Building Emotional Resilience with Big Five Personality Model Against COVID-19 Pandemic

Abstract

The outbreak of novel coronavirus, which is declared as a ‘Global Pandemic’ by the World Health Organization (WHO), has affected around 210 countries and India is not an exception. It is an unprecedented ‘public health emergency’ and therefore, it is important that individuals should not fall into a prolonged depression or any other unhealthy psychological condition. Being concerned about the population at risk, the current study thus investigates how Big Five personality model can help in building emotional resilience during pandemic conditions. The current study thus investigates a sample of 254 adults at Delhi, selected through purposive sampling. Cluster analysis and stepwise regression analysis were conducted to establish the relationship and identify the significant personality traits required for building emotional resilience. The cluster analysis showed three main personality types (resilient, overcontrollers, and emotionally dysregulated) and further stepwise regression showed that individuals high on conscientiousness, openness and neuroticism were found to be associated with more change in emotional resilience. The findings thus achieved are a step towards psychological health of the individuals at risk. Additionally, the results of the study may be added to the psychological first aid (PFA) guide as reference point. Bearing in mind the potential for future research, it is recommended that longitudinal studies should be conducted, and the relationship should also be examined in the presence of other variables such as culture, life stressors and gender.

Keywords

Big Five emotional resilience Coronavirus Disease 2019 COVID-19 pandemic psychological first aid (PFA)

Introduction

The outbreak of the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), which is declared as a ‘Global Pandemic’ by the World Health Organization (WHO) (Cucinotta & Vanelli, 2020), has affected around 210 countries across the globe (even the power centres of the world like USA, Russia and China). The pandemic is seen as one of the most stressful events since World War II as it has emerged as much more than just a ‘global health crisis’ to ‘economic, financial, political and social crisis’, which will potentially impact and severely damage the global economy. The Washington Post (one of the leading American newspapers¹) has also reported the 3 months of COVID-19 pandemic as ‘mental health crisis’ and is generating distress and psychological trauma in individuals globally. Hence, it is considered to be a big humanitarian crisis, and people across the continents are hugely fearful of the spread of the epidemic (Alon et al., 2020). India is no more an exception to this, a nationwide lockdown has been imposed in three phases since 24 March 2020 to combat the spread of COVID-19. The Indian government has declared COVID-19 as a public health emergency and is using social distancing, close confinements, quarantine, isolation, and lockdown of public and private offices as tools to control the unprecedented health condition in a pandemic situation. The International Labour Organization (ILO) also estimated that during COVID-19 pandemic, the unemployment surge will be over 25 million in the coming months, attributed to the interrupted supply chain and depressed demand globally (Kanupriya, 2020). All this caused social unrest, financial hardships and emotional turbulence, leading to anxiety disorders, fear, panic and stress. Previous studies also support the fact that whenever there was an outburst of infectious diseases, it had psychosocial impact on individual and community levels as well as globally (Xiang, 2020). Few psychologists suggest to use an approach of psychological first aid (PFA), which is commonly used in managing the effects of disasters and aims to reduce stress and improve adaptability of an individual during pandemic condition. One of the studies conducted by Everly and Lating (2017) suggested that individuals who have been trained on this approach are liable to show lesser anxiety disorder and stress as compared to the individuals who were not exposed to the approach of PFA. Resilience, that is, the ability to bounce back or recover from stress (Agnes, 2007), is one of the approaches that promotes positive adaptation of the pandemic situation, as suggested by PFA.

Considering the given facts and being concerned about the population at risk in India, it is important that individuals overcome such undesirable events without falling into a prolonged depression or any other unhealthy psychological condition, which might turn into a serious ‘threat to psychological health’ (Mukhtar, 2020). Individuals are therefore required to successfully adapt to these difficult times such as job loss, pay cut, illness, death, delayed marriages, financial hardships, etc. While few individuals have the courage to cope with such situations but few get caught in the situation and loose hope. This ability to maintain emotional and psychological health during the time of crisis is known as emotional resilience and it is not something that people are born with; it can be developed. To combat the situation, positive psychology suggests that psychological health can be maintained through strong personality traits (Csikszentmihalyi & Seligman, 2000) that can support the development of their emotional resilience (Eley et al., 2013). Thus, the current study examines the relationship between Big Five personality model and emotional resilience of the individuals who are facing stress due to COVID-19 crisis.

Figure 1.

Source: Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. Graphics created in Tableau by the authors.

Overview of Coronavirus Disease 2019 in India

On 31 January 2020, the WHO declared COVID-19 as Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEC) and just 1 day before, India reported its very first confirmed case of coronavirus in Kerala. Since then, the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MOHFW) has taken several hygiene measures, such as use of mask, frequent hand washing, social distancing and avoiding touching eyes, nose or mouth, to combat the spread of coronavirus in the country. Besides this, people who were returning from COVID-19 affected countries were tested and quarantined as well as massive awareness programme was undertaken, but despite all these steps, there was a sharp increase in number of confirmed COVID-19 cases in India. In February, all the positive cases were recovered, but in March 2020, few more positive cases were reported from different parts of the country. On 14 March 2020, there were around 84 confirmed cases and 2 deaths reported in 13 states/union territories, which rose to 360 confirmed cases, and 7 deaths were reported in 23 states/union territories by 22 March 2020. On appeal of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Janta Curfew was observed all over India the very same day, which led to the first lockdown of the nation for 21 days, starting from 24 March 2020. Lockdown is basically ‘an emergency protocol that prevents people from leaving a given area’. During the lockdown, people are expected to remain at home and must stay wherever they are, and only essential services are allowed to run. By the end of first lockdown, the total number of COVID-19 cases crossed 1000 mark; thus, on 14 April 2020, the lockdown was extended to 3 May 2020 with some relaxations after 20 April. According to the data of Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (refer to Figure 1), there was a sharp rise in the number of coronavirus cases in India from 24 March (i.e., the day one of complete lockdown) to 14 April 2020 (the number of cases increased to 18,601 from 504, which is almost an increase in 3,590.67%). Given the comparison between death rate and recovery rate from the total number of cases on 24 March 2020, the death rate and cure rate were 7.34 per cent and 1.79 per cent, respectively, while on 21 April 2020, the death rate stood at 3.17 per cent and cure rate was at 17.48 per cent (refer to Figure 2).

Figure 2.

Source: Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. Graphics created in Tableau by the authors.

Thus, the overall statistics shows a steep rise in total tally, and the number of confirmed cases in India crossed the mark of more than 30,000 by the end of April 2020, which is a worrying sign for the nation as a whole. According to the experts, to ascertain the true picture of spread of COVID-19 infection, India needs to increase its testing capacity. Initially, the coronavirus sample testing was restricted to government authorized Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) facilities, and later, to ramp up the tests, the government gave authorization to few private labs too. As per ICMR, till 30 April 2020, around 8,30,201 samples were tested, which is not sufficient considering the total population of India. According to the study conducted by IndiaSpend, the states that are conducting more tests are detecting a greater number of positive COVID-19 cases.

Thus, the COVID-19 outbreak in India is a potential threat due to its rapid spread. Therefore, the scenario is very grim, and people are very uncertain about when the country will get over this pandemic. This led to the rise of people’s concern over economic condition and stability, job security, food shortages and physical health. Moreover, as people chose to remain indoors to fight the pandemic, it also generated a sense of confinement, which is again contributing to distress and mental illness of an individual. This has caused unrest in the society and emotional turbulence, attributing to public apprehension, fear, panic and tension. In one of the recent research studies conducted in China on the psychological impact of COVID-19, it was found that in the initial stage, the pandemic had very high mental health impacts on general population (Wang et al., 2020). Another recent study suggests that during the pandemic, there was a sharp deterioration of youth mental health and well-being (Hawke et al., 2020). Therefore, being concerned about the population at large, it is important that individuals overcome such undesirable events without falling into a prolonged depression or any other unhealthy psychological condition. Mental health experts are advising on taking care of mental well-being to cope with the challenges posed by COVID-19 pandemic.

At this point, the data show that the number of COVID-19 positive cases is showing an exponential trend, and if the slope of the curve does not show a downward trend, the social and psychological problems will become unmanageable and might have terrible results.

Emotional Resilience

Emotional resilience plays a crucial role in understanding the psychological disorder that involves the ability to acknowledge painful sentiments (Prout et al., 2019) and can protect the mental health of the individuals who belong to healthcare industry, in particular. Emotional resilience as a concept is a dynamic process (Balgiu, 2017; Winfield, 1991) and is defined as the successful positive adaptation by an individual in times of adversity and stress (Connelly et al., 2017). Masten (2001) labelled resilience as ‘ordinary magic’, as it leads to positive outcomes even when individuals are threatened with risky and stressful situations. Oshio et al. (2018) called it a complex construct as it varies in the context of organizations, cultures, societies and individuals (Southwick et al., 2014).

The first wave of resilience studies focused on individual capacity to manage challenging conditions. The second wave dwelt on addressing the contextual conditions of ecological system (Ungar, 2012), which reinforced the idea that resilience is an interaction between an individual and their surroundings. That being said, the literature supports three types of individuals with respect to resilience: (a) individuals who can face risk, (b) individuals who can maintain positivity and (c) individuals who can preserve strong mental well-being even after stressful conditions (Masten et al., 1990). Miller and Harrington (2011) summarize it and confer that under stressful conditions, personality traits are one of the most important determinants of emotional resilience (Miller & Harrington, 2011).

Thus, drawing upon the above literature, the current study focuses on individual’s personality characteristics that can mitigate the negative effects of stress by building emotional resilience, which can help in adaptation of the situation with ease (Oshio et al., 2018). Personality is one of the most interesting topics of human psychology and is widely used to describe the socially acceptable consistent behaviour patterns resulting from the individuals themselves. Thus, information on personality traits is important (Cloninger & Zohar, 2011; Dyrbye & Shanafelt, 2012) for psychological health improvement. Recent literature on resilience shows that it is predisposed towards various personality components, which can vary in different sets of populations due to cultural and adversity levels (Eley et al., 2013). Though a number of models exist to define various personalities (c), the most comprehensive personality model and empirically rooted is the five factor model (FFM) (Busato et al., 1998; Digman, 1990), also known as Big Five personality model (Gill & Hodgkinson, 2007), which has been extensively used in the literature. The current study addresses emotional resilience issue during COVID-19 pandemic conditions, which is believed to be related to the individual personality which is in line with the Big Five personality model or FFM perspective.

Big Five Personality Model and Emotional Resilience

Goldberg (1993) coined the term ‘Big Five’, which is associated with personality traits of an individual. The president of the American Psychological Association, Thurstone, (1933) called it FFM (Costa & McCrae, 1992), and most of the personality researchers agree that personality of an individual is best captured by the FFM as compared to the 16 or 40 factor model (John & Srivasta, 1999; McCrae & Paul Costa, 1992). All such researchers proclaimed that the five personality traits of statistically correlated traits The studies mentioned above proclaimed that the Big Five personality traits are statistically corelated with each other. However, despite of the empirically rooted theory, Big Five personality model is less frequently used in personality studies and the number of studies based on this model are few (Campbell-Sills et al., 2006; Nakaya et al., 2006).

Big Five personality model is a validated method (McCrae & Costa, 1997) to understand personality framework, according to which individuals falls into five broad traits: openness to experience, extraversion, agreeableness, neuroticism (i.e., absence of emotional stability) and conscientiousness (Barrick & Mount, 1993; Burke & Witt, 2004; Busato et al., 1998). Openness to Experience indicates the level at which the individual is open to try new things, flexible, creative and curious (Balgiu, 2017); Extraversion indicates the extent to which an individual is self-confident, active, optimistic and self-oriented (Bakker et al., 2006; Balgiu, 2017); Agreeableness is characterized by the tendency to be cordial, altruistic, caring and sociable with the people around (Balgiu, 2017); Neuroticism is the extent to which the individual is emotionally stable or unstable and experiences negative and distressing emotions, fearfulness, social anxiety (Bakker et al., 2006; Balgiu, 2017); Conscientiousness indicates an extent to which the individual is responsible, self-controlled and oriented towards achievement (Balgiu, 2017; Nakaya et al., 2006).

Literature indicates that studies relating five personality factors to emotional resilience have indicated a positive association with openness to experience, extraversion, conscientiousness, agreeableness, and a negative association with neuroticism in adults (Campbell-Sills et al., 2006; Friborg et al., 2005; Nakaya et al., 2006). On the other hand, Shi et al. (2015) reported that there is no association between resilience and neuroticism. In another study conducted by Iimura and Taku (2018), it was observed that females have a higher conscientiousness than males. In the case of adolescents, Fayombo (2010) observed conscientiousness as the best predictor of resilience, followed by agreeableness, openness and neuroticism. A study conducted by Friborg et al. (2005) conferred that emotional resilience is different based on personality profiles of well-adjusted subjects, resilient ones and vulnerable subjects. Shi et al. (2015) observed high scores on neuroticism were associated with low levels of resilience, while agreeableness, openness to experience, conscientiousness are associated with high resilience levels.

Based on the above literature, it is evident that the Big Five personality traits significantly influence emotional resilience, often described as adaptation and coping with tough times (Goleman, 2006), but studies related to which personality trait predicts emotional resilience are scanty. All these studies suggest an inconsistent relationship between Big Five personality factors and resilience. There are a couple of reasons cited in literature that indicate variation in findings may be due to: (a) adolescence-specific gender differences (Iimura & Taku, 2018; Weisberg et al., 2011), (b) genetic factors (Amstadter et al., 2016), (c) cultural differences (Eley et al., 2013) and (d) socio-economic adversity (Malhi et al., 2019).

In addition, the literature on resilience in children has well acknowledged its multidimensional nature, but this concept has been recently studied in adults (see Infurna & Luthar, 2017a, 2017b) and scholars have been repeatedly asked to replicate resilience studies across samples due to diverse adversity issues (Infurna & Luthar, 2018). Given that, the study adds to the resilience literature in two ways. First, the study explores the relationship between Big Five personality factors and emotional resilience in adults and second, the study examines this relationship for three different categories (working adults, students and homemakers). Thus, informed by the resilience literature and the personality theory of Big Five, the study is aimed to examine the validity of Big Five factors (openness to experience, extraversion, agreeableness, neuroticism and conscientiousness) in predicting and consequently building emotional resilience in the individuals who are facing psychological health issues or anxiety disorders due to COVID-19 crisis. The primary purpose of this study is to examine the validity of the Big Five personality model constructs in predicting emotional resilience of individuals facing social and economic disruption. This will help in understanding important personality traits required in building emotional resilience during global pandemic. In other words, the objectives of the study are threefold: (a) to define and validate the five personality traits for Big five personality model in the sample of Indian adults taken from Delhi region; (b) to check the association between different personality traits and emotional resilience across categories (students, working adults and homemakers); and (c) to explore the predictors of emotional resilience in terms of personality traits that would help in combating COVID-19.

This focus is important in the new millennium, as this study will address one of the essential topics of human psychology. Understanding personality characteristics of individuals belonging to different categories will also broaden the scope of personality-based interventions for building emotional resilience during pandemic conditions like COVID-19. As the population at large is confronted with healthcare challenges posed by COVID-19, resilience-based interventions can be seen as one of the strategies to repair unhealthy human psychological condition (Knitzer, 2000; Rutter, 2000b). This knowledge will also help psychological counselling providers to foster the growth and development of emotional resilience among healthcare providers or for individuals who are engaged in other essential services.

Method

Procedure and Participants

The study was conducted during COVID-19 pandemic at Delhi (India) in April 2020 and data were collected from the individuals who were above 18 years and fall into the category of students, working adults and homemakers. Data were received from 273 participants selected through purposive sampling and were in adulthood (above 18) and belonged to the category of students from the management institutes, working adults and homemakers. The data were further cleaned and checked for missing values and outliers. The final data of 254 respondents were processed into SPSS for statistical analysis.

Measures

Big Five personality measures: The five personality factors, that is, extraversion, agreeableness, neuroticism, conscientiousness and openness to experience, were measured on a scale of 1–7 using a small 10-item scale known as Ten Item Personality Measure (TIPI), adapted from Gosling et al. (2003). Literature indicates that small instruments are as valid as other long and validated scales (Burisch, 1984). Burisch’s findings also suggest that longer and superior psychometric scales are usually not used for practical purposes. The five personality factors measured were bipolar in nature, and the participants were asked to rate to an extent the pair of traits that applies to them; for example, the first dimension measured both extraversion and enthusiastic personality (i.e., sociable, assertive, talkative, active, NOT reserved or shy); the second dimension measured agreeableness and kindness (i.e., generous, sympathetic, NOT aggressive, or cold); the third dimension measured dependability and systematic and organized behaviour (i.e., hardworking, responsible and self-disciplined NOT careless, or impulsive); the fourth dimension measured neuroticism and calmness (i.e., relaxed, self-confident, NOT anxious, moody, easily upset or easily stressed); the fifth dimension measured openness to experience and participants’ imagination (i.e., curiosity level, creative, open-minded, NOT conventional). Each of the five items was rated on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (disagree strongly) to 7 (agree strongly).

Emotional resilience measures: Brazilian Resilience Coping Scale for adults with 14 items was used to collect responses from the participants. The data were collected on self-reliance, meaningfulness, equanimity, preservance and existential aloneness. All the items were measured on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (disagree strongly) to 7 (agree strongly). Internal consistencies of the scales were good as per the threshold value.

Analysis

In order to specifically meet our first objective of defining personality type, literature reveals two methods that have been used so far. The first method of Q-factor analysis data (Block, 1961, 1971; Block & Block, 1980) is used for data having fixed means and variances. The second method of cluster analysis is applicable for studies based on trait scores, derived from adjectives used in the questionnaire (De Fruyt et al., 2002). Given that, this study uses cluster analysis to define personality type in the Indian context to appropriately label the clusters. This has been done by following a person-centred approach to identify how Big Five traits within the cluster are organized (e.g., Bergman & Magnusson, 1997). This is important for the study, as one of the significant tasks of personality theory is to capture variance between the group of individuals (Hofstee et al., 1992). The previous studies conducted have identified various personality types, but resilients, undercontrollers and overcontrollers have been more consistently labelled and studied (Asendorpf et al., 2002; Caspi, 1998; Robins et al, 1998) across cultures using cluster analysis (Asendorpf et al., 2001), as it is most appropriate for applied purposes, especially during real-life cases (De Fruyt et al., 2002).

Therefore, at the outset, data were analysed for identifying the personality traits among 254 respondents using cluster analysis. Cluster analysis was performed to define and identify personality types in the Indian sample. All the factor scores were first transformed into Z scores and the data were processed for checking whether the five personality traits varied across three categories of students, working adults and homemakers. This was achieved using analysis of variance (Welch Test). Further, bivariate correlation was applied to check whether there is any association between personality traits and emotional resilience. Finally, stepwise regression was used for identifying the predictors that can help in building emotional resilience among Indian adults.

Results

Cluster Analysis of Big Five Personality Traits

K-cluster analysis revealed three-cluster solution to describe the personality traits of the respondents. The three-cluster solution is chosen for the simple reason that the results can be easily compared with the results of the other studies (Claes et al., 2006). Figure 1 shows the scale scores of the total samples for three different prototypes in each cluster. The first prototype, presenting cluster 1 with 60 respondents, is characterized by positive score for all personality traits except for agreeableness. The second prototype (in the middle) with 63 respondents shows a negative score on openness and the remaining four traits show an elevated positive score on neuroticism, conscientiousness, extraversion and agreeableness. The third prototype with 131 respondents shows negative scores on all five personality factors (extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism and openness).

The vast literature on personality reveals that out of all five traits, neuroticism is a psychological trait which is of utmost importance to psychological and mental health (Lahey, 2009). Neuroticism is associated with both positive outcomes like emotional resilience (Campbell-Sills et al., 2006) and self-esteem (Watson et al., 2002) and negative affective states (Ng, 2009; Steel et al., 2008) like comorbidity (Khan et al., 2005; Krueger & Markon, 2006), and is responsible for controlling depressive mental states during stressful conditions (Spijker et al., 2007). Further, Lu, Wang, Liu, & Zhang (2014) conducted a study on neuroticism, resilience and affective states and concluded that neuroticism and resilience are inversely related. Given that, the study differentiates the clusters on the basis of neuroticism due to its close association with emotional resilience; cluster 1 has a set of individuals who are moderate on neuroticism, cluster 2 individuals are high on neuroticism and cluster 3 individuals are low on neuroticism. Cluster 3 is the biggest cluster, and individuals belonging to this cluster are relatively calm even during stress due to low neuroticism, which is a good sign for Indian population at large.

Figure 3.

Source: The authors.

Further, Table 1 shows that all the traits are statistically significant in determining the clusters and F score in analysis of variance (ANOVA) table (Table 1) shows that relative weight given to a trait of agreeableness is highest. Larger F values give a sufficient evidence that all three clusters vary maximum due to agreeableness and least on openness. This signifies that agreeableness has the greatest influence on the formation of clusters and openness to experience has the least influence.

Furthermore, the results indicate that cluster 1 is high on openness followed by conscientiousness, whereas neuroticism and extraversion are at the moderate level; cluster 2 is high on agreeableness followed by neuroticism and extraversion on high level ; cluster 3 is the weakest cluster and has got maximum respondents who are low on all five traits (Figure 1). Literature indicates that individuals who are particularly moderate to high on extraversion, moderate to low on neuroticism and low on conscientiousness are emotionally dysregulated (e.g., Asendorpf et al., 2001; Westen & Harnden Fischer, 2001) or undercontrollers and are characterized as the impulsive individuals having emotional and behavioural problems. Individuals who score high on agreeableness and moderate to low on openness to experience and have low score on extraversion and neuroticism are called overcontrollers/restricted and are characterized as individuals who are vulnerable to problems and have tendency to hold back their emotions (Dubas et al., 2002). Finally, those who score high on all five traits are called resilient/high-functioning and are characterized as socially competent and can adapt easily (Dubas et al., 2002). (For an extensive review, see Robins et al., 1998).

On comparing the clusters identified in the study, it was found that cluster 3 varies significantly from clusters 1 and 2; however, clusters 1 and 2 also show differences but to a lesser extent. Therefore, based on the literature, it can be concluded that all the traits are important in predicting personality and can be used for further analysis. Analysis of cluster 1 shows that respondents in cluster 1 can be seen as resilient and high-functioning and respondents of cluster 2 can be seen as overcontrollers/restricted, whereas respondents of cluster 3 can be seen as emotionally dysregulated. Going further with the analysis, cluster 1 has 60 individuals, cluster 2 has 63 and cluster 3 has 131. The size of two clusters is very small to carry out the regression (Field, 2005; Queen et al., 2002), and it would not be possible to generalize the results on the population. This can be considered as one of the limitations of this study and the future studies may replicate this study by increasing the sample size.

Table 1.

Analysis of Clusters

ANOVA	Cluster		Error		F	Sig.
ANOVA	Mean Square	df	Mean Square	df
Z-score (extraversion)	38.291	2	0.703	251	54.478	0.000
Z-score (agreeableness)	57.720	2	0.548	251	105.320	0.000
Z-score (conscientiousness)	41.462	2	0.678	251	61.190	0.000
Z-score (neuroticism)	49.140	2	0.616	251	79.718	0.000
Z-score (openness)	33.528	2	0.741	251	45.258	0.000

Source: The authors.

Table 2.

Descriptive Statistics and Normality

Descriptive Statistics	N	Min	Max	Mean	Std. Dev.	Skewness		Kurtosis
Descriptive Statistics	Statistic	Statistic	Statistic	Statistic	Statistic	Statistic	Std. Error	Statistic	Std. Error
Extraversion	254	1.50	7.00	4.5157	1.03006	0.321	0.153	−0.133	0.304
Agreeableness	254	1.50	7.00	4.2776	1.13022	0.446	0.153	−0.022	0.304
Conscientiousness	254	1.50	7.00	4.9921	1.00980	0.080	0.153	0.067	0.304
Neuroticism	254	2.00	7.00	4.5000	1.14640	0.391	0.153	−0.182	0.304
Resilience	254	2.36	7.00	5.2123	.90191	−0.808	0.153	0.877	0.304
Openness	254	3.00	7.00	8.6693	1.95019	0.505	0.153	0.883	0.304
Valid N (listwise)	254

Source: The authors.

Given that, all the five personality traits are statistically significant in the sample (refer Table 1), both the variables, personality traits and emotional resilience, are further checked for normality. Further, the assumption of normality of the sample distribution and the error term was checked through histograms, and the scores of skewness and kurtosis (Table 2) were examined and the values satisfied the criteria of data being normal (Bagozzi, 1981; Marshal & Mardia, 1985). The data collected are cross-sectional in nature, which may create a possibility that findings are due to common method bias (CMB) (Podsakoff et al., 2003). In order to overcome this problem, Harman’s single factor score was administered and the total variance for a single factor was found to be less than 50 per cent. Hence, CMB will not affect the data and the results.

Further, the sample sizes for each category were not comparable; hence, one-way ANOVA cannot be performed. Therefore, in order to check the variances among the personality traits across three categories, Welch’s test (Welch, 1951) is used. Welch’s test showed significant difference across categories (students, working adults and homemakers) for three personality traits in particular: conscientiousness (F = 12.108, p = 0.000), neuroticism (F = 0 6.661, p = 0.002) and agreeableness (F = 6.441, p = 0.003).

Further to check the association between five personality traits and emotional resilience, bivariate correlation coefficient was calculated. The results showed that extraversion (R = 0.335, p = 0.001), conscientiousness (R = 0.463, p = 0.001) and neuroticism (lower emotional stability) (R = 0.377, p = 0.001) were positively corelated with emotional resilience in case of working adults; agreeableness (R = 0.505, p = 0.001) was found to be corelated with emotional resilience in case of homemakers; conscientiousness (R = 0.338, p = 0.001) and openness (R = 0.334, p = 0.001) were found to be corelated with emotional resilience in case of students. This indicates that in case of homemakers, their personality of being usually warm and having prosocial traits makes them more resilient. On the other hand, students who are high on conscientiousness and openness to experience are more resilient, whereas working adults who are high on extraversion, conscientiousness and neuroticism are more resilient. Overall, the correlation score between Big Five personality traits and emotional resilience showed significant association with openness (R = 0.297, p = 0.000), neuroticism (R = 0.78, p = 0.000) and conscientious (R = 0.428, p = 0.000). Agreeableness showed insignificant association and extraversion showed very low correlation; hence, they were not included in stepwise regression analysis.

Table 3.

Results of Stepwise Regression

Model Summary^a
Model	R	R ²	Adjusted R²	Std. Error of the Estimate	Change Statistics
Model	R	R ²	Adjusted R²	Std. Error of the Estimate	R² Change	F Change	df1	df2	Sig. F Change
1	0.428^b	0.183	0.180	0.81690	0.183	56.392	1	252	0.000
2	0.487^c	0.237	0.231	0.79088	0.054	17.855	1	251	0.000
3	0.506^d	0.256	0.248	0.78236	0.019	6.498	1	250	0.011

Source: The authors.

Notes: ^aDependent variable: emotional resilience.

^bPredictors: (constant), conscientiousness.

^cPredictors: (constant), conscientiousness, openness.

^dPredictors: (constant), conscientiousness, openness, neuroticism.

In order to identify the predictors of emotional resilience, stepwise regression was performed on the data. The model summary showed three models, as shown in Table 3. The first model considered only conscientiousness as the predictor of emotional resilience; the second model considered conscientiousness and openness as predictors; and the third model considered all three variables, that is, conscientiousness, openness and neuroticism. Though, all the models were found to be significant, the third model with conscientiousness, openness and neuroticism was found to be associated with more change in emotional resilience (R² = 25.6, p = 0.011). Low value of R² in behavioural and social sciences is acceptable (Yiannakoulias, 2016) as it is very difficult to understand human nature as they are not governed by physical sciences; it is just that value of R² needs to be interpreted differently.

Discussion and Conclusions

A Big Five model of personality traits was investigated in a sample of 254 adults. Results of cluster analysis of the Big Five personality scales yielded three distinct personality prototypes, which were partially consistent with previous studies in nonclinical samples (e.g., Sava & Popa, 2011).

In this article, the first section of the results validates the five personality traits of Big Five model in the sample of Indian adults through cluster analysis. The second section investigates whether the different personality traits varied across three categories, namely students, working adults and homemakers, and the last section identifies the predictors of emotional resilience that would help in combating COVID-19.

The analysis of the first objective revealed that all five personality traits are statistically significant in Indian sample at Delhi. Three clusters were derived from the sample and respondents with similar personality patterns/types are assigned in each cluster, which is in line with the previous studies (Asendorpf et al., 2001; Chapman & Goldberg, 2011; Dubas et al., 2002). It may be noted that past studies also derived three personality types using cluster analysis, which again validates methodology adopted in the present study (Chapman & Goldberg, 2011; Hart et al., 2003; Steca et al., 2010). Findings suggest that the first cluster includes 23.6 per cent of the respondents. None of the existing literature-derived profiles meet the criteria to justify a claim of sufficiently close similarity with this cluster. The specific traits, on a Five Factor personality model, indicate a prototype with disharmonic features: scores above the average for O, E, N and C, and scores below average (e.g., Z < −0.50) on the scale. Literature suggests that individuals who are low in agreeableness are less likely to help others when it comes to assisting friends or siblings (Graziano et al., 2007). The second cluster includes 24.8 per cent of the respondents and resembles the cluster identified in literature known as overcontrollers or restricted. The respondents in this cluster are low on openness, which can be characterized as conventional and narrow in their approach; however, these people are emotionally stable. The third cluster represents 51.5 per cent of the respondents who are emotionally dysregulated/under controlled and thus needs more attention in the present pandemic condition. Their emotional resilience in terms of conscientiousness is required to build up to cope with the challenges posed by COVID-19. It is interesting to note that the three prototypes share some similarity with the three prototypes that exist in literature (Herzberg & Roth, 2006; Rammstedt et al., 2004).

The second aim of the present study was to examine whether these five personality traits vary across three categories of students, working adults and homemakers. Welch’s test revealed that statistically significant differences were found in three personality traits in particular, namely conscientiousness, neuroticism and agreeableness across categories (students, working adults and homemakers). This shows that students, working adults and homemakers do not vary on openness and agreeableness. The difference in categories cannot be compared with the literature, and to the best of our knowledge, no study was found which compared the personality traits across such categories. It is also difficult to conclude why the mean differences were seen only in three personality traits and no differences were noticed for extraversion and agreeableness. Perhaps, difference across categories may be explained from the perspective of contextual development of an individual such as home environment, values of a family and culture. Therefore, this can be seen as one of the limitations of this study but can be one of the potential areas for future studies where different categories can be studied for Big Five personality traits.

The study also examined the association between five personality traits and emotional resilience, wherein the findings suggest extraversion, conscientiousness and neuroticism (lower emotional stability) are positively correlated with emotional resilience in case of working adults, whereas in case of homemakers, agreeableness is positively correlated with emotional resilience and in case of students, conscientiousness and openness to experience are positively correlated with emotional resilience. This may be attributed to the fact that homemakers are usually identified as warming and prosocial; therefore, they are more resilient even in adverse situations while students are in their learning stage and thus tend to be organized, high on imagination with divergent thinking. Similarly, working adults who are outgoing, energetic, dependable and self-confident are more resilient. Our finding is consistent with the findings of the study conducted by Oshio et al. (2018) where resilience was positively associated with agreeableness, extraversion, conscientiousness and openness and negatively associated with neuroticism. Additionally, some of the past studies examined the association between FFM and resiliency through synthesis of studies primarily focused on ego-resiliency and trait resiliency (Ong et al., 2006; Oshio et al., 2018), and they identified that in adverse situations, trait resilience serves as a protective factor and it is positively correlated with agreeableness, extraversion, conscientiousness, openness to experience and emotional stability. On this basis, it can be inferred that if balanced well, Big Five personality factors will help in facing stress, anxiety and economic and social challenges during the global pandemic of COVID-19.

Furthermore, another important purpose of the present study was to identify the personality traits that will eventually help in building emotional resilience under COVID-19 pandemic conditions. Stepwise regression was applied on three factors, namely openness, neuroticism and conscientious, based on the analysis of correlation. The findings of the stepwise regression revealed that the third model yielded maximum change in emotional resilience, which indicates that individuals who possess the trait of conscientiousness, openness to experience and neuroticism will be able to face the adversities of COVID-19. This also signifies that individuals who are high on agreeableness and extraversion will have feelings of guilt of not helping others and will face difficulty in building resilience required in the current pandemic conditions. This can be explained on the basis that extraverts have declined in their social connections (e.g., Harris et al., 2017; Swickert et al., 2002; Wilson & Dishman, 2015) due to social distancing. Humans have an innate need of belongingness (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Ryan & Deci, 2000), and when they are deprived of this basic need, feelings of being connected gets more elevated (Folk et al., 2020) and they become emotionally weaker. Therefore, individuals who are high on extraversion need the utmost care during this hour of crisis so that they can be helped to develop emotional resilience. Individuals who are high on neuroticism, conscientiousness and openness to experience can easily build emotional resilience against COVID-19.

Implications

Practically speaking, India is in a better position than many other countries as the local transmission of coronavirus has yet not been confirmed. However, a proactive approach needs to be considered for the people who are at risk of a psychological disorder due to its spread and compulsive confinements. People’s capacity to adapt to the changing times is under huge pressure, and it is important that their psychological health should be protected. The present study will help health authorities dealing with psychological disorders to treat individuals who are under stress during pandemic conditions, and the findings may have implications for front-line warriors like healthcare providers and essential service providers who are at continuous risk while performing their duties. The predictors of emotional resilience in terms of personality traits are a step towards psychological health of individuals at risk and need to be implemented simultaneously along with clinical care if required; otherwise, a substantial number of unnecessary distressful cases will become inevitable.

Additionally, the results of the study may be added to the PFA guide as reference point. The PFA guide provides knowledge of the trauma comebacks and resilience in brief. Most of the PFA providers have experience of dealing with individuals having psychological health problems. The knowledge of personality traits will help these providers to predict the capacity of an individual in terms of emotional resilience and will give them increased sense of conviction and confidence on field.

Limitations

This study has some limitations that should be taken into account bearing in mind the potential for future research. First, the data were cross-sectional in nature and time bound. Second, though common method bias was used to control the effect of other variables, the relationships could have been affected by variables such as gender, age and other stressors. Third, the study could not use three defined clusters for further analysis due to lesser number of individuals as it would have been difficult to generalize the results on the population. Fourth, the study predicts emotional resilience for all the categories together due to small sample size (homemakers); however, it is recommended for the future studies to focus on each category individually for practical purposes.

Despite these limitations, this study adds to the existing literature by providing findings from the Asian country. Future studies can also be conducted to predict emotional resilience in adults by other personality traits, which are not covered by the Big Five personality theory. This will further expand the scope of the existing literature in these areas.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Note

ORCID iD

Shalini Sahni

Shyama Kumari

About the Authors

Shalini Sahni is an Assistant Professor in Banarsidas Chandiwala Institute of Professional Studies, Delhi (affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, Delhi and Approved by All India Council of Technical Education (AICTE)) and is also a research scholar in Amity University, Noida. She is an international certified Personal Profile Analysis (PPA) Thomas and Emotional Quotient trainer. She has also conducted Management Development Programmes (MDPs) for companies like Parle G and Mancer Consulting. She has published papers in ABDC category and Scopus indexed journals. She has over 15 years of experience in academia and corporate. She has taught papers like research methodology, performance management and organizational development. Her areas of interest include human resource management, organizational behaviour, conflict resolution in teams, organizational justice and work place diversity issues. She examines these issues for public and private organizations and is also interested in gender issues at the workplace. She can be reached at shalinisah75@gmail.com

Shyama Kumari is an Assistant Professor in the area of marketing at Banarsidas Chandiwala Institute of Professional Studies, New Delhi (affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, Delhi and Approved by AICTE). She has over 15 years of experience in academia. She holds a PhD in Management from the Department of Management, Birla Institute of Technology, Mesra, Ranchi and Executive Education in Digital Marketing from XLRI, Jamshedpur. She has also done a course on ‘How to review a manuscript from Researcher Academy’, Elsevier and has served as a reviewer for Springer and Sage Publications. She has taught various courses such as marketing management, consumer behaviour, digital marketing, advertising, brand management, retail management and entrepreneurship development at graduate and post-graduate levels. Her areas of expertise are marketing communication and consumer behaviour. She has published several research papers in the refereed journals and conference proceedings of national and international repute. She can be reached at labh.shyama@gmail.com

Prachi Pachaury is a Research Scholar who is pursuing her PhD degree from Department of Management Studies, Gurukul Kangri Vishwavidyalaya Dehradun. Her area of interest is marketing, which includes consumer behaviour. She also has a great understanding of consumer behaviour and she recently completed many online courses based on marketing ethics, marketing foundations, persuasive selling and advanced consumer behaviour. She has also completed an online course on consumer behaviour and marketing research from IE business School in Madrid, Spain. She can be reached at prachipachaury561@gmail.com

References

Agnes

(2007). Webster’s new college dictionary . Wiley Pub.

Alon

Farrell

(2020). Regime type and COVID-19 response. FIIB Business Review . https://doi.org/10.1177/2319714520928884

Amstadter

A. B.

Maes

H. H.

Sheerin

C. M.

Myers

J. M.

Kendler

K. S.

(2016). The relationship between genetic and environmental influences on resilience and on common internalizing and externalizing psychiatric disorders. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology , 51(5), 669–678.

Asendorpf

J. B.

Borkenau

Ostendorf

Van Aken

M. A.

(2001). Carving personality description at its joints: Confirmation of three replicable personality prototypes for both children and adults. European Journal of Personality , 15(3), 169–198.

Bagozzi

R. P.

(1981). An examination of the validity of two models of attitude. Multivariate Behavioral Research , 16(3), 323–359.

Bakker

A. B.

Van Der Zee

K. I.

Lewig

K. A.

Dollard

M. F.

(2006). The relationship between the big five personality factors and burnout: A study among volunteer counselors. The Journal of Social Psychology , 146(1), 31–50.

Balgiu

B. A.

(2017). Self-esteem, personality and resilience. Study of a students emerging adults group. Journal of Educational Sciences and Psychology , 7(1), 93–99.

Barrick

M. R.

Mount

M. K.

(1993). Autonomy as a moderator of the relationships between the big five personality dimensions and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology , 78(1), 111.

Baumeister

R. F.

Leary

M. R.

(1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin , 117(3), 497.

10.

Bergman

L. R.

Magnusson

(1997). A person-oriented approach in research on developmental psychopathology. Development and Psychopathology , 9(2), 291–319.

11.

Block

(1961). Lives through time . Bancroft.

12.

Block

(1971). The Q-sort method in personality assessment and psychiatric research . Thomas.

13.

Block

J. H.

(1980). The California child Q-set . Consulting Psychologists Press.

14.

Burke

L. A.

Witt

L. A.

(2004). Personality and high-maintenance employee behavior. Journal of Business and Psychology , 18(3), 349–363.

15.

Burisch

(1984). You don’t always get what you pay for: Measuring depression with short and simple versus long and sophisticated scales. Journal of Research in Personality , 18, 81–98.

16.

Busato

V. V.

Prins

F. J.

Elshout

J. J.

Hamaker

(1998). The relation between learning styles, the Big Five personality traits and achievement motivation in higher education. Personality and Individual Differences , 26(1), 129–140.

17.

Campbell-Sills

Cohan

S. L.

Stein

M. B.

(2006). Relationship of resilience to personality, coping, and psychiatric symptoms in young adults. Behaviour Research and Therapy , 44(4), 585–599.

18.

Caspi

(1998). Personality development across the life course . In Damon

Eisenberg

(Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Social, emotional, and personality development (pp. 311–388). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

19.

Chapman

B. P.

Goldberg

L. R.

(2011). Replicability and 40-year predictive power of childhood ARC types. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 101(3), 593.

20.

Claes

Vandereycken

Luyten

Soenens

Pieters

Vertommen

(2006). Personality prototypes in eating disorders based on the Big Five model. Journal of Personality Disorders , 20(4), 401–416.

21.

Cloninger

C. R.

Zohar

A. H.

(2011). Personality and the perception of health and happiness. Journal of Affective Disorders , 128(1–2), 24–32.

22.

Connelly

E. B.

Allen

C. R.

Hatfield

Palma-Oliveira

J. M.

Woods

D. D.

Linkov

(2017). Features of resilience. Environment Systems and Decisions , 37(1), 46–50.

23.

Costa

P. T.

Jr McCrae

R. R.

(1992). NEO PI-R professional manual . Psychological Assessment Resources.

24.

Csikszentmihalyi

Seligman

M. E.

(2000). Positive psychology: An introduction. American Psychologist , 55(1), 5–14.

25.

Cucinotta

Vanelli

(2020). WHO declares COVID-19 a pandemic. Acta Bio-medica: Atenei Parmensis , 91(1), 157–160.

26.

De Fruyt

Mervielde

Van Leeuwen

(2002). The consistency of personality type classification across samples and five-factor measures. European Journal of Personality , 16(S1), S57–S72.

27.

Digman

J. M.

(1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. Annual Review of Psychology , 41(1), 417–440.

28.

Dubas

J. S.

Gerris

J. R.

Janssens

J. M.

Vermulst

A. A.

(2002). Personality types of adolescents: Concurrent correlates, antecedents, and type X parenting interactions. Journal of Adolescence , 25(1), 79–92.

29.

Dyrbye

Shanafelt

(2012). Nurturing resiliency in medical trainees. Medical Education , 46(4), 343–343.

30.

Eley

D. S.

Cloninger

C. R.

Walters

Laurence

Synnott

Wilkinson

(2013). The relationship between resilience and personality traits in doctors: Implications for enhancing well being. PeerJ , 1, e216.

31.

Everly

G. S.

Jr Lating

J. M.

(2017). The Johns Hopkins guide to psychological first aid . JHU Press.

32.

Fayombo

(2010). The relationship between personality traits and psychological resilience among the Caribbean adolescents. International Journal of Psychological Studies , 2(2), 105–116.

33.

Field

(2005). Discovering Statistics using SPSS (D. B. Wright, Ed.). SAGE Publications.

34.

Folk

J. B.

Brown

L. K.

Marshall

B. D.

Ramos

L. M.

Gopalakrishnan

Koinis-Mitchell

Tolou-Shams

(2020). The prospective impact of family functioning and parenting practices on court-involved youth’s substance use and delinquent behavior. Journal of Youth and Adolescence , 49(1), 238–251.

35.

Friborg

Barlaug

Martinussen

Rosenvinge

J. H.

Hjemdal

(2005). Resilience in relation to personality and intelligence. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research , 14(1), 29–42.

36.

Gill

C. M.

Hodgkinson

G. P.

(2007). Development and validation of the five-factor model questionnaire (FFMQ): An adjectival-based personality inventory for use in occupational settings 1. Personnel Psychology , 60(3), 731–766.

37.

Goldberg

L. R.

(1993). The structure of phenotypic personality traits. American Psychologist , 48, 26–34.

38.

Goleman

(2006). Social intelligence: The new science of human relationships . Bantam Books.

39.

Gosling

S. D.

Rentfrow

P. J.

Swann

W. B.

Jr (2003). A very brief measure of the Big-Five personality domains. Journal of Research in Personality , 37(6), 504–528.

40.

Graziano

W. G.

Habashi

M. M.

Sheese

B. E.

Tobin

R. M.

(2007). Agreeableness, empathy, and helping: A person × situation perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 93(4), 583.

41.

Harris

English

Harms

P. D.

Gross

J. J.

Jackson

J. J.

(2017). Why are extraverts more satisfied? Personality, social experiences, and subjective well-being in college. European Journal of Personality , 31(2), 170–186.

42.

Hart

Atkins

Fegley

Robins

R. W.

Tracy

J. L.

(2003). Personality and development in childhood: A person-centered approach. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development , 68(1), 1–109.

43.

Hawke

L. D.

Barbic

S. P.

Voineskos

Szatmari

Cleverley

Hayes

Henderson

J. L.

(2020). Impacts of COVID-19 on youth mental health, substance use, and well-being: A rapid survey of clinical and community samples [Répercussions de la COVID-19 sur la santé mentale, l’utilisation de substances et le bien-être des adolescents: un sondage rapide d’échantillons cliniques et communautaires]. The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry . https://doi.org/10.1177/0706743720940562.

44.

Herzberg

P. Y.

Roth

(2006). Beyond resilients, overcontrollers and undercontrollers? An extension of personality prototype research. European Journal of Personality , 20, 5–28.

45.

Hofstee

W. K.

De Raad

Goldberg

L. R.

(1992). Integration of the big five and circumplex approaches to trait structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 63(1), 146.

46.

Iimura

Taku

(2018). Gender differences in relationship between resilience and big five personality traits in Japanese adolescents. Psychological Reports , 121(5), 920–931.

47.

Infurna

F. J.

Luthar

S. S.

(2017a). The multidimensional nature of resilience to spousal loss. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 112, 926–947.

48.

Infurna

F. J.

Luthar

S. S.

(2017b). Parents’ adjustment following the death of their child: Resilience is multidimensional and differs across outcomes examined. Journal of Research in Personality , 68, 38–53.

49.

Infurna

F. J.

Luthar

S. S.

(2018). Re-evaluating the notion that resilience is commonplace: A review and distillation of directions for future research, practice, and policy. Clinical Psychology Review , 65, 43–56.

50.

John

O. P.

dan Srivasta

(1999). The big-Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In: Pervin

John

O. P.

(Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 102–138). Guilford Press.

51.

Kanupriya. (2020). COVID-19: A socio-economic perspective. FIIB Business Review , https://doi.org/10.1177/2319714520923918

52.

Khan

A. A.

Jacobson

K. C.

Gardner

C. O.

Prescott

C. A.

Kendler

K. S.

(2005). Personality and comorbidity of common psychiatric disorders. The British Journal of Psychiatry , 186(3), 190–196.

53.

Knitzer

(2000). Promoting resilience: Helping young children and parents affected by substance abuse, domestic violence, and depression in the context of welfare reform . NCCP.

54.

Krueger

R. F.

Markon

K. E.

(2006). Reinterpreting comorbidity: A model-based approach to understanding and classifying psychopathology. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology , 2, 111–133.

55.

Lahey

B. B.

(2009). Public health significance of neuroticism. American Psychologist , 64(4), 241.

56.

Lü

Wang

Liu

Zhang

(2014). Resilience as a mediator between extraversion, neuroticism and happiness, PA and NA. Personality and Individual Differences , 63, 128–133.

57.

Malhi

G. S.

Das

Bell

Mattingly

Mannie

(2019). Modelling resilience in adolescence and adversity: A novel framework to inform research and practice. Translational Psychiatry , 9(1), 1–16.

58.

Marshall

R. J.

Mardia

K. V.

(1985). Minimum norm quadratic estimation of components of spatial covariance. Journal of the International Association for Mathematical Geology , 17(5), 517–442.

59.

Masten

A. S.

(2001). Ordinary magic: Resilience processes in development. American Psychologist , 56(3), 227.

60.

Masten

A. S.

Best

K. M.

Garmezy

(1990). Resilience and development: Contributions from the study of children who overcome adversity. Development and Psychopathology , 2(4), 425–444.

61.

McCrae

R. R.

Costa

P. T.

Jr (1997). Personality trait structure as a human universal. American Psychologist , 52(5), 509.

62.

Miller

M. W.

Harrington

K. M.

(2011). Personality factors in resilience to traumatic stress. In Soutwick

S. M.

Litz

B. T.

Charney

Friedman

M. J.

(Eds.), Resilience and mental health challenges across the lifespan (pp. 56–74). Cambridge University Press.

63.

Mukhtar

(2020). Psychological health during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic outbreak. International Journal of Social Psychiatry . https://doi.org/10.1177/0020764020925835

64.

Nakaya

Oshio

Kaneko

(2006). Correlations for adolescent resilience scale with big five personality traits. Psychological Reports , 98(3), 927–930.

65.

(2009). Clarifying the relation between neuroticism and positive emotions. Personality and Individual Differences , 47, 69–72.

66.

Ong

A. D.

Bergerman

C. S.

Bisconti

T. L.

Wallace

K. A.

(2006). Psychological resilience, positive emotions and successful adaptation in later life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 91, 730–749.

67.

Oshio

Taku

Hirano

Saeed

(2018). Resilience and big five personality traits: A meta-analysis. Personality and Individual Differences , 127, 54–60.

68.

Podsakoff

P. M.

MacKenzie

S. B.

Lee

J. Y.

Podsakoff

N. P.

(2003). Common method Biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology , 88(5), 879–903.

69.

Prout

T. A.

Rice

Murphy

Gaines

Aizin

Sessler

Ramchandani

Racine

Gorokhovsky

Hoffman

(2019). Why is it easier to get mad than it is to feel sad? Pilot study of regulation-focused psychotherapy for children. American Journal of Psychotherapy , 72, 2–8. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.psychotherapy.20180027.

70.

Queen

J. P.

Quinn

G. P.

Keough

M. J.

(2002). Experimental design and data analysis for biologists . Cambridge university press.

71.

Rammstedt

Riemann

Angleitner

Borkenau

(2004). Resilients, overcontrollers, and undercontrollers: The replicability of the three personality prototypes across informants. European Journal of Personality , 18(1), 1–14.

72.

Robins

R. W.

John

O. P.

Caspi

(1998). The typological approach to studying personality. In Cairns

R. B.

Bergman

L. R.

Kagan

(Eds.), Methods and models for studying the individual (pp. 135–160). SAGE Publications.

73.

Rutter

(2000b). Resilience reconsidered: Conceptual considerations, empirical findings, and policy implications. In Shonkoff

J. P.

Meisels

S. J.

(Eds.), Handbook of early childhood intervention (2nd ed., pp. 651–682). Cambridge University Press.

74.

Ryan

R. M.

Deci

E. L.

(2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist , 55(1), 68.

75.

Sava

F. A.

Popa

R. I.

(2011). Personality types based on the Big Five model: A cluster analysis over the Romanian population. Cognition, Brain , Behavior: An Interdisciplinary Journal , 15, 359–384.

76.

Shi

Liu

Wang

Z. Y.

Wang

(2015). The mediating role of resilience in the relationship between big five personality and anxiety among Chinese medical students: A cross-sectional study. PloS One , 10(3), e0119916.

77.

Southwick

S. M.

Bonanno

G. A.

Masten

A. S.

Panter-Brick

Yehuda

(2014). Resilience definitions, theory, and challenges: Interdisciplinary perspectives. European Journal of Psychotraumatology , 5(1), 25338.

78.

Spijker

de Graaf

Oldehinkel

A. J.

Nolen

W. A.

Ormel

(2007). Are the vulnerability effects of personality and psychosocial functioning on depression accounted for by subthreshold symptoms. Depression and Anxiety , 24(7), 472–478.

79.

Steca

Alessandri

Caprara

G. V.

(2010). The utility of a well-known personality typology in studying successful aging: Resilients, undercontrollers, and overcontrollers in old age. Personality and Individual Differences , 48(4), 442–446.

80.

Steel

Schmidt

Shultz

(2008). Refining the relationship between personality and subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin , 134, 138–161.

81.

Swickert

R. J.

Rosentreter

C. J.

Hittner

J. B.

Mushrush

J. E.

(2002). Extraversion, social support processes, and stress. Personality and Individual Differences , 32(5), 877–891.

82.

Thurstone

L. L.

(1933). A simplified multiple factor method, and an outline of the computations . University of Chicago bookstore.

83.

Ungar

(2012). Social ecologies and their contribution to resilience. In Ungar

(Ed.), The social ecology of resilience (pp. 13–31). Springer.

84.

Wang

Pan

Wan

Tan

C. S.

R. C.

(2020). Immediate psychological responses and associated factors during the initial stage of the 2019 Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Epidemic among the general population in China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health , 17(5), 1729. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17051729

85.

Watson

Suls

Haig

(2002). Global self-esteem in relation to structural models of personality and affectivity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 83(1), 185.

86.

Weisberg

Y. J.

DeYoung

C. G.

Hirsh

J. B.

(2011). Gender differences in personality across the ten aspects of the Big Five. Frontiers in Psychology , 2, 178.

87.

Welch

B. L.

(1951). On the comparison of several mean values: An alternative approach. Biometrika , 38(3/4), 330–336.

88.

Westen

Harnden-Fischer

(2001). Personality profiles in eating disorders: Rethinking the distinction between axis I and axis II. American Journal of Psychiatry , 158(4), 547–562.

89.

Wilson

K. E.

Dishman

R. K.

(2015). Personality and physical activity: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Personality and Individual Differences , 72, 230–242.

90.

Winfield

L. F.

(1991). Resilience, schooling, and development in African-American youth: A conceptual framework. Education and Urban Society , 24(1), 5–14.

91.

Xiang

Y. T.

(2020). Timely mental health care for the 2019 novel coronavirus outbreak is urgently needed. The Lancet Psychiatry , 7, 228–229.

92.

Yiannakoulias

(2016). The use and abuse of the R2 (R-squared) in the social sciences . Health Geomatics Lab.