Correlational research reveals resilience and social support's roles in posttraumatic growth among young adults, indicating the need for tailored support.
A BSTRACT Background: The years between 18 and 30 are crucial for development due to substantial life changes, stresses, and potentially traumatic experiences. During this stage of young adulthood, people encounter academic pressure, career uncertainties, interpersonal relationships, and financial stress, which can increase their susceptibility to various traumatic experiences such as accidents, assaults, natural disasters, and the death of loved ones. Subjects and Methods: The study used a cross-sectional, correlational research design. Data were collected using a structured Google Forms and shared on social media and personal networks. A total of 100 participants aged 18–30 years filled out the Connor–Davidson Resilience Scale, Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support, and Posttraumatic Growth Inventory. Data were analysed using JASP 0.18.1. Descriptive statistics, Z-skewness, and Z-kurtosis normality tests showed nonnormal distribution. Kendall’s Tau-b for correlation. The Mann–Whitney U -test compared gender and recent trauma. Results: The results indicate no significant correlation between social support and resilience. There is a minor positive correlation ( P = 0.017) between resilience and posttraumatic growth (PTG). Social support has a moderate positive impact on PTG ( P = 0.008). A gender-wise analysis demonstrated significant resilience and PTG differences. A significant difference in social support was found between the groups of participants who had and those who had not endured traumatic events. Conclusions: Resilience tends to enhance PTG. After a traumatic experience, perceived social support increases growth. With more resilience and social support, young adults can better handle trauma and adversity. Gender and trauma-based differences suggest tailoring support to individual experiences and backgrounds.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mer et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: