Resilience predicts well-being in teachers, but not in non-teaching employees

The resilience concept has often been criticized as simply reflecting the absence of neuroticism (i. e. vulnerability to stress and negative affectivity). Challenging this point of view, the aim of this study was to show that resilience could predict well-being in teachers above and beyond neuroticism. By contrast, we expected that resilience would not play the same role for non-teaching employees. Here, neuroticism should outperform resilience in predicting well-being, as resilience is supposed to be a special prerequisite for teachers, but not for non-teaching employees. One hundred seventy teachers and 183 non-teaching employees provided measures of resilience, neuroticism, and well-being. The aspects of well-being studied were general health perception, job satisfaction, exhaustion, and physical illness. Results revealed that among teachers, resilience contributed more to the prediction of general health perception than did neuroticism. Variance in job satisfaction was explained equally well by resilience and neuroticism. Physical illness and exhaustion were better predicted by neuroticism. In non-teachers, neuroticism predicted all outcomes better than did resilience. The results emphasize that resilience might be particularly important for the well-being of teachers, whereas for non-teachers, low neuroticism can be enough to maintain well-being. Specific occupational stress patterns experienced by teachers may explain these findings.