Content uploaded by Monique Crane
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Monique Crane on Apr 07, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=gasc20
Anxiety, Stress, & Coping
An International Journal
ISSN: 1061-5806 (Print) 1477-2205 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gasc20
How resilience is strengthened by exposure to
stressors: the systematic self-reflection model of
resilience strengthening
M. F. Crane, B. J. Searle, M. Kangas & Y. Nwiran
To cite this article: M. F. Crane, B. J. Searle, M. Kangas & Y. Nwiran (2018): How resilience
is strengthened by exposure to stressors: the systematic self-reflection model of resilience
strengthening, Anxiety, Stress, & Coping, DOI: 10.1080/10615806.2018.1506640
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10615806.2018.1506640
Published online: 01 Aug 2018.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 415
View Crossmark data
Big Ideas Series
How resilience is strengthened by exposure to stressors: the
systematic self-reflection model of resilience strengthening
M. F. Crane
a
, B. J. Searle
a
, M. Kangas
a,b
and Y. Nwiran
a
a
Department of Psychology, Macquarie University, North Ryde, Australia;
b
Centre for Emotional Health, Macquarie
University, North Ryde, Australia
ABSTRACT
Background: Exposure to demands is normally considered to drain
resources and threaten wellbeing. However, studies have indicated a
resilience-strengthening role for stressors.
Objectives: This paper introduces a unifying model, including five testable
hypotheses regarding how resilience can be strengthened progressively
via exposure to life-stressors.
Methods: We review and synthesize relevant scholarship that underpins
the Systematic Self-Reflection model of resilience-strengthening.
Results: The model highlights the importance of a specific meta-cognitive
skill (self-reflection on one’s initial stressor response) as a mechanism for
strengthening resilience. The Systematic Self-Reflection model uniquely
proposes five self-reflective practices critical in the on-going adaptation
of three resilient capacities: (1) coping resources, (2) usage of coping
and emotional regulatory repertoire, and (3) resilient beliefs. The self-
reflective process is proposed to strengthen a person’s resilience by
developing insight into their already-present capacities, the limitations
of these capacities, and by stimulating the search for person-driven
alternative approaches.
Conclusion: This model extends the existing scholarship by proposing
how the experience of stressors and adversity may have resilience-
strengthening opportunities. The implication of this model is that
engaging with stressors can have positive consequences for longer-term
healthy emotional development if scaffolded in adaptive reflective
practices.
ARTICLE HISTORY
Received 26 July 2017
Revised 27 July 2018
Accepted 27 July 2018
KEYWORDS
Adversity; stress appraisal;
coping strategies;
post-traumatic stress; self-
reflection
This paper introduces a new model of how stressors and adversity may facilitate strengthening resi-
liency. An increasing body of research is highlighting the ability of exposure to stressors, and even
potentially traumatic events, to increase resilience to future stressors (Crane & Searle, 2016; Seery,
Holman, & Silver, 2010; Seery, Leo, Lupien, Kondrak, & Almonte, 2013). Recent research has found
that between two to four adversities, and even potentially traumatic events, resulted in greater resi-
lience, compared with no adversity or more than four events (Seery et al., 2010). Notably, the relation-
ship between adversity and resilience reflected an inverted U-shape, whereby moderate levels of
adversity were related to greater resilience (Seery et al., 2010). Follow-up research by Seery et al.
(2013) demonstrated the same curvilinear relationship between cumulative life adversity and
passive endurance of a pain stressor including pain catastrophizing, whereby moderate lifetime
adversity was related to less negative responses to pain. This scholarship adds to a growing body
of research whereby scholars have considered the potentially adaptive role for stress (e.g., Sarkar
& Fletcher, 2014; Seery, 2011; Seery & Quinton, 2016). These studies acknowledge that stressor
© 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
CONTACT M. F. Crane Monique.crane@mq.edu.au
ANXIETY, STRESS, & COPING
https://doi.org/10.1080/10615806.2018.1506640
exposure may mean that an individual is functioning at a non-optimal level for a period, with some
initial cost in the form of reduced resources, and yet, there is also the downstream potential for stres-
sors to have a resilience-strengthening effect (see Seery, 2011; Seery & Quinton, 2016 for comprehen-
sive reviews of this research; Oken, Chamine, & Wakeland, 2015). The implication of this research is
that engaging with stressors may have positive consequences for longer-term healthy emotional
development (e.g., Dienstbier, 1989; Hayes, Wilson, Gifford, Follette, & Strosahl, 1996) and to a poss-
ible resilience-strengthening capacity for stressors whereby stressor events allow changes in personal
capacities that enhance resilience in the future (Oken et al., 2015).
This perspective contrasts research emphasizing the sensitizing role of stressors and adversity,
particularly chronic stress (e.g., McEwen & Lasley, 2003). A majority of research to date has focused
on the sensitizing and resource-depleting outcome of stressors. More research is needed exploring
the beneficial role of stressors. To achieve this, a framework and testable hypotheses are required
to guide future research into the mechanisms that allow resilience to emerge from stressor exposure.
The objective of this paper is to present an integrated model of how resilient capacities are acquired
through the experience of stressors and adversity. We outline a model proposing how resilience is
strengthened via a process of reflection on past stressors and one’s coping and emotion regulatory
approaches enabling the development of personal insight, perspective, and the potential for growth.
The current paper describes the Systematic Self-Reflection model of resilience strengthening, the role
coping self-reflection plays in this framework, and outlines a series of testable hypotheses as a guide
for future research. Moreover, we describe the implications of this model in terms of developing
human resilience.
Stressor experience can trigger adaptive self-reflection
In the Systematic Self-Reflection model of resilience strengthening (Figure 1), we suggest that indi-
viduals who develop, or eventually develop, the capacity for resilience from exposure to stressors
do something unique. For these people, the experience of initial psychological stress or a less than
optimal stressor response can become a trigger for an important meta-cognitive process that
allows the opportunity for resilience-strengthening: systematic self-reflection. Self-reflection is best
described as a meta-cognitive approach to learning involving the development of self-awareness
and evaluation of one’s thoughts, feelings and behaviors that allows one to develop self-insight
(Grant, Franklin, & Langford, 2002; Hattie, Biggs, & Purdie, 1996). Self-reflection facilitates the capacity
Figure 1. The Systematic Self-Reflection model of strengthening resilience from life stressors.
Note: A quadratic relationship is proposed where there is a inverted U-shaped relationship between the stress-distress continuum and self-reflection.
2M.F.CRANEETAL.
to evaluate task-orientated coping and problem-solving strategies and is proposed to enable the
adaptation of such approaches. In relation to the strengthening of resilience, daily stressors and
life adversity are proposed to have the potential to trigger a conscious process of self-reflection.
Self-reflection on stressor experiences, one’s initial response to stressors, and the effectiveness of
coping and emotion regulatory strategies are part of an on-going process of maturation that can be
encouraged via the presence of life stressors that signify a need for adaptation. A similar proposal was
highlighted in a recent review of the post-traumatic growth literature (Eve & Kangas, 2015). These
authors discuss current theory and research placing effortful cognitive processing of potentially trau-
matic events at the center of post-traumatic growth (Janoff-Bulman, 1992; Tedeschi & Calhoun, 2004)
and recovery processes (Greenberg, 1995). Eve and Kangas (2015) suggested that the cognitive pro-
cesses involved in normal lifespan developmental maturation are comparable to those that are
important to trauma recovery and/or post-traumatic growth. Moreover, these authors underlined
the potential for accelerated cognitive maturation to arise from non-traumatic life stressors such
as motherhood as well as traumatic events. The Systematic Self-Reflection model describes how
metacognitive processes involved in skill development, and maturation, are a key mechanism in
strengthening resilience from a diversity of stressor events –from everyday life stressors to poten-
tially traumatic events.
Defining terms in the systematic self-reflection model
Resilient outcomes and the capacity for resilience
As part of the Systematic Self-Reflection model of resilience strengthening, we distinguish between
the capacity for resilience and resilient outcomes. When researchers measure resilience as the pres-
ence or absence of symptoms after a traumatic or stressful event, then resilience is being measured
as an outcome (e.g., de Roon-Cassini, Mancini, Rusch, & Bonanno, 2010). In such cases, resilience has
been demonstrated (via the absence of clinical symptoms or presence of positive functioning),
despite factors that place the individual at increased risk of psychological dysfunction. Consistent
with this perspective, resilience as an emergent outcome has been defined as: “the maintenance
or quick recovery of mental health during and after exposure to significant stressors”(Kalisch
et al., 2017, p. 786). In contrast, the capacity for resilience is characterized by the psychosocial
assets and protective factors (e.g., extraversion; Campbell-Sills, Cohan, & Stein, 2006) that increase
the potential for resilience in the future.
The capacity for resilience captures what has been described as the first wave of resiliency inquiry
regarding the “phenomenological descriptors of resilient qualities of individuals and support
systems”(Richardson, 2002, p. 308). Broadly, these qualities include coping strategies (i.e., cognitive
and behavioral efforts to manage demands; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984), conscious and unconscious,
effortful and effortless processes that support resilience. A number of models describe the diversity
of individual and social factors that comprise one’scapacity for resilience and moderate or mediate
the relationship between stressor events and psychological outcomes (Figure 1, path a). For example,
Lent’s(2004) Model of Restorative Well-being describes the complex interplay between personality
and affective dispositions, coping resources, and cognitive and behavioral responses that are likely
to determine this initial stressor response. Moreover, the Transactional Model of Stress and Coping
(Lazarus & Folkman, 1987) highlights the importance of the primary and secondary event appraisal
processes in influencing the initial stress response. Thus, the capacity for resilience is the possession
of resilience-supportive resources, characteristics, and the utilization of resilience-supporting coping
strategies (e.g., Carver, 1998) and emotion regulatory capacities (Gross, 2015) that modify the
relationship between stressors and the initial psychological outcomes. Most research examining resi-
lience focuses on the measurement of such resilient capacities that predict resilience (e.g., Major,
Richards, Cooper, Cozzarelli, & Zubek, 1998).
ANXIETY, STRESS, & COPING 3
Describing all the capacities that enable resilience or other initial psychological outcomes is not
the purpose of this model. Rather we move beyond this initial reaction (denoted path a, Figure 1)
to describe the subsequent process that allows resilience to be strengthened in response to life stres-
sors. In the Systematic Self-Reflection model, the capacity for resilience includes three broad
elements: (1) coping resources, (2) usage of coping and emotional regulatory repertoire, and (3) resi-
lient beliefs (captured by the dashed box in Figure 1) that work to contribute to increasing the like-
lihood of resilient outcomes. Although the capacity for resilience may encompass a plethora of
resilient qualities, as outlined above, the Systematic Self-Reflection model specifically addresses
only those capacities that may be modified by the self-reflective process.
Stressors and their psychological outcomes
Resilient trajectories have been identified across a range of stressors and potentially traumatic events
(e.g., Bonanno, Galea, Bucciarelli, & Vlahov, 2007; Crane & Searle, 2016; Masten, Best, & Garmezy,
1990). The objective magnitude of events lie on a continuum from everyday stressors, adverse life-
events that do not constitute trauma (e.g., acute illness, relationship breakdown), to potentially trau-
matic events (operationalized in Criterion A of the Posttraumatic Stress Disorder criteria in the Diag-
nostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders; American Psychiatric Association, 2013). These
events place the individual at greater risk in the sense that they are a “statistical correlate of poor
or negative outcomes”(Masten et al., 1990, p. 426). The Systematic Self-Reflection model is potentially
applicable to everyday stressors and potentially traumatic events.
In understanding the Systematic Self-Reflection model of strengthening resilience, it is also
necessary to acknowledge the distinction between psychological stress and distress. Stress refers
to the moderate perturbation resulting in a short-term state change away from optimal functioning
(Oken et al., 2015). Distress, reflects a longer-term state-change causing significant health, social and
occupational problems reflecting clinical levels of dysfunction. Although there are some stressor fea-
tures that seem more likely to elicit distress (e.g., potentially traumatic events), the initial psychologi-
cal response is highly subjective and dependent on a variety of individual factors (Oken et al., 2015)
that comprise one’s capacity for resilience at the time of the stressor occurrence.
In the Systematic Self-Reflection model of strengthening resilience, stressors and adversity can
have a range of psychological outcomes (Figure 1, path a). These outcomes are typically conceptu-
alized as a continuum from the absence of stress to the presence of severe distress. However, to
better clarify our predictions we have simplified this continuum into three sections as illustrated in
Figure 1 as (1) distress, (2) moderate stress, and (3) mild to no stress. Models of resilience (e.g.,
Richardson, 2002; Richardson, Neiger, Jensen, & Kumpfer, 1990) and wellbeing (e.g., Lent, 2004)
often address when a resilient outcome is more likely by summarizing the actions of several mech-
anisms and factors (e.g., personality, coping). The interaction between stressors and these mechan-
isms is not represented in Figure 1.Figure 1 illustrates the role of self-reflection in strengthening
resilience, rather than trying to represent a model of existing resilience. However, these factors are
considered to be operating in parallel to, and determining, the initial psychological response.
Accounting for evidence that stressors and adversity create greater sensitivity to
future stressors
Given that the Systematic Self-Reflection model proposes a resilience-strengthening role for stressors,
we need to reconcile this proposal with the evidence that stressor exposure may sensitize individuals
to future lower level stressors (e.g., Stroud, Davila, Hammen, & Vrshek-Schallhorn, 2011). Stress sen-
sitization refers to an increased tendency to developing psychological distress as lesser stressors
become capable of triggering a variety of psychological disorders (Hammen, 2015; Stroud et al.,
2011). In the Systematic Self-Reflection model, self-reflection is more likely during moderate levels
of stress, but less likely during the experience of distress. In this way, adaptive self-reflection is
4M.F.CRANEETAL.
more likely to occur in response to everyday stressor events, compared to potentially traumatic
events resulting in the emergence of distress. The occurrence of distress is one potential pathway
to stress sensitization perhaps involving changes in the function and structure of certain brain auton-
omy or stress sensitivity (Monroe & Harkness, 2005). Moreover, not all individuals engage in these
reflective practices and several characteristics may limit a person’s capacity to engage in an
honest reflection on their coping and emotion regulatory practices (e.g., avoidance, other-blame,
suppression). Thus, exposure to stressors does not necessarily lead to the development of increas-
ingly adaptive beliefs, coping resources, and usage of the coping and emotion regulatory repertoire.
In contrast, stressor exposure may lead to the practice of a limited number of both voluntary coping
responses (e.g., avoidance, distraction) and the reinforcement of involuntary reactions (e.g., rumina-
tion, emotional numbing) (Connor-Smith, Compas, Wadsworth, Thomsen, & Saltzman, 2000). Simi-
larly, beliefs that undermine resilience (e.g., self-doubt) may also be reinforced. With subsequent
and perhaps less severe events, these practiced and reinforced responses may be triggered more
easily, becoming part of one’s stressor response leading to distress. A notable gap in this field is
that the empirical work demonstrating stressor sensitization rarely investigates the positive role of
stressors in parallel to their sensitizing role (e.g., Stroud et al., 2011).
Core propositions of the systematic self-reflection model
First, the Systematic Self-Reflection model proposes that the strengthening of resilience is a process
of experiential learning and more specifically learning through reflection on doing. Stressors may
provide opportunities for learning about one’s personal response to stress and resilience and this
is their broad contribution to growth. Mechanisms have been proposed asserting how resilience
may be enhanced via stressor exposure, including the adaptation of coping strategies, the re-
definition of one’s stressor experiences as opportunities for development, the enhancement of
core psychological resources such as self-efficacy, and activating the recruitment of more resources
previously lacking (Crane & Searle, 2016; Hobfoll, 1989; Jamieson, Crum, Goyer, Marotta, & Akinola,
2018; Seery et al., 2010,2013). The role of stressors in triggering a process of learning and skill devel-
opment is a common theme among these suggestions, but also in the historical stress inoculation
literature (Meichenbaum & Deffenbacher, 1988). The content of this learning may involve reflecting
upon important questions such as: Who is a good person to speak to when I need emotional support,
and who is not? How long will these feelings last? What am I capable of? Consistent with the Con-
servation of Resources (COR) model (Hobfoll, 1989,2002), learning may also involve eliciting adaptive
actions such as acquiring access to important resources that are necessary for coping (e.g., instrumen-
tal support from colleagues, accessing necessary information). Like any other skill, resilience requires
exposure to opportunities to apply learned strategies (e.g., problem-solving strategies) and receive
feedback from both internal (e.g., stress) and external (e.g., goal achievement) sources to allow the
refinement of resilient capacities. Perspectives on adult transformational learning have proposed
that critical self-reflection processes may be triggered by “disorientating”events in one’s life prompt-
ing a revision of assumptions, current ways of interpreting the world, and one’s approaches through
critical self-reflection (Mezirow, 1998). We propose that stressors can be a trigger for learning, and
effective learning promotes successful future adaptation.
Second, for individuals not experiencing psychopathology, the self-reflective process strengthens
the person’s resilience by developing their insight into already-present capacities for resilience
(Padesky & Mooney, 2012), the limitations of these capacities, and by stimulating the search for
person-driven alternative approaches to stressors. The self-awareness, evaluation and self-driven
adjustments emerging from the reflective process, contribute to the on-going development of resi-
lient capacities in response to stressors, increasing the likelihood of resilient outcomes in the future.
Similar insights are reflected in Bonanno and Burton’s(2013) analysis of regulatory flexibility. These
authors acknowledge that the efficacy of coping and emotion regulatory strategies change depend-
ing on the contextual demands (see Folkman & Moskowitz, 2004 for review). Although Bonanno and
ANXIETY, STRESS, & COPING 5
Burton’s(2013) analysis does not specifically address strengthening resilience or self-reflection, these
authors do acknowledge the importance of self-examination of the coping process in flexibility and
adjustment.
Afinal proposition is that the resilience-strengthening process is one that unfolds over time. The
systematic self-reflection model is a developmental process model of resilience-strengthening and
therefore includes a time element (see Figure 1). The exact period of time remains undefined
because it varies from person to person and also depends on the level of stress or distress elicited
by the stressor, adversity, or potentially traumatic event encountered. Richardson’s(2002) meta-
theory of resilience and resiliency makes a similar claim about the timeline for resilient reintegration
suggesting that resilient reintegration could occur in a matter of seconds, years, or even be post-
poned, depending on the severity of the stressor event. Importantly, the initial (present moment)
psychological response, as illustrated in Figure 1, is not necessarily a resilient or optimal response
to the stressor situation. This initial response may be maladaptive, resulting in undesirable levels
of stress or distress. However, engaging in systematic self-reflection may enable the recognition
(via enhanced self-awareness), that one’s coping and emotion regulatory response is inadequate,
and hence, may activate the search for alternative approaches or better resources, thus increasing
the potential for a resilient outcome in the future.
A mechanism for strengthening the capacity for resilience: systematic self-
reflection
This section details the five self-reflective practices proposed to constitute resilience-strengthening
self-reflection. The five self-reflective practices illustrated in Figure 2 and described in this section
are private conscious strategies that occur in individuals likely to experience a strengthening of
their resilience in response to stressor exposure. As implied by the definition of self-reflection, the
first practice is self-awareness of one’s emotional experience and regulatory processes in response
to psychological relevant triggering events. Consistent with Gross’(2015) process model of emotional
regulation, emotional awareness means being consciously aware of one’saffective, physical, and
behavioral response to a triggering event and the detection of nuanced changes in these responses
(Gross, 2015). Physical responses are the noticeable physiological changes that may occur in response
to a triggering event (e.g., increased heart rate, muscular tension or conversely feeling relaxed), and
finally there may be discrete behaviors that emerge in response to this cluster of changes. Self-aware-
ness may also involve the acknowledgment of one’s initial cognitive appraisal of events. There are
Figure 2. Five self-reflective practices essential for strengthening resilience from life stressors.
6M.F.CRANEETAL.
many possible appraisals identified in previous work (e.g., controllable, challenge, threat) that relate
to behavioral and physiological responses that characterize emotion (e.g., Lazarus & Folkman, 1987;
see Moors, Ellsworth, Scherer, & Frijda, 2013, for review). Self-awareness is the acknowledgment that
these initial cognitive and emotional responses have taken place and that they may change. This is
compatible with the self-as-context dimension, which is a core component of the Acceptance and
Commitment Therapy (ACT) paradigm (Hayes, 2004). Specifically, self-as-context in ACT represents
pure awareness of the observing self whereby the individual is able to observe these reactions in
themselves as though they themselves are the subject of inquiry (Harris, 2009).
The second reflective practice is trigger identification. This is the ability of the person to identify
specific situational triggers for their initial responses. This may be in relation to a stressor event or
other events that create even small shifts in these outputs. Related to the concept of discriminative
facility, individuals high in discriminative facility are better able to link an emotional outcome to the
triggering situation (Cheng, Chiu, Hong, & Cheung, 2001). The ability to identify triggers is important
because it allows initial reactions to be anchored to a specific source, rather than the context more
generically (e.g., “negative feedback”vs “my supervisor”). The identification of a specific trigger allows
a greater capacity for the individual to apply more adaptive coping (Bandura, 1986), and recognize
opportunities for the development of their capacity to address that problem (e.g., a walk improves
my mood). The combination of self-awareness and trigger identification helps the individual
develop a nuanced mental model of the relationships between specific events and their different
emotional and cognitive outcomes.
The combination of self-awareness and trigger identification is proposed to increase the salience
of how an individual might ideally like to manage a demand (e.g., negative feedback, failure) and how
their initial coping and emotion regulatory strategies may be inconsistent with personal and pro-
fessional values and valued goals. Values are ideals of how we would like to behave across contexts,
whereas goals are the specific achievements or behaviors that reflect these values. According to the
Systematic Self-Reflection model, values and goals provide important context for coping and
emotion regulation. First, addressing stressors in particular ways are considered important to
certain person-centered values and goals. Second, values represent a standard by which to evaluate
one’s stressor response and a means for attaining feedback. Feedback regarding the usefulness of
coping or emotion regulatory strategies is achieved via an introspective process comparable to moni-
toring goal progress and/or value adherence whereby an individual acknowledges the characteristics
of a response (e.g., study procrastination) and compares it to the desired goal (e.g., doing well on an
exam) or an important value (e.g., persistence) (Harkin et al., 2016).
Anseel and his colleagues (2009) demonstrated that the greatest performance gains occurred
when reflection was combined with feedback about performance, compared only with reflection
or feedback alone (Anseel, Lievens, & Schollaert, 2009). In this study, participants were either given
feedback on their task performance or else given no feedback. Participants were then asked to
reflect on what they did correctly and incorrectly in the task. In this way, feedback and reflection
were both important to performance improvement. The value of feedback is, arguably, that it pro-
vides information about desired behaviors. Anseel et al. (2009) suggested that one limitation of
this study, which may account for the importance of external feedback, is that there may have
been too little information about the desired behavior. When it comes to daily coping, there is
rarely the opportunity for timely external feedback. However, salient personal values and goals
provide information about desired behaviors not present in the experimental context. Thus, feedback
is achieved via an introspective process whereby the person compares their actual response to an
ideal consistent with values and value-based goals.
The third practice is reappraisal. The self-reflection process encourages a re-consideration of one’s
initial event appraisals, allowing for the potential reappraisal of the events in a way that is more adap-
tive. Learning to modify one’s appraisal of events in a way that changes the nature of emotional
outputs is a core part of existing psychological interventions (Beck, 1983; Gross & Muñoz, 1995). In
the Systematic Self-Reflection model, the reappraisal process specifically involves the individual
ANXIETY, STRESS, & COPING 7
considering what can be learned from the stressor. For example, practical skills may be developed for
addressing the stressor (e.g., managing a problematic colleague a work) or a psychological skill (e.g.,
acceptance of uncertainty) (Jamieson et al., 2018). Salient values and goals in relation to the stressor
situation are proposed to provide a context for reappraisal as individuals consider the role of stressors
in advancing their coping skill set (e.g., dealing better with negative feedback). Initially, the individual
may have been more sensitive to the threats or demands present in the situation, elevating the sal-
ience of threat appraisal (Lazarus & Folkman, 1987); however, via the experience of one’s initial
psychological response to an event and the salience of particular values or goals the individual
may begin to acknowledge that he/she may lack or not be applying the necessary capacities to
cope more effectively with this stressor. Therefore a critical aspect of coping self-reflection involves
the reappraisal of the experience of stress as an opportunity to develop one’s capabilities for adapting
to stressors.
The translation of stressors into opportunities for the development of resilience is likely to be facili-
tated by a growth mindset (Dweck, 1986), which is an implicit assumption that certain personal attri-
butes, like resilience, are malleable and can be developed (Yeager & Dweck, 2012). A growth mindset
paves the way for one to consider the potential to develop their resilience. A recent discussion of
growth mindsets proposes that the belief certain abilities (e.g., intellectual ability) can be developed
is a coping resource that promotes resilience (Yeager & Dweck, 2012). In the Systematic Self-Reflec-
tion model, a growth mindset can be characterized as a resilient belief contributing to the capacity for
resilience. However, we also propose it has a second role as part of the reflective process, by encoura-
ging individuals to consider the potential for the development of resilient capacities following the
initial reactions to stressors. In this way, a growth mindset about the nature of resilience (i.e., that resi-
lience can be developed over time) encourages the perspective that stressors can be approached as
developmental opportunities (Jamieson et al., 2018). This tendency to consider the role of stress in
capacity building is referred to as a stress-as-enhancing mindset (Jamieson et al., 2018).
The above three practices can be collectively considered situation-focused and involve cognitively
dissecting one’s initial reaction to the situation. We propose that these processes may enhance
context sensitivity. Context sensitivity is an individual’s capacity to identify demands and opportu-
nities in the situation (see Bonanno & Burton, 2013 for review). For example, identification of a
specific emotional trigger may enhance perceptions of control over the situation or one’s behavioral
response. Moreover, the combination of these processes allows for the recognition of potential self-
development opportunities.
Practices four and five more directly influence the future development of the capacity for resili-
ence. Thus, we refer to these two practices as development-focused. The fourth practice, evaluation,
involves a dispassionate exploration of various aspects of one’s response to stress that were effective,
or ineffective, in enabling the achievement of personally held values and value-based goals. Similarly,
Carver and Scheier (1998) have proposed that a process of comparison between current inputs (e.g.,
behaviors) and the desired goal-state is engaged by increases in self-focused attention. In the Sys-
tematic Self-Reflection model, certain voluntary and involuntary inputs (i.e., coping and emotion
regulatory strategies) occur in response to the stressor event. These initial inputs are then evaluated
in terms of the ability to achieve a personally held value or goal in the context of that stressor. Finally,
the future-focus prompts the individual to either identify what could be done differently in the future,
engage in a search for solutions or resources to ensure greater alignment between values and
actions, or attempt a different approach presently and/or in the future and reflect on the
outcome. For example, an individual may use humor to cope predominately with stressor events.
However, in some situations (e.g., the death of a friend), humor may be judged as an inappropriate
coping response that would violate their value of compassion. The reflection on this limitation may
initiate questions regarding what alternative strategies could be applied in this situation. The individ-
ual may try something they have observed in others (e.g., distraction) or seek advice about what to
do. Such modifications may involve all aspects of Gross’(2015) emotional regulation framework (e.g.,
situation selection and modification, the re-direction of one’s attention, cognitive change, and
8M.F.CRANEETAL.
response modulation). Importantly, the development of one’s resilient capacities is an iterative
process. New emergent strategies may not get an individual sufficiently close to their value or
goal, but these strategies are again reviewed and modified each time, with the potential of increasing
the capacity for resilience.
Collectively, the self-reflective practices described represent a shifting from the acknowledgment,
analysis, and acceptance of the event to a development-focus with the goal of learning and growth
beyond the event. This idea is consistent with work by Bonanno, Pat-Horenczyk, and Noll (2011)
demonstrating the importance of shifting between processing the potentially traumatic event
(trauma-focus) and a focus on moving beyond the trauma (forward-focus) in the prediction of
better adjustment. The five reflective practices outlined are ideal; however, individuals are likely to
vary in the number of these practices engaged, the depth of insight achieved, and the time duration
of reflection.
Having noted the potential for coping self-reflection to be a resilience-strengthening process,
some previous research has shown an association between self-reflection and greater stress and
anxiety symptoms (Grant et al., 2002). In contrast, Treynor, Gonzalez, and Nolen-Hoeksema (2003)
have demonstrated the potential benefits of self-reflection, which predicted a decline in depression
longitudinally. Thus, there is inconsistency regarding the relationship between self-reflection and
symptoms. There are several plausible reasons for these mixed findings. First, these studies only
measured awareness of one’s thoughts and feelings. Individuals who are aware of their feelings
and thoughts may vary in their engagement in a critical examination of their stress response
(future-focus). Such individuals may not experience the benefit of constructive self-reflection. More-
over, measuring the extent to which one pays attention to one’s thoughts and feelings may serve
only to capture the salience of distressing experiences or to highlight them via reporting. A further
consideration is study design. Grant et al. (2002) utilized a cross-sectional design and Treynor et al.
(2003) examined self-reflection longitudinally. Given that this is a process, the benefits of self-reflec-
tion may not emerge in the early stages of reflection, but rather only be evident later.
When stressor events encourage coping and emotion regulatory self-reflection
The Systematic Self-Reflection model of strengthening resilience proposes that the initial psychologi-
cal response (Figure 1) is a key determinant of whether an individual will engage in systematic self-
reflection. In the Systematic Self-Reflection model, psychological stress (a movement away from an
optimal psychological state) is the trigger for the above described cascade of self-reflective practices
(Figure 1, path b). The absence of unpleasant emotions is less likely to spontaneously trigger an analy-
sis of one’s response, although a resilient outcome may reinforce a positive response via associative
processes. If there is no psychological stress experienced, then no self-reflection is triggered because
the individual is able to meet the demands of the event and therefore does not raise questions about
how responses could be improved. This perspective is consistent with the affect-as-information
theory (Clore & Huntsinger, 2007; Wyer, Clore, & Isbell, 1999) whereby negative affect signals deviance
from a safe state stimulating more systematic processing of information and greater attention to the
situation. In contrast, positive affect signals no special requirement to modify the way in which the
task is usually performed. Akin to models of self-regulation of behavior, the experience of negative
affect (e.g., stress) is a signal to the system that something needs to be adjusted to resolve a discre-
pancy; in contrast, positive affect prompts a reduction in goal-directed effort (Carver & Scheier, 1998).
In this case, the discrepancy is between the demands imposed by a stressor event and the current
capacity for resilience. Kaye-Tzadok and Davidson-Arad (2016) recently demonstrated that growth
is greatest at moderate levels of resilience, suggesting that individuals with a high capacity for resi-
lience may not triggered into resilience-strengthening processes. Moreover, those with low capacity
may often feel overwhelmed by stressor demands allowing distress to occur, again limiting self-
reflection. In later case, reflection may be engaged when the distress has sufficiently subsided or if
triggered by an external influence (e.g., therapy or coaching). The time course is dependent on
ANXIETY, STRESS, & COPING 9
how long it takes for distress to be reduced sufficiently to allow self-reflection. Thus, there is an
optimal level of perceived stress that promotes self-reflection (i.e. an inverted U-shape relationship
illustrated by path b). The following formal hypothesis is proposed:
H1: Coping and emotional regulatory self-reflection has an inverse-U shaped relationship with initial psychologi-
cal outputs when placed on a continuum from no stress to distress (Figure 1, path b). The absence of stress or too
much stress (distress) results in a reduced likelihood of initial self-reflection. Moderate levels of initial psychologi-
cal stress predict the greatest likelihood of engaging in adaptive self-reflection.
How systematic self-reflection enhances the capacity for resilience
Self-reflection is suggested to mediate the relationship between initial psychological stress and what
is broadly referred to as the capacity for resilience (Figure 1, paths b and c) by enhancing usage of the
coping and emotion regulatory repertoire, coping resources, and resilient beliefs. Only the constitu-
ents of the capacity for resilience proposed to be directly influenced by self-reflection are included.
Coping resources are the available practical, cognitive, motivational, and social resources that can
help people to cope with stressors. Coping resources may be limited or expanded by the availability
of practical (e.g., fiscal, time), cognitive (e.g., intellectual functioning), motivational (e.g., autonomous
motivation in relation to the task) and social resources (e.g., social support). An individual’s coping
resources directly and positively influence the usage of the coping and emotion regulatory repertoire
available to meet demands (Figure 1, path d). Moreover, such coping resources (e.g., less income
decline, social support, socio-economic status, intellectual functioning) have demonstrated direct
relationships to wellbeing outcomes and in this way contribute to the capacity for resilience (e.g.,
Bonanno et al., 2007; Ensel & Lin, 1991; Masten et al., 1990).
Usage of the coping and emotion regulatory repertoire reflects the number and variability of strat-
egies individuals possess and the ability to apply different strategies over time (Bonanno & Burton,
2013; Ntoumanis, Edmunds, & Duda, 2009). Accumulating research is demonstrating the importance
of a diversity of coping and emotion regulatory approaches and the flexible deployment of these
strategies to achieving resilient outcomes (e.g., Bonanno & Burton, 2013; Cheng et al., 2001). This
capacity reflects the ability to flexibly use a range of adaptive coping and emotion regulatory strat-
egies to meet contextual demands. Having noted this, meta-analyses of the coping and emotion
regulatory literature also indicate that certain ways of coping with stressors are typically maladaptive
(e.g., rumination, avoidance, suppression) resulting in more internalizing symptoms (Compas et al.,
2017). Thus, there may be some strategies that are generally maladaptive and not necessarily
useful as part of a diverse coping repertoire.
Resilient beliefs have a demonstrated ability to increase the likelihood of resilient outcomes, such
as self-efficacy, hope, a growth mindset, and optimism. Broadly speaking, these are clusters of beliefs
about how successful one will be when interacting with the world, one’s capacity to change them-
selves in positive ways, and one’sconfidence to do so (e.g., Bandura, 1982; Scheier & Carver,
1985). Existing models describe the importance of such beliefs in moderating the stressor-distress
relationship (e.g., Job-Demands and Resources Model; Xanthopoulou, Bakker, Demerouti, & Schaufeli,
2007; Model of Psychological Capital; Luthans, Luthans, & Luthans, 2004). However, these beliefs are
not universally adaptive across all outcomes (e.g., performance; Hmieleski & Baron, 2009), and are
therefore referred to specifically as “resilient beliefs”. Importantly, beliefs can be modified over
time. The development of these resilient beliefs is often described as a learning process that
evolves as part of one’s interaction with the world and people within it (e.g., Bandura, 1982; Lee,
Cohen, Edgar, Andrea, & Gagnon, 2006;Snyder et al., 1996; see Snyder, Ilardi, Michael, & Cheavans,
2000 for review).
Systematic self-reflection enables the individual to refine his or her mental models of the coping
and emotional regulatory experience, initiate a search for different approaches or necessary coping
resources, and the emergence of a more sophisticated and flexible coping and emotion regulatory
repertoire. Individuals who engage in systematic self-reflection as part of their coping experience,
10 M.F.CRANEETAL.
either during or after the subsidence of a stressor, can identify and remedy significant gaps in their
resources or personal strategies that may undermine resilient outcomes. If an individual’s current
coping strategy is not sufficient to meet demands, self-reflection is proposed to prompt the use of
an alternative strategy. Alternatively, if coping resources are too limited to meet demands, self-reflec-
tion may initiate activities to gather more resources, increasing the number and diversity of one’s
coping resources (e.g., the identification of limited social support may lead to behaviors aimed at
increasing supportive networks). Further, resilient beliefs may emerge from successful coping
attempts as an individual acknowledges coping success that is integrated as a sense of agency,
efficacy, and control over stressor situations (e.g., “I have coped with it before, so I can do it
again”). However, even in the face of initial setbacks, the future-focus aspect of the self-reflective
process is likely to renew one’s sense of efficacy for addressing future stressors. This provides a
pathway for goal accomplishment, a sense of agency over the outcome (hope), and optimism
about positive outcomes in the future. In this way, self-reflection enables the on-going development
of one’s resources, repertoire and resilient beliefs.
Previous work has highlighted the use of systematic reflection for the broadening of behavioral
options and improving performance outcomes in the workplace (Ellis & Davidi, 2005; Ellis, Carette,
Anseel, & Lievens, 2014). Ellis and colleagues et al. (2014,2005) describe how learning does not auto-
matically emerge from success or failure; rather it is one’s willingness to engage in an elaborative
process of evaluation and behavior change. After-Action Reviews facilitate this elaborative process
of self-explanation whereby individuals are required to examine their performance and provide expla-
nations for their success or failure on a task (Chi, de Leeuw, Chiu, & Lavancher, 1994; Ellis & Davidi,
2005). In an evaluation of After-Action Reviews, Israeli soldiers were identified to have a greater per-
formance improvement when reviews focused on both successes and failures, rather than only fail-
ures. Such performance improvements emerge because examination of failures and successes
enables amendments to behavior, the emergence of new strategies, and reinforcement of effective
strategies (Ellis & Davidi, 2005) broadening the behavioral repertoire relating to performance.
Applied to the experience of addressing stressors, by analyzing successful and unsuccessful
coping and emotional regulatory experiences in context, individuals can develop an awareness of
their success and the effectiveness of their strategies, but at the same time acknowledge the need
for change in the future. Importantly, self-reflection occurs following the initial stressor response
initiated by stressor demands. However, coping resources and repertoire may be modified or
extended to meet the future demands based on the reflective process retrospectively or in parallel
to the initial response.
The above rationale and available empirical evidence have led us to propose that:
H2: Systematic self-reflection mediates the relationship between the initial psychological stress response and the
three described resilient capacities: Usage of the coping and emotion regulatory repertoire, coping resources, and
resilient beliefs (Figure 1, paths b and c).
H3: Engagement in all five self-reflection practices (Figure 2) increases the three resilient capacities specified in
the model.
The relationship between usage of the coping and emotion regulatory repertoire and
resilient beliefs
Arguably, individuals with a broader repertoire of coping and emotion regulatory strategies are more
likely to feel as though they have agency, anticipate good outcomes, and perceive pathways to
achieving good outcomes. Previous research has demonstrated that resilient beliefs may emerge
from coping strategy usage (Figure 1, path e). Dijkstra and Homan (2016) demonstrated that the
relationship between coping strategy usage and wellbeing outcomes occurs indirectly via beliefs
(e.g., beliefs about control). Although this research was limited by the cross-sectional design, the
authors did demonstrate that this indirect pathway was stronger than the alternative where
ANXIETY, STRESS, & COPING 11
beliefs anticipate wellbeing via the application of coping. Having noted this, other research suggests
that resilient beliefs relate to specific coping strategy use (e.g., Dijkstra & Homan, 2016; Ensel & Lin,
1991; Major et al., 1998). Therefore, this potentially important relationship is also acknowledged in the
present model (Figure 1, path f).
H4: There is a direct causal relationship between usage of the coping and emotion regulatory repertoire and resi-
lient beliefs (Figure 1, path e). A feedback loop also exists between resilient beliefs and the coping and emotion
regulatory repertoire (Figure 1, path f) whereby resilient beliefs may also enhance the usage of the coping and
emotion regulatory repertoire.
A word on the capacity for resilience to lead to downstream resilience
The capacities for resilience included in the Systematic Self-Reflection model are three of several
important factors that interact with future stressors to influence the resulting psychological outcomes
and potential for resilience. Moreover, as the capacity for resilience enables the experience of less
distress emerging from future stressors, systematic self-reflection may continue to contribute to
the development of one’s capacity for resilience. This feedback loop means that resilient capacities
are reviewed and refined each time this process of reflection occurs making resilient outcomes
more likely, particularly for stressors one has encountered in the past. Conversely, an individual
may demonstrate resilience to one stressor, but then in the context of another stressor may experi-
ence moderate stress and the reflective process may again take place. In this way, the capacity for
resilience is malleable and can be shaped, but there is also an observable level of stability over time.
H5: Usage of the coping and emotion regulatory repertoire, coping resources, and resilient beliefs, in part, com-
prise the capacity for resilience and increase the likelihood of resilient outcomes.
Other models of resilience that implicate a role for stressors and life-adversity
A few models have considered the role of stressors and life-adversity in the development of resili-
ence. However, a limitation of these models is their failure to articulate the processes that take
place to turn the experience of life stressors into the capacity for resilience. There is an absence of
models with specific hypotheses that would enable a thorough test of these mechanisms. Table 1
clarifies points of similarity and difference between the proposed Systematic Self-Reflection model
and past models suggesting a role for stressors in the emergence of resilience. In summary, there
are two central ways that this model contributes to the current scholarship on stress and resilience.
First, there are no current models that articulate how stressor experiences are translated into the
emergence of resilience or acknowledge the importance of self-reflection in this process. Identifying
this mechanism is important for both training applications, but also to understand when stressors will
have a resilience strengthening capacity and when they will not. Second, the Systematic Self-Reflec-
tion model reflects a shift from looking at stressors as “risks”where stressors need to be managed or
avoided to examining the development of capacities that may be derived from stressor exposure.
This is in line with “stress mind-set”research that suggests encouraging and advocating for
growth opportunities from stressor experiences may enhance aspects such as performance, feedback
seeking, and lessened cortisol reactivity (Crum, Salovey, & Achor, 2013). This approach is distinct from
other models that emphasize the management or mitigation of stress, making only a cursory
acknowledgment of the role of stress in enhancing capacity.
Implications for research and practice
The contribution of this paper to future research is the provision of a testable model of resilience-
strengthening. Self-reflection is an understudied area, particularly in the context of resilience devel-
opment. Perhaps the most important practical implication of this model is that it proposes a new
12 M.F.CRANEETAL.
Table 1. Similarity and differences between the presently proposed Systematic Self-Reflection model and past models that suggest a role of stressors in the emergence of resilience.
Existing model/theory Similarities to the Systematic Self-Reflection Model Unique aspects of the Systematic Self-Reflection Model
Metatheory of resilience and
resiliency (Richardson, 2002;
Richardson et al., 1990)
Resilient reintegration involves enhanced resilience triggered by disruptive
events. It involves a process of introspection related to “identifying,
accessing, and nurturing resilient qualities”(Richardson, 2002, p. 312). The
resiliency model proposes that without this process of resilient
reintegration, life events would continually create resource loss and
disruption, because there is otherwise no process to acquire resilient
qualities. The model suggests that the resiliency process may occur over
seconds to years depending on the severity and/or information that needs
to be integrated
The resiliency model specifies that resilient reintegration depends on
particular skills (e.g., good interpersonal skills, creative problem solving)
and traits (e.g., sense of humor, self-confidence). In the resiliency model,
these skills and traits are an amorphous cluster of factors facilitating
resilient reintegration. There are no clearly articulated processes regarding
the way resilient reintegration occurs and how these factors support it. In
the Systematic Self-Reflection model, we propose a clear, specific, and
testable mechanism for the emergence of resilience from stressors and
adversity
Model of restorative wellbeing (Lent,
2004)
The Model of Restorative Well-being principally describes the restoration of
wellbeing when people are beset by difficulty. Recovery from disruptive
events is said to involve environmental supports and resources, coping
efficacy, coping appraisals and coping strategies. This is akin to the
Systematic Self-Reflection model that proposes that all these processes are
involved in one’s initial response to stress (path a)
The Model of Restorative Well-being also acknowledges the potential for
enhanced coping to emerge from stressful life events. In particular,
successful coping is thought to enhance one’s coping repertoire, sense of
coping efficacy, and personal and social resources that enable coping
capacity into the future
The Model of Restorative Well-being does not describe how the coping
repertoire, coping efficacy, or resources are enhanced in response to
stressors over time. Moreover, enhancement is considered to be derived
directly from coping success. In contrast, the focus of the Systematic Self-
Reflection model is describing how resilience is strengthened from stressor
exposure. In particular, the Systematic Self-Reflection model articulates
specific self-reflective practices necessary for strengthening resilience.
Further, the Systematic Self-Reflection model suggests that the success of
the initial stressor response is not necessary for strengthening resilience.
Even when the initial response is inadequate to meet demands, capabilities
can still be developed if appropriate self-reflection takes place
Stress inoculation (Meichenbaum &
Deffenbacher, 1988)
Stress inoculation involves exposure to stressors and the idea that stress
exposure allows for the acquisition of new skills as part of exposure. The
Systematic Self-Reflection model similarly proposes a capacity-building role
for stressors that lead to downstream enhancements in resilience
Afirst key difference is the population these perspectives are applied to and
why. Stress inoculation approaches are typically applied to assist with the
management of stress or for those experiencing distress. The focus of the
Systematic Self-Reflection model is on the development of resilience from
adversity in those who are not necessarily experiencing distress.
Second, in stress inoculation, the mechanism for ensuring that stressor
exposure results in adaptive, rather than maladaptive coping is the
psychologist. The psychologist provides guidance regarding strategies to
enhance the coping and emotion regulatory repertoire. In the Systematic
Self-Reflection model, the agent of strategy modification is the individual,
enabled by their capacity to engage in appropriate self-reflection.
Third, during stress inoculation, coping skills are rehearsed during role-
plays, simulations and using mental imagery that evoke the experience of
distress. The Systematic Self-Reflection model emphasizes experiential
learning via the development of five self-reflective practices that enable the
individual to make their own judgements about effective and ineffective
approaches to coping an emotion regulation. In this way, the coping and
emotion regulatory repertoire is expanded over time as a bi-product of self-
reflection, as one encounters stressors in one’s life, rather than being taught
discrete strategies for specific situations. Thus, the individual is equipped to
apply the self-reflective practice to any stressor situation encountered in
situ, rather than engaging in training that is situation-specific
ANXIETY, STRESS, & COPING 13
framework for developing resilience in individuals not experiencing psychopathology. Current stress
management and resilience training programs focus on teaching discrete coping and emotion regu-
latory skills (e.g., meditation, relaxation, cognitive reframing) for the management of stressors (for
review see: Robertson, Cooper, Sarkar, & Curran, 2015; Vanhove, Herian, Perez, Harms, & Lester,
2016). Three opportunities emerge from a self-reflection approach: (1) the strategies resulting from
self-reflection are suited to the individual’s values, culture, personal style, and strengths, because
these strategies emerge from the person’s unique reflections; (2) individuals can emerge with a per-
sonalized model of resilience that is context specific allowing flexibility as contextual demands
change; and (3) this approach conveys that stressors can be an opportunity for growth and empow-
erment, rather than implying that stressors need to be managed or mitigated, as is common for skills-
based techniques (Crum et al., 2013). The training derived from this approach emphasizes the
capacity of the individual to make choices with respect to the engagement of resilient capacities, con-
tingent on one’s development and cognitive maturation. We suggest that the initial focus of resili-
ence training should be on encouraging participants to engage in the five reflective practices
identified above. These reflective practices can be encouraged via the use of structured reflective
journals or coaching sessions where individuals are asked to reflect on their stressor experiences
as well as their initial reactions, their approaches to managing stressors, the effectiveness of these
strategies, and how their capacities may be modified in the future. However, the mechanism for eli-
citing reflection may require modification depending on cognitive maturation. We propose that there
is the potential to capitalize on the resilience strengthening properties of stressors by encouraging
these reflective practices. Future research is required to identify how to best encourage such prac-
tices, and whether there are participant characteristics that inhibit the development of these meta-
cognitive skills.
Conclusion
Our vision is to move beyond a harm-reduction approach to stressors and determine how individuals
can use stressors and adversity as resilience-strengthening opportunities. The Systematic Self-Reflec-
tion model provides a testable framework regarding a mechanism that enables resilience to be
strengthened throughout one’s cognitive maturation across the lifespan via the use of five reflective
practices. In combination, these reflective practices are expected to facilitate the development and
strengthening of three key resilient capacities (i.e., resilient belief systems, usage of the coping
and emotion regulatory repertoire, and coping resources) that improve the likelihood of future resi-
lient outcomes. The Systematic Self-Reflection model proposes a new framework for developing resi-
lience in individuals across the lifespan by encouraging these reflective practices. To this end,
longitudinal research is warranted to test the five hypotheses outlined, as the findings from this
line of inquiry have the potential to inform the development and further refinement of resiliency-
based interventions for individuals across the lifespan. Moreover, as Systematic Self-Reflection is pro-
posed to be applicable to both life stressors and more serious adversities, it has the potential to
inform preventative treatment programs to extend people’s resilient-capacities, including at-risk
populations who may be more vulnerable to chronic stress exposure.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
ORCID
M. F. Crane http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4943-7962
B. J. Searle http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0349-1709
M. Kangas http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8693-2949
14 M.F.CRANEETAL.
References
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Post-traumatic stress disorder. In Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental dis-
orders (5th ed., p. 271). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Publishing.
Anseel, F., Lievens, F., & Schollaert, E. (2009). Reflection as a strategy to enhance task performance after feedback.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,110,23–35. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2009.05.003
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist,37, 122–147. doi:10.1037//0003-
066X.37.2.122
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Beck, A. T. (1983). Cognitive therapy of depression: New perspectives. In P. J. Clayton & J. E. Barnett (Eds.), Treatment of
depression: Old controversies and new approaches (pp. 265–290). New York: Raven Press.
Bonanno, G. A., & Burton, C. L. (2013). Regulatory flexibility: An individual differences perspective on coping and emotion
regulation. Perspectives on Psychological Science,8, 591–612. doi:10.1177/1745691613504116
Bonanno, G. A., Galea, S., Bucciarelli, A., & Vlahov, D. (2007). What predicts psychological resilience after disaster? The role
of demographics, resources, and life stress. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,75, 671–682. doi:10.1037/
0022-006X.75.5.671
Bonanno, G. A., Pat-Horenczyk, R., & Noll, J. (2011). Coping flexibility and trauma: The perceived ability to cope with
trauma (PACT) scale. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy,3, 117–129. doi:10.1037/a0020921
Campbell-Sills, L., Cohan, S. L., & Stein, M. B. (2006). Relationship of resilience to personality, coping, and psychiatric symp-
toms in young adults. Behaviour Research and Therapy,44(4), 585–599. doi:10.1016/j.brat.2005.05.001
Carver, C. S. (1998). Resilience and thriving: Issues, models, and linkages. Journal of Social Issues,54,245–266. doi:10.1111/
j.1540-4560.1998.tb01217.x
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1998). On the self-regulation of behavior. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Cheng, C., Chiu, C., Hong, Y., & Cheung, J. S. (2001). Discriminative facility and its role in the quality of interactional experi-
ences. Journal of Personality,69, 765–785. doi:10.1111/1467-6494.695163
Chi, M. T. H., de Leeuw, N., Chiu, M. H., & Lavancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding.
Cognitive Science,18, 439–477. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog1803_3
Clore, G. L., & Huntsinger, J. R. (2007). How emotions inform judgment and regulate thought. Trends in Cognitive Sciences,
11, 393–399. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2007.08.005
Compas, B. E., Jaser, S. S., Bettis, A. H., Watson, K. H., Gruhn, M. A., Dunbar, J. P., …Thigpen, J. C. (2017). Coping, emotion
regulation, and psychopathology in childhood and adolescence: A meta-analysis and narrative review. Psychological
Bulletin,143, 939–991. doi:10.1037/bul0000110
Connor-Smith, Jennifer K., Compas, Bruce E., Wadsworth, Martha E., Thomsen, Alexandra Harding, & Saltzman, Heidi.
(2000). Responses to stress in adolescence: Measurement of coping and involuntary stress responses. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology,68(6), 976–992. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.68.6.976
Crane, M. F., & Searle, B. J. (2016). Building resilience through exposure to stressors: The effects of challenges versus hin-
drances. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,21, 468–479. doi:10.1037/a0040064
Crum, A. J., Salovey, P., & Achor, S. (2013). Rethinking stress: The role of mindsets in determining the stress response.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,104, 716–733. doi:10.1037/a0031201
de Roon-Cassini, T. A., Mancini, A. D., Rusch, M. D., & Bonanno, G. A. (2010). Psychopathology and resilience following
traumatic injury: A latent growth mixture model analysis. Rehabilitation Psychology,55,1–11. doi:10.1037/a0018601
Dienstbier, R. A. (1989). Arousal and physiological toughness: Implications for mental and physical health. Psychological
Review,96,84–100. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.96.1.84
Dijkstra, M. T., & Homan, A. C. (2016). Engaging in rather than disengaging from stress: Effective coping and perceived
control. Frontiers in Psychology,7,1–12. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01415
Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist,41, 1040–1048. doi:10.1037/0003-
066X.41.10.1040
Ellis, S., Carette, B., Anseel, F., & Lievens, F. (2014). Systematic reflection: Implications for learning from failures and suc-
cesses. Current Directions in Psychological Science,23,67–72. doi:10.1177/0963721413504106
Ellis, S., & Davidi, I. (2005). After-event reviews: Drawing lessons from successful and failed experience. Journal of Applied
Psychology,90, 857–871. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.90.5.857
Ensel, W. M., & Lin, N. (1991). The life stress paradigm and psychological distress. Journal of Health and Social Behavior,32,
321–341. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2137101
Eve, P., & Kangas, M. (2015). Posttraumatic growth following trauma: Is growth accelerated or a reflection of cognitive
maturation? The Humanistic Psychologist,43, 354–370. doi:10.1080/08873267.2015.1025272
Folkman, S., & Moskowitz, J. T. (2004). Coping: Pitfalls and promise. Annual Review of Psychology,55, 745–774. doi:10.1146/
annurev.psych.55.090902.141456
Grant, A. M., Franklin, J., & Langford, P. (2002). The self-reflection and insight scale: A new measure of private self-con-
sciousness. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal,30, 821–835. doi:10.2224/sbp.2002.30.8.821
Greenberg, M. (1995). Cognitive processing in trauma: The role of intrusive thoughts and reappraisals. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology,25, 1262–1296.
ANXIETY, STRESS, & COPING 15
Gross, J. J. (2015). Emotion regulation: Current status and future prospects. Psychological Inquiry,26,1–26. doi:10.1080/
1047840X.2014.940781
Gross, J. J., & Muñoz, R. F. (1995). Emotion regulation and mental health. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice,2, 151–
164. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2850.1995.tb00036.x
Hammen, C. (2015). Stress sensitivity in psychopathology: Mechanisms and consequences. Journal of Abnormal
Psychology,124, 152–154. doi:10.1037/abn0000040
Harkin, B., Webb, T. L., Chang, B. P. I., Prestwich, A., Conner, M., Kellar, I., …Sheeran, P. (2016). Does monitoring goal pro-
gress promote goal attainment? A meta-analysis of the experimental evidence. Psychological Bulletin,142, 198–229.
doi:10.1037/bul0000025
Harris, R. (2009). ACT made simple. Oakland, CA: New Harbinger Publications.
Hattie, J., Biggs, J., & Purdie, N. (1996). Effects of learning skills interventions on student learning: A meta-analysis. Review
of Educational Research,66,99–136. doi:10.3102/00346543066002099
Hayes, S. C. (2004). Acceptance and commitment therapy, relational frame theory, and the third wave of behavioral and
cognitive therapies. Behavior Therapy,35, 639–665. doi:10.1016/S0005-7894(04)80013-3
Hayes, S. C., Wilson, K. G., Gifford, E. V., Follette, V. M., & Strosahl, K. (1996). Experiential avoidance and behavioral dis-
orders: A functional dimensional approach to diagnosis and treatment. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology,64, 1152–1168.
Hmieleski, K. M., & Baron, R. A. (2009). Entrepreneurs’optimism and new venture performance: A social cognitive perspec-
tive. Academy of Management Journal,52, 473–488. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2009.41330755
Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist,44, 513–
524. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.44.3.513
Hobfoll, S. E. (2002). Social and psychological resources and adaptation. Review of General Psychology,6, 307–324. doi:10.
1037/1089-2680.6.4.307
Jamieson, J. P., Crum, A. J., Goyer, J. P., Marotta, M. E., & Akinola, M. (2018). Optimizing stress responses with reappraisal
and mindset interventions: An integrated model. Anxiety, Stress, & Coping,31, 245–261. doi:10.1080/10615806.2018.
1442615
Janoff-Bulman, R. (1992). Shattered assumptions: Towards a new psychology of trauma. New York, NY: Free Press.
Kalisch, R., Baker, D. G., Basten, U., Boks, M. P., Bonanno, G. A., Brummelman, E.,…Geuze, E. (2017). The resilience frame-
work as a strategy to combat stress-related disorders. Nature Human Behaviour,1, 784–790. doi:10.1038/s41562-017-
0200-8
Kaye-Tzadok, A., & Davidson-Arad, B. (2016). Posttraumatic growth among women survivors of childhood sexual abuse:
Its relation to cognitive strategies, posttraumatic symptoms, and resilience. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research,
Practice, and Policy,8, 550–558. doi:10.1037/tra0000103
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1987). Transactional theory and research on emotions and coping. European Journal of
Personality,1, 141–169. doi:10.1002/per.2410010304
Lee, V., Cohen, S. R., Edgar, L., Andrea, M. L., & Gagnon, A. J. (2006). Meaning-making intervention during breast or color-
ectal cancer treatment improves self-esteem, optimism, and self-efficacy. Social Science & Medicine,62, 3133–
3145. doi:10.13005/bpj/848
Lent, R. W. (2004). Toward a unifying theoretical and practical perspective on well-being and psychosocial adjustment.
Journal of Counseling Psychology,51, 482–509. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.51.4.482
Luthans, F., Luthans, K. W., & Luthans, B. C. (2004). Positive psychological capital: Beyond human and social capital.
Business Horizons,47,45–50. doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2003.11.007
Major, B., Richards, C., Cooper, M. L., Cozzarelli, C., & Zubek, J. (1998). Personal resilience, cognitive appraisals, and coping:
An integrative model of adjustment to abortion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,74, 735–752. doi:10.1037/
0022-3514.74.3.735
Masten, A. S., Best, K. M., & Garmezy, N. (1990). Resilience and development: Contributions from the study of children who
overcome adversity. Development and Psychopathology,2, 425–444. doi:10.1017/S0954579400005812
McEwen, B., & Lasley, E. N. (2003). Allostatic load: When protection gives way to damage. Advances in Mind-Body Medicine,
19,28–33.
Meichenbaum, D. H., & Deffenbacher, J. L. (1988). Stress inoculation training. The Counseling Psychologist,16,69–90.
doi:10.1177/0011000088161005
Mezirow, J. (1998). On critical reflection. Adult Education Quarterly,48, 185–198.
Monroe, S. M., & Harkness, K. L. (2005). Life stress, the “kindling”hypothesis, and the recurrence of depression:
Considerations from a life stress perspective. Psychological Review,112, 417–445. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.112.2.417
Moors, A., Ellsworth, P. C., Scherer, K. R., & Frijda, N. H. (2013). Appraisal theories of emotion: State of the art and future
development. Emotion Review,5, 119–124. doi:10.1177/1754073912468165
Ntoumanis, N., Edmunds, J., & Duda, J. L. (2009). Understanding the coping process from a self-determination theory per-
spective. British Journal of Health Psychology,14, 249–260. doi:10.1348/135910708X349352
Oken, B. S., Chamine, I., & Wakeland, W. (2015). A systems approach to stress, stressors and resilience in humans.
Behavioural Brain Research,282, 144–154. doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2014.12.047
16 M.F.CRANEETAL.
Padesky, C. A., & Mooney, K. A. (2012). Strengths-based cognitive-behavioural therapy : A four-step model to build resi-
lience. Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy,19, 283–290. doi:10.1002/cpp.1795
Richardson, G. E. (2002). The metatheory of resilience and resiliency. Journal of Clinical Psychology,58, 307–321. doi:10.
1002/jclp.10020
Richardson, G. E., Neiger, B. L., Jensen, S., & Kumpfer, K. L. (1990). The resiliency model. Health Education,21,33–39. doi:10.
1080/00970050.1990.10614589
Robertson, I. T., Cooper, C. L., Sarkar, M., & Curran, T. (2015). Resilience training in the workplace from 2003 to 2014: A
systematic review. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,88, 533–562. doi:10.1111/joop.12120
Sarkar, M., & Fletcher, D. (2014). Ordinary magic, extraordinary performance: Psychological resilience and thriving in high
achievers. Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology,3,46–60. doi:10.1037/spy0000003
Scheier, M. F., & Carver, C. S. (1985). Optimism, coping, and health: Assessment and implications of generalized outcome
expectancies. Health Psychology,4, 219–247. doi:10.1037/0278-6133.4.3.219
Seery, M. D. (2011). Resilience: A silver lining to experiencing adverse life events? Current Directions in Psychological
Science,20, 390–394. doi:10.1177/0963721411424740
Seery, M. D., Holman, E. A., & Silver, R. C. (2010). Whatever does not kill us: Cumulative lifetime adversity, vulnerability, and
resilience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,99, 1025–1041. doi:10.1037/a0021344
Seery, M. D., Leo, R. J., Lupien, S. P., Kondrak, C. L., & Almonte, J. L. (2013). An upside to adversity? Moderate cumulative
lifetime adversity is associated with resilient responses in the face of controlled stressors. Psychological Science,24,
1181–1189. doi:10.1177/0956797612469210
Seery, M. D., & Quinton, W. J. (2016). Understanding resilience: From negative life events to everyday stressors. Advances
in Experimental Social Psychology,54, 181–245. doi:10.1016/bs.aesp.2016.02.002
Snyder, C. R., Ilardi, S., Michael, S., & Cheavans, J. (2000). Hope theory: Updating a common process for psychological
change. In C. R. Snyder & R. E. Ingram (Eds.), Handbook of psychological change: Psychotherapy processes and practices
for the 21st century (pp. 128–153). New York: John Wiley.
Snyder, C. R., Sympson, S. C., Ybasco, F. C., Borders, T. F., Babyak, M. A., & Higgins, R. L. (1996). Development and validation
of the state hope scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,70, 321–335. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.70.2.321
Stroud, C. B., Davila, J., Hammen, C., & Vrshek-Schallhorn, S. (2011). Severe and non-severe events in first onsets versus
recurrences of depression: Evidence for stress sensitization. Journal of Abnormal Psychology,120, 142–154. doi:10.
1037/a0021659
Tedeschi, R. G., & Calhoun, L. G. (2004). Posttraumatic growth: Conceptual foundations and empirical evidence.
Psychological Inquiry,15,1–18. doi:10.1207/s15327965pli1501_01
Treynor, W., Gonzalez, R., & Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (2003). Rumination reconsidered: A psychometric analysis. Cognitive
Therapy and Research,27, 247–259. doi:10.1023/A:1023910315561
Vanhove, A. J., Herian, M. N., Perez, A. L., Harms, P. D., & Lester, P. B. (2016). Can resilience be developed at work? A meta-
analytic review of resilience-building programme effectiveness. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology,89, 278–307. doi:10.1111/joop.12123
Wyer, R. S., Clore, G. L., & Isbell, L. M. (1999). Affect and information processing. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology,
31,1–77. doi:10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60271-3
Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2007). The role of personal resources in the job
demands-resources model. International Journal of Stress Management,14, 121–141. doi:10.1037/1072-5245.14.2.121
Yeager, D. S., & Dweck, C. S. (2012). Mindsets that promote resilience: When students believe that personal characteristics
can be developed. Educational Psychologist,47, 302–314. doi:10.1080/00461520.2012.722805
ANXIETY, STRESS, & COPING 17
