Journaling your challenges: mechanisms of resilience journals to support German first-semester business students during their transition to university

Abstract

Transition to university can be challenging, but writing interventions can be a helpful way of supporting first-semester students. Why these interventions are effective is still not fully understood, however. To explore the underlying mechanisms, two versions of a resilience journal were used in this study. They were designed to either broaden attention toward all challenges or to prime students’ attention to successfully mastered challenges. It was hypothesized that priming toward mastery is more effective but that both versions would increase students’ resilience and satisfaction. Hypotheses were tested in a pre-post design with 62 first-semester students randomly filling out one of the two versions for 6 weeks. The outcomes were compared to students without an intervention, and journal entries were analyzed for challenges and coping strategies. A content analysis of the journal entries revealed that most challenges were directly related to university. Problem-focused coping strategies were most often used to address challenges. Both intervention groups showed a decrease in life satisfaction during the first 6 weeks of university, but the intervention designed to broaden attention was more effective in mitigating this decrease. The same intervention was also more advantageous in promoting students’ resilience. The results highlight the vulnerability of students during their transition to university and the potential of writing interventions that include reflection on all challenges.

Full text

Vol.:(0123456789)
Discover Psychology (2023) 3:44 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s44202-023-00106-1
1 3
Discover Psychology
Research
Journaling your challenges: mechanisms ofresilience journals
tosupport German first‑semester business students duringtheir
transition touniversity
MaxS.Lohner1 · CarmelaAprea1
Received: 30 September 2023 / Accepted: 11 December 2023
© The Author(s) 2023 OPEN
Abstract
Transition to university can be challenging, but writing interventions can be a helpful way of supporting rst-semester
students. Why these interventions are eective is still not fully understood, however. To explore the underlying mecha-
nisms, two versions of a resilience journal were used in this study. They were designed to either broaden attention toward
all challenges or to prime students’ attention to successfully mastered challenges. It was hypothesized that priming
toward mastery is more eective but that both versions would increase students’ resilience and satisfaction. Hypotheses
were tested in a pre-post design with 62 rst-semester students randomly lling out one of the two versions for 6weeks.
The outcomes were compared to students without an intervention, and journal entries were analyzed for challenges
and coping strategies. A content analysis of the journal entries revealed that most challenges were directly related to
university. Problem-focused coping strategies were most often used to address challenges. Both intervention groups
showed a decrease in life satisfaction during the rst 6weeks of university, but the intervention designed to broaden
attention was more eective in mitigating this decrease. The same intervention was also more advantageous in promot-
ing students’ resilience. The results highlight the vulnerability of students during their transition to university and the
potential of writing interventions that include reection on all challenges.
Keywords Resilience· Journal intervention· First-semester students· Study satisfaction· Life satisfaction· Study
satisfaction· Challenges· Broaden-and-build theory
1 Introduction
For many students, the transition to university is a special time in their lives, and like most transition phases, this transi-
tion also presents a risk of increased vulnerability through multiple new challenges that might result in psychological
disturbances [1–6]. The results of earlier research studies show that university students report a high stress level [7] and
are at risk for mental health problems [8].
The latest results, gathered during the COVID-19 pandemic, reveal that students increasingly report a lack of
focus, attention problems, and difficulties in concentrating [9, 10], accompanied by a pronounced decrease in well-
being [11], and issues in making connections, satisfaction with education, and adjusting to challenges [12]. A high
Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s44202- 023- 00106-1.
* Max S. Lohner, max.lohner@uni-mannheim.de | 1Business School, University ofMannheim, L4, 1, 68161Mannheim, Germany.

Vol:.(1234567890)
Research Discover Psychology (2023) 3:44 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s44202-023-00106-1
1 3
prevalence of depression and anxiety symptoms in this population was already identified before the pandemic and
continues to be widespread [8, 10, 13–17]. In addition, self-harming and suicidal thoughts increased [10, 16, 17].
In particular, first-semester students at the beginning of their studies have a high risk for stress and mental health
problems [8, 18, 19], and during the pandemic, their mental health was especially affected [14, 16, 17].
Copeland etal. [9] claim that “[s]tudents, and particularly first-year students, may be in need of more institutional
support than ever” (p. 140). In line with this claim, the need for more psychological support has been formulated by
several authors studying the mental health of students [10, 12–14, 20–23].
To support students, the important role of resilience in preventing mental health problems and fostering well-
being has been repeatedly highlighted. Resilience protects students against loneliness, depressive symptoms, and
symptoms of generalized anxiety [20, 22]; shows positive effects on their coping and well-being [24–26]; and is
linked to academic progress, better grades, and reduced drop-out numbers [27–29]. Archana and Singh [30] even
label resilience as “one of the most important factors that contribute towards the well-being of students” (p. 228).
According to Luthar etal. [31], resilience can be defined as a “dynamic process encompassing positive adaptation
within the context of significant adversity” (p. 543). While other definitions exist, most of them include the core con-
cepts of adversity and positive adaptation [32]. The definition from Luthar etal. [31] was used in this study because
it best reflects the dynamic properties of resilience, an approach that is recommended in intervention research [33].
As the research literature describes it, resilience has dynamic properties, and resilience interventions can increase
resilience and well-being, especially in higher education students [34–36], and can reduce their stress, anxiety, and
depression [36–39]. A review of resilience interventions in higher education students by Brewer etal. [40] found that
most interventions were provided in face-to-face settings, predominantly at university, and often lacked a suitable
control group. Reviews in other areas also found that resilience interventions were effective but predominantly
delivered in a face-to-face setting [33, 41–44]. Resilience interventions are seen as having high potential to support
students’ mental health [11, 45], but during the pandemic, new methods of delivery had to be explored and, in gen-
eral, more longitudinal research is necessary [14, 21].
To address these needs, we developed and evaluated resilience journals, following journal interventions in positive
psychology [46, 47]. In the rst implementation of these interventions, resilience increased in a general student sample,
but no signicant dierences between dierent journal versions were found [48]. The dierent versions were designed
following theoretical considerations used in other writing interventions and mainly diered in how they incorporated
the core concepts of resilience.
One theory used to design a resilience journal is the broaden-and-build theory [49]. According to this theory, broad-
ened attention and cognition lead to more cognitive exibility, creativity, and the incorporation of experiences from
one’s surroundings that otherwise would have been excluded [50]. These eects of broadened attention and cognition
provide resources for coping with adversity and transforming negative emotions. As a result of this process, well-being
and resilience increase and lead to more positive emotions, which again lead to broadened attention and cognition,
resulting in a positive upward spiral [49]. From a resilience perspective, this theory implies that it is less important whether
a challenge or adversity was mastered successfully and more important how a person perceives and thinks about the
challenge and its outcome.
Other theories, however, argue that it is more important whether the challenge or adversity was mastered successfully.
In their writing intervention, Risch and Wilz [51] theorized that any eectiveness arose from resource priming, and Wing
etal. [52] argued that their interventions led to a greater sense of mastery. Both explanations are based on mastery theory,
which implies that overcoming challenges leads to a sense of mastery, as well as a knowledge of reliable resources and
coping strategies, which can be of advantage when future challenges arise.
Despite writing interventions having empirically proven to be eective, there is still no denitive explanation for that
eectiveness [53]. The two dierent theoretical considerations present starting points for testing through resilience
journals. When developing a writing intervention to develop resilience, the two mechanisms imply dierences in the
inclusion of unsolved adversities and challenges. On the one hand, broadening attention in the context of resilience
should include a reection on adversities that have not been solved. This broadening of attention could help the user to
learn from failed attempts or think dierently about unsolved challenges. On the other hand, focusing only on mastered
adversities excludes adversities that have not been solved successfully. This could lead to a higher sense of mastery and
a stronger focus on successful coping strategies without the negative impact of failed attempts.
These different mechanisms were operationalized in two separate versions of a resilience journal [48]. While one
journal version was designed to encourage reflection on challenges and adversities of all kinds (the Attention Version;
AV), a second version was designed to encourage reflection on successfully mastered challenges and the related

Vol.:(0123456789)
Discover Psychology (2023) 3:44 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s44202-023-00106-1 Research
1 3
resources and coping strategies (the Mastery Version; MV). Descriptive results showed higher effects on resilience
for participants filling out the MV rather than the AV, but these differences did not surpass the significance level of
p < 0.05 [48]. This first intervention was already carried out during the pandemic and showed medium to small effect
sizes [48], just like similar interventions outside the pandemic context [33, 37, 54]. Therefore, the results are promis-
ing due to the tendency of positive psychology interventions to produce smaller effects during the pandemic [55]
Despite hinting at an advantage for the MV and therefore of mastery theory, these assumptions need to be further
verified. In particular, the implementation of the two journal versions over a longer period could give more insights
into the underlying mechanisms.
1.1 Aim andhypotheses
To gain further insights into the mechanisms behind resilience journals, the aim of this study was to evaluate the
effects of the two journal versions on first-semester student resilience and satisfaction over a longer period of time.
The evaluation was guided by the following hypotheses:
H1: First-semester students filling out a resilience journal will show higher resilience and satisfaction than students
without an intervention.
H2: Students filling out the MV will show a stronger increase in resilience and satisfaction compared to students
filling out the AV.
The journal entries and evaluation results could also be used to gain further insight into students’ challenges and
coping strategies during the transition phase.
2 Method
2.1 Participants andsampling procedure
To determine the adequate sample size, the software G*Power (version 3.1.9.2) was used. Sample size was calculated
for a repeated measurement MANOVA with a medium effect size, an α-error of 5%, and a β-error of 20%. Results
revealed that a sample size of N = 66 would be suitable for the design of this study.
Participation in this study was promoted during the students’ orientation week prior to the first week of lectures.
First-semester students were asked to participate in the data collection via e-mail, social media posts, and online
events during this week. Participation was voluntary, but students who participated could take part in a raffle for 5
x €50 or receive course credits if their study program included course credits for participation in scientific studies. In
total, 87 students (66.7% female, age: Myears = 20.43, SDyears = 3.03) registered for the journal intervention and gave
informed consent for participation and data collection.
The participating students were randomly assigned to one of two journal versions (see Sect.2.2). Sixty-two
students completed their version of the journal intervention and participated in the post-test, while 25 (66.7%
female, age: Myears = 19.14, SDyears = 2.80, 56.0% MV) did not complete the post-test and were therefore excluded from
the statistical analyses. The remaining 62 students were between 18 and 35years of age (Myears = 20.9, SDyears = 3.0),
and 67.7% identified as female. All students were studying at the business school of the University of Mannheim
and started their bachelor’s program in fall 2020. Most students (75.8%) reported a major in economic and business
education, while the remaining students majored in business administration.
Measures were also included in a first-semester student poll for students majoring in economic and business
education. In addition, 103 first-semester students who did not participate in any intervention took part in the
student poll. These students represent the control group in the following analysis. Students in the control group
were between 17 and 40years of age (Myears = 21.2, SDyears = 3.1), and 68.0% identified as female.
2.2 Intervention
The intervention used in this study was a resilience journal [48] adapted to a weekly format. The following two versions
were completed by the students for 6weeks:

Vol:.(1234567890)
Research Discover Psychology (2023) 3:44 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s44202-023-00106-1
1 3
MV: Every day, we master many challenges, both small and big, in private and academic contexts. Think back over the
past week and enter ve challenges that you mastered this week in the eld below. For each challenge, write down
how you mastered it.
AV: Every day, we face many challenges, both small and big, in private and academic contexts. Think back over the
past week and enter ve challenges that you encountered in the eld below. For each challenge, write down what
specically was challenging for you.
Randomization of participants resulted in 32 students completing the AV (62.5% female, age: Myears = 21.31,
SDyears = 3.71) and 30 students completing the MV (73.3% female, age: Myears = 20.43, SDyears = 2.00).
2.3 Measures
To evaluate the eects of the intervention, resilience was measured before and after the intervention. A separate resilience
scale designed for longitudinal measurement accompanied all journal entries. To evaluate the eects on students’
subjective well-being, a scale for general life satisfaction and a scale specically designed for university students were
included.
2.3.1 Resilience
The Brief Resilience Scale (BRS) is a six-item scale measuring resilience as the “ability to bounce back” (p. 195) [56]. The
items, such as “I usually come through dicult times with little trouble,” are rated on a 5-point Likert scale (“strongly
disagree” to “strongly agree”). The German version of the BRS [57] was used in this study and has been reported as having
good reliability (Cronbach’s α = .85) for a German sample. The use of the BRS in resilience research is recommended for
its good validity [33] and its sensitivity in depicting change [58].
2.3.2 Dynamic resilience
The Monitoring of Actual Resilience State (MARS) [48] is a measure for dynamic changes in resilience in longitudinal
data. It consists of eight items (e.g., “I could rely on myself to overcome challenges”) rated on a slider control scale from
“strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.” The MARS showed good multi-level reliability (α = .75) in a German student sample
[48] and was included in the journals of this study. To account for the weekly format, the original prex “Today…” [48]
was replaced by the prex “This week….”
2.3.3 General life satisfaction
The Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) [59] consists of ve items measuring global life satisfaction as an element of
subjective well-being. The items, such as “In most ways, my life is close to my ideal”, are rated on a 7-point Likert scale
(“strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”). Again, the German version [60], which has a very good internal consistency
(Cronbach’s α = .92), was used in this study.
2.3.4 Life andstudy satisfaction
The Life and Study Satisfaction Scale (LSS), developed by Holm-Hadulla and Hofmann [61], is a German instrument
specically designed to measure the satisfaction of university students. The 7-item scale consists of four items assessing
general life satisfaction (LS), such as “How satised are you currently with your life?” and three items assessing study
satisfaction (SS), such as “How satised are you currently with your academic performance?” Although these dierent
areas of satisfaction are proposed by the authors, all items load on only one factor and retain an internal consistency
(Cronbach’s α) of .84 [62]. Answers were given on a 5-point Likert scale (“not at all” to “very strongly”). This second scale
for satisfaction was included to account for students’ special perspective and their study satisfaction.

Vol.:(0123456789)
Discover Psychology (2023) 3:44 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s44202-023-00106-1 Research
1 3
2.3.5 Demographic variables
Students were asked for their gender (male, female, diverse), age, study program, and semester via self-report items.
2.4 Research design
The study was carried out between September 21 and November 16, 2020. At this time, COVID-19 cases in Germany were
rising, and lectures at the University of Mannheim were given in a digital format. On November 2, 2020, new contact
regulations and a partial lockdown came into eect in Germany, with the closure of restaurants, sport facilities, and
cultural institutions.
During the orientation week, before the rst lecture in the fall/winter semester of 2020, students lled out the pre-
test, consisting of their informed consent, the BRS, the SWLS, and the LS subscale. Due to the lack of participants’ study
experiences, the SS subscale could not be included in the pre-test. The students were then randomly assigned to one of
the two journal versions; they completed their journal and the MARS every weekend for the rst 6weeks of university.
Students were reminded weekly by e-mail to ll out their journals and the MARS. The weekly format was chosen to keep
the workload for the students manageable. After the 6weeks of the intervention, students lled out the post-test, consist-
ing of the BRS, SWLS, LSS (both subscales) and demographic measures, and received a debrieng. The same measures,
informed consent, and debrieng were included in a rst-semester student poll of the business school in the same week.
The full research design is depicted in Fig.1.
All measures and journals were delivered online using the software SoSci Survey. Participation was possible using any
device with internet access (e.g., smartphone, tablet, or PC).
2.5 Data analyses
Journal entries for challenges and coping strategies were coded following the qualitative content analysis of Mayring
[63] to gain further insights into students’ experiences during their transition to university. All journal entries were
included, even if the students did not complete the whole intervention.1 Categories for analyzing challenges were built
using an inductive approach, while coping strategies were coded following the taxonomy of Smith [64] in a deduc-
tive approach. This approach was chosen to allow for comparability to other studies. A quarter of all journal entries
Fig. 1 Research Design
1 The decision to include journal entries of students who did not complete the whole intervention was made, to simultaneously analyze if
specic challenges increase the risk of dropping out of the intervention. This was however not supported by the data, and no specic chal-
lenge related to drop out of the study could be identied. The exclusion of students who did not complete the whole intervention does
however not change something in the relation of the mentioned challenges and therefore results would remain largely unchanged when
excluding students who did not nish the intervention.

Vol:.(1234567890)
Research Discover Psychology (2023) 3:44 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s44202-023-00106-1
1 3
were coded independently by a student assistant to include the perspective of an active student. Inter-rater reliability
(Cohen’s kappa) was computed from these ratings. Cases in which the raters disagreed were discussed until agreement
was reached.
The mean scores for BRS, SWLS, and LSS were used in two one-way MANOVAs to evaluate group dierences. To answer
Hypothesis 1, the rst MANOVA compared the post-test results of students with interventions with results from students
without intervention. The second MANOVA compared the pre-post results of the two intervention groups with each other
to answer Hypothesis 2. In this second MANOVA, only the mean score of the LS subscale of LSS was included, because no
SS subscale was included in the pre-test. Following these analyses, separate post hoc t-tests or ANOVAs were performed
for every variable separately to evaluate the eects on the individual variables. Hypothesis 2 was also analyzed with a two-
level time series analysis of MARS using an AR(1) model (random intercepts, random slopes) including the intervention
group as a between-person predictor.
Longitudinal analyses were performed using Mplus (Version 8.7). All remaining analyses were conducted in IBM SPSS
Statistics (Version 28.0.1.0).
3 Results
3.1 Descriptive analysis
The requirements for statistical testing were evaluated and found adequate for further analysis (see supplementary
material). No pre-test group dierences in the dependent variables, gender, or age were found. Descriptive statistics for
all dependent variables are shown in Table1.
3.1.1 Analysis ofchallenges
Inductive analyses of the challenges reported in the journals resulted in ve broader categories of contexts in which these
challenges occurred. At 46.71%, nearly half of the challenges stemmed from the context of the university (e.g., learning
strategies, learning motivation, performance pressure, and keeping up with lectures). The second most common area of
challenges was ways of living (e.g., nding a job, moving to a new city, doing household chores on your own, getting enough
sleep, eating healthily, and distraction through phone use), which was referred to in 24.47% of all entries. The third category,
referred to in 12.78% of the entries, was social challenges (e.g., missing family and old friends, nding new friends, staying in
touch with friends, and challenges in relationships). In 11.23% of entries, students referred to the compatibility of dierent
areas in their life (e.g., combining work with university, combining family duties with university, getting enough free time to
relax, and managing time). The last category, referred to in 4.60% of entries, comprised challenges related to COVID-19 (e.g.,
Table 1 Descriptive statistics
of the dependent variables
N = 165. Mean values, standard deviations are in parentheses
Variable Time Intervention Control Total
AV MV Combined
BRS Pre 3.38 (0.76) 3.29 (0.61) 3.34 (0.69) – –
Post 3.59 (0.87) 3.21 (0.67) 3.40 (0.80) 3.30 (0.68) 3.34 (0.72)
SWLS Pre 5.38 (0.98) 5.59 (0.67) 5.48 (0.85) – –
Post 5.26 (1.05) 5.05 (0.82) 5.16 (0.95) 4.82 (1.00) 4.95 (0.99)
LSS Post 3.43 (0.77) 3.31 (0.52) 3.37 (0.66) 3.15 (0.60) 3.23 (0.63)
LS Pre 3.94 (0.53) 4.08 (0.47) 4.00 (0.50) – –
Post 3.79 (0.84) 3.59 (0.55) 3.69 (0.71) 3.40 (0.71) 3.51 (0.72)
MARS Week 1 67.92 (14.30) 60.85 (15.72) 64.64 (15.26) – –
Week 2 64.16 (21.42) 63.10 (15.35) 63.64 (18.59) – –
Week 3 65.22 (18.59) 56.65 (17.18) 61.00 (18.28) – –
Week 4 65.80 (18.58) 65.08 (18.23) 65.46 (18.26) – –
Week 5 61.63 (23.19) 60.17 (15.43) 60.94 (19.73) – –
Week 6 62.04 (19.32) 59.04 (14.29) 60.54 (16.90) – –

Vol.:(0123456789)
Discover Psychology (2023) 3:44 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s44202-023-00106-1 Research
1 3
worrying about the high number of infections, dealing with new lockdown regulations, getting infected, and feeling isolated).
To clearly dene this category, raters agreed on only including journal entries that mentioned COVID-19 or similar related
words (e.g., Corona, lockdown, social distancing, new regulations, and infection numbers), while challenges that might be
related to COVID-19, but not clearly mentioning it, were categorized under one of the remaining categories. Categorization
of challenges reached an inter-rater reliability of κ = .77.
3.1.2 Analysis ofcoping strategies
The formulation of the two journal tasks aected the reporting of coping strategies. Only students in the MV were asked
to report their coping strategies; consequently, insights into those strategies can only be drawn from this group. In total,
688 journal entries related to coping written by 43 students were identied and categorized following the classication of
coping strategies used by Smith [64]. The results revealed that a large majority of entries (75.87%) fell into the categories of
problem-focused coping (e.g., collecting information, facing challenges with eort and discipline, or planning ahead), while
only a very small proportion (7.12%) reported emotion-focused coping (e.g., acceptance, equanimity, or distraction). Social
coping was reported in 17.01% of entries (e.g., asking for help, organizing learning groups, or meeting with other students).
An inter-rater reliability of κ = .78 was reached for the coping categories.
3.2 Hypothesis 1
A one-way MANOVA comparing students with intervention to students without intervention revealed no signicant
dierences (F(3, 161) = 1.96, p = .122, η2p = .04).
Separate post hoc t-tests revealed that students with an intervention did not report more resilience than students without
an intervention (t(163) = − 0.84, p = .20, d = − 0.14). With regard to life satisfaction, however, students with intervention reported
signicantly higher SWLS scores in a post hoc t-test than did students without intervention (t(163) = − 2.12, p = .018, d = − 0.34).
Similarly, students lling out any journal reported signicantly more life and study satisfaction than did students without
any intervention (t(163) = − 2.23, p = .014, d = − 0.36).
3.3 Hypothesis 2
3.3.1 Pre‑post comparison ofjournal version
The repeated measurement one-way MANOVA comparing the pre-post results of the intervention groups identied a sig-
nicant eect of time (F(3, 58) = 8.04, p = .001, η2p = .29) and time × group interaction (F(3, 58) = 3.03, p = .036, η2p = .14). The results
of the separate post hoc one-way ANOVA analyses for the three variables are shown in Fig.2; there were signicant eects
of time on the SWLS and LS, and signicant time × group interactions for resilience and life satisfaction measured through
the SWLS. While life satisfaction decreased in both groups, students who used the AV of the resilience journal showed an
increase in resilience and less reduction in life satisfaction, as measured by the SWLS.
3.3.2 Longitudinal analysis ofdynamic resilience
The longitudinal analysis of dynamic resilience were performed using a two-level time series analysis with an AR(1) model,
random intercepts, random slopes, and a between-person predictor. It found a small but signicant positive autoregressive
coecient (0.643, p = .024). Between-level estimates of group eects indicated no signicant inuence of the journal version
on dynamic resilience. Even though students who participated in the AV reported constantly higher mean values in resilience,
the results for the inuence of the journal version on dynamic resilience (− 2.42, p = .275) and its autoregression (− 0.90,
p = .288) were not signicant.

Vol:.(1234567890)
Research Discover Psychology (2023) 3:44 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s44202-023-00106-1
1 3
4 Discussion
4.1 Summary
Descriptive analysis of the journal entries indicated that nearly half of the reported challenges stemmed from chal-
lenges related to university, followed by ways of living, social challenges, compatibility, and, lastly, specific COVID-
19-related challenges. These challenges were mostly addressed with problem-focused coping strategies. Emotion-
focused coping and social coping together accounted for less than a quarter of the coping strategies mentioned.
The results revealed that students who filled out a resilience journal reported significantly more satisfaction
(SWLS and LSS) after the intervention, compared to students without any intervention. For resilience, no significant
difference was found between students participating in the intervention and those who did not. Hence, Hypothesis
1 can be supported for the effect of the resilience journal on satisfaction, but not for the effect of the intervention
on resilience.
When comparing the two versions of the resilience journal in a pre-post-test, a significant effect of the journal
version on resilience was found. Using the AV led to a stronger increase in resilience. A strong effect of time on life
satisfaction was observed in both journal versions. Life satisfaction decreased over the first 6weeks of university, but
students filling out the AV reported a milder decrease according to the SWLS than did students filling out the MV.
Therefore, Hypothesis 2 must be completely rejected, and the opposite of the expected outcome is the case. The AV
outperformed the MV in resilience as well as in life satisfaction and was more effective in this study. Further analysis
found that dynamic resilience was not significantly influenced by the journal version, but resilience had a positive
autoregressive coefficient, indicating that current resilience influences future resilience.
4.2 Interpretation
When looking at the results, the drop in life satisfaction in the two intervention groups highlights the effects of
the transition to university and vulnerability during this time [1–4]. The higher satisfaction in participants with an
intervention hints at a positive effect from the intervention (especially the AV), but must be treated with caution,
because no pre-test data of the control group was available. The longitudinal analysis, as well as the comparison to
Fig. 2 Change in resilience and life satisfaction of the intervention groups. t time, i interaction

Vol.:(0123456789)
Discover Psychology (2023) 3:44 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s44202-023-00106-1 Research
1 3
the control group, showed that resilience was rather stable over the course of the observed time, but an increase in
students filling out the AV was also observed.
This second empirical evaluation of resilience journals clearly favors the AV in fostering students’ satisfaction and
resilience. The theoretical mechanisms to design the AV were drawn from the broaden-and-build theory, and so
theoretical implications arise from this result. As predicted by the theory [49, 50], broadening attention led to increased
resilience and the smallest reduction in satisfaction. Solely broadening attention toward challenges, either solved or
unsolved, was most eective in supporting rst-semester students’ mental health in this study. By contrast, the MV,
designed to prime resources [51] and give students a sense of mastery [52], produced weaker eects. When comparing
the dierent theoretical considerations, this study implies that it is more important for students to reect on all their
challenges and broaden their attention rather than just learn from success. In the context of this study, the broaden-and-
build theory can be recommended as a foundation for resilience interventions. Like the mechanisms of the AV, Seligman
[65] proposes that pessimistic beliefs toward adversity can often be resolved if one takes a closer look at them and the
evidence for them.
To put this result into a broader context, it is important to look at the challenges and coping strategies students
reported in their journals. From the journals, it can be stated that most challenges reected everyday issues for rst-
semester students, with nearly half of the challenges stemming from the university context. Challenges resulting from
the pandemic represented the smallest number of entries. Thus, the results might have been inuenced to some extent
by this specic context, however, it seems quite reasonable that they apply to the transition to university in general.
The reported coping strategies show that the students used mainly problem-focused strategies and suggest a healthy
handling of the challenges. Accordingly, the AV was appropriate for a context in which the students mainly struggled
from everyday stressors and coped well. The mechanism of resource priming was proposed by Risch and Wilz [51] in
their evaluation of their writing intervention in a sample of patients after psychotherapy. From the current study, we
can state that broadening attention to challenges was more eective when dealing with everyday challenges, but when
dealing with severe adversity or traumatic experiences, the eectiveness of the two journal versions may be dierent.
Therefore, the two versions of the resilience journal should be further explored in an everyday context as well as in
relation to severe adversity.
4.3 Strengths andlimitations
This study especially addresses the limitations of the earlier implementation of resilience journals[48]. The 6-week
duration of the intervention, the data collection before the rst lecture, the recruitment of rst-semester students, who
are in special need of support [9], the inclusion of a control group without intervention, and the analysis of the journal
entries can therefore be seen as strengths of this study. In addition, the data on reduction of life satisfaction during
the transition to university and the implications for designing resilience journal interventions toward the broadening
of attention are valuable insights to better understand the mechanisms behind writing interventions and use them to
support students in the critical transition phase.
Despite these strengths, the study has a limitation regarding its sample. First, the sample was recruited only from
the business school of one German university and can thus not be broadened to applications in other contexts. Further
research in other universities, study programs, and countries is needed to generalize the ndings. Second, the control
group represents a convenience sample, and the study did not include a full randomized controlled trial design. The
inclusion of the post-test in a rst-semester student poll allowed for a larger number of participants in the control group.
However, this led to a limitation regarding comparability between students with and without intervention. Students in
the control group had no pre-test, and therefore changes in satisfaction and resilience that might have occurred in this
group could not be detected. Pre-post-test and randomization between all three groups should be implemented when
repeating this study. Third, a minor limitation is the small discrepancy between the calculated 66 participants and the
62 participants that completed the intervention. The discrepancy, however, was not so big that a negative inuence on
the quality of the results is expected.
Further limitations stem from using only self-report data, lack of generalizability through the special situation during
the COVID-19 pandemic, and analyzing qualitative journal entries only on a quantitative level, which does not allow for
interpretation of intensity of challenges, but rather the numbers of entries related to certain challenges. Longitudinal
analyses also found no dierences between the journal versions, which could result from the limited number of
measurement points. The eects of the intervention might also be limited by the weekly format of the reection task. A
daily reection, as used in the intervention by Seligman etal. [47], could possibly provide a higher intensity of reection

Vol:.(1234567890)
Research Discover Psychology (2023) 3:44 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s44202-023-00106-1
1 3
and therefore lead to stronger eects. In addition, other variables such as socioeconomic background, sources for the
nancing of the study, and part-time student status, could have inuenced the transition to university. These variables
were not collected in this study, but further research could test the inuence of these variables on the eectiveness of
the intervention.
4.4 Implications forresearch andpractice
Despite of the aforementioned limitations, implications for research and practice can be drawn. The high eect sizes
for the reduction in life satisfaction during the transition to university highlight the importance of supporting students’
mental health during their transition. Especially, the high numbers of challenges stemming from the university context
highlight the need for support from the universities. Journal interventions can be an important rst step to support
students and are at the same time cost-ecient, can be delivered online and oine, and are easy to use. This study sheds
light on the mechanisms behind journaling interventions and highlights that it is important to include reection on
unsolved challenges to increase resilience. Further research should evaluate the eectiveness of a resilience journal in
a larger and more international student sample, and in combination with existing face-to-face resilience interventions.
In addition, it is important to further explore the mechanisms of writing interventions and the eects of reecting on
unsolved challenges on resilience to everyday challenges or traumatic adversities outside of the pandemic context.
5 Conclusion
In conclusion, this study found that students in both intervention groups experienced a decline in their life satisfaction
during their transition to university. The use of a journal which included a reection on solved and unsolved challenges
was able mitigate this decrease, and to increase resilience. The results show that the transition to higher education is a
challenging experience for students and that a resilience journal, designed following the broaden-and-build-theory, can
support students during this transition.
Acknowledgements We want to thank Corina Laser for supporting us with the coding of the journal entries.
Author contributions Both authors contributed to the study conception and design. MSL performed material preparation, data collection
and analysis, and he wrote the rst draft of the manuscript. Both authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript and read and
approved the nal version.
Funding Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. This research was supported by the Julius Paul Stiegler Foundation.
Data availability The authors are not authorized to disclose the data of this study, to third parties. Accordingly, the data of this study cannot
be made publicly available. We assure that the data support the claims we make in this publication. In special cases, extracts of the data can
be acquired by contacting the corresponding author.
Declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate All participants gave informed consent to participate in this study. The protocol and questionnaires
of this study were approved by the Leadership board of the Area Economic and Business Education of University of Mannheim and was per-
formed in accordance with the ethical standards as laid down in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments.
Competing interests The authors have no competing interests to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation,
distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source,
provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article
are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in
the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will
need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http:// creat iveco mmons. org/ licen ses/ by/4. 0/.

Vol.:(0123456789)
Discover Psychology (2023) 3:44 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s44202-023-00106-1 Research
1 3
References
1. Briggs A, Clark J, Hall I. Building bridges: understanding student transition to university. Qual High Educ. 2012;18:3–21. https:// doi. org/
10. 1080/ 13538 322. 2011. 614468.
2. Fisher S, Hood B. The stress of the transition to university: a longitudinal study of psychological disturbance, absent-mindness and vulner-
ability to homesickness. Br J Psychol. 1987;78:425–41. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 2044- 8295. 1987. tb022 60.x.
3. Hussain R, Guppy M, Robertson S, Temple E. Physical and mental health perspectives of rst year undergraduate rural university students.
BMC Public Health. 2013;13:848. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1186/ 1471- 2458- 13- 848.
4. Leary KA, DeRosier ME. Factors promoting positive adaptation and resilience during the transition to college. Psychology. 2012;03:1215–22.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 4236/ psych. 2012. 312A1 80.
5. Timmis MA, Pexton S, Cavallerio F. Student transition into higher education: time for a rethink within the subject of sport and exercise
science? Front Educ. 2022. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3389/ feduc. 2022. 10496 72.
6. Williams H, Roberts N. ‘I just think it’s really awkward’: transitioning to higher education and the implications for student retention. High
Educ. 2023;85:1125–41. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10734- 022- 00881-1.
7. Herbst U, Voeth M, Eidho AT, Müller M, Stief S. Studierendenstress in Deutschland: eine empirische Untersuchung [Students‘ stress in
Germany: an empirical study]. AOK-Bundesverband; 2016. https:// www. fachp ortal- paeda gogik. de/ liter atur/ volla nzeige. html? FId= 11086
89
8. Auerbach RP, Mortier P, Bruaerts R, Alonso J, Benjet C, Cuijpers P, etal. WHO world mental health surveys international college student
project: prevalence and distribution of mental disorders. J Abnorm Psychol. 2018;127:623–38. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ abn00 00362.
9. Copeland WE, McGinnis E, Bai Y, Adams Z, Nardone H, Devadanam V, etal. Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on college student mental
health and wellness. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2021;60:134–41. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jaac. 2020. 08. 466.
10. Essadek A, Rabeyron T. Mental health of French students during the COVID-19 pandemic. J Aect Disord. 2020;277:392–3. https:// doi.
org/ 10. 1016/j. jad. 2020. 08. 042.
11. Nöhammer E. Die Wirkungen der Pandemie auf Studierende in Österreich. [The Eects of the Pandemic on Students in Austria]. Das
Gesundheitswesen. 2022. https://eref.thieme.de/https:// doi. org/ 10. 1055/s- 0042- 17511 50
12. Tribble DJ, Baldwin A, Nadelson LS. First-year students’ perceptions of learning and connection to the university in the coronavirus
(COVID-19) pandemic world. IJHE. 2022;11:62–79. https:// doi. org/ 10. 5430/ ijhe. v11n4 p62.
13. Chirikov I, Soria KM, Horgos B, Jones-White D. Undergraduate and graduate students’ mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic: SERU
Consortium, University of California - Berkeley and University of Minnesota; 2020. https:// cshe. berke ley. edu/ seru- covid- survey- repor ts
14. Fruehwirth JC, Biswas S, Perreira KM. The COVID-19 pandemic and mental health of rst-year college students: examining the eect of
COVID-19 stressors using longitudinal data. PLoS ONE. 2021;16: e0247999. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1371/ journ al. pone. 02479 99.
15. Grützmacher J, Gusy B, Lesener T, Sudheimer S, Willige J. Gesundheit Studierender in Deutschland 2017 [Health of university students
in Germany 2017]: Ein Kooperationsprojekt zwischen dem Deutschen Zentrum für Hochschul- und Wissenschaftsforschung, der Freien
Universität Berlin und der Techniker Krankenkasse; 2018. https:// www. fachp ortal- paeda gogik. de/ liter atur/ volla nzeige. html? FId= 11490
30
16. Wang X, Hegde S, Son C, Keller B, Smith A, Sasangohar F. Investigating mental health of US college students during the COVID-19 pan-
demic: cross-sectional survey study. J Med Internet Res. 2020;22: e22817. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2196/ 22817.
17. Wathelet M, Duhem S, Vaiva G, Baubet T, Habran E, Veerapa E, etal. Factors associated with mental health disorders among university
students in France conned during the COVID-19 pandemic. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3: e2025591. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1001/ jaman etwor
kopen. 2020. 25591.
18. Chow SKY, Choi EKY. Assessing the mental health, physical activity levels, and resilience of today’s junior college students in self-nancing
institutions. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ ijerp h1617 3210.
19. Heublein U, Ebert J, Hutzsch C, Isleib S, König R, Richter J, Woisch A. Motive und Ursachen des Studienabbruchs an baden-württember-
gischen Hochschulen und beruicher Verbleib der Studienabbrecherinnen und Studienabbrecher[Motives and causes of dropouts at
Baden-Württemberg universities and career retention of dropouts]. DZHW Projektbericht. 2017;6/2017. https:// www. fachp ortal- paeda
gogik. de/ liter atur/ volla nzeige. html? FId= 11269 76
20. Conrad RC, Hahm HC, Koire A, Pinder-Amaker S, Liu CH. College student mental health risks during the COVID-19 pandemic: implications
of campus relocation. J Psychiatr Res. 2021;136:117–26. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jpsyc hires. 2021. 01. 054.
21. Grubic N, Badovinac S, Johri AM. Student mental health in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic: a call for further research and immediate
solutions. Int J Soc Psychiatry. 2020;66:517–8. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00207 64020 925108.
22. Reichel JL, Dietz P, Mülder LM, Werner AM, Heller S, Schäfer M, etal. Predictors of resilience of university students to educational stressors
during the COVID-19 pandemic: a longitudinal study in Germany. Int J Stress Manag. 2023. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ str00 00289.
23. Zając T, Perales F, Tomaszewski W, Xiang N, Zubrick SR. Student mental health and dropout from higher education: an analysis of Austral-
ian administrative data. High Educ. 2023. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10734- 023- 01009-9.
24. Idris I, Khairani AZ, Shamsuddin H. The inuence of resilience on psychological well-being of Malaysian university undergraduates. IJHE.
2019;8:153–63. https:// doi. org/ 10. 5430/ ijhe. v8n4p 153.
25. Pidgeon AM, Keye M. Relationship between resilience, mindfulness, and psychological well-being in university students. Int J Liberal Arts
Soc Sci. 2014;2:27–32. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 01460 86060 06776 43.
26. Turner M, Holdsworth S, Scott-Young CM. Resilience at university: the development and testing of a new measure. High Educ Res Dev.
2017;36:386–400. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 07294 360. 2016. 11853 98.
27. Ayala JC, Manzano G. Academic performance of rst-year university students: the inuence of resilience and engagement. High Educ
Res Dev. 2018;37:1321–35. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 07294 360. 2018. 15022 58.
28. Bittmann F. When problems just bounce back: about the relation between resilience and academic success in German tertiary education.
SN Soc Sci. 2021;1:65. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s43545- 021- 00060-6.

Vol:.(1234567890)
Research Discover Psychology (2023) 3:44 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s44202-023-00106-1
1 3
29. van Breda AD. Resilience of vulnerable students transitioning into a South African university. High Educ. 2018;75:1109–24. https:// doi.
org/ 10. 1007/ s10734- 017- 0188-z.
30. Archana, Kumar U, Singh R. Resilience and spirituality as predictors of psychological well-being among university students. J Psychosoc
Res. 2014;9:277–235.
31. Luthar SS, Cicchetti D, Becker B. The construct of resilience: a critical evaluation and guidelines for future work. Child Dev. 2000;71:543–62.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ 1467- 8624. 00164.
32. Fletcher D, Sarkar M. Psychological resilience: a review and critique of definitions, concepts, and theory. Eur Psychol. 2013;18:12–23.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1027/ 1016- 9040/ a0001 24.
33. Linz S, Helmreich I, Kunzler A, Chmitorz A, Lieb K, Kubiak T. Interventionen zur Resilienzförderung bei Erwachsenen - Eine nar-
rative Übersichtsarbeit [Interventions to promote resilience in adults—a narrative review]. Psychother Psychosom Med Psychol.
2020;70:11–21. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1055/a- 0830- 4745.
34. Galante J, Dufour G, Vainre M, Wagner AP, Stochl J, Benton A, etal. A mindfulness-based intervention to increase resilience to stress
in university students (The Mindful Student Study): a pragmatic randomised controlled trial. Lancet Public Health. 2018;3:e72–81.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/ S2468- 2667(17) 30231-1.
35. Hill E, Posey T, Gómez E, Shapiro SL. Student readiness: Examining the impact of a university outdoor orientation program. J Outdoor
Recreation Educ Leadership. 2018;10:109–23. https:// doi. org/ 10. 18666/ JOREL- 2018- V10- I2- 7184.
36. Kadian S, Joseph J, Pal S, Devi R. Brief resilience interventions for mental health among college students: randomized controlled trial.
Asian J Soc Health Behav. 2022;5:131–7. https:// doi. org/ 10. 4103/ shb. shb_ 28_ 22.
37. Akeman E, Kirlic N, Clausen AN, Cosgrove KT, McDermott TJ, Cromer LD, etal. A pragmatic clinical trial examining the impact of a
resilience program on college student mental health. Depress Anxiety. 2020;37:202–13. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ da. 22969.
38. Houston JB, First J, Spialek ML, Sorenson ME, Mills-Sandoval T, Lockett M, etal. Randomized controlled trial of the resilience and
coping intervention (rci) with undergraduate university students. J Am Coll Health. 2017;65:1–9. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 07448 481.
2016. 12278 26.
39. Steinhardt M, Dolbier C. Evaluation of a resilience intervention to enhance coping strategies and protective factors and decrease
symptomatology. J Am Coll Health. 2008;56:445–53. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3200/ jach. 56. 44. 445- 454.
40. Brewer ML, van Kessel G, Sanderson B, Naumann F, Lane M, Reubenson A, Carter A. Resilience in higher education students: a scoping
review. High Educ Res Dev. 2019;38:1105–20. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 07294 360. 2019. 16268 10.
41. Chmitorz A, Kunzler A, Helmreich I, Tüscher O, Kalisch R, Kubiak T, etal. Intervention studies to foster resilience—a systematic review
and proposal for a resilience framework in future intervention studies. Clin Psychol Rev. 2018;59:78–100. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j.
cpr. 2017. 11. 002.
42. Joyce S, Shand F, Tighe J, Laurent SJ, Bryant RA, Harvey SB. Road to resilience: a systematic review and meta-analysis of resilience
training programmes and interventions. BMJ Open. 2018;8: e017858. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1136/ bmjop en- 2017- 017858.
43. Robertson IT, Cooper CL, Sarkar M, Curran T. Resilience training in the workplace from 2003 to 2014: a systematic review. J Occup
Organ Psychol. 2015;88:533–62. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ joop. 12120.
44. Scheuch I, Peters N, Lohner MS, Muss C, Aprea C, Fürstenau B. Resilience training programs in organizational contexts: a scoping
review. Front Psychol. 2021;12:733036. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3389/ fpsyg. 2021. 733036
45. Price RA. A review of resilience in higher education: toward the emerging concept of designer resilience. Stud High Educ. 2023;48:83–
99. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 03075 079. 2022. 21120 27.
46. Emmons RA, McCullough ME. Counting blessings versus burdens: an experimental investigation of gratitude and subjective well-
being in daily life. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2003;84:377–89. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ 0022- 3514. 84.2. 377.
47. Seligman ME, Steen TA, Park N, Peterson C. Positive psychology progress: empirical validation of interventions. Am Psychol.
2005;60:410–21. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ 0003- 066X. 60.5. 410.
48. Lohner MS, Aprea C. The resilience journal: exploring the potential of journal interventions to promote resilience in university stu-
dents. Front Psychol. 2021;12:702683. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3389/ fpsyg. 2021. 702683.
49. Fredrickson BL. The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: the broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. Am Psychol.
2001;56:218–26. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ 0003- 066X. 56.3. 218.
50. Conway AM, Tugade MM, Catalino LI, Fredrickson BL. The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions: form, function and mecha-
nisms. In: David S, Boniwell I, Ayers ACA, editors. Oxford Handbook of Happiness. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2013. p. 17–34.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1093/ oxfor dhb/ 97801 99557 257. 013. 0003.
51. Risch AK, Wilz G. Ressourcentagebuch: Verbesserung der Emotionsregulation und der Ressourcenrealisierung durch therapeutisches
Schreiben im Anschluss an eine Psychotherapie. [Resource journal: Improving emotion regulation and resource realization through
therapeutic writing following psychotherapy]. Zeitschrift für Klinische Psychologie und Psychotherapie. 2013;42:1–13. https:// doi.
org/ 10. 1026/ 1616- 3443/ a0001 81
52. Wing JF, Schutte NS, Byrne B. The effect of positive writing on emotional intelligence and life satisfaction. J Clin Psychol. 2006;62:1291–
302. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ jclp. 20292.
53. Reiter C, Wilz G. Resource diary: a positive writing intervention for promoting well-being and preventing depression in adolescence.
J Posit Psychol. 2016;11:99–108. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 17439 760. 2015. 10254 23.
54. Davis DE, Choe E, Meyers J, Wade N, Varjas K, Gifford A, etal. Thankful for the little things: a meta-analysis of gratitude interventions.
J Couns Psychol. 2016;63:20–31. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ cou00 00107.
55. DuPont CM, Pressman SD, Reed RG, Manuck SB, Marsland AL, Gianaros PJ. Does an online positive psychological intervention
improve positive affect in young adults during the COVID-19 pandemic? Affect Sci. 2023;4:101–17. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/
s42761- 022- 00148-z.
56. Smith BW, Dalen J, Wiggins K, Tooley E, Christopher P, Bernard J. The brief resilience scale: assessing the ability to bounce back. Int J Behav
Med. 2008;15:194–200. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 10705 50080 22229 72.
57. Chmitorz A, Wenzel M, Stieglitz R-D, Kunzler A, Bagusat C, Helmreich I, etal. Population-based validation of a german version of the brief
resilience scale. PLoS ONE. 2018;13: e0192761. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1371/ journ al. pone. 019276.

Vol.:(0123456789)
Discover Psychology (2023) 3:44 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s44202-023-00106-1 Research
1 3
58. Köhne S, Engert V, Rosendahl J. Stability of resilience in times of the COVID-19 pandemic. Personal Ment Health. 2022. https:// doi. org/
10. 1002/ pmh. 1560.
59. Diener E, Emmons RA, Larsen RJ, Grin S. The satisfaction with life scale. J Personality Assess. 1985;49:71–5. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1207/
s1532 7752j pa4901_ 13.
60. Glaesmer H, Grande G, Braehler E, Roth M. The German Version of the Satisfaction With Life Scale (SWLS). Eur J Psychol Assess. 2011;27:127–
32. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1027/ 1015- 5759/ a0000 58.
61. Holm-Hadulla RM, Hofmann FH. Einuss von Beratung auf Symptombelastung und Lebens- und Studienzufriedenheit [Inuence of coun-
seling on symptom burden and life and study satisfaction]. In: Conference proceedings of the symposium consulting; 2007. p. 205–16.
62. Hofmann FH. . Kreativität und Krise: Zum Zusammenhang von psychischer Beeinträchtigung und Kreativität [Creativity and crisis: On
the relationship between psychological impairment and creativity]. Doctoral dissertation, Heidelberg University; 2010. http:// archiv. ub.
uni- heide lberg. de/ vollt extse rver/ 11562/1/ Disse rtati on_ Hofma nn_ Veroe ent lichu ng. pdf
63. Mayring P. Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse: Grundlagen und Techniken. [Qualitative content analysis: Basics and techniques]. 12th ed. Weinheim/
Basel: Beltz; 2015.
64. Smith M. What is the Relationship Between Quality of Life and Coping Strategies of Adults with Celiac Disease Adhering to a Gluten Free
Diet? Doctoral dissertation, Duquesne University; 2009. https:// dsc. duq. edu/ etd/ 1214
65. Seligman ME. Authentic happiness. Nicholas Brealey Publishing; 2017.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional aliations.