Role of Mindfulness and Self-Efficacy in Resilience Among Young and Older People

Turkish Journal of Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation; 32(3)
ISSN 2651-4451 | e-ISSN 2651-446X
Role of Mindfulness and Self-efficacy in Resilience among young and older people
Shalini Choudhary* Pramthesh Pandey** and Priyaranjan Maral***
*Shaheed Rajguru College of Applied Sciences for Women, University of Delhi, India
**Department of Psychology, Munishwar Dutt Post Graduate College, India
***Department of Psychology, University of Allahabad, India
Abstract
Aging, in terms of young adulthood and old age, come with various physical and
psychological challenges. In order to cope with these challenges in a healthy manner, the
traits of mindfulness, self-efficacy and resilience are of immense importance. This study was
aimed at studying the age-related differences between young adults and elderly population
with respect to these three constructs of positive psychology. Moreover, the relationship
between the construct was also found. The study employed quantitative design wherein Five-
Facet Mindfulness questionnaire, General Self Efficacy Scale, and Connor Davidson
Resilience Scale were administered on a total of 199 people out of which 99 were elderly and
100 were young adults. The statistical tools of t-test and correlation were used for analysis of
data. The results revealed that there is a significant and positive correlation between
mindfulness, self-efficacy and resilience with resilience and self-efficacy sharing the
maximum correlation (r = 0.59). It was also concluded that the mean score on mindfulness
and self-efficacy scales were significantly higher in elderly participants than the young
adults. No significant differences were found between the two age groups in case of
resilience. With a dearth of existing literature on these three constructs specifically in relation
to age, this study offers a welcome insight into the topic and encourages further research on
the same. It highlights potential for developing interventions to enhance these positive traits
across various age groups.
Keywords: Elderly, Mindfulness, Resilience, Self-efficacy, Young Adults
INTRODUCTION
Mindfulness refers to “an openness to novelty, a process of actively drawing novel

distinctions” (Langer, 2002). Langer further added that “when we are mindful, we become
www.turkjphysiotherrehabil.org 26415
ISSN 2651-4451 | e-ISSN 2651-446X
sensitive to context and perspective; we are situated in the present. When we are mindless,
we are trapped in rigid mind-sets, oblivious to context or perspective. When we are mindless,
our behaviour is rule and routine-governed. In contrast, when mindful, our behaviour may be
guided rather than governed by rules and routines”. According to Shapiro & Carlson (2009)
mindfulness is “remembering to pay attention to our present moment experience”. The
current study is based on three major constructs –mindfulness, resilience and self-efficacy.
These three positive emotional and cognitive states have gained the attention of various
researchers in the field of positive psychology.
Naik, Harris & Forthun (2013) identified three key features of mindful awareness including
purpose, presence and acceptance. Scientific research on mindfulness gained a thrust with the
work of Dr. Jon Kabat-Zinn, where he focussed on the clinical applications of mindfulness in
relation to chronic pain and stress-related illnesses, which ultimately served as the foundation
to the development of mindfulness-based stress reduction technique. In order to be mindful,
one is required to overcome the desire to reduce uncertainty in daily life, override a tendency
to engage in automatic behaviour, and to engage less frequently in evaluations of self, others,
and situations (Snyder & Lopez, 2007).
Mindfulness has positive psychological, physiological as well as spiritual benefits (Davis &
Hayes 2011; Maral & Pande, 2020). Similarly, people who have exposed to natural disasters
like earthquake, flood, and so on recovered faster from PTSD symptoms by undergoing
mindfulness trainings (Maral, 2019; Eriksen, & Ditrich, 2015). A study by Flook et al (2013)
on the impact of mindfulness on teachers, revealed a reduction in psychological symptoms
and burnout, improvements in observer-rated classroom organization and performance on a
computer task testing the attention, as well as increases in self-compassion. A study by
Shapiro et al. (2008) found that “mindfulness reduces perceived stress, negative affect,
anxiety and rumination and significantly increases self-compassion and positive affect”.
Another study by Ryan & Deci (2000) revealed that “mindfulness and autonomy may
increase emotional, psychological and social wellbeing”. In a study conducted by Parto &
Besharat (2011) on high risk adolescent students in Iran found that “as a protective factor and
a powerful supporter in the developing, strengthening and boosting of other protective factors
(including self-regulation, autonomy, health and well-being) and weakening of risk factors
(including psychological distress and negative affects and emotions), mindfulness can play a
significant role in building healthy and decreasing vulnerability among adolescents”. Thus,
studies conducted on mindfulness establish relationship between mindfulness and various
ISSN 2651-4451 | e-ISSN 2651-446X
other factors and show a direct relation between mindfulness and psychological wellbeing in
different settings and age groups.
The second factor that the study takes into account is ‘resilience’. Resilience, in simple terms
refers to bounce back from adverse life situations. According to Masten (2014), resilience is
“the capacity of a dynamic system to adapt successfully to disturbances that threaten system
function, viability, or development”. The concept can be applied to a broad range of systems
ranging from children and families to institutions and societies.
Resilience has recently gathered increased attention from the researchers and various
interesting studies have emerged. Initially, resilience was studied at an individual level and
there was this idea of ‘the invincible child’. Eventually, however, the resilience researchers
came to realise that a lot of factors that promote resilience actually arise from the external
environment of the individual. Thus, the focus of studies shifted to finding factors at not only
individual but also at family, community and cultural levels. Studies also try to understand
how protective factors interact with risk factors and other protective factors to support
resilience. According to a study by Rolf et al. (1990), there are several factors that may
impact resilience in childhood and adolescence including family factors, community factors,
coping skills, self-evaluation patterns among others. Resilience has been studied in relation to
various variables. A study by Artuch-Garde et al. (2017) on the relationship between
resilience and self-regulation revealed significant and positive correlation between the two.
Moreover, it was also found that “Learning from mistakes (self-regulation) was a significant
predictor of coping and confidence, tenacity and adaptation, and tolerance to negative
situations (resilience)”. Studies also highlight the role of resilience in subjective wellbeing. A
study by Rodriguez-Fernandez et al. (2018) found “the influence of resilience and subjective
well-being as decisive psychological variables in the prediction of school engagement and
perceived performance”. The study also highlighted the need to foster “education of
resilience and subjective well-being to improve academic achievement among adolescent
students”.
The third positive factor in this study is self-efficacy which refers to one’s belief in their
ability to accomplish a certain task. According to Bandura (1997), self-efficacy can be
defined as “peoples' beliefs in their capabilities to produce desired effects by their own
actions”. Self-efficacy is a learned pattern of thinking and is influenced by several factors
such as childhood experiences, previous successes in similar situations, modelling,
ISSN 2651-4451 | e-ISSN 2651-446X
visualisation, verbal persuasion, arousal and emotion and also certain neurobiological factors.
It is based on the social cognitive theory which states that humans actively shape their
surrounding as opposed to the belief that humans are mere rectors to environmental stimuli.
Several studies have been conducted with respect to self-efficacy and its relation with various
other factors such as academic achievement, motivation, satisfaction etc. A study by Schunk
(1989) conducted on children with disability showed empirical evidence supporting that self-
efficacy was a predictor of student motivation and learning. Another study by Yusuf (2011)
also found that self-efficacy beliefs “significantly enhanced learning attainment”. A study by
Betoret et al. (2017) revealed that “students' expectancy-value beliefs play a mediating role
between academic self-efficacy and the achievement/satisfaction relationship. Self-efficacy
has also been found to be a successful predictor of organization commitment as revealed in a
study by Saleem et al. (2012). Studies such as one done by Rand (2017) also establish that
hope, self-efficacy and optimism, though structurally distinct parameters, are “differentially
related to important life outcomes including psychological adjustment, coping, and goal-
directed performance”. Moreover, various studies attempt to establish relation between these
variables. Study of self-efficacy conducted on school children by Hautzinger et al. (2005),
reported low depressive symptoms, low dysfunctional thoughts and better physical and
emotional wellbeing among children having high self-efficacy. These factors also indicate
higher resilience. Among adolescents, studies found that higher general self-efficacy was
related to lower self-reported health problems (Cheever & Hardin, 1999). It was also found in
another study by Tong & Song (2004) that adolescents belonging to low socioeconomic strata
benefited from higher self-efficacy with respect to life satisfaction and subjective wellbeing.
Another study by Skoch (2003), found that “self-efficacy and the ability to articulate coping
responses were important personality characteristics that distinguished the resilient group
from the maladaptive youths”. Correlation was also found between resilience and impact of
self-efficacy and coping strategies.
Sanaei et al. (2014) conducted a study on cancer patients which concluded that mindfulness
training was effective in increasing a person’s self-efficacy. Another study by Davis et al.
(2018), on the other hand, concluded that there existed no significant difference between
students receiving mindfulness training with respect to their self-efficacy.
Study by Bajaj & Pande (2015) found relation between mindfulness and resilience. The
findings reveal an important role of resilience “in mindfulness exerting its beneficial effects.
ISSN 2651-4451 | e-ISSN 2651-446X
This study also contributed to the potential mechanism of the association between
mindfulness and subjective well-being”.
With respect to different age groups, studies have been conducted that establish the
importance of resilience, mindfulness and self-efficacy in successful aging (MacLeod et al.,
2016; Zaragoza & Prakash, 2017) however, little work has been done on the age-related
differences with respect to the three factors. Study by Doba et al. (2016) found no age-
dependence with respect to self-efficacy in the elderly. Another study by Singh et al. (2010)
found perceived self-efficacy to be an important predictor of mental health among elderly
males as well as females. The present study aims to understand the relationship between
mindfulness, self-efficacy and resilience and how these psychological states differ in terms of
age (young adults and elderly population)
Resilience, self-efficacy as well as mindfulness can undoubtedly be considered as important

parameters in one’s life. This study is aimed at identifying relationships between these
parameters and to see if any differences exist with respect to different age groups. Very few
studies have attempted to tap into age-related differences in self-efficacy, mindfulness or
resilience. By understanding these differences, one may better be able to understand the
factors that may foster or obstruct the proper development of these characteristics in
individuals. One may also be able to better understand the changes that may accompany old
age as a result of differences in these three characteristics. Both old age and young adulthood
are important phases in one’s life. By identifying the surplus or lack of these characteristics in
these age groups, the researchers will be able to identify the related or resulting issues and
also find ways to enhance these characteristics in these individuals if at all found lacking.
One may also be in a better position to design interventions for enhancing one’s quality of
living when concerned with these parameters.
Objectives
The objectives of the study are stated as follows: -
1. To identify the relationship between mindfulness and resilience.

2. To identify the relationship between self-efficacy and resilience.
3. To identify the relationship between mindfulness and self-efficacy.
4. To explore whether young adults and the elderly differ significantly in their mindful
ability.
5. To explore whether young adults and the elderly differ significantly in resilience.
ISSN 2651-4451 | e-ISSN 2651-446X
6. To explore whether young adults and the elderly differ significantly in self-efficacy.
The following hypotheses have been formulated for the purpose of the current study: -
1. There would be a positive correlation between mindfulness and resilience.

2. There would be a positive correlation between resilience and self-efficacy.
3. There would be a positive correlation between mindfulness and self-efficacy.
4. The mindful ability of elderly people would be higher than mindful ability of young
adults.
5. The self-efficacy of elderly people would be greater than self-efficacy of young
adults.
6. The resilience of elderly people would be higher than the resilience of young adults.
METHOD
Sample
The sample for the purpose of the current study includes participants from the elderly
population (above 60 years onwards) and young adult population (18 to 25 years). Three
scales were administered on two elderly people and two young adults by each researcher. The
scales were administered on a total of 199 people out of which 100 were young adults and 99
elderly.
The sample distribution based on demographics of gender and age group has been
summarised in the table below: -
Table 1: Distribution of sample with respect to age group and gender
Age Group Males Females Total (N=199)
Young Adults (18-25 years) 52 48 100
Elderly (60 years and above) 49 50 99
Total sample (n = 199) 101 98 199
Measures
ISSN 2651-4451 | e-ISSN 2651-446X
Three scales were used for this study including Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire, the
General Self-Efficacy Scale and the Connor Davidson Resilience Scale.
The Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire developed by Baer, Smith, Hopkins, Krietemeyer
& Toney (2006) is based on a factor analytic study of five independently developed
mindfulness questionnaires. The analysis yielded five factors that appear to represent
elements of mindfulness as it is currently conceptualized. The five facets are observing,
describing, acting with awareness, non-judging of inner experience, and non-reactivity to
inner experience. The Scale demonstrated adequate to good internal consistency with alpha
coefficients ranging from 0.75 to 0.91. Findings also provide good support for construct
validity. The scale has also been adapted in Hindi by Mandal et al. (2016). The reliability of
the adapted version of the full scale was found to be 0.85. The scale comprises of 39 items,
each with five options - Never or very rarely true, Rarely true, Sometimes true, Often true
and Very often or always true.
The General Self Efficacy Scale developed by Schwarzer & Jerusalem (1995) is a self-report
measure of self-efficacy. It comprises of ten items, each with 4 options – not at all true,
hardly true, moderately true, exactly true. The scale has a good internal reliability with
Cronbach’s alpha values between 0.76 and 0.90. With respect to validity, the General Self-
Efficacy Scale is correlated to emotion, optimism, work satisfaction. Negative coefficients
were found for depression, stress, health complaints, burnout, and anxiety. This Scale was
also adapted in Hindi by Sud et al. (1998).
The third scale, i.e. the Connor Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC) was developed by
Connor & Davidson (2003). The full version consisting of 25 items has been used for the
purpose of this study. CD-RISC-25 showed acceptable test-retest reliability with a coefficient
value of 0.87. In their publication in 2003, Connor & Davidson also established considerable
construct validity for the scale. The scale has also been adapted for the Indian population by
Singh et al. (2018) and indicates good convergent validity.
Procedure
For the purpose of the current study, the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (Baer, Smith,
Hopkins, Krietemeyer & Toney, 2006), The General Self Efficacy Scale (Schwarzer &
Jerusalem, 1995), and the Connor Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC) (Connor &
Davidson, 2003) were administered on a total of 199 people out of which 99 were elderly
population and 100 were young adults. Firstly, during the stage of forming a rapport, the
ISSN 2651-4451 | e-ISSN 2651-446X
participant was briefed about the nature and purpose of the study along with information
about the participant’s rights and ethical considerations. The participants were provided with
the informed consent form and once they had read and voluntarily consented to being a part
of the research, the instructions with respect to each scale was provided to them. Their
preliminary information was noted down on the response sheet following which the
participants continued with filling the questionnaires. Any confusions or doubts were cleared
beforehand. Once the participant was through with all the responses, it was ensured that no
item had been left blank unintentionally. The participants were then thanked for their time
and willingness to participate and it was confirmed if they’d like to receive a copy of their
results and/or the final conclusions of the study. Once all the data collection was completed,
the scores were calculated for each scale and the data was entered onto a Microsoft Excel
Sheet. The data was then analysed using statistical tools of correlation and independent T-test
in the MS Excel Analysis ToolPak and the results were then interpreted.
Scoring
In order to score the responses of the participants, the following process was followed for
separate scales: -
Scoring of Five-Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ)
To score the FFMQ, in case of non-reverse items, a score of 1 was given for option 1 (never
or very rarely true), a score of 2 was given for option 2 (Rarely true), a score of 3 was given
for option 3 (sometimes true), a score of 4 was given for option 4 (Often true) and a score of
5 was given for option 5 (Very often or always true). In case of reverse items, a score of 5
was given for option 1 (never or very rarely true), a score of 4 was given for option 2 (Rarely
true), a score of 3 was given for option 3 (sometimes true), a score of 2 was given for option
4 (Often true) and a score of 1 was given for option 5 (Very often or always true). The
reverse and non-reverse items have been listed below: -
Reverse Items 3, 5, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 22, 23, 25, 28, 30, 34, 35, 38, 39
Non-reverse items 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 11, 15, 19, 20, 21, 24, 26, 27, 29, 31, 32, 33, 36, 37
After all the items were assigned with the appropriate scores, the overall mindfulness score
was calculated by adding up all the scores. Moreover, the scores of the items within each
ISSN 2651-4451 | e-ISSN 2651-446X
subscale were also added separately to get the score for Observe, Describe, Act with
Awareness, Non-judge and Non-react subscales.
Scoring for General Self-Efficacy Scale
The self-efficacy scale has a simple method of scoring. The scale has no reverse items and
the items were assigned scores simply as follows: Not at all true -1, Hardly true – 2,
Moderately true – 3, Exactly true – 4. Once scores were assigned to each item, the scores
were summed up to get the total general self-efficacy score.
Scoring for Connor Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC)
To score the CD-RISC, scores were assigned to items as follows: Not true at all – 0, Rarely
True – 1, Sometimes True – 2, Often True – 3, and True nearly all of the time – 4. After each
item had been assigned the appropriate score as per the chosen response, the item scores were
added together to get the final Resilience Score. This scale also did not have any reverse
scoring items.
Once all the scores were obtained, the raw scores were entered on the Excel Sheet and
analysed.
RESULTS
The analysis of the collected data was done using the statistical measures of Pearson’s
product moment correlation, t-test and descriptive statistical measures such as mean and
standard deviation were also used. In order to find the relation between the three constructs
correlation was performed between mindfulness and self-efficacy scores, mindfulness and
resilience scores and self-efficacy and resilience scores. Correlation helps to understand the
relation between two variables by revealing about the strength and direction of the
relationship. The measure of the relationship between the two variables is obtained in the
form of a correlation coefficient (r) and this coefficient can take up values from -1 to +1. If
the value is closer to 1, positive or negative the relation is said to be strong and if it is closer
to zero, it indicates a weak correlation. The signs, i.e. positive and negative are markers of
direction. If it is a negative relation, then increase in one variable is accompanied by decrease
in the other and vice versa while a positive correlation indicates a direct relation (increase in
one variable is accompanied by increase in the other and decrease is accompanied by
ISSN 2651-4451 | e-ISSN 2651-446X
decrease in other). It is important to note that correlation does not establish causality between
the variables; it only gives the strength and direction of relation between them.
To explore if any significant differences exist between the scores of young adults and the
elderly with respect to mindfulness, resilience and self-efficacy, t-test was performed. T-test
is a statistical procedure that is used to test a hypothesis of no difference between two
population means. It is a parametric test that provides a standard score. In this study,
independent t-test was used as the null hypotheses that were tested were about the difference
between two independent population means, that is, the scores of the different sets of
populations were independent of each other.
In case of the current research, both correlation and independent sample t-test (alpha
coefficient = 0.05) were computed using Microsoft Excel Analysis ToolPak.
Moreover, the mean and standard deviation of scores on each scale and subscale among
males, females and total population were also computed using Excel software.
1. Descriptive statistics
Table 2: Table showing descriptive statistics (Mean, S.D., N = 199)
Sl. Scales Mean Standard Deviation

No.
Male Female Total Male Female Total
1 Mindfulness Young 25.63 27.16 26.37 5.917 5.23 5.625

F1
Elderly 27 27.82 27.41 4.76 4.74 4.748
Mindfulness Young 25.65 26.22 25.93 7.31 5.23 6.38

F2
Elderly 29.2 26.56 27.86 5.1 5.48 5.43

F3
Elderly 27.87 26.44 27.15 5.96 6.05 6.02

F4
Elderly 22.67 22 22.33 4.63 4.62 4.61
ISSN 2651-4451 | e-ISSN 2651-446X
F5 Elderly 23.57 23.52 23.54 4.75 4.97 4.83

Total
Elderly 130 126.6 128.28 15.005 15.404 15.22
2 Self-efficacy Young 30.51 30.54 30.53 3.96 4.3 4.11
Elderly 31.75 32.3 32.03 5.49 4.77 5.12
3 Resilience Young 70.46 66.5 68.56 14.7 12.35 13.7
Elderly 69.24 70.56 69.9 13.12 14.83 13.96
In the above table, the mean, standard deviation of the scores of male and female young
adults and elderly people as well as the total means and standard deviation on mindfulness
scales (including the observe, describe, act with awareness, non-judge and non-react
subscales), the self-efficacy scale and the resilience scale have been summarised. It can be
observed that the S.D. in each case is either nearing one-third or less than one-third of the
mean score; therefore, t-test can be applied on the collected data.
2. Correlation between mindfulness, self-efficacy and resilience scores
Table 3: Pearson correlation matrix for mindfulness, self-efficacy & resilience
Mindfulness Self-efficacy Resilience

Mindfulness 1 0.346* 0.279*
Self-efficacy 0.346* 1 0.594*
Resilience 0.279* 0.594* 1
*statistically significant at 0.01 alpha level of significance
In this table, it can be seen that the correlation between mindfulness and self-efficacy is
+0.346 (weak and positive), between mindfulness and resilience is +0.279 (weak and
positive) and that between self-efficacy and resilience is +0.594 (moderate and positive). All
the values are found to be statistically significant at 0.01 alpha level of significance. The
interpretation of this result is done later in the discussion section.
3. T-test between young adult and elderly population
ISSN 2651-4451 | e-ISSN 2651-446X
Table 4: Table showing t-test scores of mindfulness, resilience and self-efficacy with respect
to young and elderly population (N = 199)
Scales Age Mean df N t-value Significance

(alpha = 0.05)
Mindfulness Young 124.26 197 100 1.81 p = 0.03 (difference
Elderly 128.28 99 significant)
Self-efficacy Young 30.53 187 100 2.27 p = 0.01 (difference
Elderly 32.03 99 significant)
Resilience Young 68.56 197 100 0.68 p = 0.24 (difference
Elderly 69.9 99 not significant)
The above table shows the t-values obtained by performing t-test between: a) mindfulness of
young and elderly population, b) self-efficacy of young and elderly population and c)
resilience of young and elderly population. It can be seen that no significant difference has
been found in case of mindfulness and resilience at 0.05 alpha level of significance.
However, a significant difference is observed in case of self-efficacy of young and elderly
population with the mean of self-efficacy scores of elderly people being greater than the
mean of young adults.
DISCUSSION
The current study was aimed at examining the relationship between mindfulness, self-
efficacy and resilience and investigating if any differences exist between young adult and
elderly people with respect to these constructs. For this, the Five Facet Mindfulness
Questionnaire (Baer, Smith, Hopkins, Krietemeyer & Toney, 2006), the General Self
Efficacy Scale (Schwarzer & Jerusalem, 1995), and the Connor Davidson Resilience Scale
(CD-RISC) (Connor & Davidson, 2003) were administered on a total of 199 people out of
which 99 were elderly population and 100 were young adults. To study the relationship
between the constructs, correlation method was used. The study further aimed to investigate
if any significant differences exist between the young adult and elderly populations with
respect to their mindfulness, self-efficacy and resilience. To achieve this objective, t-test
method was used. In order to check whether the sample distribution was falling on a normal
curve, which is a prerequisite to apply t-test method, the mean and S.D. of the obtained scores
were also calculated, as shown in Table 2. It was observed that S.D. was either one-third or
ISSN 2651-4451 | e-ISSN 2651-446X
less than one-third of the mean scores and therefore, the criteria was fulfilled and t-test
method was applied.
Referring to Table 3, it can be noted that the correlation coefficient values were found to be
significant at 0.01 level. The correlation between mindfulness and self-efficacy is found to be
0.346 which is weak but positive correlation. This implies that with increase in mindfulness,
the self-efficacy also increases and with increase in self-efficacy, mindfulness also increases.
However, the strength of the relationship is somewhat weak meaning that there will not be a
tremendous or practically significant increase in mindfulness with increase in self-efficacy
and vice versa. This result is supported by a study by Purcell (2017) who found a similar
correlation (r = 0.31) between mindfulness and self-efficacy. Keye & Pidgeon (2013) also
found a correlation of 0.43 between mindfulness and academic self-efficacy in their study.
Moreover, several studies report that with increased mindfulness or with mindfulness
training, self-efficacy also increases. Singh (2019) reported that “mindfulness meditation is
effective in enhancing self-efficacy of students”. Yet another study by Katan (2018) found
significant positive correlation between mindfulness and self-efficacy scores. It is suggested
that this positive correlation may exist as with greater levels of mindfulness, an individual
may be more aware of their capabilities and relatively free of future anxieties and
apprehensions as they have the ability to focus on action ‘in the moment’. Thus, with lesser
future-oriented apprehensions, greater awareness of one’s capabilities and a mindful
perspective, an individual may develop better belief in their ability to handle tough situations
leading to greater self-efficacy. It will however be inappropriate to say based on the result of
this study whether any direct causal relationship exist between the two or in which direction.
Several prior studies however have established that mindfulness training leads to better
mindfulness which in turn leads to increase self-efficacy (Katan, 2018; Sanaei, 2014; Greason
& Cashwell, 2009). The relationship, although positive is rather weak. This means that the
high levels of one variable does not strongly predict equally high levels of another.
The correlation between mindfulness and resilience is also positive but quite weak. This
result is opposed to the results of study by Keye & Pidgeon (2013) where a correlation of
0.67 was observed between the two. The current results suggest that the contribution of
resilience in mindfulness and that of mindfulness in resilience of an individual is not so
significant in practical terms. There is however, a positive relationship. This may also suggest
that the factors underlying mindfulness and the factors responsible for resilience have a lower
rate of overlap and are mostly varied. Simiar relationship of resilience with emotional
ISSN 2651-4451 | e-ISSN 2651-446X
intelligence can also be seen in a study by Choudhary (2019) where she explored a positive
significant relationship of resilience with EI. This assumes that aspects of EI or related
concept like mindfulness are directly related to resilience. Although this relationship was
established for adolescents.
The correlation between self-efficacy and resilience is found to be 0.59. This indicates a
positive and moderate correlation. This result supports the study on adolescents done by
Caroli & Sagone (2013) who reported a correlation of 0.59 between generalised self-efficacy
and resilience. They suggested that “the more the adolescents experienced high levels of
resilience, the more they felt themselves able to cope with novelty in various domains”.
Schwarzer & Warner (2013) reported that “empirically, general self-efficacy correlates
moderately to highly with other components of resilience (Hinz, Schumacher, Albani,
Schmid, & Brähler, 2006). Resilience is hence empirically closely related to self-efficacy”.
This view is supported by the current study. Being self-efficacious indicates an individual’s
readiness and ability to deal with potential future challenges while resilience is the ability to
bounce back from or smoothly tackle an adversity that has already befallen the individual.
Since both the constructs are concerned with handling difficult or novel situations in life, it is
highly possible that the competencies and factors underlying these constructs overlap to a
great degree. Thus, the results show moderate to high correlation between the two. A study
by Gillespie, Chaboyer, and Wallis, & Grimbeek (2007) also suggested that self-efficacy was
a strong predictor of resilience. This is an important finding as the way a person is currently
handling their challenges in life may predict the way their readiness to tackle challenges in
the future. This can potentially help psychologists to identify people who are likely to break
under a tough situation and thus intervene in time and improve their coping abilities and
efficacy.
Next table, Table 4 summarises the findings of t-test. It can be seen that in case of
mindfulness, the t-score obtained at 0.05 alpha level of significance is 1.81 and the p-value is
0.03 which is less than 0.05 (alpha level of significance). Since p < 0.05, it can be said that
the difference in means is statistically significant. Therefore, we reject the null hypothesis
and accept the alternate hypothesis. Since t value is positive, it is in the direction of the one
tailed hypothesis (Hypothesis 4) that was formulated. Moreover, the mean score on
mindfulness test of elderly population is greater than the mean mindfulness score of young
adult population. Therefore, we conclude that the mindful ability of elderly population is
greater than the mindful ability of young adult population. Studies by Alispahic et al. (2017)
ISSN 2651-4451 | e-ISSN 2651-446X
and Shook et al. (2017). Alispahic & Hasanbegovic-Anic conducted a study on mindfulness
across different age groups using a Bosnian sample. It was revealed that “older participants'
scores were higher than for younger participants for all aspects of mindfulness”. The study
by Shook et al. (2017) also reported that older adults reported significantly more positive
affect and mindfulness than younger adults. Study by Fountain-Zaragoza et al. (2018) also
reported that “Older adults reported higher trait mindfulness and less mind-wandering than
young adults”. The reason for a higher mindful ability among older adults may be understood
in light of several existing literatures. Carltensen (2006) suggested that “ageing intensifies
motivation to savour the present moment in order to derive meaning and satisfaction from
life”. Older adults are more likely to spend time thinking and reflecting on the present
moment and the past as well as trying to live up their time as best as they can. On the other
hand, young adults are often occupied with their apprehensions about future and a busy
lifestyle that it is possible that they go through the day without really paying mindful
attention to the activities they are performing as their mind is consumed with other thoughts.
It is often also observed that elderly people orient themselves more to spirituality as
compared to younger adults. A feeling of connection to the divine force may also serve as a
factor underlying greater mindfulness. Moreover, emotional control is one important aspect
of mindfulness and it has been pointed out that with age the emotional control enhances in
individuals (Carltensen, 2000; Charles, 2010). This may be another reason that can
potentially justify higher mindfulness scores among the elderly. Prakash et al. (2014) also
suggest that with age there is a “preferential change in motivational goals of older adults from
ones involving future-oriented wants and desires to present-focused emotion regulation and
gratification”. Thus, higher mindfulness among the elderly may be a result of the shift in
perspective and desires with age.
In case of self-efficacy, the Table 4 shows the t-score of 2.27. The p-value is 0.01 which
again is less than 0.05. Since p < 0.05, the null hypothesis gets rejected and alternatively,
alternate hypothesis is accepted. Again, the mean of elderly population is greater than that of
young adult population which leads to the retention of the directional alternate hypothesis
(Hypothesis 5) that was earlier assumed. Therefore, we conclude that the self-efficacy of
elderly population is higher than the self-efficacy of young adults. Review of previous
literature mostly highlights that high self-efficacy is a desired construct for healthy ageing.
However, it has been found in several studies that the self-efficacy of older adults or elderly
is lesser relative to the self-efficacy of young adults. This is often attributed to the reduction
ISSN 2651-4451 | e-ISSN 2651-446X
in desire for control (Woodward & Wallston, 1987). Another study by Tripathi & Asthana
(2015) found a positive correlation between self-efficacy and mental health and suggested
that due to age-related losses, self-efficacy may be reduced in older adults. The results of the
current study contradict these findings. Based on the results of the present study, it is
suggested that elderly people are higher in self-efficacy than young adults. One possible
explanation is that with age, the variety and number of challenges that an individual has faced
significantly increases. Thus, one’s belief in handling a novel or difficult task may increase in
a direct relation with increase in successful past experiences. It is known that experiential
intelligence increases with age; this may be a factor in increasing one’s belief in their ability
to overcome a future problem. As per a study by Artistico (2003), it was found that the
perceived self-efficacy of older adults increases when the presented problem was related to
the context of an old adult as opposed to when it was related to a young adult or was “lacking
ecological representativeness”. This result serves as a call for further rigorous research with
respect to this research problem so that one can be confident whether age serves as a
promoting factor in self-efficacy or otherwise.
For resilience, the t-score at 0.05 alpha level of significance was found out to be 0.68. The p
value was found to be 0.24 which is greater than 0.05. Since p > 0.05, we accept the null
hypothesis and alternatively reject the alternate hypothesis. Despite the mean of elderly
population being higher than that of young adults on resilience scale, it is concluded that the
obtained difference is not statistically significant at 0.05 alpha level of significance.
Therefore, the resilience of elderly and young adult population does not differ significantly
and hypothesis 6 stands rejected. A study by Gooding et al. (2012) revealed that “poor
perceptions of general health and low energy levels predicted low levels of resilience (among
elderly and young adult population) regardless of age”. This suggests that age does not play a
crucial role in resilience and there exist separate factors, other than age that have significant
influence on the resilience of individuals. Studies on factors underlying resilience, which is
the ability to “bounce back from adversity”, have pointed out certain protective factors that
are strong predictors of positive psychological functioning following adversity. Broadly,
these are individual attributes (such as personality, temperament etc.), relationships (such as
parental style, attachment pattern, family cohesion etc.) and external support system
(neighbourhood, school etc.) (Garmezy, 1985). Looking at these factors, it may be suggested
that age does not have a major role to play when it comes to the factors underlying resilience.
ISSN 2651-4451 | e-ISSN 2651-446X
In conclusion, this study suggests that there is a positive correlation between the three
constructs- mindfulness, self-efficacy and resilience. The relationship of mindfulness with the
two constructs is relatively weak as compared to the correlation between resilience and self-
efficacy. Therefore, Hypotheses 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 gets accepted while Hypothesis 6 gets
rejected.
Moreover, the study reveals that self-efficacy and mindfulness is significantly higher in
elderly individuals. However, no significant age-related differences were observed in case of
resilience. This study therefore culminates with the future implication of further research to
identify the factors among the elderly that lead to enhanced self-efficacy and mindful ability.
The identification of these will be useful in developing programmes for enhancing these
positive traits across elders and potentially other age groups as well. The significant positive
correlation between resilience and self-efficacy also opens up new possibilities for enriching
resilience and efficaciousness among individuals.
Conclusion
With aging, from young adulthood to older adults everyone experiencing different types of
physical and psychological challenges in their life. For coping and mitigating these
psychological and physical challenges, resilience, mindfulness and self-efficacy played a
major role in their life. Unlike, younger adults the high correlation among these positive
psychology traits in older adults revealed a new potentials for developing interventions to
enhance these positive traits across various age groups. In addition, encourages further
research in different domains of cognitive and social challenges faced by different continuum
of age groups.
REFERENCES
ISSN 2651-4451 | e-ISSN 2651-446X
1. Alispahic, S. & Hasanbegovic-Anic, E. (2017). Mindfulness: Age and Gender

Differences on a Bosnian Sample. Psychological Thought, 10, pp. 155-166. Doi:
10.5964/psyct.v10i1.224.
2. Artistico, D., Cervone, D., & Pezzuti, L. (2003). Perceived self-efficacy and everyday
problem solving among young and older adults. Psychology and Aging, 18(1), 68–
79. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.18.1.68
3. Artuch-Garde, R., González-Torres M., de la Fuente, J., Vera M.M., Fernández-
Cabezas, M., López-García, M. (2017). Relationship between Resilience and Self-
regulation: A Study of Spanish Youth at Risk of Social Exclusion. Frontiers in
Psychology, 8. DOI=10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00612
4. Baer, R. & Smith, G., Lykins, E., Button, D., Krietemeyer, J., Sauer, S., Walsh, E.,
Duggan, D., & Williams, J. (2008). Construct Validity of the Five Facet Mindfulness
Questionnaire in Meditating and Nonmeditating Samples. Assessment, 15, pp. 329-
42. 10.1177/1073191107313003.
5. Bajaj, B., & Pande, N. (2016). Mediating role of resilience in the impact of
mindfulness on life satisfaction and affect as indices of subjective well-being.
Personality and Individual Differences, 93, 63-67.
6. Carstensen, L. L., Pasupathi, M., Mayr, U., and Nesselroade, J. R. (2000). Emotional
experience in everyday life across the adult life span. Journal of personality and
Social Psychology. 79, 644–655. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.79.4.644
7. Charles, S. T. (2010). Strength and vulnerability integration: a model of emotional
well-being across adulthood. Psychological Bulletin Journal. 136, 1068–1091. doi:
10.1037/a0021232.
8. Choudhary, S. (2019): Emotional Intelligence and Resiliency among Adolescents.
Review of Research, Vol. 8 (8)
9. Deci, E.L., & Ryan, R.M. (2000). The ‘what’ and ‘why’ of goal pursuits: Human
needs and the self-determination of behaviour. Psychological Inquiry, 11, pp. 227-
268.
10. Doba, N., Tokuda, Y., Saiki, K., Kushiro, T., Hirano, M., Matsubara, Y., & Hinohara,
S. (2016). Assessment of Self-Efficacy and its Relationship with Frailty in the
Elderly. Internal medicine (Tokyo, Japan), 55(19), pp. 2785–2792.
https://doi.org/10.2169/internalmedicine.55.6924
DOI: 10.1080/13607863.2020.1734915
ISSN 2651-4451 | e-ISSN 2651-446X
11. Doménech-Betoret, F., Abellán-Roselló, L., & Gómez-Artiga, A. (2017). Self-

Efficacy, Satisfaction, and Academic Achievement: The Mediator Role of Students'
Expectancy-Value Beliefs. Frontiers in psychology, 8, 1193.
12. Eriksen, Christine and Ditrich, Tamara, "The relevance of mindfulness practice for
trauma-exposed
disaster researchers" (2015). Faculty of Social Sciences - Papers. 2106.
https://ro.uow.edu.au/sspapers/2106
13. Fleming, J., & Ledogar, R. J. (2008). Resilience, an Evolving Concept: A Review of
Literature Relevant to Aboriginal Research. Pimatisiwin, 6(2), 7–23.
14. Fountain-Zaragoza, Stephanie & Prakash, Ruchika. (2017). Mindfulness Training for
Healthy Aging: Impact on Attention, Well-Being, and Inflammation. Frontiers in
Aging Neuroscience, 9.
15. Garmezy N. (1985). Stress-resistant children: The search for protective factors. In:
Stevenson JE, editor. Recent research in developmental psychopathology: Journal of
Child Psychology and Psychiatry Book Supplement, pp. 213–233. Oxford: Pergamon
Press.
16. Gillespie, B., Chaboyer, W., Wallis, M. (2007). Development of a theoretically
derived model of resilience through concept analysis. Contemporary Nurse, 25, pp.
124-135.
17. Gooding, P.A., Hurst, A., Johnson J., & Tarrier, N. (2012). Psychological resilience in
young and older adults. International Journal of Geriatric psychology, 27(3), pp.262-
270.
18. Greason, P. B., & Cashwell, C. S. (2009). Mindfulness and counseling self‐efficacy:
The mediating role of attention and empathy. Counselor Education and Supervision,
49, 2–19.
19. Greve, W., & Staudinger, U.M. (2015). Resilience in Later Adulthood and Old Age:
resources and Potential for Successful Aging. In D. Cicchetti & A. Cohen (Eds.),
Developmental Psychopathology, 2, pp. 796-840.
https://e-space.mmu.ac.uk/619224/1/Mia%20Purcell.pdf
20. Katan, N. (2018). The effect of Mindfulness practice on self-efficacy among
employees in an organization. Thesis submitted after conferral of the master's degree.
21. Keye, M.D., & Pidgeon, A. M. (2013). An Investigation of the Relationship between
Resilience, Mindfulness, and Academic Self-Efficacy. Open Journal of Social
Sciences 2013. Vol.1, No.6, pp. 1-4.
ISSN 2651-4451 | e-ISSN 2651-446X
22. Mahlo, L., & Windsor, T.D. (2020) Older and more mindful? Age differences in
mindfulness components and well-being, Aging & Mental Health.
23. Maral, P. & Pande, N. (2020). Progressive Development of Posttraumatic Stress
Disorder and Its Holistic Evolution of Natural Treatments. In Nicholson, R. (Ed.),
Natural Healing as Conflict Resolution (pp. 73-99). IGI Global.
http://doi:10.4018/978-1-7998-3665-0.ch004 .
24. Maral, P. (2019). Risk factors of posttraumatic stress disorder that arises from an
earthquake disaster. International Journal of Health Sciences Research. 9(4):322-331.
25. McCann, K.M., Davis, M. (2018). Mindfulness and Self-efficacy in an online doctoral
program. Journal of Instructional Research, 7.
26. Naik, P. & Harris, V. & Forthun, L. (2013). Mindfulness: An Introduction. (No.
FCS2335). Florida. ResearchGate.
27. Nancy J. Woodward and Barbara Strudler Wallston. Age and Health Care Beliefs:
Self-Efficacy as a Mediator of Low Desire for Control. Psychology and Aging 1987,
Vol. 2, No. 1, 3-8.
28. Ong, A. D., Bergeman, C. S., & Boker, S. M. (2009). Resilience comes of age:
Defining features in later adulthood. Journal of personality, 77(6), 1777–1804.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2009.00600.x
29. Parto, M. & Besharat, Mohammad A. (2011). Mindfulness, Psychological Well-Being
and Psychological Distress in Adolescents: Assessing the Mediating Variables and
Mechanisms of Autonomy and Self-Regulation. Procedia - Social and Behavioral
Sciences. 30. 578-582. 10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.10.112.
30. Prakash, R. S., De Leon, A. A., Patterson, B., Schirda, B. L., & Janssen, A. L. (2014).
Mindfulness and the aging brain: a proposed paradigm shift. Frontiers in aging
neuroscience, 6, 120. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnagi.2014.00120
31. Purcell, Mia. (2017). To Explore the Relationship Between Self-Efficacy,
Mindfulness and Life Satisfaction. Retrieved from
32. Rodríguez-Fernández, A., Ramos-Díaz, E. & Axpe-Saez, I. (2018). The Role of
Resilience and Psychological Well-Being in School Engagement and Perceived
Academic Performance: An Exploratory Model to Improve Academic Achievement.
Health and Academic Achievement (Ed. Blandina, Bernal-Morales). IntechOpen.
DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.73580.
ISSN 2651-4451 | e-ISSN 2651-446X
33. Sagonea, E., & De Caroli, M.E. (2013). Relationships between Resilience, Self-
Efficacy, and Thinking Styles in Italian Middle Adolescents. Procedia - Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 92, pp. 838 – 845.
34. Saleem, A. & Ghayas, S. & Adil, A. (2012). Self-efficacy and optimism as predictors
of organizational commitment among bank employees. International Journal of
Research Studies in Psychology, 2.
35. Sanaei, H., Hossini, H.A., Jamshidifar, Z. (2014). Effectiveness of Mindfulness
Training on Self-efficacy of Patients Infected by Breast Cancer. Procedia – Social and
Behavioural Sciences, 159, pp. 426-429.
36. Schunk, D.H. (1989). Self-efficacy and cognitive achievement: implications for
students with learning problems. Journal of Learning disabilities, 22(1), pp. 14-22.
37. Schwarzer, R., & Warner, L. (2013). Perceived Self-Efficacy and its Relationship to
Resilience. Resilience in Children, Adolescents, and Adults. The Springer Series on
Human Exceptionality, pp. 139-150. Doi: 10.1007/978-1-4614-4939-3_10.
38. Scoloveno, R.L. (2018). Resilience and Self-Efficacy: An Integrated Review of the
Literature. International Journal of Science and Research Methodology, 9(1).
39. Shapiro, S. L., Carlson, L. E., Astin, J. A., & Freedman, B. (2006). Mechanisms of
mindfulness. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 62, pp. 373–386.
40. Shapiro, S.L., Oman, D., Thoresen, C.E., Plante, T.G., & Flinders, T. (2008).
Cultivating Mindfulness: Effects on Well-Being. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 64,
pp. 840-862.
41. Shook, N., Ford, C., & Strough, J., & Delaney, R., & Barker, D. (2017). In the
moment and feeling good: Age differences in mindfulness and positive affect.
Translational Issues in Psychological Science, 3. Doi: 10.1037/tps0000139.
42. Singh, A. (2019). Self-Efficacy and Well-Being among Students: Role of Goal
Meditation. The International Journal of Indian Psychology, 7(2). DOI:
10.25215/0702.049
43. Singh, A.P., Shukla, A., & Singh, P.A. (2010). Perceived Self-Efficacy and Mental
Health Among Elderly. Delhi Psychiatric Journal, 13 (2).
44. Skoch, S.H. (2003). Resilience and Self-Efficacy: The importance of efficacy beliefs
and coping mechanisms in resilient adolescents. Colgate University Journal of the
Sciences, 35.
45. Tripathi, Medha & Asthana, Hari. (2015). Loneliness Self Efficacy and Mental Health
among Elderly. lnternational Journal of Psychosocial Research, 4, pp. 101- 104.
ISSN 2651-4451 | e-ISSN 2651-446X
46. Weare, K. (2014). Evidence for Mindfulness: Impacts on the Well being and
performance of school staff. Mindfulness in Schools project. In association with
University of Exeter.
47. Yusuf, Muhammad. (2011). The impact of self-efficacy, achievement motivation, and
self-regulated learning strategies on students’ academic achievement. Procedia –
Social and Behavioural Sciences, 15, pp. 2623-2626. Doi:
10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.04.158

Role of Mindfulness and Self-Efficacy in Resilience Among Young and Older People

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Role of Mindfulness and Self-Efficacy in Resilience Among Young and Older People

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Role of Mindfulness and Self-Efficacy in Resilience Among Young and Older People

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Turkish Journal of Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation; 32(3)

ISSN 2651-4451 | e-ISSN 2651-446X

Shalini Choudhary* Pramthesh Pandey** and Priyaranjan Maral***

Keywords: Elderly, Mindfulness, Resilience, Self-efficacy, Young Adults

Mindfulness refers to “an openness to novelty, a process of actively drawing novel

Resilience, self-efficacy as well as mindfulness can undoubtedly be considered as important

The objectives of the study are stated as follows: -

1. To identify the relationship between mindfulness and resilience.

1. There would be a positive correlation between mindfulness and resilience.

Table 1: Distribution of sample with respect to age group and gender

Age Group Males Females Total (N=199)

Young Adults (18-25 years) 52 48 100

Elderly (60 years and above) 49 50 99

Total sample (n = 199) 101 98 199

Scoring of Five-Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ)

Scoring for General Self-Efficacy Scale

Scoring for Connor Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC)

Table 2: Table showing descriptive statistics (Mean, S.D., N = 199)

Sl. Scales Mean Standard Deviation

1 Mindfulness Young 25.63 27.16 26.37 5.917 5.23 5.625

Mindfulness Young 25.65 26.22 25.93 7.31 5.23 6.38

Mindfulness Young 26.17 27.25 26.69 6.08 4.83 5.51

Mindfulness Young 23.28 23.66 23.47 5.12 5.49 5.27

Mindfulness Young 22.67 21.83 22.27 5.15 4.59 4.88

F5 Elderly 23.57 23.52 23.54 4.75 4.97 4.83

2 Self-efficacy Young 30.51 30.54 30.53 3.96 4.3 4.11

Elderly 31.75 32.3 32.03 5.49 4.77 5.12

3 Resilience Young 70.46 66.5 68.56 14.7 12.35 13.7

Elderly 69.24 70.56 69.9 13.12 14.83 13.96

2. Correlation between mindfulness, self-efficacy and resilience scores

Table 3: Pearson correlation matrix for mindfulness, self-efficacy & resilience

Mindfulness Self-efficacy Resilience

Self-efficacy 0.346* 1 0.594*

Resilience 0.279* 0.594* 1

*statistically significant at 0.01 alpha level of significance

3. T-test between young adult and elderly population

Scales Age Mean df N t-value Significance

1. Alispahic, S. & Hasanbegovic-Anic, E. (2017). Mindfulness: Age and Gender

11. Doménech-Betoret, F., Abellán-Roselló, L., & Gómez-Artiga, A. (2017). Self-

You might also like

Shalini Choudhary* Pramthesh Pandey and Priyaranjan Maral*