Informar Resumen Diario – Otros (informarResumenDiaOtros)

Woodgate’s (1999) process-oriented model of resilience, illustrated in Figure 1.5 was specifically developed to examine resilience in relation to cancer. The process-oriented model of resilience proposes that emotional provoking events or situations influence an individual’s vulnerability and protective factors. Adapting to a stressor is dependent upon the interaction between risk and protective factors. The outcome of this interaction is ultimately adaptation (suggesting a greater influence of protective factors) or maladaptation (suggesting a greater influence of vulnerability factors).

40

Figure 1.5: Woodgate's (1999) process-oriented model of resilience

Woodgate speculated that responses to stressors will vary along a continuum of responses from maladaptive to adaptive (Rutter, 1985; Richardson, Neiger, Jenson & Kumpfer, 1990). Woodgate (1999) acknowledges that it is possible that an individual may be resilient but may also exhibit a maladaptive response before achieving successful adaptation. In addition, the importance of experience for facilitating the growth of protective factors is highlighted. For example, an individual with greater protective factors is more likely to experience adaptation following adversity, thus, reinforcing the need for these factors. By contrast, an individual is more likely to experience maladaptation if they exhibited greater risk factors. Therefore, Woodgate’s (1999) model emphasises a dynamic and cyclic process of resilience development that is exemplified by either the reinforcement of risk factors following maladaptation, or the reinforcement of protective factors following adaptation.

Evaluating the model against Cramer’s (2013) first criterion of applied value, Woodgate’s (1999) model was developed from research with children living with cancer. As such, the risk and protective factors identified in the model could be used to inform resilience promoting interventions. The model also makes assumptions that highlight the cyclical and dynamic nature of resilience, and highlights the role of experience in the resilience process, which can be used to design interventions that emphasise awareness of past experiences in dealing with future stressful encounters (Rutter, 2006). Woodgate (1999) acknowledges that it is possible that an individual may be resilient but may also exhibit a maladaptive response before achieving successful adaptation. However, the model does not specify the strength of relationships between each component of the model (Bakas et al., 2012). For the second

41

evaluation criterion of testability, the model appears to be empirically testable as it is possible to assess whether individuals with multiple protective factors predict well-being over and above individuals with a greater number of risk factors. Indeed, Woodgate’s model has been empirically validated using chronically ill adolescent samples (e.g. Haase, 2004). It may also be possible to test the model using latent growth curve models to explore the relative effects of prior stressors on positive adaption to future stressors (Rutter, 2006). However, the main limitation with regards to testability is how to operationalise the various points along the maladaptive-adaptive continuum. In relation to the third evaluation criterion of parsimony, Woodgate’s (1999) model offers a somewhat clear explanation of the dynamic nature of resilience and is unencumbered by overly complex relationships. Although somewhat simplistic, the model may serve as a basic model for a range of settings with which to explore the complexities of the resilience construct.

1.1.3.4 Summary of models

The three models of resilience outlined in this section all offer explanations of the resilience phenomenon. The ecological-transactional model (Cicchetti and Lynch, 1993) presents an ecological conceptual framework which conceptualises resilience as a process where the socio-cultural context and individual functioning influence each other. Kumpfer (1999) construed a linear resilience framework that organised multiple constructs from previous theorisations into one of six factors. Woodgate (1999) provided a process-oriented cyclical resilience model and speculated that resilience should be mapped along a maladaptation- adaptation continuum.

Using Cramer’s (2013) evaluation criteria, all three models satisfied, to some degree, each of the three criterion. With respect to the first criterion––applied value––all three models showed potential impact on practice, with possible applications to individuals of all ages from across various cultures. These models could also serve as a comprehensive approach to assessment and have the potential to inform intervention research. The second criterion––testability––was satisfied by all three models, however all models were validated using adolescent or youth samples, thus further model validation using adult samples is warranted. The final evaluation criterion––parsimony––was best satisfied by Woodgate’s (1999) process-oriented model of resilience due to its clearly defined components of the model and uncomplicated outline of dynamic and cyclical resilience processes. Because of the complexity of Kumpfer’s (1999) model and ecological-transactional model (Cicchetti & Lynch, 1993) a lack of testing of the full model limits the parsimony of both models.

42

Notwithstanding the limitations of the models reviewed here, each of the three models conceptualise resilience as a person-environment phenomenon consistent with the interactionist paradigm. Yet, none of these models explicitly accounted for the capacity to develop resilience, and all have an overly narrow conceptualisation of outcome variability that fails to account for the full diversity of adapting to adversity or stress (Bonanno, 2012a). Additionally, none of these models consider the steeling effects of exposure to prior stressors (Rutter, 2007), although Woodgate (1999) does acknowledge the role of experience in the resilience process. It is worth pointing out that these models were predominately developed from research in clinical and developmental settings, and as such, may not easily generalise to occupational samples. Barton (2005) also points out that most models of resilience focus on responses to adversity, yet everyday challenges may also call for some of the same qualities that are seen in more difficult situations. Barton (2005) advocates a phenomenological approach to resilience that takes into account individual agency, situational context, and processes of improvisation in everyday life. An alternative theory that may address some of the limitations of the above mentioned models and has been applied to organisational settings is the Conservation of Resources (COR) theory (Hobfoll, 1989, 2002), which is described next.