Personality and Individual Differences 121 (2018) 100–105

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Personality and Individual Differences

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

With risk may come reward: Sensation seeking supports resilience through MARK
effective coping☆
Samuel McKay⁎, Jason L. Skues, Ben J. Williams
Swinburne University of Technology, John Street, Hawthorn, Victoria 3122, Australia

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Sensation seeking is often considered a risk factor for negative psychosocial outcomes. Our research challenges
Sensation seeking this view, testing a model in which sensation seeking is associated with psychological resilience, with this re-
Resilience lationship mediated by coping. Two-hundred-and-sixty-eight respondents completed measures of sensation
Wellbeing seeking, experiences of trauma, coping, perceived resilience, subjective wellbeing, and perceived stress.
Risk taking
Sensation seeking was directly and indirectly positively associated with the psychological resilience markers of
Coping
life satisfaction, positive affect, and (lower) perceived stress through problem-focused coping in those who had
experienced trauma. Sensation seeking was also positively related to greater perceptions of resilience. Based on
the results it is argued that sensation seeking increases resilience by decreasing stress responses and increasing
individual's resources to manage adversity. Results highlight the need to consider sensation seeking as a mul-
tifaceted construct that can support healthy development through building resilience.

1. Introduction
Risk taking is often viewed as a negative or irrational behaviour
(e.g., Lupton & Tulloch, 2002). Research to understand and mitigate the
risks of such behaviour has frequently used trait conceptualisations of
sensation seeking to predict negative risky activities (Roberti, 2004).
However, some research has found sensation seeking can be associated
with positive outcomes (e.g., Ravert et al., 2013). We propose a model
in which sensation seeking promotes psychological resilience by pro-
moting perceptions of potential stressors as challenges rather than
threats. This increases involvement in, and successful negotiation of
these stressors, thereby supporting the development of and belief in
individual's coping skills and ability to handle adversity, and supports
long-term resilience.
1.1. Assessing sensation seeking and resilience
Sensation seeking is most often operationalised using Zuckerman's
general definition - “the seeking of varied, novel, complex and intense
sensations and experiences, and the willingness to take physical, social,
legal, and financial risks for the sake of such experience” (Zuckerman,
1994, p. 27). The few studies focusing on this “experiential” aspect of
sensation seeking found positive associations with resilience-related
outcomes, including: lower perceived information overload when using
the Internet; buffering the impact of daily stressors leading to lower
psychological discomfort; decreased perceived time to recover from
stressful events, and; lower PTSD symptoms after war trauma
(Jorgensen & Johnson, 1990; Misra & Stokols, 2012; Neria, Solomon,
Ginzburg, & Dekel, 2000; Solomon, Ginzburg, Neria, & Ohry, 1995).
However, little research has looked at the processes underlying such
findings.
1.2. Coping, resources, and self-perceived resilience
Coping refers to behaviours and thoughts people use to manage
stress (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Appraisals are cognitive and emo-
tional processes individuals undertake to determine if a stressor has
implications for their wellbeing. Primary appraisals involve assessing
whether a situation is positive, dangerous, or irrelevant for one's
wellbeing. When situations are appraised as dangerous, individuals
consider if the stressor could cause harm or loss, presents a threat for
losses or a challenge with potential gains or growth (Lazarus & Folkman,
1984). Secondary appraisals involve consideration of the resources such
as coping styles an individual has to manage the stressor. Coping styles
are cognitive and behavioral strategies for managing stress. Many have
been identified, and are associated with different outcomes
(Carver & Scheier, 1994). Active and problem-focused coping strategies
generally result in positive adaptation and better long term functioning

☆
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: smckay@swin.edu.au (S. McKay).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.09.030
Received 11 April 2017; Received in revised form 15 September 2017; Accepted 18 September 2017
Available online 23 September 2017
0191-8869/ © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
S. McKay et al.
while denial and avoidance (e.g., consuming alcohol to forget) are as-
sociated with longer-term dysfunction (Campbell-Sills, Cohan, & Stein,
2006). An individual's resources and the stressor's nature influence the
coping strategy selection, however, individuals tend to have “disposi-
tional” coping strategies they use more frequently (Bouchard,
Guillemette, & Landry-Léger, 2004), and these can predict longer-term
adjustment and resilience (Litman & Lunsford, 2009).
Another important predictor that influences secondary appraisals is
an individual's expectancy of their capacities to manage adversity. Self-
perceived resilience, belief in one's ability to bounce back from stress,
has been linked to positive outcomes despite adversity (Smith et al.,
2008). For example, those with greater self-reported resilience had
fewer PTSD symptoms and adjustment issues, and better health and
wellbeing outcomes following trauma (Connor & Davidson, 2003; Smith
et al., 2008). We argue that through increasing stress tolerance and the
preference for active management of stressors (Zuckerman, 1994),
sensation seeking modulates primary appraisals by framing situations
as challenges rather than threats. Additionally, secondary appraisals are
influenced by sensation seeking indirectly through increasing beliefs in
one's ability bounce back quickly and employ active coping strategies.
Thus, sensation seeking supports the management of adversity and
experience of resilience by modulating appraisals. To test these types of
models operational definitions for both adversity and positive adapta-
tion aspects of resilience are required.
1.3. Operational definitions of adversity and resilience
1.3.1. Measuring adversity
A widely used indicator of adversity is cumulative lifetime adversity –
a set of major negative life events (e.g., assault, disaster, bereavement)
statistically related to poor adjustment and mental disorders
(Lloyd & Turner, 2008; Seery, 2011).
1.3.2. Measuring healthy adaptation
Research has used two types of indicators of positive adaptation:
competence outcomes and psychological responses to adversity (Masten,
2001). Competence outcomes (e.g., higher salaries and school grades)
are useful indicators of resilience in specific populations, but are poor
general indicators because norms are culturally, historically, and life-
stage specific (Fletcher & Sarkar, 2013). School grades, for example, are
not comparable between completers and early school leavers. In-
dividuals can show competence while experiencing distress, suggesting
that competence is not unambiguously indicative of positive adaptation
(Masten, 2001). Thus, psychological responses confer the advantage of
capturing a broader range of experiences and outcomes that can be
compared across groups and the lifespan (Luhmann, Hofmann,
Eid, & Lucas, 2012).
Psychological responses (e.g., subjective wellbeing, perceived
trauma) can differ across domains (e.g., affective vs cognitive), there-
fore it is important to assess short- and long-term adjustment across
multiple domains (Fletcher & Sarkar, 2013). Perceptions of stress can
also differ between people experiencing objectively similar circum-
stances, and thus can indicate quality of adaptation (Cohen,
Kamarck, & Mermelstein, 1983). We argue that psychological measures
capturing short- and long-term adaptation to adversity avoid the lim-
itations of competence-based measures and provide a better picture of
resilience for a general population.
1.4. The present study
The current study tests whether sensation seeking influences resi-
lience directly during primary appraisals by increasing perceptions of
challenge, and indirectly during secondary appraisals by increasing
individuals' beliefs in their abilities to handle adversity or through af-
fecting their coping style selection. Several researchers (e.g.,
Misra & Stokols, 2012; Ravert et al., 2013; Smith et al., 2008) have
101
Personality and Individual Differences 121 (2018) 100–105
proposed relationships between isolated subsets of variables in our
model, but to our knowledge, this mediation model is the first to in-
tegrate all of these components. We test a mediation model where
sensation seeking is related to increased psychological resilience (op-
erationalised as life satisfaction, positive and negative affect, and per-
ceived stress) through the mediating factors of coping and perceived
resilience.
We hypothesized that sensation seeking would moderate the re-
lationship between cumulative lifetime adversity and psychological
resilience. We further hypothesized that the relationship between sen-
sation seeking and psychological resilience would be mediated by ac-
tive problem-focused coping strategies and self-perceived resilience.
2. Method
2.1. Procedure and participants
The research was approved by the Swinburne University Human
Research Ethics Committee. Three-hundred-and-fifty-three participants
responded to an online survey using Qualtrics (Qualtrics, 2015). Ap-
proximately half of the participants were undergraduate psychology
university students who participated as part of a research experience
program, the remainder were recruited using snowball sampling tech-
niques through Facebook, Reddit, and the Australian Whirlpool Forum.
Eighty-four participants who omitted more than 10% of the items were
removed from further analyses. None of the outcome resilience mea-
sures were correlated with experiencing or witnessing trauma. Since
our model makes no predictions about those without trauma, 18 par-
ticipants who had not witnessed or experienced trauma were removed.
The final sample comprised 250 participants (59% female) aged 19–69
(M = 34.41 SD = 9.52). Ten-per-cent had not finished high school,
22% had completed high school, 29% had a diploma, 29% a bachelor
degree, and 10% a masters. Respondents resided in Australia. Ethnicity
of participants was 82% Australian, 2% American, 2% Chinese, 2%
British, 1% New Zealand, and 1% Sri Lankan with the remainder either
not reporting ethnicity or reporting multiple ethnic backgrounds.
2.2. Measures
Unless otherwise stated, instruments are scored by summing item
responses, with higher scores representing greater expression of the
construct measured.
2.2.1. Sensation seeking
Sensation seeking was measured using the Sensation Seeking Scale-
V (Zuckerman, 1994). The SSS-V contains 40 items comprising four 10-
item subscales: Thrill and adventure seeking (TAS), experience seeking
(ES), disinhibition (DIS), and boredom susceptibility (BS). Items are di-
chotomous forced-choice. One point is allocated to each high sensation
seeking response and each low sensation seeking score is assigned 0
points. The individual subscales and total (SSVtot) score exhibit poor to
excellent reliability (Cronbach's α = 0.60–0.86; Zuckerman & Aluja,
2015).
2.2.2. Brief resilience scale
(BRS; Smith et al., 2008). BRS is a self-perceived resilience measure.
Participants rate 6-items using a 5-point Likert scale. The scale has
demonstrated good reliability in previous studies (α ≥ 0.80; Smith
et al., 2008).
2.2.3. The COPE inventory
(Carver, Scheier, & Weintraub, 1989). Coping style use was mea-
sured using the 60-items Cope Inventory. Participants indicate the
frequency they use each coping behaviour on a 4-point scale from 1 (I
usually don't do this at all) to 4 (I usually do this a lot). Carver et al. (1989)
recommend factor analysing the inventory for every cohort to
S. McKay et al. Personality and Individual Differences 121 (2018) 100–105

determine the factor structure. Following the recommended method the

0.17⁎⁎
current study found a social coping (Scope; α = 0.92) factor comprising

15.

–
eight items from the original Instrumental and Emotional Social Support
scales, a problem-focused coping (PFcope; α = 0.88) factor comprising

0.02
− 0.07
eight items from the Active and Planning subscales, the original four

14.

0.59⁎⁎⁎ –
item Substance Use Coping (α = 0.95) factor, and the original four-item
Religious Coping (α = 0.96) factor.

− 0.08
0.01
13.

–
2.2.4. Life events checklist
(LEC-5; Weathers et al., 2013). The LEC-5 is a 17-item measure of

− 0.48⁎⁎⁎
− 0.20⁎⁎
traumatic events across the lifespan. For each event participants in-

0.00
0.01
dicate if: it has happened to them; they have witnessed it; learned about

12.

–
it; it was part of their job; are not sure if they have experienced it, or; it
does not apply to them. One point is scored for each response indicating

0.57⁎⁎⁎
−0.36⁎⁎⁎
−0.58⁎⁎⁎
−0.10
0.03
experience of trauma. Only the experienced (LECex) and witnessed

11.
(LECwit) subscales were used in this study.

–
2.2.5. Perceived stress scale

0.40⁎⁎⁎
0.48⁎⁎⁎
−0.48⁎⁎⁎
−0.61⁎⁎⁎
0.12
0.12
(PSS; Cohen et al., 1983). The PSS assesses recent stress levels with

10.
10-items asking participants about feelings of stress over the last month

–
using a 5-point scale from 0 (never) to 4 (very often). Internal con-
sistency has been very good in previous samples (α ≥ 0.84; Cohen

0.37⁎⁎⁎
0.30⁎⁎⁎
0.47⁎⁎⁎
−0.23⁎⁎⁎
−0.41⁎⁎⁎
0.17⁎⁎
0.07
et al., 1983).

9.

0.29⁎⁎⁎ –
2.2.6. Positive and negative affect scales

0.22⁎⁎
0.21⁎⁎
− 0.14

0.10
− 0.07
− 0.12
− 0.10
(PANAS; Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988). Participant's mood was
assessed using the PANAS. Participants indicated the extent to which
8.

–
they felt each 20 mood-descriptive items (10 positive = PA; 10 nega-

0.17⁎⁎

0.15⁎
−0.05
0.06

0.05

0.05
−0.10
−0.01
−0.07
tive = NA) over the past two weeks on a 5-point scale from 1 (Very
slightly or not at all) to 5 (Extremely). The PANAS has demonstrated
7.

–
excellent reliability (α ≥ 0.88; Segerstrom, 2001).

0.42⁎⁎⁎

0.18⁎⁎

0.22⁎⁎

− 0.13⁎
− 0.05
0.09

0.12

0.03

− 0.12
− 0.01
2.2.7. Satisfaction with life scale
6.

–
(SWLS; Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, 1985). Life satisfaction
0.52⁎⁎⁎
0.34⁎⁎⁎
was measured using the SWLS. Participants responded to five items on a

0.19⁎⁎
0.16⁎
0.15⁎
0.16⁎
0.07

−0.01
−0.09
0.02
0.03
7-point Likert scale. The scale has been widely used and consistently
5.

demonstrates good to excellent reliability (α ≥ 0.80; Pavot & Diener,

0.49⁎⁎⁎ –
0.51⁎⁎⁎
0.34⁎⁎⁎

0.23⁎⁎⁎

1993). 0.26⁎⁎⁎
0.19⁎⁎

0.17⁎⁎

0.13⁎
0.00

− 0.06
− 0.12
0.01
4.

3. Results
–
0.81⁎⁎⁎
0.74⁎⁎⁎
0.82⁎⁎⁎
0.66⁎⁎⁎

0.25⁎⁎⁎

0.28⁎⁎⁎
0.17⁎⁎

0.17⁎⁎

−0.15⁎
−0.01

0.00

−0.04
0.04
3.1. Data analysis
3.

–
Alpha coefficients, means, standard deviations, and correlations between variables.

Data were analysed using SPSS Version 24.0 and MPlus Version 7.1
(Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2012). Prior to analysis, data were screened
−0.17⁎⁎

0.19⁎⁎
−0.16⁎
−0.16⁎

0.13⁎

−0.13⁎

−0.16⁎
−0.05

−0.08
−0.10

0.09

0.02

−0.07

−0.02

for out of range, missing values, and outliers (+/− 3SD's from the
2.

mean). Missing Value Analysis indicated the remaining missing data

–

was missing completely at random (MCAR χ2(3523) = 2954.80,

0.25⁎⁎⁎
0.23⁎⁎⁎

0.20⁎⁎
0.19⁎⁎
− 0.19⁎⁎

0.13⁎

− 0.13⁎
− 0.16⁎

p = 0.99). This missing data was imputed using SPSS Expectation

0.01

0.12

− 0.01

− 0.03
0.03
0.09

0.08

Maximisation routine.
1.

3.1.1. Scale analysis

18–69
0–40
0–10
0–10
0–10
0–10

0–17
0–17
1–4
1–4
1–5
1–7
1–5
1–5
1–5

Before conducting further analyses the Cope Substance Use factor

NA
TR

was omitted due to item overlap with the SSS-V leading to item re-
dundancy. The religious coping factor was also removed because over
9.52
7.16
2.92
1.90
2.54
2.00
0.75
0.58
0.79
1.41
0.74
0.66
0.69
2.21
2.45
NA
SD

half the respondent did not use this coping style at all and very few used
the style regularly.
34.42
20.69
6.08
6.48
5.12
3.02
2.59
3.00
3.54
4.69
3.54
1.85
2.57
3.11
2.64

The means, standard deviations, alpha scores, and correlations be-

NA
M

tween the remaining scales are shown in Table 1 below.

Before assessing the structural model, one-factor congeneric models
0.85
0.81
0.54
0.73
0.56
0.92
0.88
0.89
0.89
0.92
0.90
0.89
0.65
0.65
NA
NA

were used to assess the dimensionality of the BRS, SWLS, PSS, PA and
α

p < 0.001.

NA scales against the fit criteria of Hu and Bentler (CFI > 0.95,

p < 0.01.
Note. N = 250.
p < 0.05.

RMSEA < 0.06, SRMR < 0.08). All models were found to fit the data,
16. LECWit
15. LECEx
9. PFCope
1. Gender

3. SSVTot

11. SWLS
8. SCope

10. BRS

with the exception of the PSS (χ2(35) = 106.54 p < 0.001;

14. PSS
13. NA
12. PA
4. TAS
2. Age

6. DIS
Table 1

7. BS
5. ES

CFI = 0.920, SRMR = 0.050 RMSEA = 0.091), the PA scale (χ2(35)

⁎⁎⁎
⁎⁎
⁎

= 137.64 p < 0.001; CFI = 0.921, SRMR = 0.046 RMSEA = 0.109)

102
S. McKay et al.
Table 2
Unstandardized results for the mediation analysis of the effect of sensation seeking on resilience through problem-focused coping.
Dependent variable Independent variable
Coefficients
PFCope SS
Resilience PFCope
Resilience SS
Indirect effect (mediator = PFCope)
Resilience SS
Total effect of SSV with PFCope mediator
Resilience SS
Note. CI = confidence interval; LL = lower limit, UL = upper limit. SS = Sensation Seeking.
and the NA scale (χ2(35) = 226.44 p < 0.001; CFI = 0.843,
SRMR = 0.068 RMSEA = 0.148). An inspection of the standardised
residuals and modification indices suggested that there may be a
method bias occurring with positive and negatively worded items on
the PSS. Accordingly, the associated items were allowed to correlate (1
with 3, 5 with 8, and 4 with 7) and the revised model provided an
adequate fit to the data (χ2(32) = 59.55 p = 0.002; CFI = 0. 969,
SRMR = 0.039 RMSEA = 0.059). A similar issue was found with the
PA and after allowing the associated items to correlate (12 with 17, 14
with 16 and 16 with 17) the model provided a reasonable fit the data
(χ2(32) = 81.48 p < 0.001; CFI = 0.962, SRMR = 0.036
RMSEA = 0.079). The same process was undertaken with the NA.
However, even after significant model revision, the model fit was found
to be unacceptable. Given the absence of a significant correlation be-
tween SS and NA, PA was removed from the final model. In addition, a
confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed using the re-
commended WLSMV estimator for categorical data (Kline, 2010) on the
four subscales and the higher order factor for SSV. The full model did
not produce an adequate fit to the data (χ2(780) = 3210.58
p < 0.001; CFI = 0.898, WRMR = 1.111 RMSEA = 0.037). It was
found that several items did not significantly load onto the associated
sub-factors and these were removed (SSV sub factor and scale item
number: BS 15 34 39; ES 14 37; DIS 13 33 36; & TAS 11). The final
model provided a good fit to the data, χ2(430) = 517.50 p = 0.002;
CFI = 0.954, WRMR = 0.959 RMSEA = 0.029. Since the modified SSV
scale was found to fit the data well and the moderate size of the sample,
item parcels for each modified SSV subscales were used as indicators of
sensation seeking in the full structural model.
3.1.2. Structural analysis
Due to the lack of relationship between experiences of trauma and
the psychological resilience markers, we were unable to undertake the
moderation analysis and instead tested only the mediation aspect of the
model. A structural model was specified to test the proposed model,
which hypothesized that BRS, PFCope and SCope would mediate the
Personality and Individual Differences 121 (2018) 100–105
Fig. 1. Full structural model of sensation seeking in-
creasing resilience both directly and indirectly
through coping. Note: * p < 0.05 *** p < 0.001.
Parameter Estimate (SE) 95% CI p
LL UL
ab 0.748 (0.327) 0.157 1.461 0.022
bb 0.541 (0.112) 0.340 0.782 < 0.001
cb 0.823 (0.401) 0.075 1.647 0.040
abbb 0.405 (0.194) 0.094 0.868 0.036
c′ 1.227 (0.434) 0.473 2.160 0.001
relationship between the SSV and a latent Resilience factor comprised
of PA, SWLS and PSS. The initial model using ML estimation did not fit
the data (χ2(1205) = 1906.98 p = 0.002; CFI = 0.900, SRMR = 0.096
RMSEA = 0.048). The path from the SSV to the SCope factor was found
to be not significant and thus the SCope was removed from the model.
Additionally, the standardised residuals and modification indices de-
monstrated that BRS did not clearly fit as either a mediator or outcome
variable in the model, as it loaded on the resilience factor and also
showed a strong positive association with the remaining coping med-
iator. Thus, the BRS was also removed from the model. The final model
fit the data adequately (χ2(617) = 941.17 p < 0.001; CFI = 0.928,
SRMR = 0.060 RMSEA = 0.046). Although the CFI in this model is
slightly lower than the ≥0.95 cut-off proposed by Hu and Bentler
(1999), research has demonstrated that CFI scores tend to decrease in
correctly specified complex models with a large number of variables,
while the RMSEA improves (Kenny & McCoach, 2003). Given that the
RMSEA is well within the acceptable range, these results suggest that
the model demonstrates an acceptable fit. The standardised parameter
estimates and the variance explained in the latent factors for the model
are shown in Fig. 1.
As can be seen in figure one, the resilience factor explained a little
over 60% of variance in positive affect, life satisfaction and perceived
stress, supporting the conceptual model of resilience. Additionally, the
paths from sensation seeking to problem-focused coping and resilience,
and problem-focused coping to resilience were all significant. These
results were supported by 10,000 bootstrapped confidence intervals
that are shown along with the unstandardized results of the mediation
analysis in Table 2.
As shown in Table 2 sensation seeking had a significant direct effect
and indirect effect through problem-focused coping on resilience. Al-
though, the effect of sensation seeking on resilience was decreased after
controlling for the mediating effect of problem-focused coping, it was
still significant suggesting that this form of coping only partially med-
iates the relationship between sensation seeking and resilience. In total,
the model explained 4% of the variance in problem-focused coping and
103
S. McKay et al.
32% of the variance in resilience.
4. Discussion
This study tested whether sensation seeking was associated with
increased psychological resilience in persons who had experienced
trauma, and if this relationship was mediated by coping. Sensation
seeking was associated with increased psychological resilience in-
dicated by increased positive affect and life satisfaction, and decreased
perceived stress. Contrary to expectations, sensation seeking was not
related to negative affect. Problem-focused coping partially mediated
the relationships between sensation seeking and resilience.
Additionally, although removed from the final model there was positive
relationship between sensation seeking and perceptions of resilience.
4.1. Sensation seeking and resilience
The final latent psychological resilience factor in the structural
model included positive affect, life satisfaction and perceived stress, but
did not include negative affect. These three retained measures represent
three important markers of wellbeing that can capture psychological
responses to adversity and challenge (Luhmann et al., 2012). The
measures also offer insight into the processes that may be supporting
positive psychological function in the face of adversity. The positive
relationship between sensation seeking and resilience supports our ar-
gument that sensation seeking changes the primary appraisal process.
For many individuals, the inherent change and novelty of daily life can
be taxing (Kashdan & Silvia, 2009). However, sensation seekers often
actively pursue novel and stressful experiences for their potential po-
sitive affect payoffs (Roberti, 2004; Watson et al., 1988). The positive
relationship between sensation seeking and positive affect support this
idea. Additionally, sensation seekers tend to have lower perceptions of
potential negative consequences from stressful situations
(Jorgensen & Johnson, 1990; Misra & Stokols, 2012). Our results also
demonstrated that sensation seeking was related to lower perceptions of
stress. Sensation seeking is theorised to decrease perceived stress by
influencing appraisals of stressful events as less overwhelming and
more controllable (Jorgensen & Johnson, 1990). Our findings, indicate
that sensation seekers tend to appraise stressors as challenges and op-
portunities for growth and positive affect payoffs rather than perceiving
them as risks for harm or loss of wellbeing. Through this process, sen-
sation seekers have more resilience indicated by increased positive af-
fect and less stress in relation to adversity.
The positive relationship between sensation seeking and the more
stable resilience marker of life satisfaction is important because it
suggests that sensation seekers who have experienced trauma have
greater long term life satisfaction than non-sensation seekers. This
means that sensation seekers are more satisfied with how they have
handled adversity, are more accepting of their experience, or are able to
move on more effectively after challenges. However, it is not possible to
conclude which of these processes is occurring form the current results.
4.2. Coping and perceived resilience
The partial mediation of the relationship between sensation seeking
and resilience through problem-focused coping supports the secondary
appraisal argument put forward in the introduction. The finding in-
dicates that sensation seeking acts as a resource to increase belief in and
actual ability to use effective coping strategies. Higher levels of pro-
blem-focused coping are related to greater ability to actively deal with
hardship (Carver & Scheier, 1994). Therefore, it appears that sensation
seekers through their awareness of their ability to use such strategies
during secondary appraisals consider stressors as more managable.
104
Personality and Individual Differences 121 (2018) 100–105
4.3. Measurement issues
Two measurement issues were identified in this study. First, the SSS-
V scale required removal of several items to obtain an adequate fit
during CFA. Several studies have shown problems with this measure
(Arnett, 1994; Roth, Hammelstein, & Brähler, 2007), and it appears that
the out-dated language of some questions may be the reason. Alter-
native sensation seeking scales have been developed (e.g. AISS; Arnett,
1994 & NISS; Roth et al., 2007), however there are still many issues
with capturing the construct (Zuckerman & Aluja, 2015). The negative
affect subscale of the PANAS also did not fit the data well during CFA.
Previous studies have shown that the PANAS requires large numbers of
modifications during CFA (Crawford & Henry, 2004), which suggests
further measurement development may be required.
4.4. Limitations and future research
Our study had two potential weaknesses. First, it mixed a university
student and general population sample. However, these samples
showed no major differences in the SEM model and were therefore
combined to provide more power. A second issue is that all measures
were collected concurrently using self-report questionnaires, which
may inflate correlations. Longitudinal research using multiple mea-
sures, which captures the outcome variables at different times with a
broader range of participants would strengthen our conclusions.
4.5. Conclusion
The negative portrayal of sensation seeking in much of the existing
literature presents an incomplete picture of how this construct func-
tions. Our study presents evidence that sensation seeking acts as a re-
source that supports the management of stress and adversity, and builds
psychological resources supporting long term positive functioning and
resilience. Research on sensation seeking should continue to address
both the positive and negative outcomes of the trait.
References
Arnett, J. J. (1994). Sensation seeking: A new conceptualization and a new scale.
Personality and Individual Differences, 16, 289–296. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0191-
8869(94)90165-1.
Bouchard, G., Guillemette, A., & Landry-Léger, N. (2004). Situational and dispositional
coping: An examination of their relation to personality, cognitive appraisals, and
psychological distress. European Journal of Personality, 18, 221–238. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1002/per.512.
Campbell-Sills, L., Cohan, S. L., & Stein, M. B. (2006). Relationship of resilience to per-
sonality, coping, and psychiatric symptoms in young adults. Behaviour Research and
Therapy, 44, 585–599. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2005.05.001.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1994). Situational coping and coping dispositions in a
stressful transaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 184–195. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.66.1.184.
Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. F., & Weintraub, J. K. (1989). Assessing coping strategies: A
theoretically based approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56,
267–283. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.56.2.267.
Cohen, S., Kamarck, T., & Mermelstein, R. (1983). A global measure of perceived stress.
Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 24, 385–396. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/
2136404.
Connor, K. M., & Davidson, J. R. T. (2003). Development of a new resilience scale: The
Connor-Davidson resilience scale (CD-RISC). Depression and Anxiety, 18, 76–82.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/da.10113.
Crawford, J. R., & Henry, J. D. (2004). The positive and negative affect schedule
(PANAS): Construct validity, measurement properties and normative data in a large
non-clinical sample. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 43, 245–265. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1348/0144665031752934.
Diener, E. D., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life
scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71–75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/
s15327752jpa4901_13.
Fletcher, D., & Sarkar, M. (2013). Psychological resilience. European Psychologist, 18,
12–23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000124.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure
analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct. Equ. Model. Multidiscip.
J. 6, 1–55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118.
Jorgensen, R. S., & Johnson, J. H. (1990). Contributors to the appraisal of major life
changes: Gender, perceived controllability, sensation seeking, strain, and social
S. McKay et al.
support. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 20, 1123–1138. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1111/j.1559-1816.1990.tb00395.x.
Kashdan, T. B., & Silvia, P. J. (2009). Curiosity and interest: The benefits of thriving on
novelty and challenge. In S. J. Lopez, & C. R. Snyder (Eds.). Oxford handbook of
positive psychology (pp. 367–375). . http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/
9780195187243.013.0034.
Kenny, D. A., & McCoach, D. B. (2003). Effect of the number of variables on measures of
fit in structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary
Journal, 10, 333–351. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM1003_1.
Kline, R. B. (2010). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New
York, NY: Guilford Presshttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2012.687667.
Lazarus, R., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York, NY: Springer
Publishing Company.
Litman, J. A., & Lunsford, G. D. (2009). Frequency of use and impact of coping strategies
assessed by the COPE inventory and their relationships to post-event health and well-
being. Journal of Health Psychology, 14, 982–991. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
1359105309341207.
Lloyd, D. A., & Turner, R. J. (2008). Cumulative lifetime adversities and alcohol depen-
dence in adolescence and young adulthood. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 93,
217–226. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2007.09.012.
Luhmann, M., Hofmann, W., Eid, M., & Lucas, R. E. (2012). Subjective well-being and
adaptation to life events: A meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
102, 592–615. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0025948.
Lupton, D., & Tulloch, J. (2002). “Life would be pretty dull without risk”: Voluntary risk-
taking and its pleasures. Health, Risk & Society, 4, 113–124. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1080/13698570220137015.
Masten, S. (2001). Ordinary magic. Resilience processes in development. The American
Psychologist, 56, 227–238. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.56.3.227.
Misra, S., & Stokols, D. (2012). Psychological and health outcomes of perceived in-
formation overload. Environment and Behavior, 44, 737–759. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1177/0013916511404408.
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2012). Mplus User's Guide (Seventh Edition). Los
Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
Neria, Y., Solomon, Z., Ginzburg, K., & Dekel, R. (2000). Sensation seeking, wartime
performance, and long-term adjustment among Israeli war veterans. Personality and
Individual Differences, 29, 921–932. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(99)
00243-3.
105
Personality and Individual Differences 121 (2018) 100–105
Pavot, W., & Diener, E. (1993). Review of the satisfaction with life scale. Psychological
Assessment, 5, 164–172. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.5.2.164.
Qualtrics (2015). Qualtrics [Computer software]. Provo, Utah: Qualtrics.
Ravert, R. D., Kim, S. Y., Schwartz, S. J., Weisskirch, R. S., Zamboanga, B. L., Ham, L. S.,
... Bersamin, M. M. (2013). The association between sensation seeking and well-being
among college-attending emerging adults. Journal of College Student Development, 54,
17–28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/csd.2013.0004.
Roberti, J. W. (2004). A review of behavioral and biological correlates of sensation
seeking. Journal of Research in Personality, 38, 256–279. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
S0092-6566(03)00067-9.
Roth, M., Hammelstein, P., & Brähler, E. (2007). Beyond a youthful behavior style - age
and sex differences in sensation seeking based on need theory. Personality and
Individual Differences, 43, 1839–1850. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2007.06.
004.
Seery, M. (2011). Resilience: A silver lining to experiencing adverse life events? Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 20, 390–394. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
0963721411424740.
Segerstrom, S. C. (2001). Optimism, goal conflict, and stressor-related immune change.
Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 2, 441–467. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/
A:1012271410485.
Smith, B. W., Dalen, J., Wiggins, K., Tooley, E., Christopher, P., & Bernard, J. (2008). The
brief resilience scale: Assessing the ability to bounce back. International Journal of
Behavioral Medicine, 15, 194–200. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10705500802222972.
Solomon, Z., Ginzburg, K., Neria, Y., & Ohry, A. (1995). Coping with war captivity: The
role of sensation seeking. European Journal of Personality, 9, 57–70. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1002/per.2410090105.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief
measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1070. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063.
Weathers, F. W., Blake, D. D., Schnurr, P. P., Kaloupek, D. G., Marx, B. P., & Keane, T. M.
(2013). The life events checklist for DSM-5 (LEC-5). Instrument available from the
National Center for PTSD at www.ptsd.va.gov.
Zuckerman, M. (1994). Behavioral expressions and biosocial bases of sensation seeking. New
York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Zuckerman, M., & Aluja, A. (2015). Measures of sensation seeking. In G. J. Boyle, D. H.
Saklofske, & G. Matthews (Eds.). Measures of personality and social psychological con-
structs (pp. 352–380). Oxford: Academic Press.