Content uploaded by Erdal Hamarta
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Erdal Hamarta on Jun 02, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Baku, Azerbaijan| 323
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL
of
ACADEMIC RESEARCH
Vol. 5
.
No. 3
.
May
, 201
3
Z. Tras, C. Arslan, E. Hamarta. An examination of resilience in university students in terms of self-esteem
and social self-efficacy. International Journal of Academic Research Part B; 2013; 5(3), 323-328.
DOI: 10.7813/2075-4124.2013/5-3/B.49
AN EXAMINATION OF RESILIENCE IN UNIVERSITY STUDENTS IN
TERMS OF SELF-ESTEEM AND SOCIAL SELF-EFFICACY
Zeliha Tras, Coskun Arslan*, Erdal Hamarta
Assist. Prof. Dr., Necmettin Erbakan University, Faculty of A.K. Education, Konya (TURKEY)
*Corresponding author: coskunarslan@konya.edu.tr
DOI: 10.7813/2075-4124.2013/5-3/B.49
ABSTRACT
The basic purpose of the present study is to examine whether university students’ self esteem and social
self-efficacy levels predict resilience or not. In line with this purpose, the researchers examined the correlation
between self-esteem and social self-efficacy and resilience scores in addition to whether self-esteem and social
self-efficacy levels are predictors of resilience. 532 university students studying at first, second, third and fourth
grades of various departments of Selcuk University participated in the study. 254 (48%) of these students were
females, while 278 (52%) of them were males. As the data collection instruments, Resilience Scale (Terzi, 2006),
Rosenberg Self-esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965), adapted into Turkish by Cuhadaroglu (1986) and Social Self-
efficacy Scale (Palanci, 2004) were used. Pearson conduct moment correlation and hierarchical regression
analysis techniques were used to analyze the data. There was a positive correlation between self-esteem and
resilience scores (r=.41, p<.01); similarly, there was a positive correlation between resilience and social self-
efficacy(r=.42, p<.01). According to hierarchical regression analysis results, it was found that self-esteem and
social self-efficacy variables significantly predict resilience (R2=.24, F(2/529)=83.51, p<.01).
Key words: Resilience, Self esteem, social self efficacy
1. INTRODUCTION
There are differences between people’s living conditions and opportunities in our country as it is the case
anywhere else. According to 2006 World Development Report, what is meant by opportunity is access to a healthy
and long life, in which there is no material and social poverty (World Bank, 2006). For example, such properties as
family, gender, the society which the individual was born into, the time of birth, education and health systems,
which a person takes for granted, bring various opportunities or impossibilities with them. On the other hand,
individuals have some living conditions that might be changed with individual struggle and initiation. Some
examples for these conditions might be the struggles of individuals who were born into disadvantaged families or
regions to draw a road map for themselves, meet their developmental needs on their own and be successful
despite unfavourable conditions. This concept which is commonly referred to as indomitableness and resilience
accounts for such a case. There are ignored and abused children in the society who experienced extreme poverty,
who were exposed to violence, who stayed away from their parents and their caretakers for a long time, who had a
serious accident, witnessed the death of their relatives or experienced prolonged failure at school (Henderson and
Milstein, 1996). The number of children who exhibit antisocial behaviour is higher among such children under risk
in comparison with that of the children in normal population. However, despite such risk factors, social scientists
were surprised by the fact that there are a considerable number of children who will continue their lives without
exhibiting any antisocial behaviour within this risky group (Ogulmus, 2001). Therefore, researchers have
extensively investigated what the positive effects on these people are (Glantz and Sloboda; 1999, Dogan, 2006;
Karairmak, 2006; Terzi, 2006).
Two terms are involved in the concept resilience; that is, “individual” and “situation.” The words “resilient”
and “resilience” are used to refer to people who, despite unfavourable living conditions, successfully adapt
themselves to the environment and acquire unexpected success under challenging conditions and have the ability
to adapt themselves to extraordinary conditions and situations (Terzi, 2008). The term resilience has been used to
define three main phenomena in the literature. First, it is used as a characteristic feature that enables individuals
overcoming difficulties and exhibit stronger development than expected to stand on their own feet despite
negativities (under high levels of risk) (Masten, Morison, Pellegrini &Teliegen; 1990). In other words, in such a case
there are unexpected positive results. If such positive results are due to favourable environmental conditions, it is
said that resilience does not play any role in them (Glantz and Sloboda; 1999). Second, resilience indicates a
person’s quick adaptation to successful life experiences; for example, basic stress factors such as divorce and
conflict in the family or various other stress factors that have become apparent a short time ago. Third, it involves
overcoming trauma (such as the death of parents or siblings). Personal characteristics are important factors that
play a significant role in keeping a person safe from potential effects of trauma (Masten, Morison, Pellegrini
&Teliegen; 1990).
324 | PART B. SOCIAL SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL
o
f
ACADEMIC RESEARCH
Vol. 5. No. 3
.
May
, 201
3
Risky situations in which resilience is seen emerge as various situations that directly lead to inconsistent
behaviour or pathology (Terzi, 2006). The risk factors mentioned here can be evaluated in three contexts that
interact with individuals; that is, factors related to individuals (e.g., lack of self-confidence, lack of effective coping
the strategies, weak self-control skills, aggressive personality, being alienated from social values, inconsistent
behaviours and genetic deficits) those factors related to family (e.g., poverty, ill parents, sexual harassment,
divorce, lower socio-economic levels, violence, educational background of the mother, lack of parents and failing to
establish close relations with the family) and social risk factors (e.g., natural disasters, terrorism, war or migration)
(Karairmak, 2006; Terzi, 2006).
There are some situations that support individuals with challenging living conditions to develop successfully
in life; such situations are generally referred to as protective factors. These protective factors play a key role in the
formation and shaping of the responses of the individual to negative situations. These factors refer to variables that
help people meet their developmental needs and decrease the negative effects of being under risk (Dogan, 2006)
Protective factors are listed as follows: Individual examples might include self-confidence, self-efficacy, a
high level of intellectual capacity, social skills, being accepted as skilful and easy-going by everybody, intelligence,
internal locus of control, academic skills, optimistic viewpoint, positive spiritual state, sense of humour, language
skills, positive peer relations, high levels of social sensitivity, empathy, problem solving skills and high levels of self-
esteem (Eminagaoglu, 2006 and Karairmak, 2006), family related examples might be close relations with parents,
being advantaged in terms of socio-economic aspects, positive characteristics of parents, having supportive and
intimate family connections outside the nuclear family, effective interaction within the family, getting help from
parents and other adults (Karairmak, 2006) and examples for protective factors outside the family can be positive
and intimate relations with an adult outside the family, being a part of the social environment and getting education
in schools (Karairmak, 2006; Stein, 2006).
The equivalent of the word resilience in the studies carried out in our country was accepted to be
“indomitableness” (Ogulmus, 2001), “psychological strength” (Gizir, 2004) and “the power to come through” (Terzi,
2008). Within the scope of this study, the word resilience is seen as the equivalent of “the power to come through.”
One of the individual protective factors in resilience is self-esteem (Eminagaoglu, 2006 and Karairmak,
2006). It is a significant concept that encompasses self-evaluations of an individual about positive and negative
views of himself and herself (Rosenberg, 1965) besides his/her attitudes, emotions, beliefs and perceptions (Onur,
1993). On the other hand, as a positive indication of personality, self-esteem protects a person (Terzi, 2006) by
helping him/her view himself/herself competent, important, precious and successful (Coopersmith, 1967).
Individuals with higher self-esteem levels are success-oriented, optimistic individuals who are not discouraged by
challenges.
An examination of the current literature indicates that self-esteem is studied in connection with such
variables as academic success (Pullmann and Allik, 2008), career success (Salmela-Aro and Nurmi, 2007), anger
and social support (Arslan, 2009), alcohol and drug use (Kounenou, 2010) and with different age groups including
7-11, 11-19, 17-40 and adolescents (Arslan, 2009) and university students (Kounenou, 2010). Studies on self-
esteem in different age groups and in terms of diverse variables show that it’s a factor that directs individuals’
behaviours throughout their lives (Hamarta, 2004).
Another notion that can potentially appear among individual protective factors is self-efficacy in resilience.
The notion of competence has a significant place in social learning theory of Bandura (Bandura, 1997a). The
expectation of social self-efficacy is explained as a person’s perception of himself/herself in solving problems that
he/she encounters while carrying out a specific activity (Bandura; 1977) and an individual’s self-expectation based
on personal skills (Akkok, 1999). According to Bandura, the level of motivation for social self-efficacy expectation is
effective in such situations as the power of resisting difficulties, coping with stress and depression, analytical
thinking that equips a person with resilience (Cited in Selcuk, 2009). Therefore, it involves a person’s use of his/her
capacity to its limits (Bandura, 1993). Bandura (1989) claims that people who have reservations about their skills
often avoid difficult tasks. When they encounter a challenge or a difficult task, they focus on negative results that
they might encounter. Therefore, they experience a higher level of anxiety since they focus on personal deficits and
possible problems rather than thinking how to carry out their tasks best. Since they are highly inclined to attribute
their inadequate performance to their personal deficits, they do not need to experience any more failure to lose
their self-confidence. They easily leave themselves into the hands of anxiety and experience negative results of
this (Celikkaleli, 2004). Adolescents with a strong belief of competence increase their self-confidence; they have
persistence, and thus they are more successful (Pajares and Schunk, 2001). This is because social self-efficacy is
a belief that activates a person’s motivational resources and cognitive powers (Bilgin, 1996).
The notion of competence becomes apparent in line with special areas such as academic success, social
self-efficacy and emotional competence (Zimmerman, 1995). The notion of social self-efficacy has been studied in
line with such variables as exhaustion (Skaalvik and Skaalvik; 2010), social support, optimism and subjective well-
being (Karademas, 2006), emotional intelligence and academic success (Yazici, Seyis, Altun; 2011) and with
various sample groups including high school students (Yazici, Seyis, Altun, 2011),teachers (Skaalvik and Skaalvik,
2010) and adults (Karademas, 2006).
The theoretical framework presented above indicates that resilience is connected with a number of factors
such as self-esteem and social self-efficacy. It is thought that the present study will contribute to the literature on
this issue. The purpose of the present study is to examine if there is a significant correlation between resilience and
social self-efficacy or self-esteem and whether social self-efficacy and self-esteem significantly predict resilience in
university students.
Baku, Azerbaijan| 325
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL
of
ACADEMIC RESEARCH
Vol. 5
.
No. 3
.
May
, 201
3
2. METHOD
2.1. Research Design
As a correlational survey model, the present study is a descriptive one carried out to examine resilience of
university students in terms of social self-efficacy and self-esteem.
2.2. Study Sample
The sample in this study was composed of 532 first, second, third and fourth year students studying at
faculties of engineering, vocational education, theology, technical education faculties and faculty of Law at Selcuk
University. 254 (48%) of them were females, and 278 (52%) were females. The age range of the sample is 18-27,
and the mean age is 20.18 with the standard deviation of 1.46.
2.3. Data Collection Tools
In this study, the data were collected using “Resilience Scale” (RS) adapted into Turkish by (Terzi, 2006),
Risk Factors Identification List (RFIL) (Terzi, 2008), Social Self-efficacy Scale (SSES) (Palanci, 2004) and
“Rosenberg Self-esteem Scale” (RSRS) (Cuhadaroglu, 1986).
2.3.1. Resilience Scale
Developed by Wagnild and Young (1993) and adopted into Turkish by Terzi (2006), Resilience Scale is a 7-
point Likert type scale with 24 items. The construct validity of the scale was examined using factor analysis. After
parallel forms validity study, a positive correlation between Resilience Scale and Generalized Self-efficacy Scale
was found (r=.83). The Cronbach alpha coefficient of the scale was found to be.82; test retest reliability coefficient
was r=.84. The item total correlations of the scale were found to be between.03 and.69 (Terzi, 2006).
2.3.2. Risk Factors Identification List
To examine resilience, a 30-item list to identify individuals with risk factors was generated through literature
review by Terzi (2008). The forms with responses including such expressions as “having little self-confidence,
being a pessimistic person, being rejected by friends, academic failure, experiencing sexual abuse and violence,
experiencing a natural disaster” were selected for later analysis. 18 of the forms were eliminated since learners
didn’t respond to any of the items on the form.
2.3.3. Self-esteem Scale
Rosenberg Self-esteem Scale, developed by Rosenberg (1965) and adapted into Turkish by Cuhadaroglu
(1986), is a four-point Likert scale with 10 items. A high score obtained from the scale implies a higher level of self-
esteem. The test retest reliability coefficient of the scale was found to be.71 (Cuhadaroglu, 1986).
2.3.4. Social Self-efficacy Scale
Developed by Smith and Betz (2000) and adapted into Turkish by Palanci (2004), Social Self-efficacy
Perception Scale five-point Likert scale with 25 items. To identify the criterion referenced validity of the scale,
Control Perception Scale (Ozbay and Palanci, 1999) and Social Anxiety Scale (Ozbay and Palanci, 2001) were
used. As it was the case with the original scale, a moderate, negative and linear correlation was found for social
anxiety r=-.59; p<.001. The reliability of the scale was tested using internal consistency and test retest methods.
The Cronbach alpha internal reliability coefficient was calculated to be.89. The reliability calculations carried out
four months later with randomly chosen 100 people indicated that the scale was consistent since a significant
correlation was found between the two administrations, r=.68; p<.001 (Palanci, 2004).
2.3.5. Procedure
In this study, the analysis of the data obtained through the scales administered was carried out using SPSS
16.00 software; the statistical significance level was expected to be 0.05 and 0.01. Pearson conduct moment
correlation technique was used to analyze the correlation between university students’ resilience scores and their
self-esteem and social self-efficacy scores. Whether self-esteem and social self-efficacy significantly predicted
resilience was tested with hierarchical regression analysis.
3. FINDINGS
Descriptive Statistics on the Participants’ Scores for Self-Respect, Social Self-efficacy, and Resilience Levels
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics on the Variables
N X ss
Self-esteem 532 30.94 4.67
Social Self-efficacy 532 86.08 17.02
Resilience 532 123.28 24.08
The means and standard deviations of the scores that participants obtained from self-esteem, social self-
efficacy and resilience scales are presented in Table 1. Higher scores in the scales indicate higher levels of social
self-efficacy, self-esteem and resilience.
326 | PART B. SOCIAL SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL
o
f
ACADEMIC RESEARCH
Vol. 5. No. 3
.
May
, 201
3
Findings on the Correlation between Learners’ Resilience and their Self-esteem and Social Self-efficacy Levels
The correlational data for learners’ scores in Resilience Scale and Self-esteem Scale and Social Self-
efficacy Scale are presented in Table 2.
Table 2. Correlational data on the Participants’ Scores for the RS, RSRS and SSES
Self-esteem Social Self-efficacy
Resilience .41** .42**
N= 532; **p<.01
As it is seen in Table 2, it was found that there is a positive correlation between resilience and self-esteem
scores (r=.41, p<.01); similarly, there is a positive correlation between resilience and social self-efficacy scores
(r=.42, p<.01). Based on this finding, it is concluded that as learners resilience scores increase their self-esteem
and social self-efficacy scores increase as well.
Findings about the regression analysis of the learners’ self-esteem and social self-efficacy scores on
resilience scores
Table 3 presents the hierarchical regression analysis results of the learners’ scores in Self-esteem Scale
and Social Self-efficacy Scale on their Resilience Scale scores.
Table 3. The Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis of the Learners’
Self-esteem and Social Self-efficacy Scores on their Resilience
Model Predict. R R
2
R
2
ch F Sd Beta
p
Fixed .41 .17.17 .17.17 106.80 1/530 57.86 .00
**
1 Self-esteem 2.11 .41 .00
**
Fixed
.49 .24 .24 83.51 2/529
42.80 .00
**
2 Self-esteem 1.41 .27 .00
**
Social Self-efficacy .43 .30 .00
**
**p<.01
It is seen that the authentic contribution of self-esteem that is initially included in the model developed to
account for resilience is significant (R2=.17, F(1/530)=106.80, p>.01). It is seen that the authentic contribution of self-
esteem and social self-efficacy included in the model in the second step is significant (R2=.24, F(2/529)=83.51,
p<.01).Standardized regression coefficient (
) indicates that predictive variables have authentic contributions to
resilience. When self-esteem is included in the model by itself, it is seen that it has authentic contribution at
=.41,
p<.01 and when it is included in the model together with social self-efficacy, it’s seen that self-esteem was apparent
at
=.27, p<.01 and social self-efficacy was seen at
=.30, p<.01.
Based on this, self-esteem and the independent variable account for 17% of the total variance on their own
in resilience. In addition, when self-esteem and social self-efficacy are included in the model together, they explain
24% of total variance in resilience.
4. DISCUSSIONS
The findings of the present research indicate that the mean of the learners’self-esteem scores is 30.94.
Considering that the highest score that can be obtained from Rosenberg Self-esteem Scale is 40, it can be said
that the learners had a higher level of self-perception. The significant positive correlation between self-esteem and
resilience can be attributed to the fact that self-esteem is among individual protective factors that support resilience
(Eminagaoglu, 2006 and Karairmak, 2006). Self-esteem can be defined as an individual’s considering himself or
herself as skilful, important, valuable and successful (Coopersmith, 1967) or it functions as a key to the notion of
social self-efficacy that refers to effective use of individual capacity (Bandura, 1993). The strong correlation
between self-esteem and resilience can be attributed to the fact that those with a higher level of self-esteem are
optimistic and persistent individuals with a strong will for success (Coopersmith, 1967). Therefore, a high level of
self-esteem not only helps individuals to develop themselves despite existing challenges, but it also protects them
against possible risks (Terzi, 2006). When the literature is examined, it is found that there is a negative correlation
between drug use and resilience or self-esteem (Veselska, Geckova, Orosova, Gajdosova, Dijk and Reijneveld;
2009) and that self-esteem is a significant predictor of social self-efficacy, social support and optimism
(Karademas, 2006). The finding that there is a positive significant correlation between self-esteem and resilience
(Benetti and Kambouropoulos, 2006) concords with findings of the present study.
The positive significant correlation between the level of social self-efficacy and resilience can be attributed
to individual protective factors in resilience (Eminagaoglu, 2006 and Karairmak, 2006). The notion of social self-
efficacy is apparent as a predictor of academic success (Hampton and Mason; 2003; Yazici, Seyis and Altun,
2010), in coping with stress seen after traumatic experiences such as natural or technological disasters and sexual
Baku, Azerbaijan| 327
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL
of
ACADEMIC RESEARCH
Vol. 5
.
No. 3
.
May
, 201
3
assault (Benight and Bandura; 2004), as a predictor of life satisfaction in adolescents (Vecchio, Gerbino, Pastorelli,
Bove, Caprara; 2007), as a significant factor that plays a key role in increasing linguistic and vocabulary skills of
preschool students instructed by teachers with high levels of self-efficacy and as a predictor of exhaustion and job
satisfaction in teachers (Skaalvik and Skaalvik, 2010). Therefore, it can be said that as the social self-efficacy of
individuals with one or several of the risk factors increases, they have higher levels of resilience. In this respect, in
risk groups at various educational levels, learners can be provided with educational opportunities to help them
acquire a positive self perception, and various activities in which learners can develop their social self-efficacy
beliefs can be carried out. By organizing activities related with environmental and social sensitivity, acting and
sports activities in which learners that are not very bright in such lessons as science and maths can be successful,
thereby developing not only positive self perception but also higher levels of social self-efficacy perception.
Therefore, learners can be supported in fulfilling their developmental tasks and acquiring the perception that “I am
prolific and successful in life” before such conditions which are not under their initiative as a person’s birthplace,
family, birthday and the number of siblings become a serious disadvantage.Research findings indicate such
emotional characteristics as higher levels of self-esteem, self-confidence are commonly seen in individuals with
resilience (Dolbier, Smith and Steinhardt, 2007; Eminagaoglu, 2006; Friesen, 2007; Terzi, 2006). It can be noted
that individuals with such characteristics have higher levels of social self-efficacy.
Self-esteem and social self-efficacy as predictors of resilience within the scope of this study are variables
that can be acquired and developed through various life experiences. Self-esteem is related with a person’s
positive or negative perception of himself or herself. Therefore, it is recommended that learners should be provided
with various opportunities including educational settings that might support students’ positive self-perceptions,
various counselling activities, sports and artistic activities, psycho-educational groups, and social responsibility
projects that the learners can actively be involved in.
REFERENCES
1. Arslan C. (2009). Anger, self esteem and perceived social support in adolescence, Journal of Social
Behavior and Personality (37), 555-564.
2. Benetti C. & Kambouropoulos N. (2006). Affect-regulated indirect effects of trait anxiety and trait
resilience on self-esteem. Personality and Individual Differences, (41), 341-352.
3. Benight C.C. & Bandura A. (2004). Social cognitive theory of posttraumatic recovery: the role of
perceived self-efficacy. Behavior Research and Therapy, (42), 1129-1148.
4. Brouwers A. & Tomic W. (2000). A longitudinal study of teacher burnout and perceived self-efficacy in
classroom management. Teaching and Teacher Education, (16), 239-253.
5. Coopersmith S. (1967). The antecedents of self esteem.San Francisco: W.H. Freeman & Company.
6. Cuhadaroglu F. (1986). Adolesanlarda benlik saygisi. Yayinlanmamis Uzmanlik Tezi Hacettepe
Universitesi, Ankara.
7. Dogan T. (2006), Universite Ogrencilerinin Sosyal Zeka Duzeylerinin Depresyon Ve Bazi Degiskenler
Acisindan İncelenmesi, Yayinlanmamis Yuksek Lisans Tezi, Sakarya Universitesi Sosyal Bilimler
Enstitusu, Sakarya.
8. Dolbier C.L., Smith S.E. & Steinhardt M.A. (2007) Relationships of Protective Factors to Stres and
Symptoms of Illness. American Journal of Health Behavior, 31(4),423-433.
9. Dunya Bankasi (2006). “Dunya Kalkinma Raporu, Kalkinma ve Esitlik” World Development Report,,
Development and Equity, Oxford University Pres, Washington, D.C.
10. Efe M., Ozturk F., Koparan S. & Ozkilic R. (2008). The Effect of 5 Months Individiual and Teamsport
Trainings. E-Journal of New World Sciences Academy, 3(2), 99-107.
11. Eminagaoglu N.(2006). Guc Kosullarda Yasayan Sokak Cocuklarinda Dayaniklilik, Yayimlanmamis
Doktora Tezi, Ege Universitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitusu, İzmir.
12. Friesen B.J. (2007). Recovery and resilience in Children’s Mental Health:View from the Field.
Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal, 31(1),38-48.
13. Gizir C.A., (2004). Akademic resilience: An investigation of protective factors contributing to the
academic achievement of eighth grade students in poverty. Yayinlanmamis Doktota Tezi, Ortadogu
Teknik Universitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitusu, Ankara.
14. Glantz M.D. & Sloboda Z. (1999). Analysis and Reconceptualization of Resilience. In M. D. Glantz, J.
L. Johnson (Eds.), Resilience and Development: Positive Life Adaptations (pp. 109-126). New York:
Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
15. Guo Y., Piasta S.B., Justice L.M. & Kadevarek J.( 2010). Relations among preschool teachers’ self-
efficacy, classroom quality and children’s language and literacy gains. Teaching and Teacher
Education, (26), 1094-1103.
16. Hampton N.Z. & Mason E. (2003). Learning Disabilities, Gender, Sources of Efficacy, Self-Efficacy
Beliefs and Academic Achievement in High School Students. Journal of School Psychology, 41,
101-112.
17. Henderson N. & Milstein M.M. (1996). Resiliency in schools: Making it happen for students and
educators. Thousand Oaks, California, Corwin Pres.
18. Karademas E.C. (2006). Self-efficacy, social support and well-being: The mediating role of optimism.
Journal of Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 1281-1290.
19. Karairmak O.,(2006). Psikolojik Saglamlik Risk Faktorleri ve Koruyucu Faktorler, Turk Psikolojik
Danisma ve Rehberlik Dergisi, 26, 129-139.
328 | PART B. SOCIAL SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL
o
f
ACADEMIC RESEARCH
Vol. 5. No. 3
.
May
, 201
3
20. Kounenou K. (2010). Exploration of the relationship drug use & alcohol drinking, entertainment
activities and self-esteem in Grek University students. Journal of Procedia Social and Behavioral
Sciences 2, 1906-1910.
21. Masten A.S., Morison P., Pellegrini D. & Teliegen A. (1990). Competence under stress: risk and
protective factors. In J. Rolf, A. S. Masten, D. Cicchetti, K. H. Nuechterlein S. Weintraub (Eds.), Risk
and protective factors in the development of psychopathology (pp. 236-256). New York: Cambridge
University Press.
22. Masten A.S. (1994). Resilience in Individual Development: Successful Adaptation Despite Risk and
Adversity. In M. C. Wang, E. W. Gordon (Eds.), Educational Resilience in Inner-City America:
Challenges and Prospects (pp. 3-25). New Jersey: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates, Inc.
23. Ogulmus S., (2001), Bir kisilik ozelligi olarak yilmazlik, I. Ulusal Cocuk ve Suc Sempozyumu: Nedenler
ve Onleme Calismalari, Ankara (29-30 Mart).
24. Pullmann H. & Allik J. (2008). Relations of academic and general self esteem to school achievement.
Journal of Personality and Individual Differences, 45, 559-564.
25. Rosenberg M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. New Jersey: Princeton University Pres.
26. Salmela-Aro K. & Nurmi J.E. (2007). Self esteem during university studies predicts career
characteristics 10 years later. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 70, 463-477.
27. Skaalvik E.M. & Skaalvik S.(2010). Teacher self-efficacy and teacher burnout: A study of relations
Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(4), 1059-1069.
28. Stein H. (2006). Maltreatment Attachment and Resilience in the Orphans of Duplessis, Psychiatry,
69(4), 306-313.
29. Terzi S. (2006). Kendini Toparlama Gucu Olcegi’nin Uyarlanmasi: Gecerlik ve Guvenirlik Calismalari,
Turk Psikolojik Danisma ve Rehberlik Dergisi, 26, 77-84
30. Terzi S. (2008). Universite Ogrencilerinde Kendini Toparlama Gucunun İcsel Koruyucu Faktorlerle
Iliskisi, Hacettepe Universitesi Egitim Fakultesi Dergisi, 35, 297-306.
31. Vecchio G.M., Gerbino M., Pastorelli C., G.D. Bove & Caprara G.V. (2007). Multi-faced self-efficacy
beliefs as predictors of life satisfaction in late adolescence. Personality and Individual differences, 43,
1807-1818.
32. Veselska Z., Geckova A.M., Orosova O., Gajdosova B., Dijk J.P. & Reijneveld S.A. (2009). Self-
esteem and resilience: The connection with risky behavior among adolescents. Addictive Behaviors,
34, 287-291.
33. Yazici H., Seyis S. & Altun F. (2011). Emotional intelligence and self-efficacy as predictors of academic
achievement among high school students. Journal of Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15,
2319-2323.
34. Zimmerman B.J. (1995). Self-efficacy and Educational Development. In A. Bandura (Ed.) Self-efficacy
in changing societies (pp. 202-231). New York: Cambridge University Press.
