Andrew Denovan, Lee Crust, and Peter J. Clough
Resilience at work continues to be a major focus of both research and applied work. Often it is viewed in isolation from other perspectives and is rarely linked to positive psychology. In this chapter the concept of resilience will be briefly described, discussed, and placed in the context of other theoretical models. The final part of the chapter deals with mental toughness, providing one specific approach to linking resilience and positive psychology to the world of work.
The positive psychology movement, spearheaded by the seminal work of Seligman and Csikszentmihayli (2000), offers perhaps the best framework to understand psychological well‐being. These researchers argued for greater attention to be given to the study of positive human functioning and flourishing. The message and approach presented by Seligman and Csikszentmihayli, as they freely acknowledged, was nothing particularly new. Nevertheless, given the scant knowledge of positive human functioning at the time, the timing of their “call to arms” was crucial in highlighting that research efforts in psychology had tended to focus upon alleviating negative psychological states such as anxiety and depression, and that the absence of such states alone was not indicative of well‐being. After all, achieving good mental health comprises not only the absence of illness, but also self‐satisfaction, independence, capability and competency, and coping well with stress and adversity (Bird, 2007). While accepting the importance of understanding and treating psychological conditions and remediating deficits, these researchers encouraged greater efforts to understand concepts such as enjoyment, authentic happiness, and well‐being. In short, past research efforts primarily focused upon returning those suffering from negative psychological conditions back to normal functioning (however defined); but beyond normal functioning the positive half of the continuum of human experience remains less well understood.
Within the foundations of humanistic psychology, the positive psychology movement is concerned with three important concepts. First, the life of enjoyment concerns savoring positive emotions and feelings. The work of Fredrickson (2001), which is described elsewhere in this chapter, has led to better understanding of how positive emotions such as joy and interest can create broader thinking, help to build personal resources, and facilitate personal growth through positive or adaptive spirals of emotion.
Second, the life of engagement reflects being immersed and absorbed in what one is doing. Flow is one important positive psychological concept associated with engagement and is described as an intrinsically motivating experience involving an altered state of awareness which typically occurs when high levels of skill are matched with high levels of challenge (Jackson & Csikzentmihalyi, 1999). Third, the life of affiliation concerns how positive relationships can help people to derive a sense of well‐being, belonging, meaning, and purpose. These central themes from positive psychology might be contrasted against most research that has focused on understanding negative emotional states and illness.
Psychological well‐being represents “the achievement of one’s full psychological potential” (Carr, 2004, p. 36). While different opinions still exist concerning the exact conceptualization of psychological well‐being, it is generally agreed to be a multidimensional construct. The work of Carol Ryff and colleagues provides perhaps the most accepted and theory‐driven approach to the study of psychological well‐being. Ryff (1989) identified six distinct components that represent the six‐factor model of psychological well‐being. The breadth of wellness identified by Ryff consists of: (1) self‐acceptance (positive evaluations of oneself and one’s past life), (2) personal growth (sense of development and continued growth as an individual), (3) purpose in life (belief that one’s life is meaningful), (4) positive relations with others (existence of meaningful relationships with others), (5) environmental mastery (capacity to effectively manage one’s life and the surrounding world), and (6) autonomy (a sense of self‐determination).
Until recently, most research efforts in psychology, often linked to the financial support of research councils, have been based around a medical or deficit model. Simply put, the focus has been upon understanding psychological problems and developing and testing treatments that facilitate the return to normal states of functioning. In light of evidence that one in four people will experience psychological problems within their lifetime (e.g., Layard & Clark, 2014), this is of course an important endeavor. Nevertheless, the predominant focus upon remediating deficits and treating illness has meant that much less attention has been devoted to understanding positive human functioning and flourishing. It would seem reasonable that one of the best ways of understanding more about resilience is to study and learn from those individuals who have demonstrated resilience in challenging circumstances. If we can understand the processes and mechanisms that highly resilient people use, then it should be possible to apply this knowledge to help others become more resilient. To aid this understanding, this chapter will place resilience within the context of other related concepts including hardiness and mental toughness.
Suzanne Kobasa and colleagues (Kobasa, 1979; Kobasa, Maddi, & Khan, 1982) identified an important protective characteristic called psychological hardiness that distinguishes between people who cope more and less successfully when facing potentially stressful circumstances. Given that numerous studies predicted high correlations between stress and illness, but actually found low to moderate associations, it became apparent that the relationship was more complex than first thought. While continued exposure to stressful situations has been linked to illness and serious stress‐related disorders, not all people succumb, even in highly stressful environments. Kobasa identified that individual differences were important in understanding the stress–illness relationship. Hardiness was presented as an important variable that could help buffer the potential negative consequences of stress.
Kobasa (1979) initially found that three attitudes or dispositions of commitment, control, and challenge, known as “the three Cs,” were crucial in understanding the differences between managers and executives who became ill, and those who remained healthy when faced with stressful circumstances. Commitment reflected being deeply involved and interested in what one is doing as opposed to feeling alienated or disinterested. Control concerns a tendency to believe and act as if one is influential rather than passively accepting circumstances. Challenge involves the perceptions or evaluations of potential stressors with hardy individuals most likely to view these as challenges and opportunities for personal growth rather than being overly threatening. These findings posited hardiness as an important personal resource that enabled the potential negative effects of stress to be resisted. Since this initial work, a body of evidence has supported the role of hardiness as a stress‐buffer when individuals are exposed to increasingly adverse and challenging circumstances across a broad range of domains (i.e., business, education, military). In terms of coping, it appears that hardy individuals are adept at maintaining optimistic appraisals by placing stressors into perspective, and employing what is termed “transformational coping” to downplay any stressors and limit any negative effects upon health and performance.
Following initial research efforts to understand hardiness, Maddi (2004) emphasized the combined importance of the three Cs of hardiness and provided examples of how conceptually no one of the three was enough to provide the courage and motivation to turn stressful circumstances into advantage. In short, hardiness was a reflection of the three Cs operating together and an expression of existential courage.
Maddi, like other existential psychologists, is primarily concerned with the ongoing search for meaning in life – a process that involves making decisions that can be of low (e.g., choice of meal) to high (e.g., changing career) importance. According to Maddi, all decisions have an invariant form; to either choose the future or the past. In the ongoing search for meaning, choosing the past would seem like an odd choice, given it is primarily about holding on to what is familiar, and remaining within a comfort zone. Choosing the past can lead to stagnation and is not regarded as a pathway to learning and personal growth. The main reason that some people regularly choose the past, is that by so doing they avoid the uncomfortable experience of ontological anxiety. By choosing the future, individuals are likely to face challenges and uncomfortable feelings, but it is this route that involves learning, development, and the building of personal resources. For some, the fear and risk involved with change outweighs the possible advantages of choosing the future, but ultimately the downside of choosing the past is a process that progresses from boredom to a painful sense of meaninglessness. In order to choose the future, to embrace change and experience personal growth in the process, individuals need to have courage. To Maddi, hardiness is an operationalization of existential courage, with the three Cs facilitating decision‐making that embraces change and the future rather than the past. In the following section, the synergies, and differences, between hardiness and resilience will be further explored.
Resilience is a rather amorphous concept, but the various definitions do agree that it is the ability to deal with stressors and setbacks and has become an essential part of human existence that is associated with both successful outcomes and well‐being. Psychological resilience has been defined in several ways, but perhaps most usually as flexibility in response to changing situational demands and the ability to bounce back after negative emotional experiences (see Tugade, Fredrickson, & Barrett, 2004). Nevertheless, several theorists such as Neenan (2009) have criticized definitions and conceptualizations of resilience that emphasize “bouncing back” because it creates the perception of quickly and effortlessly returning to a previous state, when resilience often develops over longer periods of time and can involve significant struggles, pain, and reorganization for the individual. While definitions of resilience have been numerous and varied, it is generally agreed that resilience concerns positive adaptation despite the presence of risk or adversity (Luthar & Cicchetti, 2000).
To add to the lack of agreement over the definition of resilience, the mechanisms implicit in the construct have been the subject of debate, with some researchers advocating a process approach, and others a trait approach (Jacelon, 1997). Popular process models include those of Wilson, Friedman, and Lindy (2001) and Richardson, Neiger, Jensen, and Kumpfer (1990; and Richardson, 2002). Wilson et al. (2001) developed a trauma model of resilience. Here, a traumatic event impacts on personality, self‐structure, and ego processes which influence activation of the allostatic stress reaction (behavioral or physiological efforts to maintain homeostasis) (Sterling & Eyer, 1988), which influences the continuum of resilience and adaptation. The stress response is characterized by a culmination of interactive factors of personality, ego defences, coping style, modulation of affect, and use of protective factors. The product of the stress reaction to the event is the measure of adaptation and resilience.
Richardson et al. (1990; and Richardson, 2002) developed a biopsychospiritual balance model. Here, internal and external stressors threaten biopsychospiritual homeostasis (mind, body, and spirit), and the ability to cope is influenced by successful and unsuccessful past attempts at dealing with disruptions. Response to disruption is a reintegrative process which is viewed to influence one of several possible outcomes: one being growth and increased resilience, with adaptation leading to a higher threshold of homeostasis; another being recovery with loss, which leads to a lower level of homeostasis. A third outcome is a return to homeostasis and just getting past the disruption. The fourth is a dysfunctional state where maladaptive coping is practiced (e.g., self‐destructive conduct).
Resilience as a trait was defined by Wagnild and Young (1993) as the characteristic of an individual which facilitates adaptation and moderates the negative impacts of stress. This is viewed as consisting of stable personal factors including reflectiveness, positive responsiveness to others, above average intelligence, equanimity, self‐reliance, meaningfulness, a wide range of personal and social activities and interests, perseverance, and an optimistic and energetic approach to life. In contrast to the trait approach is the process approach. This tries to provide a better understanding of how resilience is developed and operates, whereas the trait approach takes a simpler perspective – basically resilience is present or not. Among researchers the process approach lacks agreement on an appropriate model, and lacks clarity regarding the steps in the process. Furthermore, it emphasizes that resilience is learned, and although this intuitively makes sense, the time required to develop resilience is unclear (Jacelon, 1997).
Resilience has attracted considerable research attention. One key focus of the myriad of investigations has been the development of resilience. The majority of developmental research has investigated resilience among children growing up in the midst of unfavorable circumstances (parental illness, poverty), and traumatic experience research has investigated the role of resilience in recovery from traumatic events (Bonanno, 2004). Werner and Smith (2001) conducted a landmark longitudinal study of children born into poverty on the island of Kauai. Two thirds of the 505 children developed serious problems. The remaining third developed into “healthy” adults, who demonstrated various protective factors including having a good‐natured and affectionate temperament, having many friends and interests at school, and a good attachment to a carer. Masten et al. (2005) conducted a 20‐year study and found that children who developed healthily in the midst of unfavorable circumstances had more available internal and external resources, including good parenting and good cognitive abilities. Children with less of these resources became more vulnerable, underwent more stressful incidents, and had less ability to cope as adults. Masten (1994) reviewed research on resilience and found various important protective factors, including good parenting, good intellectual ability, self‐reliance, self‐worth, hope, and good performance at school.
Research on resilience as a recovery process following trauma has shown various protective factors which help to maintain a stable equilibrium (Bonanno, 2004). Examples include repressive coping such as emotional dissociation (Weinberger, Schwartz, & Davidson, 1979), self‐enhancement where people with an over‐high view of themselves are more resistant to stressful events (Bonanno, Rennicke, & Dekel, 2005), and positive emotion and humor (Ong & Bergeman, 2004).
Some research has investigated academic resilience among economically disadvantaged adolescents. Gordon (1995, 1996) found resilient African‐American students were more motivated by material gain, cognitive, and extra‐curricular pursuits than non‐resilient African‐American students. Gordon‐Rouse (2001) discovered among 170 high school students from a stressful, economically deprived background that resilient students displayed more positive motivational behavior than non‐resilient students, in particular more belief and tenacity regarding their cognitive ability, which was linked with better academic performance (measured by Grade Point Average).
Luthar (1991) found resilient adolescent students to have an internal locus of control and possess excellent social skills. However, intelligence was found to be a vulnerability factor, which was attributed to the higher levels of sensitivity that are linked with higher intelligence. Garmezy and Rutter (1983) found resilient schoolchildren were academically and cognitively superior and more independent than non‐resilient students. Such evidence is interesting given the trend of research associating economic disadvantage with poor academic performance and ability (Hanusek, 1997). Initially, positive adaptation in response to adversity was viewed to be characteristic of extraordinary individuals, inferring a sense of “invincibility.” However, Masten’s research suggests that resilience is a relatively common phenomenon which emerges not from extraordinary qualities, but rather from “ordinary magic” (Masten, 2001).
Resilience has long been associated with stress and coping, which are to an extent embedded in definitions of the construct (Maluccio, 2002). This has clear links with the previously reported work on hardiness. However, consistent with a positive psychology emphasis, more research is now concerned with well‐being and adaptation in response to stress as a function of resilience. For example, some studies have investigated the role of positive emotion, experience of which is viewed to have adaptive benefits for coping with stress (Folkman & Moskowitz, 2004). Research supports this via demonstrating that resilient individuals utilize positive emotion producing coping techniques to minimize negative emotional experiences, such as problem‐focused, goal‐oriented coping (Billings, Folkman, Acree, & Moskowitz, 2000), positive reappraisal and benefit finding (Affleck & Tennen, 1996), and humor (Ong, Bergeman, & Bisconti, 2004). This will be discussed in more detail later in this chapter.
Also, individual differences in resilience are associated with greater recovery from stressful experiences. Fredrickson, Tugade, Waugh, and Larkin (2003) discovered that higher trait resilience correlated with less depressive symptomology. Tugade, Fredrickson, and Barrett (2004) found that quicker cardiovascular recovery from a laboratory stressor (speech preparation task) was associated with higher trait resilience. Importantly, depressive symptoms and cardiovascular response were mediated by the experience of positive emotion. Ong, Bergeman, Bisconti, and Wallace (2006) found the experience of positive emotion to be common among resilient individuals and served to assist their ability to rebound from stress. Low‐resilient individuals exhibited greater reactivity to daily stressors and had greater difficulty controlling negative emotions. Interestingly, this study found trait resilience was relevant not only to individuals under extreme trauma, but also to individuals experiencing daily stressors (hassles). This infers that resilience is a common phenomenon (Bonanno, 2004), and is to some extent an important trait which can aid individuals in dealing with stress transactions on a daily basis.
Martin and Marsh (2008) focused on resilience among undergraduates in relation to daily hassles, specifically academic setbacks and challenges including exam pressure, deadlines, and poor marks. This study labeled resilience differently as buoyancy, suggesting it was an everyday type of resilience. Although the term used was different, the concept is essentially the same. Higher academic resilience was linked with higher self‐efficacy and student engagement and lower anxiety. Campbell‐Sills, Cohan, and Stein (2006) investigated the relationship of resilience to personality traits, coping styles, and psychiatric symptoms in young adulthood (undergraduates). Resilient students had higher levels of conscientiousness and extraversion, lower neuroticism, and utilized problem‐focused coping whereas emotion‐focused coping was utilized by students low in resilience.
In terms of research, Richardson (2002) makes the important distinction between what is termed first and second wave resiliency. First wave resiliency research coheres around the identification of resilient qualities and has been much in evidence within sports mental toughness literature (i.e., identifying the component parts of mental toughness). Second wave resilience research is more concerned with understanding how individuals acquire such qualities to allow them to adapt and successfully move past adverse circumstances. One conceptualization (Lepore & Revenson, 2006) is particularly useful in understanding how individuals acquire resilience, with three dimensions being held as important. First, resistance reflects being undisturbed by adversity. Second, recovery involves disturbance but an eventual return to pre‐stress levels of functioning. Third, reconfiguration refers to being disturbed, but rather than returning to pre‐stress functioning, a new worldview is formed that can result in more or less adaptive outcomes. The potential for resilience to develop appears to occur when homeostasis is disturbed due to stressful conditions, and the individual finds him/herself outside of their comfort zone. When this happens, the return to homeostasis can occur through four possible routes. The first of these is termed dysfunctional reintegration and sees the individual deal with adversity through destructive means such as violence. In contrast, reintegration with loss reflects overcoming the adversity but at some cost, often in terms that deplete personal resources (i.e., confidence, motivation). Homeostatic reintegration reflects moving beyond the adversity unchanged (with nothing lost or gained). The final and most desirable form of reintegration is termed resilient reintegration, and involves successfully moving beyond the adversity and in the process acquiring new personal resources that make the individual better prepared for future confrontations with stress.
It is interesting to note that positive outcomes have been reported following stressful, adverse, and at times traumatic encounters in several other domains. It has been consistently shown that trauma initially exerts a negative influence upon perceptions of psychological well‐being (Board, Arrighi, & Thatcher, 2003), but before‐and‐after studies have shown stress‐related growth (Calhoun & Tedeschi, 1999; Joseph, 2012; Peterson & Seligman, 2003). Stress‐related growth is known to occur following a period of reflection and contemplation (Helgeson, Reynolds, & Tomich, 2006) and occurs through (1) changes in views of the self, such as greater self‐acceptance, (2) increasing value of personal relationships, and (3) changes in life philosophy, such as re‐evaluating what really matters (Joseph, 2012). However, according to Joseph one of the challenges in studying stress‐related growth is the reliance on retrospective accounts from participants, and the potential difference between perceptions of growth and actual growth. It would also be wrong to assume that traumatic events always lead to positive outcomes such as personal growth. Unfortunately, some people constantly relive traumatic events, experience powerful negative emotions, and remain unable to move on successfully. This highlights some important differences between those who survive and those who thrive. Only resilient individuals are able, usually after significant struggle and hardship, to obtain positive outcomes like personal growth and new perspectives on life following trauma (Neenan, 2009).
Research has demonstrated the ability of hardy and mentally tough individuals to remain positive and calm, and to think flexibly in adverse circumstances. Studies have demonstrated that certain coping strategies (i.e., approach rather than avoidance) are indicative of more resilient individuals (Nicholls et al., 2008). The underlying processes of how hardy or mentally tough individuals develop resistance resources are still being examined, but one theory that has emerged within a positive psychology framework holds some promise. The broaden‐and‐build theory of positive emotions (Fredrickson, 2001) was developed from work examining the long‐held view that experiencing positive emotions is good for health (e.g., the role of laughter, humor) and is linked to approach type behaviors. While negative emotions serve to heighten sympathetic nervous system activity, narrow attentional processing, and support action tendencies such as fight or flight, Fredrickson theorized that positive emotions have a somewhat different function. For example, joy sparks the urge to play, interest triggers the urge to explore, and contentment creates the urge to savor and integrate.
A significant body of evidence has supported the broaden‐and‐build theory (e.g., Fredrickson & Levenson, 1998), which proposes that positive emotions produce patterns of thought that are flexible, creative, and open to information. This broadening effect is also accompanied by physiological processes that reduce sympathetic nervous system functioning and increase momentary thought–action repertoires. Experiencing positive emotions in the aftermath of negative experiences also appears to produce an “undoing effect.” For example, Fredrickson and colleagues (Fredrickson & Levenson, 1998; Fredrickson, Mancuso, Branigan, & Tugade, 2000) reported the findings of three experiments that initially induced high arousal and negative emotions, and followed this by having participants view an emotionally stimulating film that induced joy, contentment, neutrality, or sadness. Films that contained positive emotions were found to elicit faster cardiovascular return to baseline measures compared with neutral or sad films.
Furthermore, and perhaps of most significance, is that the broaden‐and‐build theory proposes that repeatedly experiencing positive emotions can build lasting resources. Evidence identifies resilient individuals as being characterized by positive emotionality, but also as cultivating positive emotions in others through providing appropriate support within close relationships. According to Tugade et al. (2004), positive emotions are not merely the by‐product of psychological resilience, but serve an important function in enabling people to recover following stressful encounters. A broad range of evidence including self‐report, observational, and longitudinal studies has supported a relationship between positive emotions and resilience (see Fredrickson, 2004). Indeed, Cohn, Fredrickson, Brown, Mikels, and Conway (2009) found that positive emotions were significantly related to ego‐resilience in students, and during the month‐long study where emotions were reported daily, positive emotions also predicted increases in reported resilience. More recent work (Stamp et al., 2015) involving students from several UK universities found moderate to strong significant and positive relationships between mental toughness and psychological well‐being across all three years of undergraduate study. Previous work had already established mental toughness as a significant and positive predictor of achievement and progression in first‐year university students (Crust, Earle, et al., 2014). It is very likely that these findings would be repeated in an occupational setting. University students are now very likely to work while studying and often view their degree studies as a job. In addition, they soon enter the world of work and it is very unlikely that the links identified would not be present.
Research supports the notion that participants who experience frequent positive emotions build resources that helped them deal with life challenges. For example, positive emotions such as interest and contentment may lead to the building of personal resources as the individual grows and develops through approach rather than avoidance behaviors, and using creativity and/or reflection as a result of positive emotional experiences. As Fredrickson (2004, p. 1367) acknowledges:
The bottom‐line message is that people should cultivate positive emotions in themselves and in those around them, not just as end‐states in themselves, but also as a means to achieving psychological growth and improved psychological and physical well‐being over time.
In contrast, the effects of negative emotions on resilience have generally been found to be weak or null. In times of stress, resilient individuals report similar levels of negative emotions to other participants but more positive emotions. Consistent with this, recent studies have found that in demanding circumstances that are often associated with negative feelings and emotions, mentally tough individuals were able to draw upon humor and previous positive experiences to help maintain perspective and cope effectively (Crust et al., 2010). Evidence has shown that mentally tough athletes are more successful and effective at coping with adverse circumstances (Nicholls, Levy, Polman, & Crust, 2011).
As mentioned earlier, research also indicates that higher levels of resilience are associated with greater use of specific coping strategies which elicit positive affect in response to stress, such as positive reappraisal and problem‐focused coping (Affleck & Tennen, 1996; Billings et al., 2000; Folkman, Acree, & Moskowitz, 2000). Greater access to and the ability to use positive emotional resources can buffer the impact of stress and offer respite from ongoing stressful experiences (Zautra, Johnson, & Davis, 2005). Vulpe and Dafinoiu (2012) suggest that positive and negative emotions can co‐occur in response to stressful episodes, and importantly that positive emotion could dominate under any of the following circumstances: when an individual feels they are in control of a situation; when the experience is viewed to be an opportunity for growth; or when the individual utilizes adaptive coping. Positive affect is important for resilience because it has been linked with coping styles which can help buffer and lessen potential negative effects of stress (see, e.g., Folkman et al., 2000). Chen et al. (1996) found positive affective responses predicted engaged coping among women undergoing a biopsy for suspected breast cancer, and following breast cancer surgery, pre‐existing levels of positive mood predicted the tendency to cope through active engagement (Carver et al., 1993).
In terms of the mechanisms relating to how positive affect may foster resilience and the building of lasting resources, the broaden‐and‐build theory posits that experience of positive emotion is associated with a growth in coping resources which facilitate greater resilience in response to stress and future experience of positive affect (Reschly, Huebner, Appleton, & Antaramian, 2008). Such a process is suggested to operate in a “virtuous circle,” with positive affect catalyzing a growth in coping and resilience over time. A recent study by Gloria, Faulk, and Steinhardt (2013) found evidence for the building effect of positive emotion in relation to work stress, as positive emotions predicted lower work stress and greater levels of psychological resilience in public school teachers. Moreover, the study found support for positive emotion acting as a mediator in relation to work stress and resilience.
Vulpe and Dafinoiu (2012) also found direct support for the building function of the broaden‐and‐build theory in that positive emotion mediated the relationship between adaptive coping strategies (approach coping, self‐help coping, and accommodation coping) and ego‐resiliency. This study suggested that individuals who utilize adaptive coping experience positive emotion, which in turn facilitates ego‐resiliency. Importantly, positive emotions are seen to be the cause and consequence of broad‐minded and adaptive coping. Fredrickson and Joiner (2002) found that experience of positive emotion at one time period was associated with more effective coping (broad‐minded coping) and greater positive affect five weeks later in 138 university students, indicating a reciprocal enhancing effect. Mediational analyses provided support for the spiralling effects of positive affect and coping over time. Broad‐minded coping and positive emotions were found to mutually build on one another: positive emotions not only enabled individuals to feel good in the present, but through their effect on broadened thinking they increase the likelihood that people will feel good in the future and recruit effective coping for difficult situations, thus enhancing resiliency over time.
Positive emotions are important factors for developing resilience and in turn psychological well‐being. The relationship of psychological well‐being and positive emotions has been reported in a good number of studies (Greenglass & Fiksenbaum, 2009). For example, Affleck and Tennen (1996) discovered that women who were able to find benefits from a stressful experience (complicated child delivery and prolonged stay at hospital) reported higher levels of well‐being, which extended to their children’s developmental well‐being. A longitudinal study reported that women displaying more positive emotion in their college photographs achieved more desirable outcomes in marriage and well‐being 30 years on (Freese, Meland, & Irwin, 2006). Furthermore, positive affect is associated with developing satisfying social relationships, as optimistic and self‐confident individuals (qualities related with positive affect) receive and seek out more social support and utilize other adaptive coping strategies in response to stress (for example problem‐focused coping) (Aspinwall & Taylor, 1992; Chemers, Hu, & Garcia, 2001). Thus, positive affect is associated with the promotion of psychological well‐being.
Lyubomirsky, King, and Diener (2005) reported positive affect to be the hallmark of physical and psychological health. The influence of positive affect on physical and psychological well‐being has been frequently discussed (Bartram & Boniwell, 2007; Dockray & Steptoe, 2010; Pressman & Cohen, 2005). The influence of positive affect on psychological resilience has also been documented (Fredrickson et al., 2003; Tugade & Fredrickson, 2004), and resilience has been identified to have a key role in the relationship of positive affect with psychological and physical health (Aspinwall, 2001; Folkman et al., 2000; Tugade & Fredrickson, 2004). For example, Cohn et al. (2009) found that resilience mediated the relation between positive affect and increased life satisfaction, suggesting that happy people become more satisfied not simply because they feel better, but because they develop resources for living well. Furthermore, Tugade and Fredrickson (2004) discovered that positive affect contributed to psychological and physical health via psychological resilience. Specifically, when participants were given a time‐pressured speech preparation task, those higher in resilience experienced greater levels of life satisfaction and positive emotion (such as interest) along with high levels of anxiety during the task.
The broaden‐and‐build theory posits that resilience and positive affect mutually build on one another and trigger an upward spiral of resource building that leads to physical and psychological well‐being over time (Fredrickson, 1998, 2001). Being resilient and able to find positive meaning in general and in adverse life situations encourages proactive coping, which facilitates an initial increase in positive affect. This increase in positive affect then leads to increases in psychological resilience. As this cycle repeats itself, an upward spiral of positive emotion occurs, which results in long‐term well‐being (Fredrickson, 2001; Fredrickson & Joiner, 2002). Therefore, it is suggested that positive affect leads to long‐term physical and psychological well‐being with psychological resilience as a mediator. Nath and Pradhan (2012) found support for the mediating role of psychological resilience in the positive emotion–health relationship in a sample of 146 university students. Thus, a person’s level of psychological resilience in turn informs their ability to maintain positive affect and cultivate physical and psychological growth.
Cohn et al. (2009) found momentary experiences of positive emotion catalyze growth and change over time, helping to build resources and, with regard to resilience, skills for bouncing back from adversity. Positive emotions predicted growth in ego‐resilience, a psychological resource useful for handling mild and severe stressors (Ong et al., 2006; Tugade & Fredrickson, 2004). Ego‐resilience is a multidimensional skill which consists of problem solving, emotion regulation, and the capacity to change perspective, an ability that extends beyond the discrete positive emotions that promote it. Cohn et al. (2009) found ego‐resilience was a key factor that promoted happiness and well‐being over time due to its positive influence on life satisfaction, indicating the presence of an upward spiral where positive emotion and ego‐resilience maintain and build on one another.
The relationship of positive affect with ego‐resilience implies that the higher the levels of positive affect the higher the ability to find positive meaning in times of adversity because of the flexible thinking that results from positive emotions. Such flexible thinking typifies psychological resilience and leads to improved physical health and psychological well‐being (Waugh & Fredrickson, 2006). Importantly, experience of positive emotions such as joy, enthusiasm, and interest are responsible for catalyzing the process of learning, connecting, exploring, and ultimately building new resources such as resilience (Cohn et al., 2009). In other words, positive affect forecasts an individual’s psychological well‐being and physical health via psychological resilience.
Positive emotions are suggested to extend beyond hedonic experience and momentary broadening, and eventually build resources that enable survival and flourishing. Flourishing refers to optimal functioning, which consists of growth, generativity, and resilience (Diener et al., 2010), and is the hallmark of the “good life.” Resilience is suggested to be a key ingredient of flourishing, and research shows that positive affect and coping are associated with the promotion of flourishing (Fredrickson & Joiner, 2002). Reschly et al. (2008) discovered that greater experience of positive affect and resilience was predictive of adaptive coping and flourishing in high school students. Faulk, Gloria, and Steinhardt (2013) found that coping influences the tendencies of individuals to either flourish or languish in life. Specifically, individuals who used more adaptive methods of coping (which are typically used by resilient individuals) were more likely to be flourishing, whereas individuals who used maladaptive coping were more likely to be languishing in life. Therefore, it appears that positive affect and resilience are not only key for psychological and physical well‐being in terms of the regulation of distress, but extend beyond this and help to improve one’s life, providing opportunities for growth and leading to a flourishing and fulfilling life.
Throughout this chapter, the causes and consequences of resilience have been discussed. However, it is important to tie some of these ideas to more applied settings. In this section two areas will be briefly examined: sport and work. Both areas are central to the psychological health of those involved in them. It is important to avoid creating “psychological silos.” We strongly believe that resilience and positive psychology are not domain‐specific. They are at the core of the human condition. Lessons can be drawn from all aspects of applied psychology. The purpose of this section is simply to provide the reader with a slightly more practical perspective.
Work by Clough, Earle, and Sewell (2002) first reported mental toughness as a construct that was related yet distinct from hardiness. Clough et al. (2002) studied elite athletes, coaches, and sport psychologists, before producing a model and measure of mental toughness that emphasized six components (confidence in abilities, interpersonal confidence, emotional control, life control, commitment, and challenge). Since 2002, several other competing models and perspectives on mental toughness have been presented (i.e., Gucciardi, Gordon, & Dimmock, 2009; Jones, Hanton, & Connaughton, 2007), but in line with general resilience literature, these tend to cohere around adaptation to changing situational factors and effective coping. While much of the initial research on mental toughness focused upon elite athletes, there are some noteworthy exceptions that take a similar view to Neenan (2009) that resilience is not some superhuman attribute but something that is ordinarily in evidence during daily confrontations with stress, adversity, and challenge. Many of the findings from sport have a direct relevance to the world of work. Sport offers an ideal test bed for resilience research as it is clearly a high‐pressure, performance‐driven environment. This crossover is well illustrated by the work of Crust, Swann, Allen‐Collinson, Breckon, and Weinberg (2014).
Crust et al. (2014) interviewed exercise leaders, and frequent/regular exercisers that leaders identified as epitomizing mental toughness in an exercise setting. The focus of the research, in line with positive psychology, was to understand more about those exercisers who have embedded exercise within their lifestyle and managed to maintain this behavior. The authors argued that given high dropout rates from formal exercise programs, mental toughness should be one of a number of important determinants that differentiate between participants that stick with the program through the challenging journey of behavior change, and those who withdraw. Exercise leaders reported mentally tough exercisers could be identified within group or individual sessions, by their work rate, competitiveness, preference for intense and demanding exercise, high commitment (e.g., attending frequently), positive responses to setbacks, thirst for knowledge, sense of purpose, limited emotional expression, and tendency to embrace rather than avoid challenges.
The construct of mental toughness was readily identifiable within exercise settings and the findings were largely consistent with previous conceptualizations of mental toughness in sport (Clough et al., 2002). The exercisers reported being focused, committed (to the point of being selfish), and highly competitive with self and others, which on some occasions led to more risky behaviors such as over‐training and continuing to train with injuries. These participants reported approaching others for support and advice when necessary, which demonstrated a commitment to learning and growth but also highlights that developing mental toughness is seldom about “going it alone.” These findings highlighted exercisers who were focused upon improvement and personal growth, and could manage their emotions and remain positive when setbacks occurred or progress was slow (similar to the findings of Crust & Azadi, 2010). One of the potential limitations of this work is, however, that a major reason for maintained participation was enjoyment of exercise – although there were some reports that this was not always the case. It is likely to be easier to adhere to something that is enjoyable rather than something aversive. Perhaps a better account of exercise mental toughness could be achieved by studying those participants who don’t enjoy exercise but still maintain this behavior over long periods of time, perhaps for health‐related reasons.
The mental toughness in the workplace perspective has stressed the importance of contentment and fulfillment. Clough and Strycharcyk (2012, p. 227) write: “Mental toughness is about opening doors to opportunity and contentment and then having the psychological equipment to go through them.” In a broader sense, the concept of mental toughness can be linked to some of the key concepts that underpin occupational and other areas of applied psychology. Three key concepts will be briefly discussed:
All these need to be “right” in an organization if the workforce is to be fully content and satisfied. Motivational theories are clearly a source of linkage between mental toughness and positive psychology. The seminal work of Maslow (1943) highlighted the importance of self‐actualization, but without resilience and toughness it is difficult to see how this would be achieved. Setbacks are part of development, but without a foundation of resilience setbacks often mean the end of development and a retreat into compliance.
Stress is a significant cause of health problems. It is important that organizations reduce the levels of stress where possible, but it is not always a real option. Stress can be destructive to physical and psychological well‐being, as well as having an invidious impact on other aspects of applied functioning such as cognition. There is a truly vast array of stressors in the workplace. At the individual level these include job demands, role conflict, role ambiguity, and workload. At the group level there are such things as lack of team cohesiveness and intra‐group conflict, and the organization itself produces many stressors from its structures, culture, and technologies. Mentally tough individuals not only survive the pressure, they actually thrive on it. The more sensitive individuals often have to battle to function, greatly reducing their potential for happiness and contentment. Therefore, resilience is a precursor to psychological health and fulfillment. It may be the case that, without this solid foundation, contentment is an impossible dream.
Finally, in this section we will make brief mention of “other people.” These others are both a cause of stress and a solution to stress. It is interesting to note that more sensitive individuals are perhaps far more dependent on others for their well‐being. Research using the Clough et al. (2002) model of mental toughness has shown that tough individuals tend to adopt active coping styles whereas more sensitive individuals tend to adopt a more passive, emotional approach (e.g., Nicholls, Polman, Levy, & Backhouse, 2008). Organizations are perhaps better able to deal with, and reward, active copers than they are emotional copers.
A key player in all relationships at work is the leader, who tends to be tougher than the average (e.g., Marchant et al., 2009). This could mean they are liable to bruise their sensitive colleagues. Whilst this no doubt does happen, the idea that tough and resilient individuals are unable to understand and take care with people does not seem to be the case. Research has looked at the link between emotional intelligence and mental toughness (e.g., Nicholls et al., 2015). They showed a positive relationship between mental toughness and emotional intelligence. An intriguing research study was carried out by Onley, Veselka, Schermer, and Vernon (2013). They investigated the relationship between the dark triad of personality (Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy) and toughness. They reported that there was a small positive correlation with narcissism, but negative associations with psychopathy and Machiavellianism.These findings, taken in conjunction with the recent findings by Nicholls et al. relating to emotional intelligence, may go some way to dispel the very unfair stereotype of the uncaring and manipulative boss.
There are at least three significant omissions in the existing research literature on resilience and positive psychology. These relate to: (1) definitions; (2) the centrality of resilience to the experiencing of positive psychology and (3) possible interventions. The conceptual space representing the link between resilience and positive psychology is a complex and messy area to research. Perhaps the biggest causes of the “fog” are the many definitions and conceptualizations of resilience and resilience‐related models and theories. We have tried to outline these. We have focused on mental toughness, as we have considerable experience of this particular concept. However, we are not suggesting that this is the only appropriate concept, but rather we have used it to illustrate some of the linkages. One pressing need is therefore to identify and agree on a “gold standard” model when trying to research in this domain. We would of course argue the merits of mental toughness, but we are not blind to the merits of the broader resilience concept (e.g., Putwain, Nicholson, Connors, & Woods, 2013), grit (Duckworth, Peterson, Matthews, and Kelly, 2007) and mindset (Dweck, 2006) among others.
A key research question that needs further investigation is the apparent dependence on resilience for people to experience the happiness and contentment that are central to positive psychology. Time and time again, mentally tough individuals appear to be happier and healthier (e.g., Brand et al., 2014; Brand et al., in press).
Finally, as applied psychologists we are interested in changing the status quo. Unfortunately, few studies have examined the impact of resilience training on the long‐term positive outlook of the individuals involved. We need to identify what tools and techniques, if any, can be employed to enhance the core well‐being of people and evaluate these with care and rigor. The extent to which resilience can be developed is far from clear. It has been viewed as both a trait and a state, and there is evidence that both biological and environmental factors can have a significant effect on it. Again, mental toughness provides a specific example. Horsburgh, Schermer, Veselka, and Vernon (2009) found that mental toughness is influenced by both genetics and features of the environment, and as such behaves, “in the same manner as virtually every personality trait that has ever been investigated in behavioural genetic study” (p. 104). In establishing significant correlations between the Mental Toughness Questionnaire (MTQ48) and the so‐called big five personality factors (extraversion, openness, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and neuroticism), Horsburgh et al. suggest that mental toughness is strongly influenced by genetics and as such may not be easy to modify. However, these researchers did contend that the aspects of mental toughness that showed least heritability (i.e., commitment or control) may be easier to strengthen. Practical guidance for mental toughness development has been suggested by Crust and Clough (2011).
The relationship of resilience with positive psychology is a complex one. They are clearly integral, but at some points appear to be in opposition with each other. Issues are created by the diversity of the models and theories that relate to resilience. It is seen as a trait, a state, and all points in between. However, while clarity is a far distant ambition, research findings do strongly suggest that resilience is related to well‐being and personal development. Without it, it might not be possible to build the three core pillars of “a life of enjoyment,” “a life of engagement,” and “a life of affiliation” which are central objectives to the positive psychology movement (Seligman & Csikszentmihayli, 2000). This brings into sharp focus the importance of individual differences in positive psychology. There is no blanket solution or underpinning model. It depends, as does most of psychology, on the person.
It is fair to conclude that resilience is very important to well‐being and the enjoyment of life, but just how important is not yet known. It is also relatively clear that some of us are born resilient, some of us become resilient, some of us become less resilient, and some of us start and finish with low levels of resilience. It seems to be the case that developing resilience for some people would help them engage in the ideal world postulated by positive psychology. However, it is unclear how, and if, resilience can be truly developed. We do believe that it is possible to develop it, and that it would be a good thing to do. Much more research is needed before our beliefs can be reported as fact. Resilience and its impact on the well‐being of individuals is not domain‐specific. It has a role in work settings, sport, leisure, and education. It is an area that is both vibrant and intriguing and in our opinion well worth researching.