to children and teenagers include premature
birth, chronical illness and hospital stays, physical or psychological illnesses of parents,
parental separation or divorce, early motherhood, lack of success at school or dropping out,
drug addiction, misdemeanor or felony behaviors, unemployment, loss of parents, poverty,
neglect, social and domestic violence, being abused, war, natural disasters, uninterested
parents, bad parenting, and being homeless (Gürgan, 2006, p. 51; Yılmaz & Sipahioğlu, 2012,
p. 629).
Protective factors ease the adaptation process to negative situations. They reduce the effect of
negative factors and accelerate adaptation (Karaırmak, 2006, p. 133). According to Rutter
(1987), protective factors enhance the resistance of individuals. Characteristics such as healthy
development, support of a family and a supportive environment, skills like music and art, or
having positive expectations help individuals to take precautions and to solve problems (Terzi,
2006, pp. 78-79). Decision making, endurance, self-control, problem solving, flexibility and
independence may also be added to the list of protective factor characteristics (Cited in: Terzi,
2006, pp. 78-79).
According to Masten and Coatsworth (1998), protective factors –individualistic, factors rooted
in the family, and social– may be aligned as (Karaırmak, 2006, p. 133) follows. Individualistic
Factors can include self-confidence, self-respect, self-sufficiency, high intellectual capacity,
having social skills, being tenderminded, and being liked by others. Factors Rooted in the

50
 Eğitim Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi – Journal of Educational Sciences Research

Family include having close ties with parents, being socioeconomically advantaged, having
close and supporting ties in a large family, and good parenting qualities. Social Factors include
having positive and close ties with adults outside of the family, being part of a social
environment, and being well educated.
According to Brooks (2001), schools have a developing effect on self-regard, hope and
psychological resilience (Cited in: Oktan, 2012, p. 1692). Steinberg (2011) stated that
adolescence is the “transition period from childhood to adulthood” and the changes that occur
within this period may cause some adaptation problems. According to Santrock (2012),
teenagers may be faced with stressful situations such as abuse, neglect, and divorce (Cited in:
Arslan, 2015a, p. 3). Masten (2001) said that if individuals can stay healthy despite all of these
features, then that is termed as psychological resilience. Positive results may also be exhibited,
despite all the negative situations (Arslan, 2015a, p. 3). After explaining psychological
resilience in terms of its definition and features, coping strategies, which is the most related
concept, can be understood from the literature, and is discussed as follows.
According to Erikson, adolescence, which is the era of biopsychosocial development of
children and teenagers, is the process of structuring the identity of the adolescent (Cited in:
Eryılmaz, 2009, p. 21). Stress is the derivative of physically and psychologically exceeding
one’s limits, and is exhibited adjacent to negativities (Cüceloğlu, 1996; Hamarta, Arslan,
Saygın, & Özyeşil, 2009, p. 26; Terzi, 2008, p. 387). Skinner stated that people improve by
struggling with difficult situations. For Compas, Connor-Smith, Saltzman, Thomsen, and
Wadsworth (2001), stress and coping models in adolescence rely on adult models.
Coping with stress is an attempt to get rid of negativities and to reduce their effect. Freud
(1980) examined stress in three levels: 1) Natural Disaster Stress (affects societies and big
areas); 2) Intense Stress (caused by crises or immediate situations); and 3) Stress Affecting
Individuals on a Daily Basis. In addition, reactions against stress are seen as alarm, resistance,
and exhaustion (Cited in: Eryılmaz, 2009, p. 22). Lack of being able to cope with stress may
result in mental and physical exhaustion (Hamarta et al., 2009). There are five approaches to
coping, which are self-confidence, desperation, submitting, optimism and social support
(Şahin & Durak, 1995, p. 411). According to Lazarus and Folkma (1984), there are two
dimensions of coping, which are being emotion-focused and problem-focused (Cited in:
Hamarta et al., 2009, p. 27; Terzi, 2008, p. 387). Amirkhan (1990) determined coping strategies
as being problem solving, social support, and avoidance (Aysan, 2003, p. 28). Adaptation
problems in children and teenagers negatively affects their social, cognitive and psychological
development. Lack of coping strategies may bring about serious problems such as poor
academic success, adaptation problems, depression, eating disorders, and violence (Eryılmaz,
2009, pp. 23, 27).
In many research studies, it has been determined that positive self-respect affects
psychological resilience (Arslan, 2015b, p. 77; Erarslan, 2014, pp. 54-56; Gündaş & Koçak, 2015,
p. 800; Karaırmak & Siviş-Çetinkaya, 2011; Koç-Yıldırım, Yıldırım, Otrar, & Şirin, 2015, p. 292;
Önder & Gülay, 2008, p. 195). In addition, it is also seen in relation to self-sufficiency,
happiness, emotional intelligence, emotional sufficiency, general wellbeing, satisfaction with
life, and social support (Arslan, 2015b, p. 77; Arslan & Balkış, 2016; Erarslan, 2014, pp. 54-56;
Güngörmüş, Okanlı, & Kocabeyoğlu, 2015, p. 9; Gürgan, 2014, p. 18; Kaya & Demir, 2017,
pp. 18-19; Özer & Deniz, 2014, p. 1246; Şahin-Baltacı & Karataş, 2015, p. 112; Terzi, 2008,
p. 205).

51
ŞAHİN & HEPSÖĞÜTLÜ
Psychological Resilience and Coping Strategies of High School Students Based on Certain Variables

According to Topçu (2017), increasing emotional balance, extroversion, and levels of

responsibility can positively affect psychological resilience. In other research with teenagers,
it has been determined that emotional abuse by parents and their problematic behaviors can
have negative effects on teenagers’ psychological resilience (Arslan & Balkış, 2016, p. 8). There
have been other studies that have embraced psychological resilience according to gender
(Çelikkaleli & Kaya, 2016, p. 204; Gündaş & Koçak, 2015, p. 800; Koç-Yıldırım et al., 2015,
p. 292; Oktan, 2008; Şahin-Baltacı & Karataş, 2015, p. 112), socioeconomic conditions,
geographic domains, monthly income, educational level (Diker-Coşkun, Garipağaoğlu, &
Tosun, 2014, p. 673; Güngörmüş et al., 2015, p. 9), and class relations (Güngörmüş et al., 2015;
Öz, İnci, & Bahadır-Yılmaz, 2012, p. 233; Şahin & Buzlu, 2017, p. 132).
Examining domestic research in Turkey with regards to coping strategies in adolescence, they
have mostly been conducted with undergraduate students. According to these studies;
individual differences, social skills, social support, and personal skills play an important role
in coping (Hamarta et al., 2009, p. 34). Negative coping, on the other hand, results in
behavioral problems (Erözkan, 2004, p. 15). In the literature, when there is a positive sense of
one’s self, self-acceptance, shyness, happiness, positive emotions, and self-control in teenagers
increase; with problem-focused coping and finding social support increasing accordingly
(Epli-Koç, 2006; Gücüyeter, 2003; Hamarta et al., 2009, p. 34; Kaya & Demir, 2017, p. 18; Oğul
& Gençöz, 2003; Terzi, 2008, p. 303). When levels of using interior and exterior positive factors
decrease, individuals tend to use avoidance and negative-coping strategies (Alkan, 2004, p. 84;
Gücüyeter, 2003). According to Basut and Erden (2005, p. 48), teenagers that do not commit
crime tend to be positive in coping. In a study on the importance of gender in coping, it was
determined that adult females exhibit more stress than adult males (Avşaroğlu & Üre, 2007,
p. 91).
Research has shown that individuals with high levels of psychological resilience exhibit less
problematic behaviors (Arslan & Balkış, 2016). Well-used coping strategies can positively
affect an individual’s psychological adaptation, and thereby reduce the risk factors that stress
creates (Aysan, 2003, p. 128). Research concerning psychological resilience and coping with
regards to young people has mostly been conducted with undergraduate students. Arslan and
Balkış (2016, p. 8) studied psychological resilience with regards to emotional abuse,
problematic behaviors, and self-sufficiency. The relation between psychological resilience and
coping has been researched in undergraduate’s by Çiftçi (2002), Diker-Coşkun et al. (2014,
p. 673), Kaya and Demir (2017, pp. 18-19), Malkoç and Yalçın (2015), and Terzi (2008, p. 302).
There was no research found concerning high school students’ psychological resilience and
coping strategies. Teenagers in high schools face intense pressure in personal, social, academic,
and occupational development (Çapulcuoğlu & Gündüz, 2013, p. 204). The current research
examines students who face stressful situations apart of what would be considered their
‘usual’ stress. The research aims to examine the psychological resilience student’s show when
faced with intense problems, their coping strategies in these situations and the relation
between two variables. The research is considered to be unique, and its conclusion and
suggestions are expected to have important contributions to the literature, and for educators,
schools, and families. Problem questions of the research are, “Is there a significant difference
in psychological resilience and coping strategies of at-risk students depending on their
personal characteristics and on their family’s characteristics?” and “Is there a significant
difference between their psychological resilience and coping levels?”

52
 Eğitim Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi – Journal of Educational Sciences Research

METHOD
In this research, descriptive survey model has been employed. Through this model; events,
objects, all livings, institutions, groups and certain other areas have tried to be explained and
described (Kaptan, 1998). In reference to Karasar (2005), the “survey model aims to describe
once occurred or existing situations as they are” (p. 77). Quantitative research method has been
used for the study’s data collection, with two data collection instruments employed. One is a
12-item, Likert-type scale called the “Child and Teenager Psychological Resilience Scale” and
the other is an 11-item scale called the “Teenagers’ Coping Skills Scale.”
Study Group
High school students considered at-risk and having experienced severe problems were
included in the study group of this research. Risk analysis results were examined in order to
determine which students would form the study group with the permission of the school
principal. Risk analysis was conducted by three school counsellors after the start of the school
semester. From the analysis, 229 students from grades 9, 10, 11 and 12 were determined to be
in the at-risk group. Complete enumeration was used in this research. Table 1 shows the
demographics of the students.
Table 1. Participant students’ features (n=229)
Variables Level n %
Female 138 60
Gender
Male 91 40
9th grade 72 31
10th grade 59 26
Grade
11th grade 44 19
12th grade 54 24
Attended 188 82
Early Childhood Education Not attended 28 12
Partly attended 13 6
Primary 33 14
Mother’s Education Level High school 72 32
University 124 54
Primary 27 12
Father’s Education Level High school 51 22
University 151 66
2,500 TL or below 30 13
Parental Income level 2,501-5,000 TL 89 39
5,001 TL or above 110 48
Married 198 86
Parental Marital Status
Divorced 31 14

Table 1 shows demographics of the 229 students selected as the study group of this research.
All of the students were studying at a successful Anatolian High School in Turkey. Of the
participants, 60% are female, 31% were in the 9th grade, 82% had attended preschool, 54% of
mothers and 66% of fathers were undergraduates/graduates, parental monthly income
showed 48% having 5,001 TL or above, and 86% of the parents were married.

53
ŞAHİN & HEPSÖĞÜTLÜ
Psychological Resilience and Coping Strategies of High School Students Based on Certain Variables

Data Collection Tools

Data was collected with the Child and Teenager Psychological Resilience Scale (Arslan, 2015a)
and the Teenagers’ Coping Skills Scale (Spirito, Stark, & Williams, 1988 Cited in: Bedel, Işık &
Hamarta, 2014).
The Child and Teenager Psychological Resilience Scale (CTPRS) was developed by Arslan (2015a,
pp. 7-10), and aims to quantify the psychological resilience levels of middle school teenagers.
Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis results of the scale showed that the scale has one
dimension and its 12 items explain 51.28% of total variance. Criteria validity was examined,
and a relationship between negative-positive feelings and self-efficiency was observed. For the
CTPRS, a significant positive relationship was found between self-efficiency and positive
feelings, and a negative relationship between self-efficiency and negative feelings. As to the
scale’s internal consistency level for reliability, the Cronbach Alpha value was found to be .91.
These results show that the scale could be used for assessing children and teenagers'
psychological resilience in Turkey.
The Teenagers' Coping Skills Scale (TCSS) aims to quantify the coping strategies of teenager’s.
The scale was developed by Spirito et al. in 1988, and was adapted to Turkish by Bedel et al.
(2014). The scale’s construct validity was controlled through confirmatory factor analysis. The
11-item Turkish form was adjusted to a three-factor structure. As to the TCSS’s internal
consistency, the Cronbach Alpha reliability coefficient was found to be .72 for active coping
skills, .70 for avoidance coping skills, and .65 for negative coping skills. Test-retest reliability
coefficient, which was assessed with a three-week gap, showed r=.66 for active coping skills,
r=.61 for avoidance coping skills, and r=.76 for negative coping skills. These results show that
the TCSS’s Turkish form is considered reliable and valid for assessing high school students’
coping strategies.
The significance level in statistical analysis is accepted as .05. The lowest and the highest scores
achievable are given in Table 2.
Table 2. Score interval of Likert scale questionnaire in research
CTPRS TCSS
Given Weight Option Limit Given Weight Option Limit
1 Not identifying 1.00 - 1.79 1 Never 1.00 - 1.74
2 me at all 1.80 - 2.59 2 1.75 - 2.49
3 2.60 - 3.39 3 2.50 - 3.24
4 3.40 - 4.19 4 Always 3.25 - 4.00
5 Completely 4.20 - 5.00
identifies me

Table 2 shows the lowest and the highest scores that could be given in accordance with the
five-point and four-point Likert-type Scales. According to the CTPRS, I completely disagree
represents the worst situation, and I completely agree represents the best. Answers for the TCSS
depend on the dimensions. In active strategies, always is the most favorable choice, whereas it
the most unfavorable in avoiding and negative strategies.
Data Collection
In order to implement the scales for collecting data, permission was taken from the school’s
administration. The decision of which scales to be used was made on the advice of
academicians. The scales were administered to the participant students with the help of the

54
 Eğitim Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi – Journal of Educational Sciences Research

school’s administration and school counsellors. Each student’s willingness to participate was
taken into account, with the scales only applied to students who volunteered to participate.
Students were informed that participants’ names would remain anonymous, and that the data
would only be used for research purposes and the data not disclosed to third parties. There
were no instances of missing data or deficient data such as incomplete forms being submitted.
Data Analysis
In analysis, arithmetic means and standard deviations were checked by using SPSS version
21.0 statistical analysis software. Frequency, arithmetic mean ( ) and standard deviation
were calculated; and the data examined by using t-test and One-Way ANOVA to expose
differences between/among two or more groups. Meanwhile, Kruskal Wallis H test was used
in the preschool education dimension, since one group was numerically less. In groups which
had nearly 30 members, stronger, parametric tests were employed. Data shows normal
distribution when flatness and irregularity values were taken into account. Data that has
flatness and irregularity values between +1.5 and -1.5 were accepted as normal (Tabachnick &
Fidell, 2013). LSD and Tamhane’s T2 tests were used to identify the groups which had
difference in-between. Pearson Correlation Factor Analysis was used to determine if there was
a meaningful relationship between psychological resilience and coping strategies.
FINDINGS
In this part, findings of the research are reported: Findings about the students’ psychological
resilience and coping levels are presented in Table 3.
Table 3. Range of students’ psychological resilience and coping levels (n=229)
Dimensions x̄ S
Psychological Resilience 3.89 .63
Active Coping Skills 2.68 .59
Avoidance Coping Skills 2.45 .52
Negative Coping Skills 1.98 .58

As can be seen in Table 3, students’ psychological resilience was found to be at the level of “it
expresses me well.” When analyzed in the sub-dimensions of coping skills, active coping skills
were “usually,” avoidance coping skills were “sometimes” and negative coping skills were
“never.” According to this, the students perceived psychological resilience positively, but their
coping skills were not equal to being positive.
Table 4 shows the t-test results for students’ psychological resilience and coping skills levels
according to gender.
Table 4. Students’ psychological resilience and coping skills levels according to gender (t-test)
Gender n x̄ S sd t p
Female 138 3.96 .60 227 1.90 .83
Psychological Resilience
Male 91 3.79 .65
Female 138 2.72 .59 227 1.39 .42
Active Coping
Male 91 2.61 .58
Female 138 2.46 .53 227 .38 .45
Avoidance Coping
Male 91 2.43 .50
Female 138 2.00 .58 227 .72 .27
Negative Coping
Male 91 1.95 .58

55
ŞAHİN & HEPSÖĞÜTLÜ
Psychological Resilience and Coping Strategies of High School Students Based on Certain Variables

When Table 4 is analyzed, students’ psychological resilience and coping skills levels do not
have any significant difference according to gender.
Table 5 shows students’ psychological resilience and coping skills levels according to their
grade ANOVA test results.
Table 5. Students’ psychological resilience and coping skills levels according to grade (ANOVA)
Sig. Difference
Grade n x̄ S sd F p
(LSD)
1) Grade 9 72 4.04 .61 3-228 8.83 .00 1*-4,
2) Grade 10 59 4.07 .51 2*-3,
Psychological Resilience
3) Grade 11 44 3.82 .53 2*-4,
4) Grade 12 54 3.56 .63 3*-4
1) Grade 9 72 2.72 .54 3-228 1.00 .39 -
2) Grade 10 59 2.71 .55
Active Coping
3) Grade 11 44 2.72 .56
4) Grade 12 54 2.56 .70
1) Grade 9 72 2.34 .48 3-228 2.22 .08 -
2) Grade 10 59 2.55 .49
Avoidance Coping
3) Grade 11 44 2.51 .48
4) Grade 12 54 2.43 .48
1) Grade 9 72 1.87 .54 3-228 2.08 .10 -
2) Grade 10 59 1.94 .48
Negative Coping
3) Grade 11 44 2.03 .54
4) Grade 12 54 2.12 .73
p<.05; *favorable

When Table 5 is analyzed, a significant difference [F(3-228)= 8.83, p<.00] was seen in students’
psychological resilience levels according to grade, but no significant difference was seen in
their coping skill levels. According to the results of the LSD test, which was made in order to
define the source of the difference, students in grades 9, 10, and 11 compared to grade 12, and
students in grade 10 compared to grade 11 feel themselves to be psychologically stronger.
Table 6 shows students’ psychological resilience and coping skills levels according to
attendance to preschool education Kruskal Wallis H test results.
Table 6. Students’ psychological resilience and coping skills levels according to attendance to
preschool education (Kruskal Wallis H)
Preschool Education n Row Mean sd χ2 p Sig. Difference
1) Attended 188 118.31 2 8.34 .01 1*-3,
Psychological
2) Not Attended 28 116.70 2*-3
Resilience
3) Attended for a short time 13 63.54
1) Attended 188 112.77 2 3.50 .17 -
Active
2) Not Attended 28 135.04
Coping
3) Attended for a short time 13 91.07
1) Attended 188 113.53 2 1.13 .56 -
Avoidance
2) Not Attended 28 127.14
Coping
3) Attended for a short time 13 110.08
1) Attended 188 113.40 2 0.69 .70 -
Negative
2) Not Attended 28 120.75
Coping
3) Attended for a short time 13 125.81
*p<.05; *favorable

56
 Eğitim Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi – Journal of Educational Sciences Research

When Table 6 is analyzed, a significant difference [χ2 = 8.34, p<.05] was seen in the students’
psychological resilience levels according to their attendance to preschool education, but no
significant difference was seen in their coping skill levels. According to Tamhane’s T2 test
results, which was applied in order to define the source of the difference, a significant
difference was found between those students who attended and did not attend preschool
education. Accordingly, students who attended preschool education for a short amount of
time were seen as disadvantaged in their psychological resilience.
Table 7 shows students’ psychological resilience and coping skills levels according to mothers’
educational levels ANOVA test results.
Table 7. Students’ psychological resilience and coping skills levels according to mothers’ educational
levels (ANOVA)
Sig. Difference
Mothers’ Edu. Level n x̄ S sd F p
(LSD)
1) Primary 33 3.96 .62 2-228 .53 .58 -
Psychological
2) High school 72 3.93 .57
Resilience
3) University 124 3.85 .66
1) Primary 33 2.84 .49 2-228 4.03 .01 1*-3,
Active Coping 2) High school 72 2.78 .54 2*-3
3) University 124 2.58 .53
1) Primary 33 2.68 .52 2-228 3.87 .02 *1-3,
Avoidance Coping 2) High school 72 2.39 .47 2*-3
3) University 124 2.42 .53
1) Primary 33 2.04 .56 2-228 .34 .71 -
Negative Coping 2) High school 72 1.94 .72
3) University 124 1.99 .53
*p<.05; *favorable

As can be seen in Table 7, there was no significant difference found between students’
psychological resilience level and negative coping skills dimensions according to the mothers’
educational level. However, there was a significant difference seen for active coping [F(2-
228)=4.03, p<.05] and avoidance coping [F(2-228)=3.87, p<.05] skills. According to the results of the

LSD test, which was applied in order to define the source of the difference, students whose
mothers had graduated from primary or secondary schools were more positive than students
whose mothers were university undergraduates. However, children of primary and secondary
school graduates tended to use avoidance coping strategies more than children of
undergraduates and those who received higher education.
Table 8 shows the students’ psychological resilience and coping skills levels according to
fathers’ educational levels ANOVA test results.

57
ŞAHİN & HEPSÖĞÜTLÜ
Psychological Resilience and Coping Strategies of High School Students Based on Certain Variables

Table 8. Students’ psychological resilience and coping skills levels according to fathers’ educational
levels (ANOVA)
Fathers’ Edu. Level n x̄ S sd F p Sig. difference
1) Primary 27 3.97 .56 228 .34 .79 -
Psychological
2) High school 51 3.92 .66
Resilience
3) University 126 3.85 .59
1) Primary 27 2.73 .61 228 .08 .96 -
Active Coping 2) High school 51 2.69 .59
3) University 126 2.66 .55
1) Primary 27 2.62 .54 228 1.30 .27 -
Avoidance Coping 2) High school 51 2.43 .57
3) University 126 2.44 .47
1) Primary 27 2.01 .65 228 .05 .98 -
Negative Coping 2) High school 51 1.99 .68
3) University 126 1.98 .52
*p<.05

As can be seen in Table 8, there was no significant difference seen between psychological
resilience and the coping skills dimensions according to the fathers’ educational level.
Table 9 shows students’ psychological resilience and coping skills levels according to parental
income level ANOVA test results.
Table 9. Students’ psychological resilience and coping skills levels according to parental income levels
(ANOVA)
Income Levels n x̄ S sd F p Sig. Difference
1) 2500 TL or below 30 3.83 .62 228 .86 .46 -
Psychological
2) 2501–5000 TL 89 3.92 .61
Resilience
3) 5001 TL or above 110 3.89 .64
1) 2500 TL or below 30 2.68 .60 228 2.13 .09 -
Active Coping 2) 2501–5000 TL 89 2.79 .56
3) 5001 TL or above 110 2.59 .60
1) 2500 TL or below 30 2.44 .56 228 .32 .81 -
Avoidance Coping 2) 2501–5000 TL 89 2.49 .52
3) 5001 TL or above 110 2.42 .50
1) 2500 TL or below 30 1.92 .69 228 .82 .47 -
Negative Coping 2) 2501–5000 TL 89 2.02 .56
3) 5001 TL or above 110 1.97 .57
*p<.05

As can be seen in Table 9, there was no significant difference seen between psychological
resilience and coping skills dimensions according to parental income level.
Table 10 shows the range of students’ psychological resilience and coping levels according to
parental marital status.

58
 Eğitim Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi – Journal of Educational Sciences Research

Table 10. Range of students’ psychological resilience and coping levels according to parental marital
status
Parental Marital Status n x̄ S sd t p
Psychological Married 198 3.90 .63 227 .26 .75
Resilience Divorced 31 3.86 .62
Married 198 2.69 .58 227 .70 .65
Active Coping
Divorced 31 2.61 .62
Married 198 2.44 .50 227 .37 .03*
Avoidance Coping
Divorced 31 2.49 .63
Married 198 1.98 .56 227 .02 .17
Negative Coping
Divorced 31 1.98 .71
*p<.05

As can be seen in Table 10, there was no significant difference found between psychological
resilience and negative and active coping skills dimensions according to parental marital
status. In avoidance coping skills, the results are on behalf of divorced parents [t(227)=.37, p<.05].
Accordingly, it can be said that students whose parents are divorced prefer avoidance
strategies more.
Table 11 shows r statistics results of the relationship between psychological resilience and
coping with stress.
Table 11. R statistics results showing relationship between psychological resilience and coping with
stress

Dimensions Active Coping Avoidance Coping Negative Coping

Psychological Resilience .521** -.257** -.406**

**p<.01

As can be seen in Table 11, a medium-level [r=.521, p<.01] significant difference was seen
between psychological resilience and active coping strategies. As expected, psychological
resilience showed a negative medium-level [r=-.406, p<.01] significant difference with negative
coping, and a negative low-level [r=-.257, p<.01] significant difference with avoidance coping
strategies.
CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION
In this research, the students’ psychological resilience levels did not differ according to gender.
There have been other research studies that also support these findings (Diker-Coşkun et al.,
2014, p. 673; Şahin-Baltacı & Karataş, 2015, p. 112; Terzi, 2008, p. 297). However, other research
determined that females are more psychologically resilient than males (Çelikkaleli & Kaya,
2016, p. 203; Güngörmüş et al., 2015, p. 9; Oktan, 2008). Besides, the psychological resilience of
females in grade 8 and in high schools have been reported as being higher (Gündaş & Koçak,
2015, p. 799; Koç-Yıldırım et al., 2015, p. 290). In the current research, there was no significant
difference found between male and female students in psychological resilience due to the
school’s structure. For the school in the current research, the academic success was considered
as high. Besides, about half of the students’ parents in the sample graduated from university
as an undergraduate. Meanwhile, other research has shown the effects of school type on
psychological resilience (Şahin-Baltacı & Karataş, 2015, p. 112; Yılmaz & Sipahioğlu, 2012,
p. 938).

59
ŞAHİN & HEPSÖĞÜTLÜ
Psychological Resilience and Coping Strategies of High School Students Based on Certain Variables

In the current research, students’ psychological resilience was shown to have a significant
difference depending on grade. The 9th, 10th, and 11th graders perceived themselves as being
more psychologically resilient than 12th graders; and 10th graders perceived themselves as
being more psychologically resilient than 11th graders. In short, increasing grade levels
resulted in decreasing psychological resilience. In Turkey there is an entrance exam for
university held in the 12th grade. When considering that the academic success of the school in
the current study is high; it is possible that there is an extra burden for students in the 12th
grade related to exam pressure. Students and their parents are known to focus on exam
expectations and success, and that this situation results in additional pressure. In some
research, it was seen that grade level affected psychological resilience (Öz et al., 2012, p. 233;
Şahin & Buzlu, 2017, p. 132). However, in other research, there was no change based on grade
(Diker-Coşkun et al., 2014, p. 673; Güngörmüş et al, 2015). According to general
determinations, an increasing grade levels results in increasing psychological resilience.
However, when negative events such as immigration has come in to ground in one grade, level
of psychological resilient can be lower in that grade (Şahin & Buzlu, 2017, p. 133).
In psychological resilience, students who partly attended preschool education were seen as
more disadvantaged than those who attended or did not attend preschool education.
Accordingly, it can be said that more effective ways should be used in children’s nursing and
education. It is therefore better to grow up in a safe environment with family members or to
attend preschool education continuously (with no breaks). According to another result of the
current research, students’ parental educational levels did not affect psychological resilience.
However, according to Koç-Yıldırım et al. (2015), high school students whose parents
graduated from high school or as university undergraduates had better conditions than those
whose parents graduated from primary education. In research performed with undergraduate
students, students with fathers who were university undergraduates and mothers who
graduated from high school were found to be more psychologically resilient (Diker-Coşkun
et al., 2014, p. 673; Güngörmüş et al., 2015, p. 12).
According to the current study’s results, there was no significant difference seen between the
income levels of the parents and the students’ psychological resilience. There have been other
research studies which have revealed that socioeconomic levels do not affect psychological
resilience (Diker-Coşkun et al., 2014, p. 673; Güngörmüş et al., 2015, p. 12). Parental marital
status also was shown to have no effect on psychological resilience in the current research.
According to Yılmaz and Sipahioğlu (2012), plus Şahin-Baltacı and Karataş (2015, p. 112),
students whose parents lived together had higher psychological resilience levels.
In the current study, students whose mothers graduated from secondary or primary schools
had better active coping skills than students whose mothers were university undergraduates.
This result is interesting because it is normally expected that children of undergraduate
mothers’ have better active coping skills. However, children of primary and secondary school
graduates tend to use avoidance coping strategies more than the children of undergraduates
and those with higher education. Accordingly, in problem solving, children of primary and
secondary school graduates choose avoiding more than children of university graduates. Also
there was no significant difference seen according to fathers’ educational levels in all coping
skill dimensions. According to the findings, students whose parents were divorced tended to
use avoidance coping skills. According to a similar research, students who had divorced
parents used non-advantageous coping skills, while students with married parents used

60
 Eğitim Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi – Journal of Educational Sciences Research

emotional coping skills (Tekin, 2017). However, according to their parents’ marital status,
students’ active and negative coping strategies did not change. In addition, coping skills levels
did not differ based on gender, grade, socioeconomic level, or having attended preschool. In
similar research by Çiftçi (2002), no significant difference was found regarding gender. In
addition, according to Yılmaz and Sipahioğlu (2012, p. 640) and Şahin-Baltacı and Karataş’
(2015, p. 112), this result was also seen on behalf of male students and those students who lived
with both parents at home.
A medium-level significant difference was determined between psychological resilience and
active coping strategies. As expected, psychological resilience had a negative medium-level
significant difference with negative coping, and a negative low-level significant difference
with avoidance coping strategies. The research of Arslan and Balkış (2016) and Aysan (2003,
p. 128) implicitly supports these results. Research with undergraduate students also gave
similar results (Çiftçi, 2002; Diker-Coşkun et al., 2014, p. 673; Kaya & Demir, 2017, pp. 18-19;
Malkoç & Yalçın, 2015; Terzi, 2008, p. 302).
In summary, according to the analysis, as the class level (grade) increases, psychological
resilience decreases; with regard to 12th graders, this result was considered notable. Students
who received limited preschool education were seen as disadvantaged compared to those who
had no preschool education or those who attended preschool continuously. Students whose
mothers were primary school or high school graduates used active coping strategies more than
those whose mothers were university undergraduates. Students whose parents were divorced,
on the other hand, tended to use avoidance strategies. A medium-level positive relationship
was found between psychological resilience and active coping, and a medium-level negative
relationship was found between psychological resilience and negative coping. In this sense,
students considered at-risk in high schools should be determined in the 11th and 12th grades,
and especially in the 12th grade, and special help should be administered in order to improve
the students’ psychological resilience and skills for coping with stress. Such studies can be
performed at schools by teachers, school counselors, and also by parents. Parents should
provide consistent preschool education, so without this education being disrupted or
interrupted.
Research in the future can analyze why students who are at-risk and whose mothers graduated
from primary and secondary education are more successful in coping strategies than students
whose mothers graduated as university undergraduates. The fact that students’ whose parents
are divorced tend to used avoidance skills should be considered with interest, and studies
undertaken in order to improve their active coping skills in problem solving. The current
research was performed with high school teenagers. Similar research could be performed with
university undergraduates or with adults. This research was applied in a high school of a high
socioeconomic level, educated parents, and a high academic success rate. Similar research may
be applied to populations of opposing characteristics. Considering the relationship between
psychological resilience and coping skills, students should be encouraged and educated about
active coping through role-modeling.
REFERENCES
Alkan, N. (2004). Cognitive appraisal, emotion, and coping: A structural equation analysis of the
interactional model of stress and coping (Doctoral dissertation). Middle East Technical
University Graduate School of Social Sciences, Ankara.

61
ŞAHİN & HEPSÖĞÜTLÜ
Psychological Resilience and Coping Strategies of High School Students Based on Certain Variables

Amirkhan, J. (1990). A factor analytically derived measure of coping: The coping strategy,
indicator. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(5), 1066-1074.
Arslan, G. (2015b). Ergenlerde psikolojik sağlamlık: Bireysel koruyucu faktörlerin rolü. Türk
Psikolojik Danışma ve Rehberlik Dergisi, 5(44), 73-82.
Arslan, G. (2015a). Çocuk ve Genç Psikolojik Sağlamlık Ölçeği’nin (ÇGPSÖ-12) psikometrik
özellikleri: Geçerlilik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Ege Eğitim Dergisi, 16(1), 1-12.
Arslan, G., & Balkış, M. (2016). Ergenlerde duygusal istismar, problem davranışlar, özyeterlik
ve psikolojik sağlamlık arasındaki ilişki. Sakarya University Journal of Education, 6(1), 8-22.
Avşaroğlu, S., & Üre, Ö. (2007). Üniversite öğrencilerinin karar vermede özsaygı, karar verme
ve stresle başaçıkma stillerinin benlik saygısı ve bazı değişkenler açısından incelenmesi.
Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 18, 85-100.
Aysan, F. (2003). Başaçıkma Stratejisi Ölçeğinin Türkçe formunun oluşturulması. Ege Eğitim
Dergisi, 3(1), 123-132.
Basım, H. N., & Çetin, F. (2011). Yetişkinler için Psikolojik Dayanıklılık Ölçeği’nin güvenilirlik
ve geçerlilik çalışması. Türk Psikiyatri Dergisi, 22(2), 104-116.
Basut, E., & Erden, G. (2005). Suça yönelen ve yönelmeyen ergenlerin stres belirtileri ve stresle
başa çıkma örüntüleri yönünden incelenmesi. Çocuk ve Gençlik Ruh Sağlığı Dergisi, 12(2),
48-55.
Bedel, A., Işık, E., & Hamarta, E. (2014). Ergenler İçin Başa Çıkma Ölçeğinin (EBÇÖ) Geçerlik
ve Güvenirlik Çalışması, Eğitim ve Bilim, 39(176), 227-235.
Compas, B. E., Connor-Smith, J. K., Saltzman, H., Thomsen, A. H., & Wadsworth, M. E. (2001).
Coping with stress during childhood and adolescence: Problems, progress, and potential
in theory and research. Psychological Bulletin, 127(1), 87-127.
Cüceloğlu, D. (1996). İnsan ve davranışı (6. Basım). İstanbul: Remzi Kitapevi.
Çapulcuoğlu, U., & Gündüz, B. (2013). Öğrenci tükenmişliğini yordamada stresle başaçıkma,
sınav kaygısı, akademik yetkinlik ve anne-baba tutumları. Eğitim Bilimleri Araştırmaları
Dergisi, 3(1), 201-218.
Çelikkaleli, Ö., & Kaya, S. (2016). Üniversite öğrencilerinin cinsiyet ve toplumsal cinsiyet
rollerine göre ilişkilerle ilgili bilişsel çarpıtma, psikolojik dayanıklılık ve duygusal
yetkinlik inancı. PEGEM Eğitim ve Öğretim Dergisi, 6(2), 187-212.
Çiftçi, M. P. (2002). Bir grup lise öğrencisinin stresle başa çıkma yolları ile strese karşı dayanıklılıkları
arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesi (Master’s thesis). Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri
Enstitüsü, İzmir.
Diker-Coşkun, Y., Garipağaoğlu, Ç., & Tosun, Ü. (2014). Analysis of the relationship between
the resiliency level and problem solving skills of university students. Procedia-Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 114, 673-680.
Epli-Koç, H. (2006). Üniversite öğrencilerinin utangaçlık düzeylerine göre stresle başa çıkma
stratejilerinin incelenmesi (Master’s thesis). Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler
Enstitüsü, Samsun.
Erarslan, Ö. (2014). Üniversite öğrencilerinde psikolojik sağlamlık ile depresif belirtiler ve yaşam
memnuniyeti arasındaki ilişkide benlik saygısı, pozitif dünya görüşü ve umudun aracı rolünün
incelenmesi (Master’s thesis). Hacettepe Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Ankara.
Erözkan, A. (2004). Üniversite öğrencilerinde sınav kaygısı ve başa çıkma davranışları. Muğla
Üniversitesi SBE Dergisi, 12, 13-38.
Eryılmaz, A. (2009). Ergenlik döneminde stres ve başa çıkma. Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi Eğitim
Fakültesi Dergisi, 6(2), 20-37.

62
 Eğitim Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi – Journal of Educational Sciences Research

Gücüyeter, N. (2003). Lise öğrencilerinin kullandıkları başa çıkma stratejileri ile kendini kabul
düzeyleri arasındaki ilişkiler (Master’s thesis). Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri
Enstitüsü, İzmir.
Gündaş, A., & Koçak, R. (2015). Lise öğrencilerinde psikolojik sağlamlığın yordayıcısı olarak
benlik kurgusu. Uluslararası Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 8(41), 795-802.
Güngörmüş, K., Okanlı, A., & Kocabeyoğlu, T. (2015). Hemşirelik öğrencilerinin psikolojik
dayanıklılıkları ve etkileyen faktörler. Psikiyatri Hemşireliği Dergisi, 6(1), 9-14.
Gürgan, U. (2006). Grupla psikolojik danışmanın üniversite öğrencilerinin yılmazlık düzeyine etkisi
(Doctoral dissertation). Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara.
Gürgan, U. (2014). Üniversite öğrencilerinin yılmazlık ve iyilik halinin bazı değişkenlere göre
incelenmesi. E-Journal of New World Sciences Academy, 9(1), 18-35.
Hamarta, E., Arslan, C., Saygın, Y., & Özyeşil, Z. (2009). Benlik saygısı ve akılcı olmayan
inançlar bakımından üniversite öğrencilerinin stresle başaçıkma yaklaşımlarının analizi.
Değerler Eğitimi Dergisi, 7(18), 25-42.
Kaptan, S. (1998). Bilimsel araştırma ve istatistik teknikleri (11th ed.). Ankara: Tekışık Yayınları.
Karaırmak, Ö. (2006). Psikolojik sağlamlık, risk faktörleri ve koruyucu faktörler. Türk Psikolojik
Danışma ve Rehberlik Dergisi, 3(26), 129-142.
Karaırmak, O., & Siviş-Çetinkaya, R. (2011). Benlik saygısının ve denetim odağının psikolojik
sağlamlık üzerine etkisi: Duyguların aracı rolü. Türk Psikolojik Danışma ve Rehberlik
Dergisi, 4(35), 30-41.
Karasar, N. (2005). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri (28th ed.). Ankara: Nobel Yayıncılık.
Kaya, Ö. S., & Demir, E. (2017). Kendini toparlama gücü ve stresle başa çıkma stratejilerinin
mutluluk düzeyini yordama gücü. Sakarya Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 33, 18-33.
Koç-Yıldırım, P., Yıldırım, E., Otrar, M., & Şirin, A. (2015). Ergenlerde psikolojik dayanıklılık
ile benlik kurgusu arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesi. Marmara Üniversitesi Atatürk Eğitim
Fakültesi Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 42, 277-297.
Malkoç, A., & Yalçın, İ. (2015). Relationships among resilience, social support, coping, and
psychological well-being among university students. Turkish Psychological Counselling
and Guidance Journal, 5(43), 35-43.
Masten, A. S. (2001). Ordinary magic: Resilience processes in development. American
Psychologist, 56(3), 227-238.
Masten, A. S., & Coatsworth, J. D. (1998). The development of competence in favorable and
unfavorable environments: Lessons from research on successful children. American
Psychologist, 53(2), 205-220.
Oğul, M., & Gençöz, S. (2003). Roles of perceived control and coping strategies on depressive
and anxiety symptoms of Turkish adolescents. Psychological Reports, 93(3), 659-672.
Oktan, V. (2008). Üniversite sınavına hazırlanan ergenlerin psikolojik sağlamlıklarının çeşitli
değişkenlere göre incelenmesi (Unpublished Master’s thesis). Karadeniz Teknik
Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Trabzon.
Oktan, V. (2012). Psikolojik sağlamlığın gelişiminde bir moderatör olarak umut. International
Journal of Human Sciences, 9(2), 1691-1701.
Önder, A., & Gülay, H. (2008). İlköğretim 8. sınıf öğrencilerinin psikolojik sağlamlığının çeşitli
değişkenler açısından incelenmesi. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Buca Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi,
23, 192-197.

63
ŞAHİN & HEPSÖĞÜTLÜ
Psychological Resilience and Coping Strategies of High School Students Based on Certain Variables

Öz, F., İnci, F., & Bahadır-Yılmaz, E. (2012). Hemşirelik öğrencilerinin ölüm kaygısı ile
psikolojik sağlamlık düzeyleri ve aralarındaki ilişki. Yeni Symposium Journal, 50(4), 229-
236.
Özer, E., & Deniz, M. E. (2014). Üniversite öğrencilerinin psikolojik sağlamlık düzeylerinin
duygusal zekâ açısından incelenmesi. İlköğretim Online, 13(4), 1240-1248.
Rutter, M. (1987). Psychosocial resilience and protective mechanisms. American Journal of
Orthopsychiatry, 57(3), 316-331.
Şahin N. H., & Durak, A. (1995). Stresle başa çıkma tarzları ölçeği: üniversite öğrencileri için
uyarlanması. Türk Psikoloji Dergisi, 10(34), 56-73.
Şahin, G., & Buzlu, S. (2017). Hemşirelik öğrencilerinde psikolojik sağlamlığın öz yeterlik
sosyal destek ve etkili baş etme ile ilişkisinde algılanan stresin aracı rolü Anadolu
Hemşirelik ve Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi, 20(2), 122-136.
Şahin-Baltacı, H., & Karataş, Z. (2015). Perceived social support, depression and life
satisfaction as the predictor of the resilience of secondary school students: The case of
Burdur. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 60, 111-130.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics. Boston: Pearson.
Tekin, H. H. (2017). Ebeveyni boşanmış ergenler ile ebeveyni birlikte yaşayan ergenlerin benlik
saygılarının, iletişim becerilerinin ve baş etme yollarının karşılaştırılması (Unpublished
Master’s thesis). Beykent Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, İstanbul.
Terzi, Ş. (2006). Kendini toparlama gücü ölçeğinin uyarlanması: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik
çalışmaları. Türk Psikolojik Danışma ve Rehberlik Dergisi, 3(26), 77-86.
Terzi, Ş. (2008). Üniversite öğrencilerinde kendini toparlama gücünün içsel koruyucu
faktörlerle ilişkisi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 35, 297-306.
Topçu, F. (2017). Üniversite öğrencilerinin psikolojik dayanıklılık düzeylerinde beş faktör kişilik
özelliklerinin yordayıcı etkisinin incelenmesi (Master’s thesis). Fatih Sultan Mehmet Vakıf
Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, İstanbul.
Yılmaz, H., & Sipahioğlu, Ö. (2012). Farklı risk gruplarındaki ergenlerin psikolojik
sağlamlıklarının incelenmesi. İlköğretim Online, 11(4), 927-944.

Please cite as:

Şahin, S., & Hepsöğütlü, Z. B. (2018). Psychological resilience and coping strategies of high
school students based on certain variables. Eğitim Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi - Journal of
Educational Sciences Research, 8(2), 49-64. http://ebad-jesr.com/

64