Preguntas específicas

To begin with, although the 8FRR model could be mapped onto Schetter and Dolbier’s (2011) taxonomy of resilience resources, it represents a content taxonomy that describes resilience resources rather that explains possible resilience promoting mechanisms. One such theory that moves beyond a simple content taxonomy of resources and proposes hypothesised relationships between stress buffering resources is Hobfoll’s (1989) COR theory, which has become a major explanatory theory for understanding stress processes at work (Bonanno et al., 2007). Inherent in COR theory is the idea that people are adaptive and use what resources they have to solve challenges and obtain their goals (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). Environmental circumstances often threaten or cause a depletion of people's resources, which may threaten people's status, position, economic stability, basic beliefs, or self-esteem (Hobfoll, 1989). COR theory supposes that resources are valued because they enable the preservation of other resources that will improve chances of successful adaptation against future challenges.

According to COR theory there are four kinds of resources whose loss and gain result in stress or well-being respectively: 1) Object resources refer to material resources such as socio- demographic variables (e.g. financial security, poverty), which have been shown to be important predictors of stress resistance (Hobfoll & Shirom, 2001); 2) Conditions are resources that are highly valued such as personal relationships, marriage, work status, and recognition for work performance (Pearlin, 1982); 3) Personal Characteristics resources are traits and abilities that influence environmental appraisal such as seeing challenging events as predictable and opportunities for growth. This group of resources includes the effect of social support in supporting positive self-identity, self-efficacy, optimism and stress tolerance (Cohen & Wills, 1985; Pearlin, 1982); 4) Energies is a resource category typified by resources such as time and knowledge. These resources aid the acquisition of further resources. As an example, if an individual was unemployed, resources would be employed in establishing social, community, or professional networks to increase chances of gaining employment and therefore increasing financial or object resources (Wellman, 1992).

Of all the resource categories, the personal characteristics set of resources is most consistent with the resources identified in the 8FRR model. This perhaps reflects the emphasis on self- report assessment of individual characteristics found in all five measures analysed in this study. Personal characteristics resources refer to individual traits and skills that aid stress resistance (Hobfoll, 2012). For example, Factor 5 (hardiness), one of the eight factors identified in the 8FRR model, refers to the ability of an individual to reinterpret threats as

130

challenges (Kobasa, Maddi, & Kahn, 1982; Kobasa, 1979). This characteristic helps individuals focus on what they might gain, instead of what they might lose, in light of challenges.

Resources in the personal characteristics category are thought to remain conceptually distinct yet are often highly correlated (Luszczynska & Cieslak, 2005). Indeed, Factor 5 (hardiness) (CD-RISC-10 items), Factor 1 (psychological capital), and Factor 4 (self-efficacy) (PCQ items),were found to be highly correlated in the CFA analysis; Factor 5 (hardiness) and Factor 1 (psychological capital) had a correlation of r=.74, whilst Factor 4 (self-efficacy) and Factor 1 (psychological capital) had a correlation of r=.72. Hobfoll (1989) posits that the strength of relationships between personal characteristics resources indicate that they may be developing together and strengthen an individual's resource pool. Whilst no high correlations were observed between the other five factors in this particular sample, significant low to moderate correlations (ranging between r=.15 and r=.50) were observed.

Two factors in the 8FRR model, Factor 6 (social resources/competence)/competence and Factor 2 (family cohesion) comprised of items from two subscales of the RSA are worth highlighting in the context of COR resource theory. Normally, social support is seen as a key mediating variable in the resilience process (Wilks & Croom, 2008), however in COR theory a distinction is made between social support being both a beneficial and detrimental resource. For example, social support is considered beneficial so long as it is perceived adequate and is suited to the needs of a given situation (Cohen & Wills, 1985; Hobfoll, 2012). For example, support in times of crisis from a friend who encourages drinking alcohol as a coping strategy may not provide adequate support for someone looking for ways of dealing with a highly stressful workplace event. Consequently, social support is seen as harmful if an individual’s perception of that support is considered inadequate or is unwarranted relative to a specific situation (Hobfoll & London, 1986; Riley & Eckenrode, 1986). Thus, social support in COR theory is considered beneficial if it is perceived as social support, irrespective of whether it is available to the individual.

COR theory provides a useful framework with which to understand how some resources may potentially counteract the effects of resource losses as a result of a person’s interaction with their environment. Implicit in COR theory is the interactionist view that the interdependence of personal and situational factors facilitate the prediction of behavioural responses to adversity. This provides researchers with an opportunity to differentiate the optimal resources required to meet specific environmental demands. The research implication for the way

131

resilience is measured is that it may be useful to shift the focus of assessment efforts away from trying to measure resilience as an all-encompassing construct comprised of a set of relatively stable factors, toward a dynamic, context specific set of resources. In sum, COR is a resource theory that is capable of explaining possible resilience processes through a range of resource interactions that result from person-situation interactions. This approach is consistent with interactionism (Endler & Edwards, 1986; Murtha et al., 1996) and may be a suitable theoretical framework with which to guide future resilience measurement endeavours.

A second theoretical implication of this study is that it highlights the over-reliance on the assessment of individual characteristics due to the use of self-report scales. The measures examined in the present study explain variance associated with resilience resources irrespective of the situation in which they may be found. Therefore contrary to interactionist measurement paradigms, between-person variance is explained at the expense of within- person variance (see Endler, 1988; Murtha et al., 1996). What is lacking at present is information in the understanding of how resilience occurs and in what situations. An opportunity therefore exists for researchers to identify alternatives to self-report methods using interactionist methodologies that focus on the assessment of resilience as a person-in- context phenomenon. One such method that may be a useful avenue to explore is the use of the situational judgement test (SJT) method (Motowidlo & Beier, 2010). SJTs have been used in high stakes settings to measure a range of interpersonal skills (e.g. Patterson et al., 2012). In these instances, the SJT has been used to complement other assessment methods with promising results (see J. A. Weekley & Ployhart, 2006). Due to the focus on situational judgment, SJTs may provide an opportunity to explain variance above and beyond between- person variance often captured by the self-report method. It is possible that methods capable of examining individuals’ responses to adversity in clearly defined situations may offer researchers ways of increasing the validity and reliability of existing resilience measures. Thus, the SJT method could be used as a complimentary method of measurement rather than a substitute for the self-report method which will be explored further in Chapter 6 of this thesis.

The theoretical implications raised in this discussion suggest that there are opportunities for the advancement of theory and method in relation to the way resilience is currently conceptualised and measured. In addition to this, two implications for practice can be noted.

First, the 8FRR model identified in the present study which is operationalised as a 42-item eight factor resilience questionnaire (8FRRQ) requires extensive additional validation in a

132

range of samples. However, findings suggest that the 8FRRQ has reasonable psychometric properties and it is currently the only model that provides a synthesis of published resilience measures. Thus, it may be useful in practice to examine the relationship between available resilience resources and relationships with performance, employee engagement, and organisational citizenship behaviours.

Second, practitioners could restructure their own resilience surveys along the dimensions uncovered in the 8FRR model. This would allow practitioners to use an empirically derived synthesis of resilience questionnaires comprised of items provided by scales’ original authors. Relatedly, the 8FRR model could provide a broad framework with which to inform resilience interventions. It is possible that each of the eight resources could comprise short individual skill sessions that cover topics such as how to harness and establish social support networks in the workplace. These sessions could be delivered in a modular format in order to reduce costs associated with lengthy interventions.

The final part of this chapter highlights limitation of the present study and possible avenues for future research. These are discussed next.