The dynamics of Appraisal II: a meta-analysis of the relationship between fortitude and the indices of psychological well-being

IF 1.9 4区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY South African Journal of Psychology Pub Date : 2022-12-02 DOI:10.1177/00812463221140245
T. Pretorius, A. Padmanabhanunni, S. Isaacs
{"title":"The dynamics of Appraisal II: a meta-analysis of the relationship between fortitude and the indices of psychological well-being","authors":"T. Pretorius, A. Padmanabhanunni, S. Isaacs","doi":"10.1177/00812463221140245","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Identifying the factors that contribute to differential vulnerability in the face of adversity is key to psychology fulfilling its mandate as a helping profession. One such factor, fortitude, which is described as the psychological strength to manage adversity and to stay well, has consistently been linked to psychological well-being. The objective of the research was to statistically integrate studies examining the relationship between fortitude and the indices of psychological well-being by using a meta-analysis. We used a random-effects model for the meta-analysis. In addition to the overall effect size, we examined publication bias and the moderating role of age and methodological quality. We also performed a subgroup analysis to compare between studies with positive and negative indicators of psychological well-being. In addition, we used robust variance estimation to account for effect-size dependencies, as some studies have reported more than one correlation coefficient. A total of 13 studies reporting 35 correlation coefficients pertaining to the relationship between fortitude and the indices of psychological well-being were extracted. The meta-analysis revealed a significant overall effect (r = .44, p < .001). The results also indicated that age and methodological quality did not influence the effect size. Subgroup analysis indicated that the overall effect size for studies that used positive indicators (r = .49, p < .001) was higher than that for studies that used negative indicators (r = .36, p < .001). In addition, no visual or statistical evidence of publication bias was observed. The robust variance estimation results also confirmed that the effect-size dependencies did not influence the overall effect size. The study results provide strong evidence regarding the association between fortitude and psychological well-being. This finding has several implications for promoting mental health and suggests that interventions aimed at building fortitude can be leveraged to mitigate psychological distress.","PeriodicalId":47237,"journal":{"name":"South African Journal of Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"South African Journal of Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00812463221140245","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Identifying the factors that contribute to differential vulnerability in the face of adversity is key to psychology fulfilling its mandate as a helping profession. One such factor, fortitude, which is described as the psychological strength to manage adversity and to stay well, has consistently been linked to psychological well-being. The objective of the research was to statistically integrate studies examining the relationship between fortitude and the indices of psychological well-being by using a meta-analysis. We used a random-effects model for the meta-analysis. In addition to the overall effect size, we examined publication bias and the moderating role of age and methodological quality. We also performed a subgroup analysis to compare between studies with positive and negative indicators of psychological well-being. In addition, we used robust variance estimation to account for effect-size dependencies, as some studies have reported more than one correlation coefficient. A total of 13 studies reporting 35 correlation coefficients pertaining to the relationship between fortitude and the indices of psychological well-being were extracted. The meta-analysis revealed a significant overall effect (r = .44, p < .001). The results also indicated that age and methodological quality did not influence the effect size. Subgroup analysis indicated that the overall effect size for studies that used positive indicators (r = .49, p < .001) was higher than that for studies that used negative indicators (r = .36, p < .001). In addition, no visual or statistical evidence of publication bias was observed. The robust variance estimation results also confirmed that the effect-size dependencies did not influence the overall effect size. The study results provide strong evidence regarding the association between fortitude and psychological well-being. This finding has several implications for promoting mental health and suggests that interventions aimed at building fortitude can be leveraged to mitigate psychological distress.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
评估的动态II:毅力与心理健康指数之间关系的荟萃分析
识别在逆境中导致差异脆弱性的因素是心理学履行其帮助职业使命的关键。其中一个因素,坚韧,被描述为应对逆境和保持健康的心理力量,一直与心理健康有关。这项研究的目的是通过荟萃分析对研究毅力与心理健康指数之间关系的研究进行统计整合。我们使用随机效应模型进行荟萃分析。除了总体效应大小外,我们还研究了发表偏倚以及年龄和方法质量的调节作用。我们还进行了亚组分析,以比较具有积极和消极心理健康指标的研究。此外,我们使用稳健方差估计来解释效应大小相关性,因为一些研究已经报道了不止一个相关系数。共有13项研究报告了35个与毅力和心理健康指数之间关系的相关系数。荟萃分析显示 = .44,p < .001)。研究结果还表明,年龄和方法学质量不影响效应大小。亚组分析表明,使用阳性指标的研究的总体效应大小(r = .49,p < .001)高于使用阴性指标的研究(r = .36,p < .001)。此外,没有观察到发表偏倚的视觉或统计证据。稳健方差估计结果也证实了效应大小相关性不影响整体效应大小。研究结果为毅力与心理健康之间的联系提供了有力的证据。这一发现对促进心理健康有几点启示,并表明旨在增强毅力的干预措施可以用来减轻心理困扰。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
South African Journal of Psychology
South African Journal of Psychology PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
10.50%
发文量
39
期刊介绍: The South African Journal of Psychology publishes contributions in English from all fields of psychology. While the emphasis is on empirical research, the Journal also accepts theoretical and methodological papers, review articles, short communications, reviews and letters containing fair commentary. Priority is given to articles which are relevant to Africa and which address psychological issues of social change and development.
期刊最新文献
Interviewing older men at an interdisciplinary pain clinic: the journey to chronic pain and treatment experience What motivates South African students to attend university? A cross-sectional study on motivational orientation Experiences of Xhosa women providing Kangaroo mother care in a tertiary hospital in the Western Cape, South Africa Fertility preservation among women diagnosed with cancer in South Africa Repetitive negative thinking mediates the relationship between experiential avoidance and emotional distress among South African university students
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1