Appendix I: Example Critiques
Critique of the Risk and Protective Factors Model of Resilience
As we explored in Chapter 2, this model, widely referenced in psychological resilience research, focuses on identifying factors that either enhance resilience (protective factors) or increase vulnerability (risk factors) to psychological stress or trauma.
Identifying the Purpose and Scope
The Risk and Protective Factors Model of Resilience aims to understand why some individuals thrive in the face of adversity while others struggle. While its purpose—to enhance resilience through identifying and modulating risk and protective factors—is commendable, its scope is sometimes criticized for oversimplification. Critics argue that the model may not fully account for the dynamic interplay between individual, community, and societal factors, overlooking the complexity of resilience as a multifaceted and context-dependent phenomenon. Specifically, Fletcher and Sarkar (2013) critique this model for its inconsistent application across different contexts, suggesting a need for a more nuanced understanding of resilience that considers multiple levels of influence.
Evaluating the Methodological Foundation
Research based on the Risk and Protective Factors Model often employs cross-sectional designs, which can identify associations but not causation. This limitation raises questions about the directionality of identified relationships—whether protective factors truly lead to resilience or if resilient individuals are more likely to engage in behaviors that are protective. Longitudinal studies are suggested to more accurately capture the temporal dynamics of resilience and the efficacy of interventions aimed at modifying risk and protective factors.
Researchers Luthar, Cicchetti, and Becker (2000) provide a critical evaluation of resilience research, emphasizing the necessity for longitudinal studies to unravel the complex causality between risk and protective factors and resilience outcomes. They argue that cross-sectional designs prevalent in resilience research may not adequately capture the processes and mechanisms underlying resilience.
Analyzing the Conceptual Framework
The model clearly distinguishes between risk and protective factors, yet it sometimes fails to operationalize these factors with sufficient specificity. For example, “social support” is often cited as a protective factor without acknowledging the diversity of support types (emotional, instrumental) or sources (family, friends, community). Ungar (2013) emphasizes the context-dependent nature of these factors, arguing that what constitutes a risk or protective factor can vary significantly across different cultural and environmental contexts. Additionally, the model’s binary categorization of factors as either risk or protective does not always capture the nuanced reality that some factors can be both, depending on the context. This lack of specificity can hinder the development of targeted interventions.
Assessing Practical Implications
The practical application of the Risk and Protective Factors Model in designing resilience-building programs is invaluable. However, interventions developed based on this model sometimes assume a one-size-fits-all approach, not accounting for individual differences in resilience mechanisms. As noted in the conceptual framework critique, what works as a protective factor in one cultural or socioeconomic context may not be effective in another. Masten (2014) argues that its application must be nuanced, taking into account cultural and contextual differences. Tailored interventions that consider the unique needs and circumstances of diverse populations are needed to enhance the model’s practical utility.
Reflecting on Ethical Considerations
Ethically, the model encourages a focus on strengthening individual resilience, which is positive, motivating, and empowering. Nonetheless, there’s a risk that solely emphasizing individual responsibility for developing resilience might overlook or minimize the importance of addressing the broader social and economic conditions that contribute to risk. Southwick et al. (2014) discuss the ethical implications of resilience research, including the risk of oversimplifying the complexity of human resilience by not adequately considering the role of systemic factors. Interventions that focus solely on individual coping skills without tackling underlying social or economic inequalities may inadvertently blame individuals for their struggles, rather than recognizing the role of environmental factors in shaping resilience.
Return to Chapter 10: Critiques and Future Directions in Resilience Research.
Critique of Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Framework
Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory, now commonly referred to as the Ecological Systems Framework, offers a comprehensive approach to understanding human development within the context of multiple environmental systems that interact with each other and with the individual.
Bronfenbrenner’s framework is lauded for its holistic approach to human development, emphasizing the importance of various environmental systems. However, a comprehensive critique requires examining its application across diverse contexts, its methodological underpinnings, conceptual clarity, practical implications, and ethical considerations.
Identifying the Purpose and Scope
While Bronfenbrenner’s theory significantly advanced our understanding of the environmental influences on human development, its broad scope sometimes leads to challenges in operationalizing specific constructs for empirical research. The theory ambitiously attempts to encapsulate all conceivable environmental influences, from immediate family and school settings to broader societal and cultural contexts. This wide scope, while comprehensive, can make it difficult to design studies that adequately test the theory’s predictions or to isolate the effects of specific environmental systems (Rosa & Tudge, 2013).
Evaluating the Methodological Foundation
One of the methodological challenges in applying Bronfenbrenner’s theory is the complexity of studying interactions across different systems (e.g., micro-, meso-, exo-, and macrosystems) simultaneously. While the theory encourages a holistic view of development, the multifaceted nature of these interactions poses significant challenges for empirical research, including issues of measurement and the need for longitudinal data to capture the dynamics of these systems over time (Tudge, Mokrova, Hatfield, & Karnik, 2009).
Analyzing the Conceptual Framework
Bronfenbrenner’s framework is sometimes critiqued for its conceptual vagueness regarding the boundaries and mechanisms of influence between different systems. For example, the distinction between exosystems and macrosystems can be blurry, with both encompassing broader societal influences that do not directly interact with the individual. Clarifying these distinctions and the specific mechanisms through which broader societal contexts influence individual development would enhance the theory’s conceptual clarity (Berk, 2000).
Assessing Practical Implications
The Ecological Systems Framework has been instrumental in shaping policies and practices in education, social work, and public health by highlighting the importance of contextual factors in human development. However, its broad applicability sometimes leads to oversimplified interpretations that neglect the complexity of individual-system interactions. Practitioners and policymakers must navigate the theory’s complexity to develop targeted interventions that can effectively address the nuanced needs of individuals within their specific ecological contexts (Swick & Williams, 2006).
Reflecting on Ethical Considerations
Bronfenbrenner’s theory inherently promotes an ethical consideration of the multiple layers of environmental influence on individuals, advocating for a more inclusive and supportive societal structure. However, the theory itself provides little guidance on addressing potential conflicts between the interests of individuals and those of larger systems, such as when societal or cultural norms may hinder personal development or well-being. Expanding the theory to include a more explicit analysis of these ethical dilemmas could provide valuable guidance for ethically navigating individual-system interactions (Darling, 2007).
Return to Chapter 10: Critiques and Future Directions in Resilience Research.
Critique of The Psychological Capital (PsyCap) Theory of Resilience
The Psychological Capital (PsyCap) Theory, proposed by Luthans, Youssef, and Avolio (2007), focuses on an individual’s positive psychological state of development, characterized by (1) self-efficacy, (2) optimism, (3) hope, and (4) resilience. This theory has been applied across various fields, particularly in organizational behavior and human resource management, to enhance workplace performance, motivation, and satisfaction.
A thorough critique of PsyCap Theory necessitates examining its empirical support, theoretical clarity, integration into broader psychological frameworks, practical applications in diverse organizational settings, and its ethical implications in promoting positive psychological traits.
Identifying the Purpose and Scope
The PsyCap Theory ambitiously aims to integrate various aspects of an individual’s positive psychological state into a coherent framework for enhancing workplace outcomes. However, its broad scope sometimes leads to challenges in distinguishing the unique contributions of each component (self-efficacy, optimism, hope, resilience) to overall psychological capital and in turn, their specific impacts on performance outcomes. This broadness may dilute the focus from the interplay and potential overlap between the constructs, raising questions about the theory’s specificity and operationalization in research and practice (Luthans, Avolio, Avey, & Norman, 2007).
Evaluating the Methodological Foundation
While PsyCap is supported by empirical research demonstrating its positive relationship with job satisfaction, commitment, and performance, the predominance of cross-sectional studies limits the ability to infer causality and understand the long-term impacts of PsyCap interventions. Longitudinal and experimental designs are needed to establish causal relationships and assess the durability of PsyCap interventions over time (Avey, Reichard, Luthans, & Mhatre, 2011).
Analyzing the Conceptual Framework
The PsyCap Theory’s conceptualization of psychological capital as comprising self-efficacy, optimism, hope, and resilience is both a strength and a point of critique. The overlap among these components can lead to conceptual redundancy, challenging the clarity of the theory’s framework. Distinguishing more clearly between these components and elucidating their unique and combined effects on psychological capital would enhance the theory’s conceptual coherence (Luthans & Youssef-Morgan, 2017).
Assessing Practical Implications
PsyCap Theory has been applied to develop interventions aimed at enhancing employees’ psychological capital, with positive implications for organizational performance. However, the effectiveness of these interventions can vary significantly across different organizational cultures and individual differences. Tailoring interventions to fit the specific context and individual profiles within organizations is crucial for maximizing the benefits of PsyCap development programs (Luthans, Avey, Avolio, Peterson, & Walumbwa, 2010).
Reflecting on Ethical Considerations
Promoting positive psychological traits through PsyCap interventions raises ethical considerations regarding the pressure it may place on employees to exhibit these traits, potentially overlooking the importance of addressing systemic issues within the organization that contribute to stress and burnout. It is essential to balance the focus on developing individual PsyCap with efforts to improve organizational practices and structures that support employee well-being (Walumbwa, Luthans, Avey, & Oke, 2011).
Return to Chapter 10: Critiques and Future Directions in Resilience Research.
Critique of the Conservation of Resources (COR) Theory
The Conservation of Resources (COR) Theory, proposed by Hobfoll (1989), posits that individuals strive to obtain, retain, and protect their resources, including objects, personal characteristics, conditions, or energies. Stress is posited to occur when there is a threat of resource loss, actual loss, or a lack of adequate resource gain following investment. This theory has been widely applied in the context of stress, coping, and resilience across various domains.
Critiquing the COR Theory requires examining its empirical basis, theoretical clarity, integration with other stress and coping models, practical applications in stress management and organizational psychology, and its ethical considerations in research and intervention design.
Identifying the Purpose and Scope
While COR Theory offers a valuable framework for understanding stress and coping processes, its broad definition of resources sometimes leads to challenges in operationalization for empirical research. The wide array of resources considered (e.g., material, psychological, social) can make it difficult to pinpoint which resources are most critical to specific stress outcomes or how different types of resources interact. This broad scope, while comprehensive, may dilute the specificity and predictive power of the theory in practical applications (Hobfoll, 2001).
Evaluating the Methodological Foundation
The empirical support for COR Theory largely comes from cross-sectional and observational studies, which provide valuable insights but limit the ability to establish causality between resource loss and stress outcomes. Longitudinal studies that track resource changes over time and experimental designs that manipulate resource conditions are needed to strengthen the theory’s empirical foundation and better understand the dynamics of resource conservation and loss (Halbesleben, Neveu, Paustian-Underdahl, & Westman, 2014).
Analyzing the Conceptual Framework
COR Theory’s conceptualization of resources is both a strength and a point of critique. The broad definition of resources encompasses virtually anything perceived as valuable, which can lead to conceptual ambiguity. Clarifying and categorizing resources more distinctly could enhance the theory’s coherence and its application in identifying specific stressors and coping strategies (Hobfoll, 1989; Hobfoll et al., 2018).
Assessing Practical Implications
COR Theory has practical implications in designing interventions to prevent resource loss and promote resource gain, particularly in organizational settings. However, the effectiveness of such interventions can vary significantly across different work environments and individual differences in resource valuation. Developing tailored interventions that account for the specific resource dynamics within an organization or community is crucial for maximizing the theory’s practical utility (Westman, Hobfoll, Chen, Davidson, & Laski, 2004).
Reflecting on Ethical Considerations
Applying COR Theory in developing stress management interventions raises ethical considerations regarding the equitable distribution of resources and the potential for interventions to disproportionately benefit those with more resources, thereby exacerbating inequalities. It is important to consider how interventions based on COR Theory can be designed to support equitable resource distribution and address the needs of those most at risk of resource loss (Hobfoll et al., 2018).
Return to Chapter 10: Critiques and Future Directions in Resilience Research.
Critique of The Broaden-and-Build Theory of Positive Emotions
As explained in Chapter 2, the Broaden-and-Build Theory of Positive Emotions, proposed by Barbara Fredrickson, suggests that positive emotions broaden individuals’ momentary thought-action repertoires, which in turn builds their enduring personal resources, ranging from physical and intellectual resources to social and psychological resources. This influential theory has been widely explored within positive psychology.
A thorough critique of the Broaden-and-Build Theory involves examining empirical evidence supporting the theory, its theoretical coherence, integration with existing psychological models, practical applications, and ethical implications.
Identifying the Purpose and Scope
While the theory elegantly links the short-term effects of positive emotions with long-term well-being and resource building, its scope may sometimes appear too broad, encompassing a wide range of positive outcomes without adequately distinguishing between different types of positive emotions and their specific impacts. This broad scope can make it challenging to operationalize and measure the constructs defined by the theory, potentially limiting its specificity in empircal testing (Fredrickson, 2001).
Evaluating the Methodological Foundation
Much of the support for the Broaden-and-Build Theory comes from correlational studies and experimental designs that induce emotions in laboratory settings. While these studies provide valuable insights, there’s a need for more longitudinal research to better understand how the broadening effect of positive emotions translates into enduring resource building over time, outside controlled experimental conditions (Fredrickson et al., 2008).
Analyzing the Conceptual Framework
Conceptual Clarity and Coherence: The theory’s central premise is clear, yet the mechanisms by which broadening leads to building, and how these resources contribute to improved well-being, could be articulated more explicitly. Further delineation of the pathways and processes involved could enhance the theory’s coherence and facilitate empirical testing of its propositions (Garland et al., 2010).
Assessing Practical Implications
The Broaden-and-Build Theory has significant practical implications, inspiring interventions aimed at fostering positive emotions to enhance well-being and resilience. However, the effectiveness of such interventions may vary across individuals and contexts, highlighting the need for adaptive approaches that consider individual differences and environmental factors (Cohn & Fredrickson, 2010).
Reflecting on Ethical Considerations
Encouraging the cultivation of positive emotions has the potential to overlook or invalidate the complexity of human emotional experiences, particularly in contexts of adversity or trauma. Ethically, it’s important to recognize the role of a full range of emotions in human life and ensure that interventions aimed at fostering positive emotions do not dismiss the value and necessity of experiencing negative emotions (Brown & Ryan, 2003).
Return to Chapter 10: Critiques and Future Directions in Resilience Research.
Critique of The Wither or Thrive Model
The Wither or Thrive model can be envisioned as a framework that explores how individuals either deteriorate under stress and adversity (wither) or overcome challenges and grow stronger (thrive).
Critique of the Wither or Thrive model requires an assessment of its empirical foundation, conceptual framework, practical applications, and ethical considerations, focusing on its utility and limitations in addressing the complexities of resilience and vulnerability, especially under conditions like the COVID-19 pandemic.
Identifying the Purpose and Scope
The With:Resilience model aims to provide a nuanced framework that recognizes binary outcomes of resilience in the face of adversity—either withering or thriving. However, this binary approach may oversimplify the spectrum of human responses to stress and trauma, which can manifest in more complex patterns than the model suggests. The scope could be expanded to include intermediate or mixed outcomes to capture a wider array of human experiences and responses (Bremmer & Wittbrodt, 2020; Dixon, 2022).
Evaluating the Methodological Foundation
The model’s support from longitudinal and experimental studies lends it empirical credibility. However, the reliance on these studies raises questions about the model’s applicability across different cultural and situational contexts. Future research should explore cross-cultural validity and the effects of varying intensities and types of stressors to enhance the model’s universal applicability.
Analyzing the Conceptual Framework
The With:Resilience model benefits from a clear conceptualization of how resilience can lead to thriving or withering. Nonetheless, the definitions of “thriving” and “withering” need further refinement to avoid ambiguity, ensuring they are measurable and distinctly operationalized in research settings (Carver, 1998; Kleine, Rudolph & Zacher, 2019; Massey et al., 1998). More detailed mechanisms explaining how intrinsic and extrinsic factors interact to influence these outcomes would also strengthen the model’s coherence.
Assessing Practical Implications
Practically, the With:Resilience model provides valuable insights for developing interventions aimed at enhancing resilience. It underscores the importance of social support networks and stress inoculation. However, its application could be broadened beyond individual-focused interventions to include community and systemic strategies that address broader environmental and societal factors contributing to resilience and vulnerability.
Reflecting on Ethical Considerations
Ethically, the model’s emphasis on binary outcomes may inadvertently stigmatize those who “wither,” suggesting a failure to cope adequately. It’s crucial to approach the application of this model with sensitivity to avoid reinforcing negative stereotypes about mental health struggles. Ethical guidelines should advocate for a balanced interpretation that recognizes the complex realities of psychological responses to adversity.
Return to Chapter 10: Critiques and Future Directions in Resilience Research.
