The research team, led by Zhilin Wang of Lishui University and colleagues from Anqing Normal University, Hangzhou Normal University, and Hangzhou Polytechnic, surveyed 504 undergraduate students recruited from four universities in Zhejiang Province. Data were collected through an online questionnaire between March and June 2025, with 543 responses initially received and 39 removed for duplicate submissions or implausible completion times, leaving an effective response rate of 92.8 percent. Participants answered 37 items drawn from four well-validated Chinese adaptations of established instruments, each showing strong internal consistency in the sample.

Dispositional optimism was measured with the revised Life Orientation Test, a six-item scale capturing generalized positive outcome expectancies, which achieved a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.866. Self-efficacy—the belief in one’s capability to organize and execute goal-directed actions—was assessed with the ten-item General Self-Efficacy Scale, which showed excellent reliability at 0.929. Adaptive coping strategies, including problem-solving, positive reappraisal, and seeking social support, were measured with the Simplified Coping Style Questionnaire, while psychological resilience was evaluated with the ten-item Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale, both demonstrating good to excellent internal consistency.

Theoretically, the study was anchored in an ambitious integration of three frameworks. Drawing on the broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions, the researchers proposed that optimism expands attentional scope and cognitive flexibility, cumulatively building enduring personal resources. Social cognitive theory then suggested that this broadened mindset enhances self-efficacy, a cognitive capability judgment that precedes behavioral action. Finally, conservation of resources theory implied that increased self-efficacy helps individuals accumulate and deploy adaptive coping behaviors, which directly produce psychological resilience. Together, these theories mandated a non-interchangeable sequence: optimism to self-efficacy to adaptive coping to resilience.

The statistical strategy was equally ambitious. All analyses were conducted in JASP 0.96 using confirmatory factor analysis with diagonally weighted least squares estimation, an approach suited to categorical Likert-type data. To test for common method variance—a bias arising when all constructs are measured by the same rater at the same time—the team employed the unmeasured latent method factor technique, adding a common method factor to the four-trait measurement model. The addition of this factor improved model fit substantially, increasing the comparative fit index by 0.022, well above the conventional threshold of 0.010, indicating that common method variance was present and needed to be controlled in subsequent structural models.

Before this adjustment, the results told a familiar story. The total effect of optimism on resilience was significant, the direct effect was significant, and all three indirect pathways—through self-efficacy alone, through adaptive coping alone, and through the full serial chain—were statistically significant. The strongest bivariate correlation was between self-efficacy and resilience at 0.737, and the serial mediation effect through both mediators reached 0.021 with a confidence interval excluding zero. Had the analysis stopped there, the study would have simply reaffirmed the resource-capability-action chain that prior cross-sectional research has repeatedly endorsed.

After controlling for common method variance, however, the picture changed dramatically. The direct association between optimism and resilience became non-significant, with a standardized coefficient of 0.192 that no longer reached the 0.05 threshold. The indirect pathway through self-efficacy, which had shown an effect of 0.065 before adjustment, produced a confidence interval spanning zero after adjustment. The serial mediation effect of 0.014 also failed to exclude zero. Only the indirect pathway through adaptive coping remained significant, with an effect of 0.030 and a bias-corrected bootstrap confidence interval of 0.004 to 0.061, based on 5,000 resamples. The total effect of optimism on resilience remained significant at 0.164, but it was now carried almost entirely by indirect pathways.

The researchers offer a compelling explanation for why self-efficacy pathways proved so vulnerable. Self-efficacy and psychological resilience are both internal, self-evaluative constructs that share stronger method-related variance, such as global self-positivity or common rater effects. Adaptive coping, by contrast, refers to concrete behaviors like problem-solving and positive reappraisal, which may be less prone to such bias. This interpretation suggests that uncorrected cross-sectional models may systematically inflate conclusions about self-efficacy’s mediating role, and that the prominence of self-efficacy in prior literature may depend partly on measurement contexts rather than on true psychological sequencing.

The non-significant serial pathway also cautions against assuming that coping requires prior confidence to be effective. Contrary to social cognitive theory’s temporal precedence assumptions, the adaptive coping pathway remained significant even when self-efficacy was included as a parallel or serial mediator, suggesting that coping operates relatively independently in transmitting the benefits of optimism. The authors note that their measure captured general behavioral tendencies rather than situation-specific coping, which may be less reliant on momentary efficacy beliefs. Pending replication in longitudinal or experimental designs, they cannot determine whether the non-significant pathways reflect a true absence of mediation or an artifact of measurement error and reduced statistical power after adjustment.

Practically, the findings point toward a direct route for intervention. Rather than assuming a mandatory self-efficacy-first sequence, practitioners could implement coping skills training—including problem solving, cognitive reappraisal, and social support seeking—through brief group workshops or counseling services. Self-efficacy enhancement through mastery experiences, vicarious learning, and verbal persuasion can still be considered a secondary or preparatory target, ideally combined with coping training rather than implemented alone. The study’s regional sample of Zhejiang students and its cross-sectional design limit causal claims, but its methodological rigor offers a cautious, evidence-informed direction for resilience-focused interventions and a reminder that theoretically elegant chains must survive statistical scrutiny before being trusted.

Subject of Research: Dispositional optimism, self-efficacy, adaptive coping, and psychological resilience in college students

Article Title: How dispositional optimism relates to psychological resilience: examining the roles of self-efficacy and adaptive coping

Article References: Wang, Z., Hu, H., Dai, L., & Wang, J. (2026). How dispositional optimism relates to psychological resilience: examining the roles of self-efficacy and adaptive coping. Frontiers in Psychology, 17, Article 1805556. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1805556

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1805556

Keywords: dispositional optimism, psychological resilience, adaptive coping, self-efficacy, common method variance, college students, mediation analysis, positive psychology, dispositional, optimism, relates, psychological