Content uploaded by Elisabetta Sagone
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Elisabetta Sagone on Jun 30, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Available via license: CC BY-NC-ND 3.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
P r o c e d i a - S o c i a l a n d B e h a v i o r a l S c i e n c e s 9 2 ( 2 0 1 3 ) 8 3 8 – 8 4 5
1877-0428 © 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.
Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of Lumen Research Center in Social and Humanistic Sciences, Asociatia Lumen.
doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.08.763
ScienceDirect
Lumen International Conference Logos Universality Mentality Education Novelty (LUMEN
2013)
Relationships between Resilience, Self-Efficacy, and Thinking
Styles in Italian Middle Adolescents
Elisabetta Sagonea *, Maria Elvira De Carolia
a Department of Educational Science, University of Catania, via Casa Nutrizione, 95125 Catania, Italy
Abstract
The relationships between resilience and self-efficacy, resilience and thinking styles, and self-efficacy and thinking styles
were examined in 130 Italian middle adolescents. We applied the Generalized Self-efficacy Scale (Sibilia et al., 1995), the
Scholastic Self-efficacy Scale (Pastorelli et al., 1998), the Resilience Scale (Wagnild & Young, 1993), and the Thinking Style
Inventory (Sternberg & Wagner, 1992). Results showed that the more the adolescents experienced high levels of resilience,
the more they felt themselves able to cope with novelty in various domains of life, especially in scholastic context, and the
more they tended to use almost all thinking styles. Significant correlations were noted between generalized and scholastic
self-efficacy and thinking styles: the more the adolescents perceived themselves able to cope with stressful events, also at
school, the more they adopted almost all thinking styles. Future research could deepen the relationships between sense of
coherence, subjective well-being, and thinking styles.
© 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of Lumen Research Center in Social and Humanistic Sciences, Asociatia
Lumen.
Keywords: Resilience; thinking styles; self-efficacy;
1. Introduction
The focus of the present study has been represented by the analysis of the relationships between three relevant
psychological dimensions recently explored by scholars in several and different fields of interest, e.g. mental
health promotion, human development in life span, interpersonal relationships, and creativity (Putton & Fortugno,
2006; Castelli, 2011): resilience, self-efficacy, and thinking style. The first concept is referred to both the ability to
successfully cope with change, misfortune or adversity (Wagnild & Young, 1993; Garmezy, 1996) and the
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +39-0952508021.
E-mail address: esagone@unict.it
Avai labl e on lin e at www.sciencedirect.com
© 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.
Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of Lumen Research Center in Social and Humanistic Sciences, Asociatia Lumen.
839
Elisabetta Sagone and Maria Elvira De Caroli / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 92 ( 2013 ) 838 – 845
dynamic process of overcoming the negative effects of risk experience with positive outcomes (Rutter, 1985) and
avoiding the negative trajectories associated with these risks (Olsson, Bond, Burns, Vella-Broderick, & Sawyer,
2003). The second concept, that is, the perceived self-efficacy (Bandura, 1986), is defined as the belief of a
person in his or her ability to organize and execute certain behaviors that are necessary in order to produce given
attainments (Bandura, 1997). The last concept is referred to the thinking styles, that are related to “habitual
patterns or preferred ways of doing something consistent over long periods of time and across many areas of
activity” (Sternberg & Grigorenko, 2001, p.2). On the basis of recent empirical findings and the reduced
deepening of the aforementioned psychological dimensions in Italian adolescents, the purpose of the current
paper was to explore the relationships between resilience and self-efficacy, resilience and all thinking styles
(according to Sternberg and Wagner’s theory), and self-efficacy and all thinking styles in a sample of middle
adolescents.
2. Literature review
The analysis of scientific literature permitted to the authors to deepen the definitions and measures used in
order to study the topics of this paper, that is, resilience, self-efficacy, and thinking style. In relation to the first
one, Wagnild and Young (1993) defined the resilience as “a personality characteristic that moderates the negative
effects of stress and promotes adaptation” and operationalized the measurement of the following five components
of resilience in the first 25-item version of Resilience Scale for adults: 1) equanimity, that is, the balanced
viewpoint of one’s life and experiences; 2) perseverance, that is, the persistence in spite of adversity and the
willingness to continue the struggle to reconstruct one’s life; 3) self-reliance, that is, the ability to recognize
personal strengths and limitations; 4) meaningfulness, that is, the understanding that life has a purpose and the
estimation of one’s contributions; 5) existential aloneness, that is, the awareness that each individual’s life path is
unique. These components have been grouped in two main factors: personal competence (e.g. self-reliance,
independence, invincibility, mastery, resourcefulness, and perseverance) and acceptance of self and life (e.g.
adaptability, flexibility, and balanced perspective of life). Subsequently, an unique factor has been considered in
the version of Resilience Scale adapted to adolescents (Rew et al., 2001; Ahern et al., 2006). This dimension has
been examined in different countries, using various measures applied to individuals from childhood to adulthood
(Resilience Scale: Wagnild & Young, 1993; Dispositional Resilience Scale: Prati, 2010; Connor-Davidson
Resilience Scale: Connor & Davidson, 2003; Resilience Scale for Adults: Friborg et al., 2003; Resilience Process
Questionnaire: Laudadio, Fiz Pèrez, & Mazzocchetti, 2011).
Several researchers found that resilient individuals were better at coping with difficulties, at adopting the
hardiness in traumatic experiences and using problem solving strategies (Connor, Davidson, & Lee, 2003),
expressed higher levels of optimism (Lee et al., 2008), perceived themselves as more supported by friends and
their family (Kenny et al., 2002), and reported lower levels of hopelessness and loneliness (Karatas & Cakar,
2011) than non-resilient individuals. In addition, the more the individuals reported high levels of resilience, the
more they perceived themselves efficient (Schwarzer & Warner, 2013), also in academic context (Kanevsky,
Cork, & Frangkiser, 2008). In relation to this last dimension, it is possible to distinguish the dimension of
“generalized self-efficacy” and the “specific self-efficacy”: the former is referred to the belief in one’s
competence to cope with a broad range of stressful situations or challenging demands (Schwarzer, 1994;
Schwarzer & Jerusalem, 1995), while the latter is considered as the belief in one’s ability to handle specific tasks
(Caprara, 2001).
The efficacy beliefs influence the type of activity people choose to engage in, the levels of effort they spend,
and their perseverance in the face of adversities: this assumption emphasized domain-specificity, suggesting that
there are relationships between beliefs concerning personal ability in a specific task and the concrete realization
of this task. Specifically, the more the individuals perceived themselves efficient in scholastic or academic
performance, the more they tended to apply various thinking styles (Saroghad, Rezayee, & Masoumee, 2010;
840 Elisabetta Sagone and Maria Elvira De Caroli / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 92 ( 2013 ) 838 – 845
Negahi, Ghashghaeizadeh, & Hoshmandja, 2012). For example, in a group of pre-university students in Shiraz,
Saroghad et al. (2010) demonstrated the existence of significant relationships between self-efficacy and thinking
styles (except for the introvert and holistic thinking styles) and, specifically, in a group of female students. More
recently, in a sample of humanities and engineering students, Negahi and his colleagues (2012) found positive
relationships between the judicial and legislative thinking styles and academic self-efficacy, but negative
relationships between the executive thinking style and academic self-efficacy.
Thinking styles have been studied in Sternberg’s Theory of Mental Self-Government and this theory proposed
that thinking styles are included in the five following dimensions that are similar to facets of government
(Sternberg, Grigorenko, & Zhang, 2008): functions (legislative, executive, and judicial styles), forms (monarchic,
hierarchic, oligarchic, and anarchic styles), levels (global and analytic styles), scopes (internal and external
styles), and leanings (liberal and conservative styles). For the functions, individuals with the legislative style tend
to solve problems in their own way, establish what to do and how to do it, and choose situations that they have
never experienced; individuals who tend to use the executive style are prone to follow established rules and value
problems that are pre-structured and prefer to solve problems by following other’s supervision; individuals with
the judicial style are well-disposed toward the evaluation of existing rules and the critique of others’ work. With
reference to the forms, individuals who adopt the monarchic style are focused exclusively on single activities of
interest; individuals with the hierarchic style recognize the need to view problems from several perspectives
establishing setting priorities; individuals with the oligarchic style show the tendency to consider simultaneously
several goals of equal importance, but have difficulty with control of the conflicting demands; individuals with
the anarchic style tend to handle problems randomly, contrasting the rigidity of systems. For the levels,
individuals who use the global style choose to deal with large issues rather than details, while individuals with the
analytic style have a preference for working with concrete problems and details. For the scopes, individuals with
the internal style are more introverted and task oriented, but less socially sensitive, while individuals with the
external style tend to benefit by working with the others. Finally, for the leanings, individuals with the liberal
style look for the opportunities to go beyond existing rules and to maximize change, while individuals with the
conservative style tend to prefer to follow existing rules, avoid unknown situations, and minimize change.
Thinking styles have been related to other psychological dimensions: e.g. academic achievement, personality
traits, resilience, sense of purposefulness (Cano-Garcia & Hughes, 2000; Zhang, 2002; Fjell & Walhovd, 2004;
Ahangar, 2010). For example, in a sample of university students from Hong Kong, Zhang and Sternberg (2001)
found that students with significantly higher scores on Type I thinking styles (including the legislative, judicial,
global, hierarchical, and liberal styles) reported significantly higher levels of self-esteem; by contrast, students
with higher scores on Type II thinking styles (including the executive, analytic, monarchic, and conservative
styles) reported lower levels of self-esteem.
3. Methodology
3.1. Hypotheses
In the present study, we predicted that: 1) adolescents with high levels of resilience will perceive themselves
as more efficient in general and scholastic situations than adolescents with low levels of resilience; 2) adolescents
with high levels of resilience will adopt the legislative, anarchic, analytic, internal, and liberal styles more than
the others; 3) adolescents with high levels of self-efficacy both in general and in scholastic context will use the
legislative, anarchic, analytic, internal, and liberal styles more than the others. Differences for sex and age will be
examined.
841
Elisabetta Sagone and Maria Elvira De Caroli / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 92 ( 2013 ) 838 – 845
3.2. Sampling
The sample of this study was composed by 130 Italian middle adolescents (70 boys and 60 girls), aged from
13 to 15 (M=14,1, sd=,80), randomly chosen among the students attending two Public High Schools at Catania
(Sicily, Italy). The original sample was formed by 140 middle adolescents, balanced for sex, but some of them
returned the incomplete questionnaire and were excluded (that is, ten girls) by the total sample.
3.3. Measures and procedure
The Resilience Scale (RS: Wagnild & Young, 1993) was formed by 10 items each valuable on a 7-point Likert
scale ( =.70) ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 intervals (strongly agree). This scale measured the ability to
cope with adversity and unfamiliar events. Score ranged from 10 to 70 points.
The Generalized Self-efficacy Scale (GSES: Sibilia, Schwarzer, & Jerusalem, 1995) consisted of 10 items on a
4-point Likert scale ( =.77) ranging from 1 (not at all true) to 4 intervals (exactly true) and was used to assess
the general sense of perceived self-efficacy in order to predict coping with daily hassles as well as adaptation
after experiencing all kinds of stressful life events. Score ranged from 10 to 40 points.
The Scholastic Self-efficacy Scale (SSES: Pastorelli, Caprara, & Bandura, 1998) was used to analyze the
perceived self-efficacy in scholastic context and it included 12 items each valuable on a 5-point Likert scale
(=.81) ranging from 1 (not at all efficient) to 5 intervals (completely efficient). Score ranged from 12 to 60
points.
The Thinking Style Inventory (TSI: Sternberg & Wagner, 1992) was used to explore the 13 different types of
thinking styles and consisted of 104 items on a 7-point Likert scale. Participants were asked how well each item
described them on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (does not describe me at all) to 7 intervals (describes me
very well). Cronbach’s alpha coefficients ranged from .75 to .83.
4. Data analysis
The data examination was carried out using the SPSS 15 with Pearson’s linear correlations and t-tests. Sex and
age were used as independent variables and mean scores of resilience, generalized and scholastic self-efficacy,
and types of thinking style as dependent variables. We divided participants in two sub-groups in relation to mean
scores reported in resilience, generalized self-efficacy, and scholastic self-efficacy: high levels (n=62; 47,7%) vs.
low levels (n=68; 52,3%) of resilience; high levels (n=54; 41,5%) vs. low levels (n=76; 58,5%) of generalized
self-efficacy; high levels (n=60; 46,2%) vs. low levels (n=70; 53,8%) of scholastic self-efficacy.
5. Results
Descriptive analyses showed that all adolescents reported medium-high levels of resilience (range 25-67;
M=52,4, sd=7,2), high levels of generalized self-efficacy (range 16-40; M=30,2, sd=4,7), and medium-high levels
of scholastic self-efficacy (range 23-55; M=39,3, sd=7,3). These data indicated that the adolescents valued
themselves moderately able to cope with adversity and to adapt themselves to new and unfamiliar situations, and
perceived themselves as highly able to cope with demands especially deriving from scholastic context.
In relation to the different thinking styles, descriptive analyses indicated that the legislative (M=4,92, sd=,91),
external (M=4,75, sd=1,01), monarchic (M=4,54, sd=,87), and liberal thinking styles (M=4,49, sd=,96) were
widely adopted by adolescents, while the oligarchic (M=3,87, sd=,87), analytic (M=3,94, sd=,99), and
conservative thinking styles (M=3,99, sd=1,13) were scarcely used. It meant that the adolescents were more
likely to solve problems in their own way, establish what to do and how to do it, analyze exclusively single
activities of interest, prefer to work with the others and look for the opportunities to go beyond rigid rules and
842 Elisabetta Sagone and Maria Elvira De Caroli / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 92 ( 2013 ) 838 – 845
cope with the change. By contrast, they were less likely to consider simultaneously several goals of equal
importance and control the conflicting demands, and to refuse to work with details and concrete problems,
avoiding unfamiliar situations.
Results showed positive correlations between resilience and generalized self-efficacy (r(130)=.59, p<.001), and
resilience and scholastic self-efficacy (r(130)=.36, p<.001): the more the adolescents experienced high levels of
resilience, the more they felt themselves able to cope with novelty in various domains of human functioning and
especially in scholastic context (Tab.1).
Table 1. Types of self-efficacy and levels of resilience – Total sample (n=130)
Types of self-efficacy Levels of resilience Means Std. Deviat. T-tests
Generalized self-efficacy Low 28,13 4,45 -6,01*
High 32,48 3,74
Scholastic self-efficacy Low 36,97 6,59 -3,94*
High 41,77 7,30
* Level of significance for p<.001
Significantly positive correlations between resilience and different types of thinking style were found: in fact,
the more the adolescents experienced high levels of resilience, the more they tended to use mainly the legislative
(r(130)=.45, p<.001), executive (r(130)=.34, p<.001), judicial (r(130)=.24, p=.005), oligarchic (r(130)=.25, p=.005),
anarchic (r(130)=.34, p<.001), analytic (r(130)=.27, p=.002), internal (r(130)=.21, p=.016), and liberal thinking styles
(r(130)=.32, p<.001)(Tab.2).
Table 2. Types of thinking styles and levels of resilience – Total sample (n=130)
Types of thinking style Levels of resilience Means Std. Deviat. T-tests
Legislative style Low 4,60 ,88 -4,54*
High 5,27 ,80
Executive style Low 4,18 ,88 -3,08**
High 4,67 ,92
Judicial style Low 3,90 ,98 -2,90**
High 4,39 ,96
Monarchic style Low 4,41 ,98 -1,78
High 4,68 ,73
Hierarchic style Low 4,17 ,80 -1,99
High 4,49 ,99
Oligarchic style Low 3,63 ,84 -3,38**
High 4,13 ,83
Anarchic style Low 3,85 ,79 -3,84*
High 4,39 ,81
Global style Low 3,96 ,83 -1,75
High 4,23 ,96
Analytic style Low 3,69 ,89 -3,10**
High 4,22 1,04
Internal style Low 3,98 ,84 -2,48**
High 4,43 1,22
External style Low 4,65 1,07 -1,19
High 4,86 ,93
Liberal style Low 4,22 ,92 -3,49**
High 4,79 ,93
Conservative style Low 4,00 ,97 ,10
High 3,98 1,30
Levels of significance for * p<.001 and ** p<.01
843
Elisabetta Sagone and Maria Elvira De Caroli / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 92 ( 2013 ) 838 – 845
Significant correlations were noted between generalized self-efficacy and thinking styles: the more the
adolescents felt themselves able to cope with novelty, the more they tended to adopt mainly the legislative
(r(130)=.44, p<.001), executive (r(130)=.25, p=.005), judicial (r(130)=.30, p<.001), hierarchic (r(130)=.23, p=.008),
oligarchic (r(130)=.24, p=.006), anarchic (r(130)=.45, p<.001), analytic (r(130)=.23, p=.01), internal (r(130)=.27,
p=.002), external (r(130)=.24, p=.007), and liberal styles (r(130)=.42, p<.001)(see Tab.3).
Table 3. Types of thinking styles and levels of generalized self-efficacy – Total sample (n=130)
Types of thinking style Levels of generalized
self-efficacy Means Std. Deviat. T-tests
Legislative style Low 4,58 ,84 -5,60*
High 5,39 ,77
Executive style Low 4,21 ,87 -3,06**
High 4,70 ,94
Judicial style Low 3,81 ,90 -4,76*
High 4,59 ,95
Monarchic style Low 4,44 ,89 -1,58
High 4,68 ,84
Hierarchic style Low 4,15 ,79 -2,69**
High 4,57 1,01
Oligarchic style Low 3,69 ,83 -2,81**
High 4,11 ,86
Anarchic style Low 3,79 ,68 -5,69*
High 4,56 ,84
Global style Low 3,97 ,78 -1,86
High 4,26 1,03
Analytic style Low 3,68 ,87 -3,75*
High 4,31 1,05
Internal style Low 3,93 ,90 -3,50*
High 4,56 1,16
External style Low 4,57 ,97 -2,38**
High 4,99 1,02
Liberal style Low 4,15 ,86 -5,20*
High 4,97 ,90
Conservative style Low 3,91 ,98 -,96
High 4,10 1,32
Levels of significance for * p<.001 and ** p<.01
Furthermore, as reported in Tab.4, the more the adolescents perceived themselves as efficient in scholastic
context, the more they tended to use predominantly the legislative (r(130)=.31, p<.001), executive (r(130)=.45,
p<.001), judicial (r(130)=.33, p<.001), monarchic (r(130)=.22, p=.013), hierarchic (r(130)=.39, p<.001), anarchic
(r(130)=.32, p<.001), analytic (r(130)=.32, p<.001), internal (r(130)=.22, p=.012), and liberal style (r(130)=.32, p<.001).
Table 4. Types of thinking style and levels of scholastic self-efficacy – Total sample (n=130)
Types of thinking style Levels of scholastic
self-efficacy Means Std. Deviat. T-tests
Legislative style Low 4,66 ,88 -3,67*
High 5,21 ,85
Executive style Low 4,06 ,78 -5,09*
High 4,83 ,92
Judicial style Low 3,90 ,90 -2,91**
High 4,40 1,04
Monarchic style Low 4,36 ,92 -2,52**
High 4,74 ,78
Hierarchic style Low 4,03 ,72 -4,28*
High 4,67 ,99
844 Elisabetta Sagone and Maria Elvira De Caroli / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 92 ( 2013 ) 838 – 845
Oligarchic style Low 3,73 ,79 -1,93
High 4,02 ,93
Anarchic style Low 3,96 ,80 -2,30**
High 4,29 ,86
Global style Low 4,01 ,79 -1,09
High 4,18 1,01
Analytic style Low 3,76 ,81 -2,34**
High 4,16 1,15
Internal style Low 3,96 ,91 -2,80**
High 4,47 1,15
External style Low 4,64 1,07 -1,29
High 4,87 ,92
Liberal style Low 4,28 ,95 -2,78**
High 4,74 ,92
Conservative style Low 3,88 1,14 -1,18
High 4,11 1,12
Levels of significance for * p<.001 and ** p<.01
6. Conclusions
The main purpose of this study was to explore the relationships between resilience and self-efficacy, resilience
and thinking styles, and self-efficacy and thinking styles for the first time in a sample of Italian middle
adolescents. In relation to the first hypothesis, results demonstrated that the adolescents, highly resilient and
resistant to adversity and stressful events, perceived themselves as more efficient both in general and in specific
scholastic context, compared to the scarcely resilient ones. Confirming the prediction of the second hypothesis,
results showed that resilient adolescents were thinkers able to solve concrete problems in their own way,
contrasting the rigidity of the system, adopting the task-oriented strategy, and maximizing the change. In
addition, resilient adolescent were also thinkers likely to respect the established rules by following others’
supervision, to criticize the others’ performance, and to simultaneously consider several goals of similar
importance. In relation to the last hypothesis, results pointed out that the adolescents who perceived themselves
as highly efficient both in general and at school were thinkers able to work on tasks that require creative
strategies, to follow the established guidelines, to criticize the performance of other people, to view concrete
problems from several perspectives, establishing priorities and reducing the incidence of the system, to adopt
task-oriented strategies, and to maximize the change of existing norms.
Our findings constituted a further confirmation of the significant role of resilience and self-efficacy in
different thinking style also in Italian school context. Resilient adolescents were highly efficient both in general
and scholastic context, as recently reported by Schwarzer and Warner (2013); additionally, resilient adolescents
were likely to adopt almost all thinking styles, as found in Ahangar’s investigation (2010); finally, adolescents
who perceived themselves as efficient in general situations and at school tended to use almost all thinking styles,
as recently noted by Saroghad et al. (2012). Results obtained in this paper showed no significant effects for sex
and age of participants.
Among the limits of the present study, it is possible to indicate the importance to replicate this investigation
with a large number of Italian middle adolescents for the representativeness of the sample and to consider other
types of self-efficacy in order to emphasize the role of resilience on other different aspect of self-efficacy. Future
research could deepen the relations between other psychological dimensions (e.g. sense of coherence and
subjective well-being) and different types of thinking styles.
References
Ahangar, R.G. (2010). A study of resilience in relation to personality, cognitive styles, and decision making style of management students.
Africa Journal of Business Management, 4, 953-961.
845
Elisabetta Sagone and Maria Elvira De Caroli / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 92 ( 2013 ) 838 – 845
Ahern, N.R., Kiehl, E.M., Lou Sole, M., & Byers, J. (2006). A review of instrument measuring resilience. Issues in Comprehensive Pediatric
Nursing, 29, 103-125.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundation of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman & Co.
Cano-Garcia, F. & Hughes, E.H. (2000). Learning and thinking styles: An analysis of their interrelationship and influence on academic
achievement. Educational Psychology, 20, 413-430.
Caprara, G.V. (2001). La valutazione dell’autoefficacia. Trento, Italy: Erickson.
Castelli, C. (2011), Resilienza e creatività. Teorie e tecniche nei contesti di vulnerabilità. Milano, Italy: Franco Angeli.
Connor, K.M., & Davidson, J.R.T. (2003). Development of a new resilience scale: The Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC).
Depression and Anxiety, 18, 76-82.
Connor, K.M., Davidson, J.R.T., & Lee, L. (2003). Spirituality, resilience, and anger in survivors of violent trauma: A community survey.
Journal of Traumatic Stress, 16, 487-494.
Fjell, A.M., & Walhovd, K.B. (2004). Thinking styles in relation to personality traits: An investigation of the Thinking Styles Inventory and
NEO-PI-R. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 45, 293-300.
Friborg, O., Hjemdal, O., Rosenvinge, J.H., & Martinussen, M. (2003). A new rating scale for adult resilience: What are the central protective
resources behind healthy adjustment? International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 12, 65-76.
Garmezy, N. (1996). Reflections and commentary on risk resilience and development. In Haggerty, R., Sherrod, L., Garmezy, N., & M.
Rutter (Eds.), Stress, risk and resilience in children and adolescents: Processes, mechanisms and interventions (pp.1-17). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Kanevsky, L., Corke, M., & Frangkiser, L. (2008). The academic resilience and psychosocial characteristics of inner-city English learners in a
museum-based school program. Education & Urban Society, 40, 452-475.
Karatas, Z., & Cakar, F.S. (2011). Self-esteem and hopelessness, and resilience: A exploratory study of adolescents in Turkey. International
Education Studies, 4, 84-91.
Kenny, M. E., Gallagher, L. A., Alvarez-Salvat, R., & Silsby, J. (2002). Sources of support and psychological distress among academically
successful inner-city youth. Adolescence, 37, 161-182.
Laudadio, A., Fiz Pèrez, F.J., & Mazzocchetti, L. (2011). La resilienza: teorie, modelli e strumenti di misurazione. Roma: Carocci.
Lee, H.S., Brown, S.L., Mitchell, M., & Schiraldi, G.R. (2008). Correlates of resilience in the face of adversity for Korean women
immigrating to the U.S. Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health, 10, 415-422.
Negahi, M., Ghashghaeizadeh, N., & Hoshmandja, M. (2012). The survey of the relationship between learning styles and thinking styles with
academic self-efficacy in English language among the students of Islamic Azad university of Behbahan. Journal of Life Science and
Biomedicine, 3, 75-82.
Olsson, C., Bond, L., Burns, J., Vella-Broderick, D., & Sawyer, S. (2003). Adolescent resilience: A concept analysis. Journal of Adolescence,
26, 1-11.
Pastorelli, C., Caprara, G. V., & Bandura, A. (1998). La misura dell’autoefficacia percepita in età scolare. Età evolutiva, 61, 28-40.
Prati, G. (2010). Proprietà psicometriche della scala della resilienza disposizionale. Giornale di Psicologia, 4, 249-257.
Putton, A., & Fortugno, M. (2006). Affrontare la vita. Che cos’è la resilienza e come svilupparla. Roma, Italy: Carocci.
Rew, L., Taylor-Seehafer, M., Thomas, N.Y., & Yockey, R.D. (2001). Correlates of resilience in homeless adolescents. Journal of Nursing
Scholarship, 33, 33-40.
Rutter, M. (1985). Resilience in the face of adversity. British Journal of Psychiatry, 147, 598-611.
Saroghad, S., Rezayee, A.M., & Masoumee, F. (2010). The relationship between thinking styles and self-efficacy of pre-university male and
female students in Shiraz. Journal of Women and Society, 1, 135-155.
Schwarzer, R. (1994). Optimism, vulnerability, and self-beliefs as health-related cognitions: A systematic overview. Psychology and Health:
An International Journal, 9, 161-180.
Schwarzer, R., & Jerusalem, M. (1995). Generalized Self-Efficacy Scale. In J. Weinman, S. Wright, & M. Johnston (Eds.), Measures in
health psychology: A user’s portfolio. Causal and control beliefs (pp. 35-37). Windsor, UK: NFER-NELSON.
Schwarzer, R., & Warner, L.M. (2013). Perceived self-efficacy and its relationship to resilience. In Prince-Embury A., & D.H. Saklofske
(Eds.). Resilience in Children, Adolescents, and Adults: Translating Research into Practice (pp.139-150). New York: The Springer Series on
Human Exceptionality, Springer.
Sibilia, L., Schwarzer, R. & Jerusalem, M. (1995). Italian Adaptation of the General Self-Efficacy Scale: Self-Efficacy Generalized.
http://userpage.fu-berlin.de/health/italian.htm
Sternberg, R. J., & Wagner, R. K. (1992). Thinking Styles Inventory, Yale University, New Haven, U.S.A.
Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2001). A capsule history of theory and research on styles. In R. J. Sternberg & L. F. Zhang (Eds.),
Perspectives on thinking, learning, and cognitive styles (pp.1–21). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Sternberg, R. J., Grigorenko, E. L., & Zhang, Li-F. (2008). Styles of learning and thinking matter in instruction and assessment. Perspectives
on Psychological Science, 36, 486-506.
Wagnild, G.M., & Young, H.M. (1993). Development and psychometric evaluation of the Resilience Scale. Journal of Nursing Measurement,
1, 165-178.
Zhang, L. F., & Sternberg, R. J. (2001). Thinking styles, abilities, and academic achievement among Hong Kong university students.
Educational Research Journal, 13, 41-62.
Zhang, F.L. (2002). Measuring thinking styles in addition to measuring personality traits?. Personality and Individual Differences, 33, 445-
458.
