Resilience Profiles of Teachers: Associations with Psychological Characteristics and Demographic Variables

Abstract

This study aimed to examine what makes a teacher resilient by investigating the psychological and contextual characteristics that distinguish more resilient educators from their peers. Specifically, it explored the relationships of psychological resilience with emotional intelligence, meaning in life, burnout, and self-efficacy among primary and secondary school teachers. Drawing on data from two independent but methodologically aligned studies (N = 222 and N = 407, respectively), cluster analyses identified two distinct teacher profiles in each study: high-resilience and lower-resilience. Teachers in the high-resilience group consistently reported higher emotional intelligence (in Study 1), greater self-efficacy, and lower levels of burnout (in Study 2). Interestingly, while the presence of meaning in life did not differ significantly between groups, high-resilience teachers were more actively engaged in the search for meaning (in Study 1). Analyses of teachers’ demographics revealed modest associations between resilience and gender or marital status, with women and partnered individuals more frequently represented in the high-resilience profile. No significant differences were observed concerning age, experience, or educational background. These findings support theoretical models that conceptualize resilience as a dynamic, multidimensional construct shaped by emotional, motivational, and social resources rather than fixed demographic traits. Implications for teacher training, institutional policy, and future resilience research are discussed.

1. Introduction

A growing body of international research has highlighted the intensifying pressures experienced by teachers in the 21st century. Across diverse educational contexts, teachers face mounting demands resulting from ongoing reforms, socio-political instability, diminishing professional status, and limited opportunities for advancement (Flores, 2020). These chronic stressors, compounded by deteriorating working conditions, have placed teachers’ well-being at risk. Nevertheless, while some teachers struggle to cope or gradually disengage from their professional roles, others demonstrate a remarkable capacity for psychological resilience.

Psychological resilience has emerged as a critical construct in understanding teachers’ ability to navigate the emotional and professional complexities of the occupation. Increasingly, studies have examined its relationship with related psychological factors, including burnout, emotional intelligence, self-efficacy, and meaning in life (Daniilidou et al., 2020; H. Liu et al., 2024; Platsidou & Daniilidou, 2021; Wang et al., 2024). Despite the growing interest in teacher resilience and its associations with psychological and professional variables, a lack of integrated, comparative studies remains, which systematically examine how highly resilient teachers differ from their less resilient counterparts in related psychological and demographic variables. Existing research often treats resilience in isolation or focuses on bivariate associations, overlooking the complex interplay of emotional, cognitive, and contextual factors that distinguish resilience profiles.

The present study aims to address these gaps by integrating data from two independent but methodologically aligned studies. This decision was intentional and grounded in both methodological and substantive considerations. The study is based on two parallel investigations that analyze different samples, allowing for a different approach than usual and providing more generalizable and viable data for the variables under study. While both studies employed the same validated resilience measure and similar analytical procedures, they were designed to capture complementary perspectives on teacher resilience. Study 1 focused on exploring resilience in relation to emotional intelligence and meaning in life among both primary and secondary school teachers in a pre-pandemic context, whereas Study 2 examined resilience in relation to burnout and self-efficacy among primary school teachers during the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. This dual design not only enabled replication of the core resilience profiling approach across distinct samples, strengthening the robustness and generalizability of findings, but also facilitated the examination of context-specific associations with different psychological constructs. It is also novel and original in the field, as, although teacher resilience has been widely studied, few investigations integrate and compare different psychological factors and sociodemographic variables in this way. Therefore, integrating insights from both studies provided a richer and more nuanced understanding of teacher resilience, highlighting both stable patterns across contexts and variations that may emerge in response to differing professional and societal conditions.

Such a comprehensive and person-centered approach is both timely and necessary. Theoretically, it supports integrative models of teacher resilience, which suggest the interaction between emotional, motivational, and contextual variables. Practically, it informs the design of tailored interventions aimed at strengthening resilience, particularly among educators who are most at risk of burnout and professional withdrawal.

1.1. Teacher Psychological Resilience

The concept of teacher psychological resilience has shifted from being seen as a fixed trait to a dynamic, multifaceted process of positive adaptation to ongoing challenges (Hascher et al., 2021). Rather than simply enduring adversity, resilient teachers actively flourish in their profession by drawing on both internal and external resources (Beltman et al., 2011). Drawing on situational analysis, Drew and Sosnowski (2019) proposed a theory of teacher psychological resilience characterized by three central tenets. First, resilient teachers are deeply rooted in their school communities, leveraging a strong sense of purpose to navigate obstacles and capitalize on supportive conditions. Second, they demonstrate an adaptive mindset by embracing ambiguity and reframing adverse events as opportunities for growth. This reframing process allows them to maintain a sense of agency and balance in the face of both limiting and empowering factors. Lastly, they rely on meaningful relationships with colleagues, students, and school leaders as vital sources of strength and support when confronting adversity.

The protective factors contributing to teachers’ psychological resilience are generally classified into two overarching domains: internal (personal) and external (environmental). According to Mansfield et al. (2016), the internal domain comprises two key components: (a) individual resources and motivational drivers, and (b) strategies employed to activate and apply these resources. Within the first component, personal attributes such as emotional regulation, stress management, emotional intelligence, humor, optimism, and extroversion are closely linked to higher resilience (Beltman, 2021; Peixoto et al., 2018). Intrinsic motivators, such as joy in teaching, meaningful student relationships, a commitment to professional growth, and goal setting, also play a crucial role in sustaining resilience (Daniilidou, 2023; Flores, 2020). The second component involves the adaptive strategies that teachers use to restore balance during adversity, including adjusting instructional methods, applying problem-solving skills, seeking social support, and practicing emotional detachment (Daniilidou, 2023; Fan et al., 2021). Turning to external protective factors, Gu (2018) identified three core relational domains central to teachers’ professional experiences: the teacher-student relationship, the collegial relationship among teachers, and the relationship between teachers and school leadership. Beyond the formal school context, additional sources of support, such as family, friends, and spiritual or community networks, have also been recognized as critical buffers that contribute to the development and reinforcement of teacher resilience (Papatraianou & Le Cornu, 2014).

Building on their extensive research into teachers’ psychological resilience, Mansfield et al. (2012) integrated the aforementioned protective factors into a comprehensive four-dimensional framework that explains what constitutes a resilient teacher. This model conceptualizes resilience as a multidimensional construct, reflecting the complex interplay of personal and professional elements that support teachers in navigating their careers effectively. The professional dimension encompasses elements related to teaching practice, many of which are typically addressed in teacher education programs. These include skills in organization and preparation, applying effective pedagogical strategies, and engaging in reflective practice. The emotional dimension addresses how teachers respond to emotional demands in their work, including emotional regulation, stress management, and coping strategies. The motivational dimension encompasses internal drivers, including self-efficacy, a commitment to continuous learning and professional development, as well as persistence and perseverance in the face of challenges. The social dimension focuses on interpersonal dynamics in the workplace, emphasizing the importance of building and maintaining support networks, seeking help when needed, and being open to feedback.

In contrast to their more resilient counterparts, teachers with low psychological resilience often encounter significant challenges in coping with the complex and evolving demands of the teaching profession, particularly under conditions of sustained stress and organizational change. Both empirical research and theoretical perspectives have identified a range of characteristics commonly associated with diminished resilience in educators. For instance, Leroux and Théorêt (2014) observed that less resilient teachers tend to adopt a problem-focused rather than solution-oriented mindset, often placing disproportionate emphasis on reflecting on environmental factors rather than engaging in introspective or proactive coping strategies, and vice versa. In addition, a wide range of psychological and behavioral tendencies has been empirically linked to low resilience. These include elevated levels of neuroticism (Deng et al., 2020), increased vulnerability to burnout and stress (Daniilidou et al., 2020; Karimi & Adam, 2023), and prolonged disengagement from negative emotions (Yi et al., 2020). Furthermore, teachers with lower resilience scores are more likely to report symptoms of depression and anxiety (Agyapong et al., 2022), a lack of intrinsic motivation to teach (Lohbeck, 2018), and ineffective emotion regulation strategies (L. Li et al., 2023). Some studies have also linked lower resilience to reduced empathy levels (Sun et al., 2025).

Psychological resilience is vital for sustaining teacher well-being. Based on a review of 81 studies, Hascher et al. (2021) proposed the AWaRE model, which frames resilience as a dynamic, context-sensitive process mediating between initial and ongoing well-being experiences. The model positions well-being as both a precursor to and outcome of resilience, unfolding amid personal and contextual challenges and supported by internal and external resources. This perspective highlights resilience as a key mechanism linking environmental demands with adaptive coping. The following sections examine the relationship of resilience with self-efficacy, burnout, meaning in life, and emotional intelligence in teaching.

1.2. Teacher Resilience and Self-Efficacy

Teacher self-efficacy refers to teachers’ confidence to perform specific instructional tasks and effectively fulfill professional responsibilities (Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998). As Richardson (2002) noted, recognizing foundational personal attributes, such as self-efficacy, is a crucial first step in developing resilience, as they serve as internal resources that enable teachers to navigate and overcome professional challenges.

A growing body of empirical research has established a positive link between teacher resilience and self-efficacy, suggesting that educators who possess strong self-efficacy beliefs tend to demonstrate more effective instructional practices and are better equipped to endure professional challenges (Ainsworth & Oldfield, 2019; Han & Wang, 2021). For instance, Daniilidou et al. (2020) identified resilience as a mediating factor in the relationship between perceived self-efficacy and both burnout and stress, highlighting its protective role. Similarly, Wang et al. (2024) reported that teaching satisfaction and resilience jointly mediated the association between self-efficacy and teacher well-being, reinforcing the multidimensional influence of self-belief.

While the prevailing consensus emphasizes the enhancing effect of self-efficacy on resilience, emerging evidence also points to a reciprocal relationship, wherein resilience may strengthen self-efficacy over time. Supporting this view, Kavgaci (2022) found that teachers’ psychological resilience directly impacted their attitudes toward the teaching profession and their perceived self-efficacy. Furthermore, Zhi and Derakhshan (2024) demonstrated that the relationship between Chinese English teachers’ resilience, emotional regulation, and psychological well-being was significantly mediated by their self-efficacy beliefs, indicating a complex interplay among these psychological constructs.

1.3. Teacher Resilience and Burnout

Teacher burnout is described as a state of physical, emotional, and psychological depletion that emerges when educators begin to lose their motivation and enthusiasm for teaching (Schwarzer & Greenglass, 1999). Maslach and Jackson’s (1986) foundational model conceptualizes burnout as the outcome of enduring exposure to chronic occupational stress. The model delineates three core components of burnout: emotional exhaustion, referring to the depletion of emotional resources and the feeling of being overwhelmed by job demands; depersonalization or cynicism, which involves emotional distancing and a negative or indifferent stance toward colleagues or clients; and diminished personal accomplishment, marked by a decline in perceived efficacy and satisfaction with one’s professional contributions (Maslach & Schaufeli, 1993).

Research consistently shows that resilience helps buffer against teacher burnout. Given that resilience serves as a protective factor against stress, teachers who perceive themselves as more resilient are likely to be less susceptible to experiencing role-related stress and burnout (Richards et al., 2016). Empirical findings suggest that teachers with higher levels of resilience are better equipped to cope with the emotional and psychological demands of the profession, which include high workloads, student behavioral challenges, and systemic pressures (Flores, 2020). To this end, empirical evidence has shown that resilience is negatively correlated with emotional exhaustion and cynicism and positively correlated with personal accomplishment (Daniilidou et al., 2020; Moreno-Lucas et al., 2023). Studies have also shown that resilience can mediate the relationship between workplace stressors (e.g., organizational ostracism, work overload, classroom management) and burnout symptoms (S. Li, 2023; H. Polat et al., 2023), suggesting that it not only reduces the likelihood of burnout onset but also mitigates its intensity when it occurs.

1.4. Teacher Resilience and Meaning in Life

Meaning in life refers to one’s sense of coherence, purpose, and significance, reflecting the extent to which individuals view their lives as purposeful and guided by meaningful goals (Schnell, 2021). As a core component of eudaimonic well-being, it emphasizes personal growth, purposeful living, and contributing to the greater good beyond self (Delle Fave et al., 2011). Steger et al. (2006, 2008) conceptualize meaning in life as comprising two distinct dimensions. The presence of meaning reflects an individual’s perception that their life is meaningful, characterized by self-understanding, a sense of purpose, and clarity about one’s goals and role in the world. The search for meaning refers to the active pursuit of life’s significance, encompassing one’s motivation, effort, and desire to discover or deepen their understanding of purpose and meaning.

Emerging evidence has demonstrated a positive association between meaning in life and resilience across diverse populations (Miao & Cao, 2024). However, empirical investigations focusing specifically on this relationship within teacher populations remain scarce. A limited number of studies have confirmed this positive link (e.g., Van Wingerden & Poell, 2019). Notably, Platsidou and Daniilidou (2021) found that the presence of meaning moderately correlated with multiple resilience dimensions, whereas the search for meaning showed weaker or no associations. Using K-means clustering, they identified three teacher groups, with those high in both presence and search for meaning displaying the highest resilience levels, followed by those with high presence but low search. These findings suggest that actively seeking meaning enhances engagement with resilience-related resources when grounded in a strong existing sense of purpose.

1.5. Teacher Resilience and Emotional Intelligence

Mayer et al. (2004) conceptualized emotional intelligence as the capacity to recognize emotions, utilize them to support cognitive processes, comprehend emotional dynamics and meanings, and regulate emotional responses reflectively, thereby facilitating both personal and intellectual development. In the educational context, teachers’ emotional intelligence pertains to their ability to accurately perceive, interpret, and manage their own emotions, while also identifying and responding appropriately to the emotional states of their students and colleagues in order to foster positive interpersonal relationships and a supportive learning environment (Vesely-Maillefer & Saklofske, 2018).

Several studies have confirmed the positive association between emotional intelligence and resilience, highlighting the crucial role of emotional competencies in helping individuals cope with stress and adversity. For instance, López-Angulo et al. (2022) found that all core dimensions of emotional intelligence (self-emotional appraisal, appraisal of others’ emotions, use of emotion, and regulation of emotions) were significantly and positively correlated with resilience. Extending these findings, H. Liu et al. (2024) showed that emotional intelligence directly and indirectly predicted resilience via cognitive reappraisal. Pozo-Rico et al. (2023) further demonstrated that programs aimed at enhancing emotional intelligence significantly improved teachers’ resilience. These findings underscore the importance of cultivating emotional intelligence to support teachers’ adaptive coping and overall well-being.

1.6. Resilience in Relation to Demographics

Findings regarding the role of gender in teacher resilience remain inconsistent across the literature. Although a comprehensive review by Beltman et al. (2011) found that only two out of 50 studies identified significant gender differences in resilience among teachers, a conclusion echoed by other researchers as well (e.g., Brouskeli et al., 2018; D. D. Polat & İskender, 2018), more recent research suggests a trend favoring women. Specifically, women have been shown to score higher than men in dimensions such as personal competencies and persistence (Boczkowska et al., 2024), as well as in overall resilience (Botou et al., 2017; Kamboj & Garg, 2021). Barnová et al. (2024) found that women are more likely to adopt emotion-focused strategies, whereas men are perceived as rational problem solvers.

Marital status appears to play a meaningful role in shaping certain aspects of teacher resilience. Studies have shown that married or in a relationship teachers tend to report significantly higher scores in these dimensions than their single counterparts (Boczkowska et al., 2024; de Vera García, 2020). This pattern suggests that the presence of a supportive partner may contribute to greater emotional stability and interpersonal functioning. Moreover, married or partnered individuals often exhibit higher levels of grit, which may be attributed to the emotional, social, and economic support offered by a spouse or partner, thereby reinforcing their psychological resilience in the face of professional challenges (Afiah et al., 2024).

The relationship between age, teaching experience, and resilience remains inconclusive, with studies presenting mixed findings. Some research suggests that middle-aged teachers, particularly those aged 36–45, tend to exhibit higher resilience levels compared to other age groups (Y. Liu et al., 2022; Zhang & Luo, 2023). In contrast, some limited studies have reported greater resilience among younger teachers (Halchenko et al., 2024). However, several studies have found no significant differences in resilience based on age (Brouskeli et al., 2018; Van Wingerden & Poell, 2019). When considering teaching experience, evidence indicates that more experienced teachers tend to develop coping strategies that help maintain or enhance their resilience over time (Daniilidou, 2023). Conversely, novice teachers, particularly those in their first or second year, often report feeling exhausted and overwhelmed, highlighting the need for support mechanisms like mentoring and peer observation to bolster their resilience (Anderson & Olsen, 2006).

Research examining the influence of educational background on teacher resilience remains limited, though some findings suggest modest associations. Chu and Liu (2022) found that EFL teachers with a master’s degree demonstrated slightly higher overall resilience than those holding only a bachelor’s degree, particularly in the dimensions of tenacity and optimism. Supporting this, Costantine et al. (2025) reported that teachers with higher educational qualifications and greater exposure to educational resources tended to display enhanced resilience and more effective adaptive strategies. While these findings are not yet extensive, they suggest a potential link between advanced education and enhanced psychological coping in educational settings.

1.7. Aims and Hypotheses

To this end, the present study pursued two primary aims: (a) to examine how psychologically resilient teachers differ from less resilient teachers in terms of emotional intelligence, meaning in life, burnout, and self-efficacy; and (b) to explore differences in individual and work-related characteristics, such as age, gender, marital status, teaching experience, and education level among groups of teachers with different resilience levels.

The following hypotheses were formed.

H1. 

Teachers with higher psychological resilience are expected to report significantly higher levels of emotional intelligence, greater presence of meaning in life, higher self-efficacy beliefs, and lower levels of burnout (i.e., emotional exhaustion and depersonalization) alongside higher personal accomplishment compared to their less resilient counterparts.

H2. 

Teachers with higher psychological resilience are expected to differ significantly from those with lower resilience in terms of individual and professional characteristics. Specifically, higher resilience is anticipated among women, those who are married or in a relationship, older and more experienced teachers, and those holding higher educational qualifications (e.g., a Master’s degree).

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Sample

2.1.1. Study 1

Study 1 involved a sample of 222 Greek teachers. Of these, the majority were women (n = 122; 55%), while 100 identified as men (45%). Participants’ ages ranged from 22 to 65 years, with a mean age of 51.68 (SD = 7.35). Regarding educational background, 100 teachers (45%) held a bachelor’s degree as their highest qualification, whereas 122 (55%) possessed additional academic credentials, such as a second bachelor’s degree, a master’s degree, or a doctoral degree. Professionally, 116 (52.3%) were employed in primary education and 106 (47.7%) worked in secondary education. Teaching experience among the sample ranged from 1 to 39 years, with an average of 22.72 years (SD = 7.77).

2.1.2. Study 2

Study 2 involved a sample of 407 Greek teachers. Of these, the majority were women (n = 300; 67.2%), while 107 identified as men (32.8%). Participants’ ages ranged from 23 to 61 years, with a mean age of 44.76 (SD = 10.17). In terms of marital status, 257 individuals (63.1%) reported being either married or in a cohabiting partnership. Regarding educational background, 161 teachers (39.6%) held a bachelor’s degree as their highest qualification, whereas 246 (60.4%) possessed additional academic credentials, such as a second bachelor’s degree, a master’s degree, or a doctoral degree. Professionally, all teachers were employed in general primary education. Their teaching experience ranged from 1 to 36 years, with an average of 18.85 years (SD = 10.17).

2.2. Research Instruments

2.2.1. Teachers’ Protective Factors of Resilience Scale—Studies 1 and 2

Both studies used the Teachers Protective Factors of Resilience Scale (Daniilidou & Platsidou, 2022) to assess teachers’ protective resilience factors. The scale comprises 29 items designed to evaluate three personal and three environmental protective factors associated with teachers’ resilience: Teachers’ values and beliefs (e.g., I draw strength from the feeling of completeness that teaching offers me), emotional and behavioral competence (e.g., Classroom and teaching organization makes it easier for me to deal with the challenges), physical well-being (e.g., I resort to physical exercise for relief), relationships within the school environment (e.g., I talk to the school principal asking for practical and psychological support), relationships outside the school environment (e.g., I am relieved and unwind by talking to my family), and the legislative framework of education (e.g., I am informed about what I am supposed to do based on the legal framework). Participants are asked to provide their responses on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (always). In the present study, the six-factor structure of the scale was confirmed, and reliability ranged from α = 0.75 to 0.90 in Study 1 and from α = 0.75 to 0.89 in Study 2.

2.2.2. Meaning in Life Questionnaire—Study 1

The Meaning in Life Questionnaire (Steger et al., 2006), translated into Greek by Pezirkianidis et al. (2016), was used to assess the presence of meaning and the search for meaning in life. It includes 10 items that assess two dimensions: the presence of meaning (e.g., I have discovered a satisfying life purpose) and the search for meaning (e.g., I am seeking a purpose or mission for my life). Responses are typically provided on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (absolutely true) to 7 (absolutely untrue). In the present study, the two-factor solution was confirmed, and the reliability of the subscales was found to be good (Cronbach’s α_presence = 0.83, Cronbach’s α_search = 0.82).

2.2.3. Schutte Self-Report Emotional Intelligence Test—Study 1

The Schutte Self-Report Emotional Intelligence Test (Schutte et al., 1998), translated in Greek by Platsidou (2010), comprises 33 items that assess teachers’ emotional intelligence. Although most factor analytic studies have yielded four interpretable factors for the scale, the factor structures identified across these studies have demonstrated limited consistency and stability (Platsidou, 2010). The factor structure that emerged from the use of the tool to assess emotional intelligence in a Greek sample examines the following four factors: Optimism/mood regulation (e.g., I seek out activities that make me happy), management of emotion-related information concerning the self (e.g., When I feel a change in emotions, I tend to come up with new ideas), management of emotion-related information concerning others (e.g., By looking at their facial expressions, I recognize the emotions people are experiencing), and regulation of emotions of self and others (e.g., I easily recognize my emotions as I experience them). Responses are typically provided on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). In the present study, this four-factor solution was confirmed, and the reliability of the subscales was found satisfactory (Cronbach’s α ranged from 0.69 to 0.79).

2.2.4. Maslach Burnout Inventory—Study 2

The Maslach Burnout Inventory-Educators Survey (MBI-ES; Maslach & Jackson, 1986), adapted specifically for teachers, was employed to assess professional burnout among Greek educators. The Greek version of the instrument was translated and validated by Kokkinos (2006). The inventory comprises 22 items that measure three core dimensions of burnout: Emotional Exhaustion (e.g., I feel emotionally drained from my work), Depersonalization (e.g., I feel I treat some students as if they were impersonal objects), and Personal Accomplishment (e.g., I accomplish many worthwhile things in this job). Respondents indicate the frequency with which they experience each feeling using a 7-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 (Never) to 7 (Every day). This widely used instrument provides a multidimensional evaluation of burnout and has demonstrated strong reliability and construct validity in educational settings. The internal consistency of the three subscales ranged from α = 0.84 to 0.89.

2.2.5. Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale—Study 2

To evaluate teachers’ self-efficacy, the short form of the Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale developed by Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy (2001), and translated into Greek by Tsigilis et al. (2007), was employed. This instrument consists of 12 items measuring three key dimensions of teacher self-efficacy: Instructional strategies (e.g., To what extent can you craft good questions for your students?), classroom management (e.g., How much can you do to get children to follow classroom rules?), and student engagement (e.g., How much can you do to motivate students who show low interest in school work?). Responses are provided on a 9-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (nothing) to 9 (a great deal). In the present study, confirmatory factor analysis supported a two-factor structure (χ²/26 = 3.72, CFI = 0.96, GFI = 0.95, SRMR = 0.04, CI90% [0.06–0.09], RMSEA = 0.07), with satisfactory internal consistency: Classroom and student management (α = 0.90) and instructional strategies and student engagement (α = 0.81).

2.3. Procedure

Both studies were conducted in accordance with the ethical principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and its subsequent amendments or comparable ethical standards. All participants received comprehensive information regarding the purpose of the study, the voluntary nature of their participation, the confidentiality of their responses, the intended use of their data, and the absence of foreseeable risks.

Study 1 was conducted between September and December 2023, employing a convenience sampling method. The questionnaires were distributed to educators through on-site visits to schools, following prior communication and approval from school leadership personnel (principals and vice-principals). Study 2, conducted in April 2020, also employed a convenience sampling strategy. Due to the restrictive public health conditions imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic, data collection was conducted exclusively electronically. The questionnaire was digitized using Google Forms and disseminated via email and social media platforms to facilitate broader participation.

2.4. Data Analyses

All data analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics (version 27). Prior to hypothesis testing, preliminary analyses were conducted to compute descriptive statistics (means and standard deviations), as well as skewness and kurtosis, for all variables under investigation, including resilience, meaning in life, emotional intelligence, self-efficacy, and burnout.

To explore potential group differences based on resilience levels, a cluster analysis was conducted as a data-driven method to classify participants into distinct resilience profiles (i.e., high and low resilience). A K-means clustering procedure identified distinct groups, benefiting from robustness against outliers compared to hierarchical clustering (Ikotun et al., 2023). Although solutions with more clusters were explored, a two-cluster solution was retained to align with the study’s aim of differentiating teachers based on their high versus low resilience. This choice allowed for a theoretically meaningful and interpretable classification.

Following the identification of resilience groups, to address Hypothesis 1, independent samples t-tests were employed to examine differences between high- and low-resilience teachers in terms of their reported levels of meaning in life, emotional intelligence, self-efficacy, and burnout. This analysis aimed to determine whether resilience is associated with significant variations in psychological resources and occupational well-being.

To address Hypothesis 2, a series of crosstabulation analyses examined the distribution of high- and low-resilience teachers across key demographic variables, including gender, marital status, and education. Chi-square tests of independence were applied to assess whether the prevalence of resilience profiles varied significantly across demographic categories. In addition, to examine whether age and years of professional experience differed between the high- and lower-resilience groups, a series of non-parametric analyses was conducted. Prior to group comparisons, the normality of the distribution of the experience variable was assessed using the Shapiro–Wilk test, which indicated a significant deviation from normality (p < 0.001). Consequently, the non-parametric Mann–Whitney U test was employed to compare the median years of professional experience across the two resilience profiles.

3. Results

3.1. Means, Standard Deviations, Skewness, and Kurtosis of the Variables

Preliminary analyses were performed to assess the mean scores of the study variables (see

Table 1. Means, Standard Deviations, Skewness, and Kurtosis of the Variables.

	Study 1				Study 2
	Mean	SD	Skewness	Kurtosis	Mean	SD	Skewness	Kurtosis
Resilience 1
Values and beliefs	4.06	0.679	−0.890	1.374	3.99	0.784	−1.048	1.642
Relationships outside school	3.36	0.804	−0.295	−0.530	3.48	0.998	−0.426	−0.592
Legislative framework	3.86	0.802	−0.557	0.217	3.70	0.838	−0.547	0.227
Emotional and behavioral competence	4.02	0.546	−0.199	−0.408	4.27	0.511	−0.654	0.432
Relationships in school	3.37	0.688	−0.082	−0.149	3.53	0.690	−0.404	−0.081
Physical well-being	3.38	0.964	−0.369	−0.501	3.66	0.856	−0.593	0.223
Meaning in life 2
Presence of meaning	5.77	0.944	1.051	1.277
Search for meaning	5.26	1.263	−0.938	0.985
Emotional intelligence 1
Optimism/mood regulation	3.11	0.484	−0.686	0.839
Management of emotion-related information concerning the self	3.18	0.446	−0.620	1.102
Management of emotion-related information concerning others	2.87	0.532	−0.366	0.421
Regulation of emotions of self and others	3.16	0.571	−0.703	0.690
Burnout 2
Emotional exhaustion					3.21	1.287	0.795	−0.070
Reduced personal accomplishment					1.98	0.792	1.249	1.846
Depersonalization					1.69	0.834	1.906	1.559
Self-efficacy 3
Classroom and student management					7.15	1.251	−1.156	1.876
Instructional strategies and student engagement					7.51	0.902	−0.978	1.572

Note: ¹ = 5-point Likert scale, ² = 7-point Likert scale, ³ = 9-point Likert scale.

). Across both studies, teachers reported moderate to high levels of psychological resilience, with particularly elevated scores on dimensions related to values and beliefs, as well as emotional and behavioral competence. In Study 1, participants demonstrated moderate levels of emotional intelligence and moderate to high levels in both the presence of and search for meaning in life. In Study 2, teachers reported moderate levels of emotional exhaustion, low levels of reduced personal accomplishment and depersonalization, and moderate to high levels of perceived self-efficacy.

3.2. Resilience Profiles

In both studies, the non-hierarchical K-means cluster analysis identified two distinct clusters. Cluster 1 comprised teachers who scored higher in resilience protective factors. Consequently, this cluster was labeled as “High resilience teachers”. Cluster 2 involved those teachers who scored relatively lower on resilience factors. Thus, this cluster was labeled “Lower resilience teachers” (

Table 2. Profiles of Teachers Based on Their Resilience.

	Study 1			Study 2
Variables	Cluster 1 High Resilience (N = 125)	Cluster 2 Lower Resilience (N = 97)	F (1, 221)	Cluster 1 High Resilience (N = 228)	Cluster 2 Lower Resilience (N = 179)	F (1, 405)
Values and beliefs	4.39	3.64	94.427 **	4.28	3.64	79.506 **
Relationships outside school	3.67	2.99	47.402 **	4.03	2.80	245.713 **
Legislative framework	4.19	3.44	59.890 **	4.05	3.26	115.947 **
Emotional and behavioral competence	4.32	3.64	130.717 **	4.47	4.02	99.514 **
Relationships in school	3.68	2.98	75.744 **	3.82	3.17	114.199 **
Physical well-being	3.98	2.62	214.435 **	3.98	3.28	81.188 **

Note. ** p < 0.001.

).

3.3. Differences in Resilience Profiles in Relation to Meaning in Life, Emotional Intelligence, Burnout, and Self-Efficacy

To address Hypothesis 1, independent samples t-test analyses were employed to examine differences between high- and low-resilience teachers in terms of their reported levels of meaning in life, emotional intelligence, self-efficacy, and burnout.

3.3.1. Study 1

In Study 1, concerning emotional intelligence, statistically significant differences were found between all four dimensions. Specifically, the results revealed that teachers in the high-resilience cluster scored significantly higher on optimism (t(220) = 4.26, p < 0.001, Cohen’s d = 0.47), management of emotion-related information concerning the self (t(220) = 5.48, p < 0.001, Cohen’s d = 0.42), management of emotion-related information concerning others (t(220) = 2.57, p = 0.011, Cohen’s d = 0.53), and regulation of emotions of self and others (t(220) = 3.32, p = 0.001, Cohen’s d = 0.56) (Figure 1). These findings suggest that higher psychological resilience among teachers is associated with stronger emotional competencies across all assessed dimensions.

Concerning meaning in life, for the presence of meaning, both the lower- and high-resilience groups scored high (M = 5.69, SD = 0.87 and M = 5.79, SD = 0.83, respectively), but no statistically significant difference was observed between the high-resilience group and the lower-resilience group (t(220) = 0.31, p = 0.758, Cohen’s d = 0.042). In contrast, for the search for meaning, a statistically significant difference was found between the groups (t(220) = 2.35, p = 0.020, Cohen’s d = 0.318). The lower-resilience group reported lower levels (M = 5.05, SD = 1.45) compared to the high-resilience group (M = 5.44, SD = 1.07), indicating that higher resilience is associated with greater engagement in the search for meaning. These findings suggest that Greek teachers experience quite a high presence of meaning, which does not vary significantly by resilience level; on the other hand, their search for meaning is more pronounced among teachers with higher resilience.

3.3.2. Study 2

In Study 2, concerning burnout, independent samples t-tests revealed significant differences between the two teacher clusters across all three dimensions of burnout. Teachers with lower resilience reported significantly higher emotional exhaustion (t(405) = 2.04, p = 0.042, Cohen’s d = 0.20), reduced personal accomplishment (t(405) = 4.84, p < 0.001, Cohen’s d = 0.48), and depersonalization levels (t(405) = 3.05, p = 0.002, Cohen’s d = 0.31) compared to their colleagues clustered in the lower-resilience profile (Figure 2). These findings suggest that teachers in the lower-resilience group report higher burnout symptoms across all dimensions.

Significant differences were also found between the two teacher clusters in both dimensions of self-efficacy. Teachers in the high-resilience group reported significantly higher self-efficacy in classroom and student management (t(405) = 4.02, p < 0.001, Cohen’s d = 0.40) and in instructional strategies and student engagement (t(405) = 5.28, p < 0.001, Cohen’s d = 0.53) compared to the lower-resilience teachers’ group (Figure 3). These results suggest that teachers in the high-resilience group feel more confident in both managing the classroom and applying effective teaching strategies to engage students. Thus, Hypothesis 1 was partially confirmed.

3.4. Differences in Resilience Profiles in Relation to Demographics

To address Hypothesis 2, a series of crosstabulation analyses was conducted to examine the distribution of high- and low-resilience teachers across key demographic variables, including gender, marital status, and education.

3.4.1. Study 1

Regarding gender, Study 1 revealed a marginally statistically significant association between gender and resilience profiles (χ²(1) = 3.95, p = 0.047). The effect size, as measured by Cramer’s V, was small (V = 0.133), indicating a modest association between gender and resilience level. In Study 2, the analysis also revealed a statistically significant relationship (χ²(1) = 8.62, p = 0.003), indicating that the gender distribution differed across the high- and lower-resilience groups. The effect size was small but significant (V = 0.146). In both studies, women were more likely to be in the high-resilience group, and men were more likely to belong in the low-resilience group (Figure 4). However, the differences were more pronounced among women than men.

3.4.2. Study 2

In Study 2, concerning marital status, the results showed a statistically significant relationship (χ²(1) = 6.16, p = 0.013). The effect size, as measured by Cramer’s V, was small (V = 0.123), indicating a modest association between marital status and resilience level. Specifically, the high-resilience profile was overrepresented by teachers who were married or in a relationship. In the lower-resilience profile, the majority were single, divorced, or widowed. However, in this profile, differences were less pronounced (Figure 5).

No statistically significant differences were found in terms of educational background. Additionally, the non-parametric Mann–Whitney U test, used to compare the median ranks of age and years of professional experience across the two resilience profiles, revealed no statistically significant differences. Thus, Hypothesis 2 was partially confirmed.

4. Discussion

The primary aim of the present study was to identify the distinguishing characteristics of teachers with high levels of psychological resilience compared to their colleagues exhibiting lower resilience. The results of this study provide robust empirical support for theoretical models that conceptualize psychological resilience in teaching as a dynamic, multidimensional process.

To begin with, teachers classified within the high-resilience profile consistently demonstrated superior outcomes across multiple psychological domains, including self-efficacy, emotional intelligence, and active engagement in the search for meaning, when compared to their lower-resilience counterparts. These findings offer strong empirical support for theoretical models proposed by Mansfield et al. (2012) and Hascher et al. (2021), both of which conceptualize resilience not as a static personality trait but as a dynamic, context-sensitive capacity shaped by the interaction of emotional, cognitive, motivational, and social resources. Mansfield et al.’s four-dimensional framework (professional, emotional, motivational, and social) is reflected in the high-resilience teachers’ strengths in classroom management, emotional regulation, and meaning-oriented engagement. Similarly, the AWaRE model by Hascher et al. views resilience as a mediator between adversity and well-being, a notion supported by the current study’s evidence that high-resilience teachers reported lower burnout symptoms and greater psychological functioning. Collectively, these patterns underscore the prominence of internal psychological resources in distinguishing high-resilience profiles and the importance of self-regulatory, emotional, and meaning-related processes in sustaining teacher resilience.

Extending beyond resilience-specific frameworks, our findings also resonate with broader psychological theories of well-being. In particular, Self-Determination Theory (Deci & Ryan, 2008) posits that optimal functioning and psychological well-being are contingent upon satisfying three fundamental psychological needs: autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Teachers identified within the high-resilience profile exhibited elevated levels of self-efficacy (reflecting competence), enhanced emotional and behavioral self-regulation (indicative of autonomy), and reduced experiences of depersonalization (suggesting stronger relatedness). These patterns suggest that resilient teachers are more likely to work in environments that foster the development of internal resources and capacities, thereby facilitating the fulfillment of these basic psychological needs and, in turn, enhancing intrinsic motivation and overall well-being.

The results further align with Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs (Maslow, 1943), offering a complementary perspective on teacher resilience. Within this framework, resilience can be interpreted as a manifestation of self-actualization, the apex of Maslow’s motivational hierarchy. Although no difference emerged in the presence of meaning in life, the higher search for meaning among resilient teachers resonates with Steger et al.’s (2006) dual-process model and eudaimonic theories of well-being. This suggests that resilience is not necessarily about having a fixed sense of life purpose, but rather about a dynamic engagement with existential goals and reflective meaning-making, which are considered key components of adaptive functioning under stress. Thus, the elevated levels of active engagement in the search for meaning observed among high-resilience teachers suggest that they may be more inclined to engage in reflective practices, pursue emotional and psychological growth, and demonstrate purposeful, goal-directed behavior, which may enable progression toward the realization of higher-order aspirations, further supporting the notion that resilience is closely associated with self-actualization. This openness to exploration allows them to adaptively reframe setbacks, seek new sources of significance, and sustain engagement even when their current sense of purpose is not fully crystallized. In contrast, the presence of meaning reflects a relatively stable perception of life as coherent and purposeful; being less sensitive to situational demands, it seems less likely to fluctuate substantially with short-term changes in resilience. High-resilience teachers’ stronger search for meaning may therefore reflect a dynamic process of meaning-making (among teachers reporting high presence of meaning as shown by Platsidou & Daniilidou, 2021) that fuels persistence, innovation, and psychological adaptability, key capacities for thriving in the evolving and often unpredictable educational landscape.

The findings also align with the Broaden-and-Build Theory of positive emotions (Fredrickson, 2001), which posits that positive emotional experiences expand individuals’ momentary thought-action repertoires and, over time, contribute to the development of durable personal resources. In this context, highly resilient teachers, characterized by elevated optimism and emotional competencies, appear to benefit from such affective processes. The higher emotional intelligence and proactive search for meaning observed in these individuals suggest that positive emotional states may facilitate cognitive flexibility, psychological growth, and resource accumulation. These mechanisms likely reinforce adaptive coping and well-being, underscoring the role of positive affect in sustaining resilience over time.

However, while the present study contributes to understanding teacher resilience, it is important to interpret the findings within the specific sociocultural and educational context of Greece, where both samples were drawn. Greek teachers operate within a centralized educational system characterized by a nationally uniform curriculum, constrained autonomy in instructional decision-making, limited teacher evaluation policies, and relatively high job security, but also by chronic challenges such as economic constraints in the public sector and frequent policy reforms (Boczkowska et al., 2024; Matsopoulos et al., 2019; Sarakinioti & Tsatsaroni, 2015; Triantafyllou, 2020). In this context, Greek teachers frequently report strong bonds with colleagues (Botou et al., 2017; Daniilidou, 2023), which can serve as a critical source of emotional and practical support in navigating workplace challenges. Equally important, teaching in Greece is often regarded not merely as a profession but as a vocation, with many educators placing a high value on their role in shaping students’ intellectual and moral development (Daniilidou et al., 2024; Lazaridou, 2019), which may foster a strong sense of purpose that reinforces resilience. These contextual features may shape the protective and risk factors for resilience in ways that differ from other educational settings, which should be considered when generalizing the present findings internationally.

Finally, concerning demographic characteristics, the findings revealed that women and partnered individuals were more likely to be represented in the high-resilience group. This suggests that gender and relational status may play a modest but meaningful role in shaping resilience, possibly through mechanisms such as emotional socialization, access to relational support, or differences in coping strategies (Barnová et al., 2024; de Vera García, 2020). However, given the small effect sizes and the presence of both men and single individuals in the high-resilience group, these demographic factors should not be viewed as deterministic but rather as potential contributors within a broader constellation of psychological and contextual influences. In addition, the absence of significant differences in resilience based on age, educational level, or years of teaching experience suggests that psychological resilience is not necessarily a function of chronological maturity, academic attainment, or professional tenure. While it might be expected that older or more experienced teachers would exhibit greater resilience due to accumulated coping strategies or professional wisdom (Daniilidou, 2023), the findings indicate that resilience may instead hinge more strongly on current psychological resources, rather than on static background characteristics.

Taken together, the findings of this study are consistent with leading psychological theories that conceptualize human behavior as dynamic, contextually shaped, and growth-oriented. However, the present work advances the field in several important ways. By integrating two independent yet methodologically aligned studies, it employs a rare cross-sample, person-centered approach that allows the identification of robust resilience profiles across different educational contexts and temporal conditions, including the extraordinary circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic. This dual-sample design moves beyond the predominant single-cohort, cross-sectional studies in teacher resilience research, thereby increasing both the validity and generalizability of the findings. Moreover, the study highlights a novel psychological marker of resilience, that is, among teachers experiencing relatively high meaning in life, the search for meaning, rather than the presence of meaning, emerged as a consistent differentiator of high-resilience teachers. This nuance adds a dynamic, growth-oriented dimension to resilience theory, positioning active meaning-making as a central mechanism for sustaining well-being under professional stress. Finally, the combined analysis of psychological and demographic variables within clearly defined resilience profiles offers a more actionable evidence base for designing targeted, profile-specific interventions to support teachers most at risk.

4.1. Implications for the Teaching Profession

The current findings yield several practical implications for policy, school leadership, and teacher professional development. Given the emergence of distinct resilience profiles, school systems could consider implementing brief well-being screenings as part of routine professional development. The goal would not be to pathologize, but rather to identify early signs of emotional exhaustion or detachment and offer tailored support. Special attention should be given to educators in vulnerable subgroups, such as those without strong relational support or those reporting lower emotional self-regulation capacities.

The positive links between resilience and key psychological resources highlight the importance of targeted interventions that foster these capacities. Training initiatives should include modules that enhance emotional regulation, deepen reflective practice, and build instructional competence, particularly in managing classroom dynamics. Emotional intelligence training could be embedded more explicitly in teacher preparation and in-service programs. Workshops that develop skills such as empathy, emotional awareness, and self-regulation, using techniques like role-playing, emotional journaling, or cognitive reappraisal, could further strengthen adaptive capacities. To enhance self-efficacy, especially among less experienced or at-risk teachers, schools could implement structured mentorship programs that pair novice teachers with more resilient colleagues, providing role models and reinforcing mastery experiences through collaborative planning and feedback. Notably, engagement in the ongoing pursuit of meaning emerged as a distinguishing feature of resilient educators. Structured activities, such as goal-setting, narrative exploration, mentoring, and facilitated reflection, could help educators clarify their values and reconnect with their work’s purpose.

Finally, gender- and relationship-sensitive initiatives may be beneficial. To address this, schools can implement inclusive structures that foster community, emotional safety, and mutual support among staff. For example, peer support groups can serve as safe spaces where teachers share challenges, exchange coping strategies, and normalize the emotional struggles of the profession. These groups can be informal or structured through scheduled sessions facilitated by trained professionals or senior teachers.

4.2. Limitations and Future Research

While the present study offers valuable insights into the psychosocial profiles of teachers with varying levels of resilience, certain methodological limitations should be acknowledged. First, the exclusive reliance on self-report measures may introduce response biases, such as social desirability bias or inaccuracies in self-perception, which could compromise the validity of the findings. Although self-report instruments are widely used and offer practical advantages for large-scale psychological research, they may not fully capture the complexity of internal states or behaviors. Future studies could include multi-informant data (e.g., peer, students, or observational reports) and objective indicators to triangulate findings and enhance construct validity.

Second, an important methodological consideration concerns the differences in participant composition between the two studies. Study 1 included both primary and secondary school teachers, whereas Study 2 comprised only primary school teachers. This divergence in sampling frames introduces the potential for sampling bias, as the professional experiences, workplace demands, and institutional contexts of secondary school teachers may differ meaningfully from those in primary education. Consequently, direct comparisons between the two datasets should be interpreted with caution, as variations in resilience profiles may partly reflect occupational context rather than purely individual-level factors. It is also noteworthy that Study 2 was conducted during the initial stages of the COVID-19 pandemic and associated public health restrictions. This unprecedented context likely shaped teachers’ reported experiences of burnout, self-efficacy, and resilience, as educators were required to rapidly transition to remote teaching modalities, manage heightened uncertainty, and navigate novel work–life boundary challenges. Thus, resilience levels observed in Study 2 may reflect a confluence of enduring personal characteristics and acute adaptive responses to crisis conditions, which may not be directly comparable to resilience measured in pre-pandemic contexts such as Study 1. Acknowledging this temporal and situational context is essential for accurately interpreting the results and for avoiding overgeneralization of pandemic-period findings to more typical teaching conditions.

In addition, while using cluster analysis to categorize participants into “high”- and “low”-resilience groups serves a valuable methodological purpose by facilitating the identification of distinct psychosocial profiles, it inevitably oversimplifies the multifaceted and dynamic nature of resilience. Increasingly, resilience is conceptualized as a context-sensitive, developmental process rather than a fixed trait, and a purely dichotomous classification may overlook not only within-group variability but also the existence of intermediate or fluid profiles. Moreover, such binary groupings may fail to capture transitional trajectories over time. Future research employing longitudinal designs or latent transition analyses could offer a more nuanced understanding of how resilience evolves, potentially revealing intermediate states or dynamic patterns that extend beyond a simple high–low distinction and vary across professional contexts.

Finally, the cross-sectional and correlational nature of the study precludes any causal inferences. Although associations between resilience and key psychological constructs (e.g., burnout, emotional intelligence, meaning in life, and self-efficacy) were identified, the directionality of these relationships remains unclear. Future research should employ longitudinal or experimental designs capable of testing causal mechanisms and reciprocal influences over time to elucidate these pathways.