Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic has posed a challenge to human physical and mental health (Piqueras, et al., 2021). The negative effects of the COVID-19 pandemic caused people’s fear, anxiety, stress and other psychological complications (Ravikumar, 2022). College students were impacted by the continuous epidemic, closed management and delayed school opening, which might cause physical and mental stress and trigger various negative stress reactions (Guo et al., 2020). The overwhelming consensus being that the mental health of adolescents has deteriorated during the pandemic (Beames et al., 2021). However, some young people have not been overwhelmed by the unpredictability of the pandemic situation when the pace of daily life has been seriously disrupted. The existing research believes that resilience is a way to cope with the mental health challenges caused by COVID-19 (Prime et al., 2020), which can protect them from the perceived threat and future anxiety caused by COVID-19 (Paredes et al., 2021), and emphasizes the importance of strengthening resilience during the COVID-19 (Sugawara et al., 2022). During the prevalence of COVID-19, it is beneficial to use more adaptive coping strategies, which will produce positive adaptive responses and reduce the generation of negative stress reactions such as depression (Meyer et al., 2022). In the face of the unprecedented pressure environment such as COVID-19, there are few studies on the relationship between college students’ resilience and negative stress response, as well as the role of coping styles and positive adaptive responses in it. Studying the coping mechanism of college students in the pandemic situation will provide guidance for the training program of resilience, and it will also provide reference for future disaster psychological assistance.

Due to the uncertainty, unpredictability, seriousness of the COVID-19 epidemic, and the variability of epidemic prevention policies, people feel high pressure (Rajkumar, 2020). The COVID-19 also caused widespread anxiety, fear and panic to a certain extent, and hoarding and over disinfection also occurred (Zandifar & Badrfam, 2020; Shigemura et al., 2020). During and after forced isolation, individuals experienced higher levels of depression and were more likely to be anxious (Loades et al., 2020). As a “rebound ability”, resilience can help them more effectively adapt to the major pressure of life and prevent them from mental health problems (Tugade & Fredrickson, 2004; Campbell-Sills et al., 2006). It can be viewed as a measure of stress coping ability and an important target for the treatment of anxiety, depression and stress reactions (Kalisch et al., 2017; Connor & Davidson, 2003). There is a significant positive correlation between resilience and mental health, and a significant negative correlation between resilience and stress (Ungar, 2012). College students with a high level of resilience have a relatively good mental health and a low level of stress (Huang et al., 2014; Cao, 2013; Han et al., 2018). During the epidemic, resilience buffers the impact of people’s fear of COVID-19 on mental distress (Sugawara et al., 2022), and also alleviates the impact of loneliness, stress and perceives risk on psychological distress. Resilience, together with emotional support and information support, becomes a key protective factor for anxiety, depression and stress (Harvey, 2022). If people maintain a high level of resilience during the epidemic, they can be protected from mental distress (Veronese et al., 2021).

Coping style, refers to the cognitive and behavioral efforts made by individuals in the process of psychological stress, in order to eliminate or effectively reduce the negative effects caused by internal conflicts and external environment, or meet the internal and external needs of individuals. It is one of the crucial mediating factors in dealing with psychological stress (Folkman et al., 1986). The view of trait orientation emphasizes that the individual’s coping style has personality tendency, and has consistency and stability across situations (Ye & Shen, 2002). Coping styles include positive coping and negative coping (Zhang et al., 2005; Ellis et al., 2016). Positive coping, including seeking social support for instrumental reasons, cognitive restructuring, and planning, is a problem-focused coping style. Negative coping is a passive, emotion-focused, or avoidant coping style (Yan et al., 2021). College students with positive coping style can show a higher level of positive adjustment in cognition and behavior in the face of stressful events, decreasing the risk of anxiety and depression (Zong et al., 2010). Individuals who adopt a proactive coping style can maintain their mental health (Li et al., 2019; Ma et al., 2022). On the contrary, the more individuals adopt a passive coping style, the more negative emotions and higher positive manifestations of mental disorders may occur (Li & Li, 2014; Wang et al., 2020; Yu et al., 2020).

However, in the face of the unpredictable COVID-19 epidemic, human beings lack existing experience, and individuals’ previous coping styles may no longer work, so people need to make adjustment. According to the transactional theory of coping, successful coping involves the ability to adjust and change coping strategies to better achieve positive results (Lazarus & Folkman, 1987). Individuals in the COVID-19 situation may need more flexibility in coping, and may have some positive adaptive responses different from their habitual coping styles. The most popular adaptive coping responses include normalizing anxiety around COVID-19, protecting communities and families by complying with restrictions, and trying to take care of their own health through good diet, good daily life and exercise (Meyer et al., 2022). The general population are more likely to have self-help positive coping responses, such as focusing on pleasant things and making themselves feel efficient, which including doing housework, playing video games, not watching the news, increasing online social networking, etc., to effectively relieve depression, anxiety and stress (Muñoz-Violant et al., 2021; Meyer et al., 2022). People with a mental illness are more likely to seek professional and online help (Meyer et al., 2022). Another study on nursing college students shows that keeping in touch during the epidemic is the key coping strategy to ensure emotional and mental health; Daily activities, including exercise, contribute to physical and mental health (Moxham et al., 2022). The positive adaptive response which centered on meaning, seems to be the most beneficial during the epidemic, because it is associated with a lower level of disease and a higher level of happiness (Eisenbeck et al., 2022). Munk et al. (2020) found that adaptive coping during the epidemic is significantly related to lower depression and anxiety (Munk et al., 2020). The positive adaptive response under the COVID-19 epidemic situation deserves the attention of researchers.

Active coping mechanism is also considered to be one of the resilience factors among the adult population (Helmreich et al., 2017). Previous studies have found that resilience has direct and indirect effects on mental health, mediated by positive coping style (Steinhardt & Dolbier, 2008; Li, 2013), and resilience can also affect sleep status through the mediating effect of coping styles (Qiao & Fan, 2020). Individuals with higher resilience have more effective coping strategies, can better solve problems, and have less avoidance coping (Steinhardt & Dolbie, 2008). Active coping strategies are related to resilience and can promote individuals to successfully cope with stress (Feder et al., 2010), and the result of successful coping is better adaptation, which can improve individual resilience (Campbell-sills et al., 2006). Munk et al. (2020) found that the number of adaptive coping strategies during the COVID-19 epidemic was significantly related to lower depression and anxiety (Munk et al., 2020). More adaptive coping response means greater coping flexibility, which is significantly related to greater resilience and less negative emotions, especially for people with mental illness. On the whole, resilience is significantly related to adaptive coping including physical exercise (Hu et al., 2020) and self-help (Matias et al., 2020).

The present study

Many previous studies have involved variables such as resilience, coping style, positive adaptive response and negative stress response, and some researchers have also discussed the relationship between these variables. However, few studies have explored the mechanism of the impact of resilience on negative stress reaction of Chinese college students during the COVID-19, while considering the perspective of how to flexibly adjust coping styles in the face of new challenges.

According to the cognitive-phenomenological-transactional theory, only when individuals think they can’t deal with environmental threats, can they have negative stress reactions; When individuals exert their subjective initiative and solve difficulties through effective coping, the negative stress reaction is eliminated or reduced (Wei & Tang, 1998). Under the COVID-19 pandemic, Chinese college students had suffered a lot. They not only produced many negative stress reactions, but also some positive adaptative responses. Is resilience, previously thought to be able to withstand adversity, still playing a role in this major emergency? If it works, does it work through coping styles and positive adaptive responses? If it really works through coping styles, it is necessary to popularize positive adaptive coping strategies to the public at present, and it is also necessary to focus on the cultivation of positive and flexible coping styles in the future resilience improvement intervention plan. The purpose of this study is to investigate the influence mechanism of Chinese college students’ resilience, coping styles and positive adaptive responses on their negative stress reactions under the COVID-19 pandemic. This will help us to optimize resilience enhancement intervention program, and also provide suggestions for better coping with major emergencies in the future.

Based on previous empirical research, we established a theoretical hypothesis model (shown in Fig. 1) and propose the following four hypotheses:

  • Hypothesis 1: There is a significant negative correlation between resilience and negative stress reaction of college students during the COVID-19 pandemic.

  • Hypothesis 2: Resilience can indirectly predict negative stress reaction of college students during the COVID-19 pandemic through the mediating role of coping style.

  • Hypothesis 3: Resilience can indirectly predict negative stress reaction of college students during the COVID-19 pandemic through the mediating role of positive adaptive response.

  • Hypothesis 4: Resilience can indirectly predict negative stress reaction of college students during the COVID-19 pandemic through the chain mediation of coping style and positive adaptive response.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Hypothesized relationships between resilience, coping style, positive adaptive response and negative stress reaction

Full size image

Method

Participants and data collection

This study is not only a cross-sectional design, but also a multivariable mixed design. Subjects of this study were undergraduates who randomly selected from four colleges and universities in Shanghai using a stratified random sampling method. The sampling scheme was stratified by the type of university and subject, and classes were randomly selected within the strata. Data collection was conducted between March 2020 and April 2020. At the time of the test, they lived in 27 provinces (cities) because of the COVID-19 pandemic. They received electronic questionnaires through WeChat. The informed consent of all participants was obtained before the investigation. Participants were informed that they had the right to opt out at any time. Their identity was anonymous and only needed to be filled in according to the actual situation. It didn’t matter whether the answer was right or wrong. The study was reviewed and approved by the Psychological Counseling Center of Shanghai University, and strictly complied with ethical requirement. A total of 958 questionnaires were collected, of which 910 were effective, and the effective rate was 94.99%. The average age of the subjects was 20.58 years, of which the maximum was 28 years old and the minimum was 17 years old; 374 males (41.10%) and 536 females (58.90%)；449 science and engineering students (49.34%), 165 humanities students (18.13%), 255 economics and management students (28.02%), and 41 art students (4.51%); 230 freshmen (25.27%), 201 sophomores (22.09%), 177 juniors (19.45%), 302 seniors (33.19%).

Research Tools

General information questionnaire

According to the needs of the survey, a questionnaire was designed to mainly investigate the demographic and sociological data of the research object, including gender, age, school, discipline, grade, place of origin, etc.

Chinese version of Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC)

The Chinese version of CD-RISC has 25 items in 3 dimensions: tenacity (e.g., when things look hopeless, I don’t give up), strength (e.g., tend to bounce back after illness or hardship), and optimism (e.g., see the humorous side of things). A 5-point scale is used (where 0 is “not true at all” and 4 is “true nearly all of the time”). Previous studies have shown that the questionnaire has reasonable structure and good reliability and validity (Yu & Zhang, 2007). The SPSS21.0 demonstrated good internal consistency (α = .953) in the current sample.

Simplified Coping Style Questionnaire (SCSQ)

Simplified Coping Style Questionnaire was revised by Xie (1998). It has 20 items in 2 dimensions: positive coping styles (e.g., learn from others’ methods of dealing with similar difficult), negative coping styles (e.g., relieve troubles by smoking, drinking, taking medicine and eating). A 4-point scale is used (where 0 is “not take” and 3 is “often take”). The individual coping tendency is calculated by the standard score of positive coping minus the standard score of negative coping. If the value is greater than 0, indicates that the individual’s coping tendency is mostly positive; if the value is less than 0, indicates that the individual mainly uses negative coping strategy (Yan et al., 2021). The reliability of SCSQ, are good (Xie, 1998). In our study, the internal consistency coefficients of the positive and negative coping subscale were 0.864 and 0.650, respectively.

Positive Adaptive Response Questionnaire (PARQ)

Positive adaptive response questionnaire (PARQ) was developed in this study. The project describes the adaptive response during the COVID-19 epidemic based on the proposed theoretical considerations, including focusing on positive and optimistic aspects, identifying the authenticity of media information, maintaining a calm attitude, maintaining a sense of control over life, and so on. Participants rated the items on the Likert scale from 0 (never) to 4 (almost always). A panel of experts examined the content validity of the items and the final pool consisted of eight items. The higher the score, the more positive adaptive coping behaviors the subjects took, and the better their adaptability to stressful events. In this study, the Cronbach’s α coefficient was 0.87.

Negative Stress Reaction Questionnaire (NSRQ)

Negative stress reaction questionnaire (NSRQ) was developed in this study. The project describes the negative stress reaction during the COVID-19 epidemic based on the proposed theoretical considerations, including feeling anxious and worried, sleep affected, inability to concentrate, etc. Participants rated the items on the Likert scale from 0 (never) to 4 (almost always). A panel of experts examined the content validity of the items and the final pool consisted of seven items. The higher the score, the greater the impact of stress events, show more adverse stress reactions in emotion, physiology and behavior. In this study, the Cronbach’s α coefficient was 0.90.

Data analysis

All the analyses were implemented by IBM SPSS Statistics, version 21.0. Prior to the analyses, data were tested for normality and missing values. For those participants who failed to complete one or more complete questionnaires or showed straight linear behavior, the data were removed. The missing data in the formal questionnaire is less than 0.1% (completely random missing) and replaced with the expectation maximization algorithm. No missing data in demographic variables. The participant characteristics and main variables were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Correlations among the main variables were analyzed using Pearson’s correlation coefficient. The analyses of the hypothetical chain mediating role were conducted by SPSS PROCESS macro (Model 6). All continuous variables were standardized and the interaction effects were computed from these standardized scores. Multiple hierarchical regression analysis was performed according to Model 6 dedicated to chain mediated model testing. The bootstrapping method produces 99% bias-corrected confidence intervals of these effects from 5000 resamples of the data. Confidence intervals that do not include zero indicate significant effects (Hayes & Scharkow, 2013). The Harman single factor test was used to ascertain the effect of common method deviation of the original data. The results show 9 factors with an eigenvalue of greater than 1. The first factor’s variance was 33.98%, and the variation explained by this factor after rotation is 19.77%. Both of them were below the critical value of 40%. Therefore, there is no significant common methodological biases in this study (Xiong et al., 2012).

Results

Descriptive statistics and correlation analysis

The correlations among the dimensions of college students’ resilience, coping style, positive adaptive response and negative stress reaction were analyzed. The average, standard deviation, and correlation matrix of each main variable were listed in Table 1. As shown in Table 1, college students’ resilience is positively correlated with coping style and positive adaptive response, and negatively correlated with negative stress reaction. There is a positive correlation between coping style and positive adaptive response, and a negative correlation between coping style and negative stress reaction. There is a negative correlation between positive adaptation response and negative stress reaction.

Table 1 Means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations of the study measures
Full size table

Test of mediating effect

In order to further explore the relationship among four variables, this study used the SPSS PROCESS macro (Model 6) to test the multiple mediating effects. Resilience was used as the independent variable; negative stress reaction as the dependent variable; coping style and positive adaptive response as mediating variables; gender, age and major as covariates.

The results of regression analysis showed (see Table 2): resilience did not significantly predict negative stress reaction (β = −0.07, p > 0.05); resilience could significantly positively predict both coping style (β = 0.42, p < 0.001) and positive adaptive response (β = 0.62, p < 0.001); coping style could significantly positively predict positive adaptive response (β = 0.08, p < 0.01) and negatively predict negative stress reaction (β = −0.17, p < 0.01); Positive adaptive response could significantly negatively predict negative stress reaction ((β = −-0.46, p < 0.001). The whole regression equation is significant, R2 = 0.20, F (3,906) =76.98, p < 0.001.

Table 2 Regression analysis of the relationship between variables in chain intermediary model
Full size table

Bootstrap sampling method is used to test the mediation effect. The path coefficient results were shown in Fig. 2 and Table 3. Coping style and positive adaptive response mediated significantly between resilience and negative stress reaction, with a total standardized mediation effect value of −0.37, accounting for 84.09% of the total effect of resilience on negative stress reaction. Three significant mediating chains were identified in this study: Firstly, mediating effect 1 (−0.07) generated by Path 1 of “Resilience → coping style → negative stress reaction”, accounting for 15.91% of the total effect; Secondly, mediating effect 2 (−0.28) generated by Path 2 of “Resilience →positive adaptive response → negative stress reaction”, accounting for 63.64% of the total effect; Thirdly, mediating effect 3 (−0.02) generated by Path 3 of “Resilience → coping style → positive adaptive response → negative stress reaction”, accounting for 4.55% of the total effect. The 95% CI of the above three paths did not contain a 0 value, indicating that the three indirect effects have reached a significant level. Although the direct effect of resilience on negative stress response was not significant, according to Preacher and Hayes (2008), and considering that the significance of the direct effect of resilience on negative stress reaction was close to 0.05, researchers prefer to consider that resilience mainly affects negative stress reaction through two intermediary variables: coping style and positive adaptive response.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Model diagram of the mediating role of coping style and positive adaptive response between resilience and negative stress reaction

Full size image
Table 3 Test of standardized bootstrap intermediary effect
Full size table

Discussion

The relationship between resilience and negative stress reaction

The COVID-19 pandemic is regarded as a “source of global pressure”. Blockade measures triggered by epidemic prevention and control have a negative impact on physical and mental health (Chesterman et al., 2021). The rapid and unexpected changes of the COVID-19 and the negative events during the period (such as uncertainty, isolation, fear, social distance, etc.) enhanced the symptoms of anxiety and stress, thus affecting mental health (Fiorillo & Gorwood, 2020; Holmes et al., 2020; Pfefferbaum & North, 2020; Waris et al., 2020; Duan & Zhu, 2020; Satici et al., 2022; Rasheed et al., 2022). During the COVID-19 epidemic, the most common psychological reactions were anxiety and depression symptoms (16–28%) and self-reported stress (8%) (Zhang & Ma, 2020). The youngest age group (18–35 years old) seems to be the most vulnerable during the pandemic, reporting the highest levels of mental stress, perceived stress and loneliness (Na et al., 2022). College students also show some psychosocial reactions, such as anxiety, depression (Aqeel et al., 2022), uncertainty about the future and fear of cleanliness (Mahmood et al., 2021).

According to previous studies, resilience can predict mental health and stress levels (Cao, 2013; Huang, 2014; Liu, 2016). The three internal resilience elements in psychological resilience, namely, competence, belongingness and optimism, can help individuals better face challenges and overcome adversity (Grotberg, 1996; Ye et al., 2011). The higher the level of resilience, the better the mental health status and the less negative stress response. Those individuals with high level of resilience can effectively bear and adapt to external pressure and setbacks by reducing the level of anxiety, depression, and the stress response (Galante et al., 2018; Greinacher et al., 2019; Kelifa et al., 2020; Liu et al., 2022). However, as a “unique” and “global” source of pressure, the COVID-19 may have different traumatic impacts on the body and psychology than other stressors in the past, with a higher universality.

The results of this study showed that there was a significant negative correlation between college students’ resilience and negative stress response, which verified Hypothesis 1. By the subsequent multiple hierarchical regression analysis, it was found that college students’ resilience could not directly predict their negative stress response during the COVID-19 pandemic. This is related to the characteristics of the COVID-19 pandemic. Although many people were infected with COVID-19 or lost their relatives at that time, fortunately, the subjects and their families in this study were safe and healthy. In addition to the fear of being infected with the virus, the pandemic had brought them a sense of insecurity and loss of control. These feelings were caused by lifestyle changes, some restrictions on action, and continuous negative news. Godara et al. (2022) believed that collective stressors during the pandemic seemed to affect mental health on a broader and larger level, and became obvious in some people who were generally considered healthy and clinically insignificant. Although resilience is considered to be one of the factors actively promoting mental health during the epidemic (Kapoor et al., 2021) and a predictor of negative emotions (Deng, 2021), it is wrong to believe that a person with resilience will not experience anxiety, emotional distress and stress during the epidemic (Rasheed et al., 2022). The resilience defined in this study is similar to a positive trait, which may need to be combined with emotional support, information support, sense of meaning of life, etc. to be a key protective factor for anxiety, depression and stress (Harvey, 2022). According to the grounded theory, resilience is a turbulent process, that is, individuals use a series of coping strategies to deal with the combination of unpleasant emotions and spiritual struggle (Jackson, 2018), and its role depends on the dynamic psychological adaptation process. Research shows that resilience influences one’s initial appraisal of stressors, metacognitions in response to one’s emotions, and selection of coping strategies (Fletcher & Sarkar, 2013). Individuals constantly interact with the environment to change adaptive response according to the type of problem to be solved and the environment. During the epidemic, the situation was similar. In order to adapt to the new situation of COVID-19 pandemic, individuals constantly made cognitive and behavioral responses, that is, positive adaptive responses. According to the theory of interactive stress, differences in the evaluation of stressors will affect individuals’ response to stress (Delawalla, 2010). College students with different resilience will adopt different coping strategies after they have different assessments of events. At this time, the mediating role of coping style appears.

The chain mediating effect of coping style and positive adaptive response

This study found that during the COVID-19 pandemic, college students’ coping style played a mediating role between resilience and negative stress response, which verified Hypothesis 2. The correlation between resilience and positive coping style has been confirmed (Campbell-Sills et al., 2006; Sexton et al., 2010; Yang et al., 2014; Chen, 2016). Research shows that resilience can indirectly affect individual emotional state through coping style selection (Johnson et al., 2017), and individuals who adopted a positive coping style had better mental health than individuals who adopted a negative coping style (Zhen & Zhou, 2016; Chen & Yao, 2006). Students with high resilience could more clearly understand the importance of positive coping style, and more likely to use problem-solving strategies, avoid escaping from stressful events, and effectively overcome the impact of negative emotions in adversity (Wu et al., 2020; Beasley et al., 2003). A network survey on mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated that coping style was one of the factors influencing psychological distress, that is, participants with negative coping style had higher level of psychological distress, such as being nervous, hopeless and anxiety (Wang et al., 2020). When individuals with a high level of resilience encounter emergencies such as the COVID-19 pandemic, they can actively mobilize strong inner strength and adopt adaptive and coping strategies to alleviate anxiety (Shu et al., 2021). Flexible selection and timing of strategy use are linked to better emotional outcomes (Kobylińska & Kusev, 2019).

This study also found that during the COVID-19 pandemic, positive adaptive response played a mediating role between college students’ resilience and negative stress reaction, which verified Hypothesis 3. Previous studies have demonstrated that positive coping style is related to a higher level of positive cognitive and behavioral adjustment in the face of stressful events and a decreased risk of anxiety and depression (Zong et al., 2010; Wu et al., 2020). In the face of major stress events, in addition to negative stress reactions, some positive adjustment reactions used to solve problems and keep a cool head will also appear consciously or unconsciously. The adaptive value of different coping strategies is often related to the context (Mayo et al., 2022). Effective response is related to accurate status assessment and appropriate coping strategies. The unprecedented COVID-19 epidemic makes it possible for individuals to try different adaptive responses to improve their adaptability and their quality of life at home (Fraenkel & Cho, 2020; Gerhold, 2020), especially to better deal with the lack of social interactions (Kar et al., 2020). These adaptive responses may include either traditional emotion centered and problem centered response strategies, or more flexible response strategies such as meaning centered and positive reconstruction. Research shows that in the context of low levels of control and high levels of uncertainty, such as the COVID-19 epidemic, it is crucial to seek or create meaning (Tsouvelas et al., 2022). High resilience provides support for more positive situational assessment and the adoption of positive adaptive responses (Chen et al., 2019a, b). Individuals with strong resilience may “try to see the positive and optimistic side of the pandemic” in the COVID-19 pandemic, and show more positive adaptive response, such as “I am willing to use my ability to help people in need”. Lyu and Zhang (2020) found that in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic, college students choose to obtain positive information when paying attention to social events, which will activate the perception of social responsibility, social support and thinking about life, thus giving birth to a sense of hope, support, admiration, gratitude and other positive emotions. In adversity, if individuals can remind themselves of these positive emotions, they can also resist the impact of negative emotions on their body and mind (Guo et al., 2020; Kumar & Epley, 2018).

Consistent with Hypothesis 4, college students’ resilience indirectly predicts negative stress reaction mainly through the chain mediation of coping style and positive adaptive response during the COVID-19 pandemic. Kumpfer (2002) asserted that in the face of crisis, positive coping style, as an internal factor of resilience, can help individuals transform a high-risk environment into a more protective one. This can produce more adaptive behaviors, and successful adaptation will in turn enhance the individual’s resilience (Feder et al., 2010; Campbell-Sills et al., 2006). Although resilience and coping style are closely related, and both will change with the development and experience of individuals in the cultural structure (Diehl et al., 2014; Glennie, 2010), they are two different structures in terms of their impact on behavior change (Yesilot, 2021). The resilience in response to COVID-19 is reflected in the use of active coping skills (Beames et al., 2021). Trait resilience and use of positive coping strategies are related to decreased depression and anxiety (Zhang et al., 2020). Active coping strategies (such as keeping a daily routine, physical activity, contacting friends and family, accepting COVID-19 crisis, and cognitive restructuring) were associated with reduced distress during the pandemic (Shanahan et al., 2022). Choosing negative coping strategies (such as over-eating, using drugs and alcohol, excessive use of mobile phones, and excessive sleep) may briefly alleviate the pain of self-isolation, but it was harmful in the longer-term (Taylor et al., 2020). The sense of belonging, hope and optimism in the internal factors of resilience acted out their importance during the COVID-19 pandemic. Research presents that adolescents feel more empathy, gratitude, connectedness, kindness and generosity toward others during the pandemic, and are able to find positive aspects in adversity (Beames et al., 2021; Jenkins et al., 2021). Individuals can also provide a promising strategy by maintaining hope, appreciation of life, actively reframing, participating in meaningful activities and other positive adaptive coping responses, and use these positive experiences to help alleviate the negative stress response caused by the pandemic (Tsouvelas et al., 2022).

Contributions, limitations and future directions

The significance of this study is to re-examine how resilience and coping style play a role in coping with major emergencies in the special context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Due to the unknown of the virus and the uncertainty of the pandemic development, college students, regardless of their resilience, would be impacted and in a relative panic. However, individuals with a high level of resilience would choose appropriate positive coping strategies and consciously create positive adaptive responses to alleviate negative stress reactions and keep themselves in a relatively stable and balanced state.

This study has two implications for decision makers. Firstly, when designing intervention programs to enhance resilience, we should focus on the cultivation of individual positive coping styles. Interveners need to help individuals identify their own negative coping strategies (such as avoidance, substance abuse, game addiction, etc.), and promote individuals to use positive coping strategies (such as problem solving, information seeking and social support), in order to actively cope with pressure and change problem situations.

Secondly, in response to major social emergencies, officials can appropriately use traditional media (such as TV, radio, newspapers, etc.) and new media (such as Weibo, Wechat, bilibilibili, Tiktok, etc.) to spread positive coping strategies to help the general population better cope. This will be an effective and convenient way to reduce the occurrence of negative stress reactions.

This study also has some limitations. First of all, this is a cross-sectional study. The development of COVID-19 pandemic is a continuous and dynamic process, and the pandemic situation at the time of investigation will have an impact on the research results. Nevertheless, the data of this study was collected in the relatively early outbreak of the pandemic, and its sudden, severity and uncertainty were obvious, which is still helpful for us to understand the impact of major emergencies on mental health. Secondly, the self-report scale method adopted in this study may not be completely consistent with the evaluation by professionals, but it is indeed a method often used in this special period of pandemic. Third, the data came from college students studying in Shanghai. Although they were all over the country at the time of the test, the current results still cannot be extended to college students in the whole China.

In the future, prospective longitudinal research needs to be designed for further exploration. At the same time, the measurement of coping style can adopt a scale with richer dimensions.