The study, led by Zuzanna Gurzyńska and Karolina Kucka, set out to answer a question that has puzzled psychologists for decades: does resilience merely protect mental health directly, or does it actively change how well particular coping strategies work? The distinction matters enormously for anyone designing mental health programs for universities. If resilience amplifies the benefits of good coping, then interventions should target the interaction between the two. If it acts independently, then building resilience alone may be the most efficient path to protecting students.

To untangle these possibilities, the team used three well-validated psychometric instruments. The Perceived Stress Scale (PSS-10) captured how unpredictable and overwhelming respondents found their lives over the previous month. The Mini-COPE inventory assessed seven distinct coping strategies, from active problem-solving to helplessness and turning to religion. The Resilience Measurement Scale (SPP-25) broke psychological resilience into five components, including perseverance, openness to new experiences, personal competence, tolerance of failure, and an optimistic outlook. Data were collected online between May and December 2023 using a computer-assisted web interview technique, with safeguards to prevent duplicate participation.

The headline numbers reveal a group under real but manageable strain. Students scored an average of 22.54 on the PSS-10, with a standard deviation of 7.04, corresponding to a sten score of about 7.3, which indicates moderate to elevated stress. At the same time, their overall resilience averaged 59.39 on the SPP-25, a moderately high level, though the large standard deviation of 15.37 points to substantial individual variation in psychological resources. When it came to coping, acceptance emerged as the most frequently used strategy, followed closely by active coping. At the other end of the spectrum, turning to religion and helplessness were the least common responses, a pattern consistent with a predominantly constructive, task-oriented approach to difficulty.

Perhaps the most striking finding concerned what did not differ. Despite the fact that nearly 62 percent of the sample were medical students, a group often assumed to face uniquely punishing academic conditions, comparisons between medical and non-medical students revealed no statistically significant differences in perceived stress, resilience, or any of the seven coping strategies. All effect sizes were negligible, and the smallest p-value across fourteen comparisons remained far above the Bonferroni-adjusted threshold of 0.0036. Even the structure of the moderation models was statistically indistinguishable between the two groups, allowing the researchers to combine the samples with confidence.

The moderation analysis itself produced the study’s most theoretically interesting result. Using linear regression models in which coping strategies predicted stress and resilience components served as moderators, the researchers found that while most models showed significant relationships between coping strategies and stress levels, the interaction effects rarely reached statistical significance. Correlation coefficients ranged from 0.07 to 0.31, indicating weak to moderate overall relationships. Only one interaction stood out: the combination of turning to religion and tolerance for failure produced a significant moderating effect, suggesting that religious coping may derive its significance primarily from specific configurations of personal resources rather than operating as a universal buffer.

The authors interpret this pattern through the lens of the transactional model of stress first proposed by Richard Lazarus and Susan Folkman, which holds that stress arises when environmental demands are appraised as exceeding an individual’s coping capacity. Within that framework, resilience was expected to function as an internal resource promoting adaptive appraisal, emotional regulation, and cognitive flexibility, thereby modifying the strength of the link between coping and stress. The data suggest a more nuanced reality: resilience appears to operate primarily as an independent protective factor associated with lower perceived stress, rather than as a consistent amplifier of individual coping strategies. The researchers also note that the sample’s high overall resilience may have compressed variability, making interaction effects harder to detect, a well-known statistical challenge in moderation studies.

The profile of personal resources adds further texture to the picture. Students scored highest on openness to new experiences and sense of humor, followed by tolerance of failure and treating life as a challenge, while positive attitude received the lowest, though still meaningful, ratings. The authors suggest that medical training, with its emphasis on functioning in high-stress, uncertain, and time-pressured situations, may help cultivate these capacities, or alternatively that students drawn to such demanding fields already possess greater adaptive ability. The cross-sectional design, however, prevents any firm conclusions about causal direction, and the researchers are careful to frame such interpretations as hypotheses for future longitudinal work.

The study is not without limitations, which the authors acknowledge candidly. The sample overrepresented women, who made up 77.4 percent of respondents, and medical students, limiting generalizability to the broader student population. The online survey format may have introduced self-selection bias related to interest in mental health, and data collection spanned different points in the academic year, which could have influenced reported stress levels. Future research, the team argues, should employ longitudinal designs and consider mediation models to better capture the mechanisms linking stress, coping, and resilience over time.

Nevertheless, the practical implications are clear. Because stressors in demanding fields of study cannot simply be eliminated, the authors argue that psychological interventions in academic settings should focus on strengthening the resources students already possess, particularly active coping, while simultaneously developing resilience as a buffer against the negative effects of academic pressure. Investing in personal competencies such as openness and the ability to maintain perspective through humor, they suggest, could prove central to preventing academic burnout and preparing students for the emotional demands of their future careers. For universities grappling with rising rates of student distress, the message is both sobering and hopeful: the students who walk their corridors are stressed, but they are also more resourceful than the crisis narrative often suggests, and the most effective support may lie in amplifying the strengths they already bring to campus.

Subject of Research: The relationship between perceived academic stress, coping strategies, and psychological resilience in university students

Article Title: The role of coping strategies and psychological resilience in shaping academic stress levels

Article References: Gurzyńska, Z., Kucka, K., Trzciński, M., Topolska, K., Nowicka-Sauer, K., & Sobczak, K. (2026). The role of coping strategies and psychological resilience in shaping academic stress levels. PLOS One, 21(10), e0360002. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0360002

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0360002

Keywords: academic stress, psychological resilience, coping strategies, university students, medical students, PLOS One, moderation analysis, PSS-10, Mini-COPE, SPP-25, mental health, Poland