1. 272
The aim of the present research was to evaluate a model of mediated moderation vs. moderated mediation that could
explain the relationship between length of unemployment, dispositional resilience, coping styles and depression and
social functioning of Venezuelan unemployed individuals. Self-report measures were administered to a sample of 328
unemployed residents in Caracas,Venezuela. Results indicated that emotional coping acted as a mediator in the relationship
between resilience and depression. Individuals with greater resilience used more detachment coping when unemployment
was longer, while individuals with poorer resilience in the same situation used less avoidance coping. Resilience acted as
a protective moderating factor between longer periods of unemployment and social functioning, a process mediated by
detachment coping. Overall, results supported a mediated moderation model, with resilience as the moderating factor and
coping as the mediator in the relation between stress due to the length of unemployment and well-being.
Keywords: unemployment, resilience, coping styles, health, mediated moderation.
El objetivo de la presente investigación fue evaluar un modelo de moderación mediada vs. mediación moderada que
permitiera explicar la relación entre la duración del desempleo, una medida disposicional de resiliencia, los estilos de
afrontamiento y la depresión y el funcionamiento social percibido en desempleados venezolanos. Para ello se administraron
instrumentos de auto-informe a una muestra de 328 desempleados residentes en la ciudad de Caracas, Venezuela. Los
resultados indicaron que el afrontamiento emocional operó como un factor mediador en la relación entre la resiliencia y la
depresión. Asimismo, las personas más resilientes usan más el afrontamiento por desapego cuando tienen más tiempo
desempleadas, mientras que las personas menos resilientes en esa misma condición hacen menos afrontamiento evitativo.
La resiliencia operó como factor moderador del impacto de la duración del desempleo sobre el funcionamiento social,
actuando como un factor protector, proceso que estuvo mediado por el afrontamiento por desapego emocional. En síntesis,
los resultados apoyan un modelo de moderación mediada, siendo la resiliencia el factor moderador y el afrontamiento el
factor mediador en el impacto del estrés por la duración del desempleado sobre la salud.
Palabras clave: desempleo, resiliencia, estilos de afrontamiento, salud, moderación mediada.
Mediated Moderation or Moderated Mediation:
Relationship between Length of Unemployment,
Resilience, Coping and Health
Víctor Sojo1
and Leticia Guarino2
1
Universidad Central de Venezuela (Venezuela)
2
Universidad Simón Bolívar (Venezuela)
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Víctor Sojo. Cátedra de Psicología Experimental. Escuela de Psicología.
Edificio de la Facultad de Humanidades y Educación. Ciudad Universitaria de Caracas. Los Chaguaramos, Caracas-Venezuela. Código
postal: 1041. Phone: +61-8344-6345. E-mail: victor.sojo@ucv.ve; vsojo@pgrad.unimelb.edu.au
Copyright 2011 by The Spanish Journal of Psychology
ISSN 1138-7416
The Spanish Journal of Psychology
2011, Vol. 14 No. 1, 272-281
doi:10.5209/rev_SJOP.2011.v14.n1.24

2. LENGTH OF UNEMPLOYMENT, RESILIENCE, COPING AND HEALTH 273
Unemployment is a stressful event that can affect
the physical and psychological wellbeing of individuals
(Dooley, Fielding, & Lennart, 1996), depending on their
coping resources and other variables that facilitates or
inhibits its effect. This study was carried out with the aim
to know the relationship between length of unemployment,
a group of positive personality characteristics which form
a dispositional measure of resilience, coping and wellbeing
or health indexes (depression and social dysfunction),
analyzed under a model of mediated moderation vs.
moderated mediation, as described by Muller, Judd, and
Yzerbyt (2005).
Length of unemployment and health
Length of unemployment has been found to have a
negative association with the frequency and time invested
searching for new jobs. The importance attributed to work
(work centrality) and the non-financial job commitment
decrease as time of unemployment increases (Kulik, 2001).
Also, it has been found a relationship between length
of unemployment and cognitive functioning. According
to Alvaro (1992), individuals with longer periods of
unemployment reported needing more time to do the
same things, found it harder to concentrate, and to do their
activities with the same ability as before. Unemployed
individuals also indicated problems to start new tasks,
remain mentally active, remember things, make decisions,
and understand rapidly what other people say. On the other
hand, Artazcoz, Benach, Borrell, and Cortes (2004) did
not find that significant association between the length of
unemployment and mental health.
Probably, the observed differences among these results is
due to the moderating effect of some individual differences
in the relationship between stressful factors (in this case
the length of unemployment) and health, which can be
protective or risk factors depending on the circumstance
(Steptoe, 1991), as well as the mediation that can take
place from other factors such as coping, a variable that has
been used as the most proximal predictor of wellbeing in
different studies regarding stress (see Bethelmy & Guarino,
2008; Guarino, Sojo, & Bethelmy, 2007; Wanberg, 1997).
Coping and health in unemployed individuals
Coping refers to the use of cognitive, emotional
and behavioral resources after a situation is appraised
as threaten or taxing, with the intention of managing it
(Lazarus & Folkman, 1986). Coping is typically classified
in two categories: efforts to deal with the problem or effort
to deal with the emotions (Latack & Havlovic, 1992).
In the research field of unemployment several studies
have been carried out trying to understand the relationship
between this situation, coping and health. Even though
emotional coping have been reported to be related to high
levels of emotional distress or depression in studies with
Scandinavian and Australian unemployed individuals
(Grossi, 1999; Patton & Donohue, 1998), such associations
have not been found with American samples (Kinicki &
Latack, 1990; Wanberg, 1997). Additionally, the use of
escape strategies has been related to less psychological
stress in unemployed Chinese women (Lai & Wong, 1998).
Kinicki and Latack (1990) suggest that escape oriented
coping strategies can be more effective to reduce the impact
ofunemploymentonhealthamonglongtermunemployment,
when the perceived control over the stressor can be lower. In
this condition, the use of proactive job search as a problem-
focused strategy after failing repeatedly can increase stress;
hence the best way to avoid tension is escaping.
The relationship between problem-focused coping and
psychological wellbeing is not less ambiguous. While
Wanberg (1997) and Leana and Feldman (1990) have found
a significant relationship between control-oriented coping
and mental health deterioration, although in Wanberg’s
(1997) case this was found only in individuals with a low
perception of control over the situation and not with those
who perceived they were managing their unemployment
situation. Others like Kinicki and Latack (1990) with
American and Lai and Wong (1998) with Chinese samples
of unemployed individuals could not replicate these results.
On the contrary, in this latter study, problem-focused coping
predicted a reduction in psychological stress and better
mental health. Additionally, it is possible that cultural and
economical contexts where unemployment and coping are
experimented might determine the psychological results of
the process (Lai & Chan, 2002).
The aim of this research was to identify a set of
antecedents and consequences of the coping styles adopted
more frequently by a sample of unemployed individuals.
More specifically, the coping model of Roger, Jarvis, and
Najarian (1993) was adopted in its validated Spanish
version (Guarino et al, 2007). According to these authors,
coping can be evaluated through four factors: Rational
coping (actions directed to solve the problem), Avoidance
coping (ignore the stressful situation that has occurred),
Emotional coping (negative affective responses after the
stressful situations), and Detachment coping (taking an
objective perspective regarding the stressful event and the
emotions associated).
Based on previous research which explain the role of
personality as a resource that determines the coping styles
adopted to deal with stressful events (Carver, Scheier, &
Weintraub, 1989; Guarino, 2004; Wanberg, 1997), and
based on Guarino’s proposal (2009) who suggests that
coping might act as a mediator in a complex model of
moderated mediation, in this research it was also evaluated
whether dispositional resilience predicts specific ways of
coping, which in turn foster changes in the health status of
unemployed individuals.

3. SOJO AND GUARINO274
Resilience in the framework of the Cognitive
Adaptation Theory
In their Cognitive Adaptation Theory, Taylor & Brown
(1988) explain that mentally healthy individuals have
high self-esteem, high perceived control or master over
the environment, and high optimism. Whenever a stressful
event happens, a cognitive adaptation occurs, conceived
as a general and stable dispositional resource to improve
the coping process. This adaptation comprises three
phenomena: firstly, trying to understand why the situation
has happened and its meaning for the own life, which
depending on the interpretation can lead to changes in
one’s meaning of life; secondly, trying to obtain a sense of
control attempting to manage the situation, this could lead
to behavioral changes with the intention to obtain such
control; thirdly, by getting involved in actions to restore
one’s self-esteem (Powell & Self, 2004).
In this way, the central elements of the theory are: 1) the
search for meaning of the experience or event, 2) an attempt
to get control over the situation and its consequences, and
3) the development of positive ideas (about the self and the
environment) to cope with the situation. The final result is
the possible restructuration of the own vision of the world
and of the perception of causes and effects of the event
(Powell & Self, 2004). As can be seen, these elements
are highly related to the three variables with which the
theory has intended to be operationalized, these are self-
esteem, perceived control and optimism (Wanberg, 1997).
These personality characteristics have been nominated as
cognitive adaptation variables, and in previous research,
Aspinwall and Taylor (1992) have proposed a mediation
relationship in which these variables impact on coping,
which in turn influences individuals’ general health.
Wanberg (1997) operationalized the variables of this
theory using the Rosenberg Self-esteem Scale (Rosenberg,
1965), the Life Orientation Test, an optimism scale
developed by Scheier and Carver (1985; revised by Scheier,
Carver, & Bridges, 1994), and the perceived control scale
“Mastery Scale” by Pearlin, Menaghan, Lieberman, and
Mullan (1981; Pearlin & Schooler, 1978) generating a
compound index named “resilience”. This dispositional
measure of resilience was used as a direct predictor of the
strategies to cope with unemployment, which at the same
time should serve in her model as mediators of the impact
of resilience on health.
In Wanberg’s (1997) study participants scoring high in
dispositional resilience used two mayor coping strategies:
non-work organization (management of aspects of the
own life that are not related to work) and positive self-
evaluation. Likewise, high levels in resilience were
associated with better health (evaluated with the short
version of the General Health Questionnaire, Golberg,
1972). Both coping strategies were predictors of better
health, in contrast with the strategy of proactive job
search, which showed a negative association with
general health. At the same time, no relation was found
between escape coping strategies and mental health, in
this case distancing from job loss and work devaluation.
Nevertheless, Wanberg (1997) did not find mediation
effect of the coping strategies in the relationship between
resilience and general health.
The present study
Wanberg’s (1997) results regarding the lack of mediation
effect of the coping strategies in the relationship between
personality and health, as well as the inconsistencies in
the relationships of different measures of personality
and coping, and between this latter and health (Dooley
et al., 1996; McKee-Ryan, Song, Wanberg, & Kinicki,
2005), could be the result of the lack of evaluation of the
moderation effect of these personality characteristics. More
specifically, those studies failed to evaluate the moderation
effect, which requires an initial estimation of the interaction
between the predictor variable, in this case stress due to
unemployment, and the moderator (resilience), as has been
described by different authors (Aguinis, 2004; Baron &
Kenny, 1986; Frazier, Tix, & Barron, 2004). Likewise, in
the cited studies complex relationships among this group of
variables were not established, which is possible if a joint
model to evaluate mediated moderation vs. moderated
mediation is planned to determine the combine impact of
individual differences and ways of coping on the health of
individuals experiencing stressful events.
It is also possible for personality variables, coping styles
and stress to have different impacts on different indexes of
health. In this way, the result obtained measuring health
with depression and social dysfunction indexes separately
was expected to divert from those obtained with a unique
measure of global health.
In the present research, the analytical strategy of
Muller et al. (2005) was used with the aim to evaluate
at the same time a model of mediated moderation and
moderated mediation, that can determine the interaction
between resilience and length of unemployment in their
effect on health, specifically indicators of depression
(constant sentiments of hopeless and handicap) and
social dysfunction (difficulties with making decisions,
maintaining oneself active, and being satisfied with daily
activities), through the mediation of coping. In this way,
resilience was expected to moderate the effect of the length
of unemployment on depression and social dysfunction, a
process that was hypothesized to be mediated by coping,
assuming also the possibility of an interaction between
resilience and coping in their ultimate effect on these two
indicators of health.

4. LENGTH OF UNEMPLOYMENT, RESILIENCE, COPING AND HEALTH 275
Method
Participants
The 328 surveyed unemployed individuals were
residents of the Capital District of Venezuela, 50.6% were
men (n = 166) and 49.4% women (n = 162); mean age was
31 years old (ranging from 18 to 65 years old; SD = 9.43)
and in average they had been unemployed for one year
(ranging from 1 month to 11 years; SD = 1.57). Participants
were contacted directly in the waiting rooms of two
different job agencies, one of the Ministry of Work, and a
Non-governmental Organization, both dedicated to counsel,
train and find jobs for unemployed individuals.
Instruments
–– Demographics variables: evaluated through direct
questions in the survey, after the informed consent
letter and before presenting the other two scales.
Participants were asked for their age, gender and
time of unemployment in months.
–– Coping Styles Questionnaire (CSQ- Spanish version
of Guarino, Sojo, & Bethelmy, 2007). This 40 item
questionnaire measures the individuals’ coping
dispositions in four dimensions: Emotional Coping
(EMO), Rational Coping (RAT), Detachment Coping
(DET), and Avoidance Coping (AVO). Means
across all relevant items per scale were obtained,
higher scores on these dimensions reflect that the
individual reacts frequently with that style to manage
stressful situations, ranging from 1 = Never to
4 = Always.
–– Resilience: the compound index of resilience as a
positive personality characteristic, was obtained
from three instruments: “Life Orientation Test”
(Scheier&Carver,1985;SpanishversionofFerrando,
Chico, & Tous, 2002) consists of 10 items describing
how positive the perception of the surrounding
world is for the individual. Rosenberg Self-Esteem
Scale (1965), consists of 10 items addressing the
perceived value of the self. Mastery Scale (Pearlin,
Menaghan, Lieberman, & Mullan, 1981), consists of
7 items referring to the beliefs about the mastery the
individual has over the environment. For the three
scales participants indicated their level of agreement
with each item, ranging from 1 = Strongly disagree
to 4 = Strongly agree. Means across all relevant
items per scale were obtained, higher scores indicate
more presence of the personality characteristic.
–– Depression and Social Dysfunction Sub-scales from
the GHQ- General Health Questionnaire – (Spanish
version of Molina & Andrade, 2002). This scale
consists of 28 items which describe symptoms
of anxiety, somatization, depression and social
dysfunction, to which participants have to report the
frequency of occurrence in the last weeks, ranging
from 4 = No at all, to 1 = More than the habitual
(Goldberg, 1972; Molina & Andrade, 2002). Means
across all relevant items per scale were obtained,
higher scores reflect better health.
Alpha Coefficients for internal consistency of the scales
are presented in table 1. The coefficients of the optimism,
detachment coping, avoidance coping and rational coping
scales presented values from α = .500 to α = .700, which
can be a limitation of this study and results involving these
scales should be interpreted with care.
Procedure
A questionnaire-based cross-sectional study was
carried out, collecting information during 6 months. Two
clinical psychologists working as research assistants
asked unemployed individuals looking for jobs at the two
agencies to answer the questionnaires in the same order
as they were described above in this article. The research
assistants explained each participant the nature of the study
and that their participation was completely voluntary and
non-related to the services of the institutions where they
were contacted.
Data Analysis
Considering Wanberg’s (1997) proposal regarding
the measure of resilience and that in the present study
correlations between the scales of self-esteem, optimism
and perceived control were higher than r = .500 (see table
1), these variables were transformed into z standardized
scores, in order to generate an average score of the three,
which was used as a compound measure of dispositional
resilience, as was explained in the introduction. Taking into
account the results from gender and age as factors related
to other studied variables (see table 1) it was decided to
control for them, introducing them in the first step of the
regression analyses conducted. Descriptive statistics of the
variables are also presented in table 1.
Using the guidelines of Aiken and West (1991) and
Friedrich (1982) to estimate interaction effects using
multiple regression, all variables were transformed into
z standardized scores, and gender into a dummy variable,
analyzing the unstandardized b coefficients.
Following Muller et al.’s (2005) description regarding
the evaluation of the processes of moderated mediation vs.
mediated moderation, equations were calculated to evaluate
the direct effect of gender, age, length of unemployment
(LU) and dispositional resilience (Res), likewise their
interaction on each of the health indices (equation 1) and
on each of the coping styles (Cop) separately (equation
2). Then, a regression for each of the health indexes

5. SOJO AND GUARINO276
was calculated which included gender, age, length of
unemployment, resilience, the interaction term between
these last two, the coping style which should be used as
mediator and the term of interaction between the specific
coping style and the measure of resilience (equation 3). The
latter means that equation 3 was calculated for each coping
style separately. Mathematical formulations of the three
equations are presented next:
YHealth
= b10
+ b11
Gender + b12
Age +b13
LU + b14
Res + b15
LURes + e1
(1)
YCop
= b20
+ b21
Gender + b22
Age +b23
LU + b24
Res + b25
LURes + e2
(2)
YHealth
= b30
+ b31
Gender + b32
Age +b33
LU + b34
Res + b35
LURes +b36
COP
+ b37
COPRes + e3
(3)
According to Muller et at. (2005), to have evidence of
a mediated moderation, the term of interaction between the
independent variable (length of unemployment) and the
moderator (resilience) in its effect on the criterion variable
(index of health) must be significant (equation 1). Then, at
least one of the following patterns must be present, either
both the interaction term between the independent variable
and the moderator in its effect on the mediator (coping
styles) (equation 2), and the direct effect of the mediator on
the criterion variable in equation 3 (complete model) must
be significant, or both the effect of the independent variable
on the mediator (equation 2) and the interaction term
between the mediator and the moderator in its effect on the
criterion in equation 3 must be significant. Furthermore,
in all these cases, the interaction term of the independent
variable and the moderator should not be significant in its
effect on the criterion variable in equation 3.
According to the cited authors, in cases of moderated
mediation it is expected a direct significant effect of the
independent variable (length of unemployment) on the
criterion variable (index of health) in equation 1, and
the interaction term of the independent variable and the
moderator (resilience) on the criterion variable must be non-
significant. Then, at least one of the two following pattern
of results must occur, one significant interaction between
the independent variable (length of unemployment) and
the moderator (resilience) in their effect on the mediator
(coping styles) in equation 2, followed by a partial effect
of the mediator on the criterion variable in equation 3, or a
significant interaction between the mediator (coping styles)
and the moderator (resilience) in their partial effect on the
criterion variable, when the direct effect of these variables,
of the independent variable and the interaction between
the independent and the moderator (equation 3) have been
controlled for, preceded by a direct significant effect of the
independent variable on the mediator in equation 2.
Results
This section has been structured based on the two
health indexes studied (depression and social dysfunction),
presenting for each one only significant results of the
equations 1, 2 and 3 described above. Equation 2 was
calculated for each one of the four coping styles and results
will be presented only if they are significant, if they are
relevant to the description of its mediating role or if their
impact on health is moderated by the measure of resilience.
Likewise, R2
of the equation with their significance test
are presented only when b are indicated for the first time,
in order to express the total variance explained for all the
variables included, this information was not repeated when
referring again to the same b.
Regarding depression, results indicated a partial
mediation of emotional coping in the impact of resilience
on the symptoms of depression of unemployed individuals.
Specifically, significant relations were observed in equation
2, F(6,295) = 21.99, p < .01, R2
= .31, between dispositional
resilience and emotional coping, b = -.65, t(291) = -11.16, p
< .01, and in equation 1, F(6,283) = 8.03, p < .01, R2
= .15,
Table 1
Descriptive Statistics, Alpha Coefficients, t Test for Gender and Pearson Correlations between the variables
Variables
M SD α
t Test
Gender
M
Women
M
Men 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1 Self-esteem 3.37 0.48 .756 -0.431 3.35 3.38
2 Optimism 3.12 0.50 .535 -0.375 3.11 3.13 .576**
3 Perceived control 3.21 0.54 .732 0.712 3.23 3.19 .618** .559**
4 Resilience 0.00 0.85 - 0.174 0.01 0.00 .862** .838** .853**
5 Detachment Coping 2.49 0.40 .593 -1.021 2.47 2.52 .110* .151** .084 .136*
6 Emotional Coping 1.97 0.49 .776 0.443 1.99 1.96 -.550** -.332** -.512** -.550** .055
7 Avoidance Coping 2.71 0.73 .679 1.150 2.76 2.66 -.161** -.091 -.226** -.187** .236** .313**
8 Rational Coping 3.14 0.45 .686 -2.242* 3.08 3.19 .247** .154** .226** .249** .377** -.100 .026
9 Social Dysfunction 3.25 0.49 .803 -2.132* 3.19 3.31 .177** .106 .114* .153** .178** -.201** -.011 .184**
10 Depression 3.77 0.49 .886 0.353 3.78 3.76 .375** .234** .370** .387** .008 -.433** -.147** .131* .498**
11 Age 30.85 9.43 - -1.028 30.31 31.38 -.092 .009 -.051 -.056 .041 .098 .038 .075 -.188** -.028
12 Length of Unemployment 0.97 1.58 - 2.091* 1.17 0.79 -.138* -.140* -.124* -.157** -.002 .096** -.076 .011 -.156** -.059 .250**
**p < .01; *p < .05.

6. LENGTH OF UNEMPLOYMENT, RESILIENCE, COPING AND HEALTH 277
between resilience and depression, b = .45, t(289) = 6.79, p <
.01, which in equation 3, F(8,281) = 10.65, p < .01, R2
= .23,
decreased its absolute value, while the association between
emotional coping and health is still significant, b = -.29,
t(289) = -4.34, p < .01. Sobel test (Preacher y Hayes, 2004)
was t = 4.04, p < .001, which indicates a significant indirect
partial effect of dispositional resilience on depression
through emotional coping. Another interesting result was
found in the interaction between emotional coping and
resilience in their effect on depression in equation 3, b =
.13, t(289) = 2.34, p < .05). Calculating the simple slopes
for this interaction (Preacher et al., 2006) the two predictors
were dichotomized based on the medium score for each one
± 1 SD, this procedure was followed for the calculation and
graphic representations of all the simple slopes in this study.
It was observed in this case that individuals who scored
high in resilience (more than 1 SD above the medium score)
did not show significantly more depression when they used
emotional coping (b = -.16, t = 1.65, p > .05). Nevertheless,
in the case of individuals with low resilience scores (more
than 1 SD below the medium) there was more depression
when they used emotional coping (b = -.42, t = 5.62, p <
.01). This relation is illustrated in figure 1.
For detachment coping, in equation 2, F(6,295) = 2.49,
p < .05, R2
= .05, it can be observed that people more
resilient also showed more this kind of coping style (b =
.17, t(291) = 2.42, p < .05) and a significant interaction was
present between the length of unemployment and resilience
in their impact on this type of coping, b = .14, t(291) = 2.41,
p < .05. The simple slopes for this interaction (Preacher et al.,
2006), revealed that individuals with more resilience (more
than 1 SD above the medium) showed higher detachment
for longer periods of unemployment (b = .19, t = 1.99, p <
.05). However, in the case of individuals with low resilience
scores (more than 1 SD below the medium) even though the
slope is negative, there is no significant relationship between
length of unemployment and detachment coping (b = -.09,
t = 1.24, p > .05). This relation is illustrated in figure 2.
For avoidance coping, in equation 2, F(6,295) = 3.84,
p < .01, R2
= .07, a significant relationship was found with
gender, women used more this type of coping than men,
b = -.17, t(291) = -2.02, p < .05, and at the same time this
type of coping was negatively associated with resilience,
b = -.25, t(291) = -3.63, p < .01, and a significant
interaction was found between length of unemployment
and resilience in their impact on avoidance coping, b = .15,
t(291) = 2.55, p < .05.The simple slopes for this interaction
(Preacher et al., 2006) showed that for people with more
resilience (more than 1 SD above the medium) there was
no relationship between avoidance coping and length of
unemployment (b = .05, t = 0.52, p > .05). On the other
hand, for individuals with low scores in resilience (more
than 1 SD below the medium) there was a significant and
negative relationship between length of unemployment
and avoidance coping (b = -.25, t = -3.36, p < .01). The
relation is illustrated in figure 3.
Figure 1. Interaction between resilience and emotional
coping in their effect on depression
Figure 2. Interaction between resilience and length of
unemployment in their effect on detachment coping.
Figure 3. Interaction between resilience and length of
unemployment in their effect on avoidance coping
-1
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Short Long
DetachmentCoping
Lengthof unemployment
ResHigh
ResLow
-1
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Long Short
AvoidanceCoping
Lengthof unemployment
ResHigh
ResLow
-1
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Short Long
DetachmentCoping
Lengthof unemployment
ResHigh
ResLow
-1
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Long Short
AvoidanceCoping
Lengthof unemployment
ResHigh
ResLow
-1
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Low High
Depression
Emotional Coping
ResHigh
ResLow

7. SOJO AND GUARINO278
In the prediction of social dysfunction, it was
observed in equation 1, F(6,285) = 5.18, p < ,01, R2
=
.10, that younger people described themselves as more
socially adjusted, b = -.22, t(291) = -3.71, p < .01, and
this relation was held after controlling for all the other
variables in equation 3. On the other hand, more resilient
individuals also had a better social functioning, b = .15,
t(291) = 2.13, p < .05, and a significant interaction was
found between length of unemployment and resilience in
their impact on health, b = .13, t(291) = 2.11, p < .05, as
was observed in equation 1.
The simple slopes of the interaction between resilience
and length of unemployment (Preacher et al., 2006) showed
that people with higher resilience (more than 1 SD above
the medium) had a better social functioning regardless of
their length of unemployment (b = .05, t = 0.56, p > .05).
On the other side, people with lower resilience (more than
1 SD below the medium) had a worse social functioning
(b=-.20,t=-2.43,p<.05)whenthelengthofunemployment
was longer. The relation is illustrated in figure 4.
Results suggested a possible mediating role of emotional
coping in the impact resilience had on social dysfunction
of the unemployed participants. Specifically, significant
relationshipswereobservedinequation2betweenresilience
and emotional coping, b = -.65, t(291) = -11.16, p < .01, and
between resilience and social dysfunction, b = .15, t(291) =
2.13, p < .05, in equation 1, which became non-significant
when the other factors were controlled for, b = .03, t(291)
= 0.41, p > .05, while in equation 3, F(8,283) = 4.82, p <
.01, R2
= .12, the relationship between emotional coping
and social dysfunction remained marginal, b = -.13, t(291)
= -1.77, p = .08. Considering this possibility, the Sobel test
was conducted, which was t = 1.75 p = .08, suggesting not
enough evidence of mediation.
On the other hand, there were signs of the mediating
role of detachment coping in the impact resilience had
on social dysfunction of the sample. A path of significant
relationshipswaspresentbetweenresilienceanddetachment
coping in equation 2, b = .17, t(291) = 2.42, p < .05, and
between resilience and social dysfunction in equation 1,
b = .15, t(291) = 2.13, p < .05, which turned non-significant,
b = .11, t(291) = 1.55, p > .05, while the relationship
between detachment coping and social dysfunction stayed
the same, b = .14, t(291) = 2.38, p < .05, in equation 3.
Even more interesting is the fact that there was an
interaction between length of unemployment and resilience
in their effect on detachment coping in equation 2, b = .14,
t(291) = 2.41, p < .05, preceded by an interaction between
length of unemployment and resilience in their effect on
social dysfunction in equation 1, b = .13, t(291) = 2.11, p
< .05, which turned non-significant, b = .10, t(291) = 1.65,
p > .05, while the relationship between detachment coping
and social dysfunction remained the same in equation 3,
b = .14, t(291) = 2.38, p < .05. These results indicated a
moderating role of resilience in the relationship between
length of unemployment and social dysfunction, which at
the same time was mediated by detachment coping, in other
words, a case of mediated moderation (Muller et al., 2005).
Moreover, there were signs of the mediating role that
rational coping could play in the impact resilience had on
social dysfunction. A path of significant relationships was
observed in equation 2, F(6,295) = 4.35, p < .01 R2
= .08,
between resilience and rational coping, b = .31, t(291) =
4.63, p < .01, and between resilience and social dysfunction
in equation 1, b = .15, t(291) = 2.13, p < .05, which turned
non-significant, b = .06, t(291) = 0.87, p > .05, in equation
3, F(8,283) = 5.84, p < .01, R2
= .14, while the relationship
between rational coping and social dysfunction stayed
significant, b = .20, t(291) = 3.46, p < .01. However, the
interaction between length of unemployment and resilience
in their effect on social dysfunction was still significant
even after controlling for rational coping, b = .14, t(291) =
2.43, p < .05. The Sobel test was t = 1.07, p > .05.
Discussion
Theaimofthepresentstudywastoexaminethepossibility
of mediated moderation and moderated mediation effects
in the relationship between length of unemployment as a
stressful event and health indexes in Venezuelan unemployed
individuals, assuming resilience as a moderator and coping
styles as mediators of the process. Among the four coping
styles explored, emotional coping works as mediator in
the relationship between resilience and individuals’ health.
Specifically, participants with lower resilience, that is
individuals who evaluate themselves more negatively, who
are less optimistic, and who perceive having less control over
the environment, adopt more emotional coping and react
with more negative affectivity than those higher in resilience,
resulting all this in more depressive symptoms.
Figure 4. Interaction between resilience and duration of
unemployment in their effect on social dysfunction.
-1
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Long Short
AvoidanceCoping
Lengthof unemployment
ResHigh
ResLow
-1
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Short Long
SocialDysfunction
Lengthof unemployment
ResHigh
ResLow

8. LENGTH OF UNEMPLOYMENT, RESILIENCE, COPING AND HEALTH 279
On the other hand, an interaction between dispositional
resilience and emotional coping in their effect on
depression was also found, which means that people who
evaluate themselves positively, are optimistic and keep
a sense of personal control over situations, show less
depressive symptoms, even when dealing with stress using
more emotional coping, compared with those lower in
resilience. This result can be seen as counterintuitive, due
to the fact that positive and negative emotions are occurring
at the same time, however Folkman (2008) and Folkman
and Moskowitz (2000) explain that it is possible and also
necessary for positive emotions to be experimented during
stressful events, even more if these are for longer periods
of time and generate negative affective responses. Possibly,
the experience of positive affect during coping with stressful
events could interrupt the process of rumination, typical of
negative emotional coping, which has been related to more
mental deterioration in other studies (Brosschot, Pieper, &
Thayer, 2005; Herrera & Guarino, 2008).
At the same time, it was also found that under longer
periods of unemployment individuals with higher
resilience use more detachment coping, while people
with lower resilience use less avoidance coping in similar
circumstances. These results illustrate how resilient people
who experience stressful situation for long time adopt a
useful mechanism to protect themselves from the situation,
which means taking emotional distance from the event, in
order to experience less negative emotions in a situation
that can be uncontrollable. On the contrary, people with
lower resilience use more avoidance coping in shorter
periods of unemployment, which can put in risk their re-
employment opportunities, but the use of this resource is
less frequent in longer periods of unemployment, which
means that they stop escaping as time goes by, a response
that can be harmful for mental health during unemployment
(Kinicki & Latack, 1990).
Overall, resilience acted as a protective factor of the
social functioning for longer periods of unemployment.
Individuals high in resilience keep making important
decisions in their lives and feel satisfied with themselves
and with what they do regardless of how long they have
been unemployed for, while the social functioning of
people low in resilience can be affected by longer periods
of unemployment. Even more, this relationship is mediated
by detachment coping, which means that individuals high
in resilience use detachment coping in periods of longer
unemployment, which helps them to function cognitively
well and feel satisfy with themselves, contrary to those
individuals low in resilience. This is an example of mediated
moderation according to Muller et al. (2005).
Inthesameway,rationalcopingmediatedtherelationship
between resilience and social functioning. Individuals who
evaluate themselves positively, are more optimistic and
have higher perceived control of their circumstances use
more coping strategies oriented to the problem, which is
associated to a better social adjustment under the experience
of unemployment. In synthesis, a higher resilience seems
to activate more rational ways of coping with more clear
perspective of reality, protecting unemployed individuals
from impairment of their social functioning, keeping them
more active, with better decision making resources and in
general with more satisfaction, even during their difficult
circumstance. Similar results regarding the protective effect
of resilience and adaptive ways of coping on the mental
health of unemployed individuals were reported by Kinicki
and Latack (1990) with American and Lai and Wong
(1998) with Chinese samples. In general, similar results
were reported by other studies with different populations
(Beasley, Thompson, & Davidson, 2003; Campbell-Sills,
Cohan & Stein, 2006).
The relevance of the present study consists not only
in confirming previous results regarding the impact of
resilience and certain forms of coping on individuals’
health in stressful circumstances, but also for analyzing
the interactions between those variables in a model of
mediated moderation, which assumes the interaction
between stressful events and individual differences acting
as antecedents in the adoption of particular ways of coping,
which results in the maintenance or deterioration of health
during the experience of stress.
References
Aguinis, H. (2004). Regression Analysis for categorical
moderators. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Aiken, L., & West, S. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and
interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, USA: Sage.
Álvaro, J. (1992). Desempleo y bienestar psicológico
[Unemployment and psychological well-being]. Madrid:
Siglo XXI.
Artazcoz, L., Benach, J., Borrell, C., & Cortes, I. (2004).
Unemployment and Mental Health: Understanding the
Interactions Among Gender, Family Roles, and Social Class.
American Journal of Public Health, 94(1), 82-88. doi:10.2105/
AJPH.94.1.82
Aspinwall, L., & Taylor, S. (1992). Modeling cognitive adaptation:
A longitudinal investigation of the impact of individual
differences and coping on college adjustment and performance.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 989-1003.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.63.6.989
Baron, R., & Kenny, D. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable
distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual,
strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182. doi:10.1037/0022-
3514.51.6.1173
Beasley, M., Thompson, T., & Davidson, J. (2003). Resilience
in response to life stress: The effects of coping style and
cognitive hardiness. Personality and Individual Differences,
34, 77-95. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00027-2

9. SOJO AND GUARINO280
Bethelmy, L., & Guarino, L. (2008). Afrontamiento y sensibilidad
emocional como moderadores de la relación estrés-salud en
médicos venezolanos [Coping and emotional sensitivity as
moderators of the stress-health relationship among Venezuelan
doctors]. Summa Psicológica UST, 5, 3-16.
Brosschot, J. Pieper, S., & Thayer, J. (2005). Expanding stress
theory: prolonged activation and perseverative cognition.
Psychoneuroendocrinology, 30, 1043-1049. doi:10.1016/j.
psyneuen.2005.04.008
Campbell-Sills, L., Cohan, S., & Stein, M. (2006). Relationship of
resilience to personality, coping and psychiatric symptoms in
young adults. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 44, 585-599.
doi:10.1016/j.brat.2005.05.001
Carver, C., Scheier, M., & Weintraub, J. (1989). Assessing
coping strategies: A theoretically based approach. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 267-283. doi:10.
1037/0022-3514.56.2.267
Dooley, D., Fielding, J., & Lennart, L. (1996). Health and
unemployment. Annual Review of Public Health, 17, 449-465.
doi:10.1146/annurev.pu.17.050196.002313
Ferrando, P., Chico, E., & Tous, J. (2002). Propiedades
psicométricas del test de optimismo Life Orientation
Test [Psychometric properties of the optimism scale Life
Orientation Test]. Psicothema, 14(3), 673-680.
Folkman, S. (2008). The case for positive emotions in the stress
process. Anxiety, Stress, & Coping, 21(1), 3-14. doi:10.1080/
10615800701740457
Folkman, S., & Moskowitz, J. (2000). Positive Affect and the
Other Side of Coping. American Psychologist, 55(6), 647-654.
doi:10.1037/0003-066X.55.6.647
Frazier, P.A., Tix,A. P., & Barron, K. E. (2004). Testing moderator
and mediator effects in Counseling Psychology. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 51(1), 115-134. doi:10.1037/0022-01
67.51.1.115
Friedrich, R. J. (1982). In defense of multiplicative terms in
multiple regression equations. American Journal of Political
Science, 26, 797-833. doi:10.2307/2110973
Goldberg, D. (1972). The Detection of Psychiatric Illness by
Questionnaire. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Grossi, G. (1999). Coping and Emotional Distress in a Sample of
Swedish Unemployed. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology,
40, 157-165. doi:10.1111/1467-9450.00113
Guarino, L. (2004). Emotional Sensitivity: a new measure of
emotional lability and its moderating role in the stress-illness
relationship. (Unpublished doctoral thesis). University of
York, UK.
Guarino, L. (2009). Validación del modelo de sensibilidad
emocional. Propuesta de un modelo de mediación moderada
[Validation of the emotional sensitivity model. Proposal of
a moderated mediation model]. Unpublished manuscript,
Universidad Simón Bolívar, Caracas, Venezuela.
Guarino, L., Sojo, V., & Bethelmy, L. (2007). Adaptación y
validación preliminar de la versión hispana del CSQ (Coping
Style Questionnaire) [Adaptation and preliminary validity of
the Hispanic version of the CSQ (Coping Style Questionnaire)].
Psicología Conductual, 15, 173-189.
Herrera, V., & Guarino, L. (2008). Personalidad, estrés y salud
en cadetes navales venezolanos [Personality, stress and health
in Venezuelan navy officials]. Universitas Psicológica, 7(1),
185-198.
Kinicki, A., & Latack, J. (1990). Explication of the construct
of coping with involuntary job loss. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 36, 339-360. doi:10.1016/0001-8791(90)90036-2
Kulik, L. (2001). Impact of length of unemployment and age on
jobless men and women: a comparative analysis. Journal of
Employment Counseling, 38(3), 15-27.
Lai, J., & Chan, R. (2002). The effects of job-search motives
and coping on psychological health and re-employment: a
study of unemployed Hong Kong Chinese. International
Journal of Human Resource Management, 13(3), 465-483.
doi:10.1080/09585190110111486
Lai, J., & Wong, W. (1998). Optimism and Coping with
Unemployment among Hong Kong Chinese Women. Journal
of Research in Personality, 32, 454-479. doi:10.1006/jrpe.
1998.2232
Latack, J., & Havlovic, S. (1992). Coping with job stress: A
conceptual evaluation framework for coping measures.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 479-508. doi:10.1002/
job.4030130505
Lazarus, R., & Folkman, S. (1986). Estrés y procesos cognitivos
[Stress and psychological processes]. Barcelona, Spain:
Martínez Roca.
Leana, C., & Feldman, D. (1990). Individual Responses to Job
Loss: Empirical Findings from Two Field Studies. Human
Relations, 43, 1155-1181. doi:10.1177/001872679004301107
McKee-Ryan, F., Song, Z., Wanberg, C., & Kinicki, A. (2005).
Psychological and physical well-being during unemployment:
A meta-analytic study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(1),
53-76. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.90.1.53
Molina, J., & Andrade, C. (2002). La estructura factorial del GHQ-
60 en una muestra de población general: una versión escalar
para población española [Factorial structure of the GHQ-60 in
a simple of general population: A scalar version for Spanish
population]. Revista Internacional On-line, 1(2). Retrieved
from: http://www.bibliopsiquis.com/asmr/0102/0102lef.htm
Muller, D., Judd, C., & Yzerbyt, V. (2005). When moderation is
mediated and mediation is moderated. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 89(6), 852-863. doi:10.1037/0022-
3514.89.6.852
Patton, W., & Donohue, R. (1998). Coping with Long-
term Unemployment. Journal of Community & Applied
Social Psychology, 8, 331-343. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-
1298(1998090)
Pearlin, L., Menaghan, E., Lieberman, M., & Mullan, J. (1981).
The stress process. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 22,
337-356. doi:10.2307/2136676
Pearlin, L., & Schooler, C. (1978). The structure of coping. Journal
of Health and Social Behavior, 19, 2-21. doi:10.2307/2136539
Powell, L., & Self, W. (2004). Personalized fear, personalized
control, and reactions to the September 11 attacks. North
American Journal of Psychology, 6(1), 55-70.
Preacher, K. J., Curran, P. J., & Bauer, D. J. (2006). Computational

10. LENGTH OF UNEMPLOYMENT, RESILIENCE, COPING AND HEALTH 281
tools for probing interaction effects in multiple linear
regression, multilevel modeling, and latent curve analysis.
Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 31, 437-448.
doi:10.3102/10769986031004437
Preacher, K., & Hayes, A. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures
for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models.
Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers,
36(4), 717-731. doi:10.3758/BF03206553
Roger, D., Jarvis, G., & Najarian, B. (1993). Detachment and
coping: the construction and validation of a new scale for
measuring coping strategies. Personality and Individual
Differences, 15, 619-626. doi:10.1016/0191-8869(93)90003-L
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-Image.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Retrieved from
http://www.macses.ucsf.edu/research/psychosocial/notebook/
self-steem.html
Scheier, M., & Carver, C. (1985). Optimism, coping, and
health: assessment and implications of generalized outcome
expectancies. Health Psychology, 4, 219-247. doi:10.1037/
0278-6133.4.3.219
Scheier, M., Carver, C., & Bridges, M. (1994). Distinguishing
optimism from neuroticism (and trait anxiety, self-mastery,
and self-esteem): A reevaluation of the Life Orientation Test.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 1063-1078.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.67.6.1063
Steptoe,A. (1991). The links between stress and illness. Journal of
Psychosomatic Research, 35(6), 633-644. doi:10.1016/0022-
3999(91)90113-3
Taylor, S., & Brown, J. (1988). Illusion and well-being: A social
psychological perspective on mental health. Psychological
Bulletin, 103, 193-210. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.103.2.193
Wanberg,C.(1997).Antecedentsandoutcomesofcopingbehaviors
among unemployed and reemployed individuals. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 82(5), 731-744. doi:10.1037/0021-
9010.82.5.731
Received May 30, 2009
Revision received July 20, 2010
Accepted October 20, 2010