Conceptualizing and measuring psychological resilience: What can we learn from physics?

IF 2.3 3区心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL

New Ideas in Psychology Pub Date : 2022-08-01 DOI:10.1016/j.newideapsych.2022.100934

Ruud J.R. Den Hartigh , Yannick Hill

{"title":"Conceptualizing and measuring psychological resilience: What can we learn from physics?","authors":"Ruud J.R. Den Hartigh , Yannick Hill","doi":"10.1016/j.newideapsych.2022.100934","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The number of resilience conceptualizations in psychology has rapidly grown, which confuses what resilience actually means. This is problematic, because the conceptualization typically guides the measurements, analyses, and practical interventions employed. The most popular conceptualizations of psychological resilience equate it with the ability to (1) resist negative effects of stressors, (2) “bounce back” from stressors, and/or (3) grow from stressors. In this paper, we review these three conceptualizations and argue that they reflect different concepts. This is supported by important lessons from engineering physics, where such concepts are clearly differentiated with precise mathematical underpinnings. Against this background, we outline why psychological resilience should be conceptualized and measured in terms of the process of returning to the previous state following a stressor (i.e., bouncing back). By establishing a clearer language of resilience and related processes, measurements and interventions in psychological research and practice can be targeted more precisely.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":51556,"journal":{"name":"New Ideas in Psychology","volume":"66 ","pages":"Article 100934"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0732118X22000046/pdfft?md5=08d625b8ac707cabdaebad395e5b1a3e&pid=1-s2.0-S0732118X22000046-main.pdf","citationCount":"18","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"New Ideas in Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0732118X22000046","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 18

Abstract

The number of resilience conceptualizations in psychology has rapidly grown, which confuses what resilience actually means. This is problematic, because the conceptualization typically guides the measurements, analyses, and practical interventions employed. The most popular conceptualizations of psychological resilience equate it with the ability to (1) resist negative effects of stressors, (2) “bounce back” from stressors, and/or (3) grow from stressors. In this paper, we review these three conceptualizations and argue that they reflect different concepts. This is supported by important lessons from engineering physics, where such concepts are clearly differentiated with precise mathematical underpinnings. Against this background, we outline why psychological resilience should be conceptualized and measured in terms of the process of returning to the previous state following a stressor (i.e., bouncing back). By establishing a clearer language of resilience and related processes, measurements and interventions in psychological research and practice can be targeted more precisely.

查看原文本刊更多论文

概念化和测量心理弹性:我们能从物理学中学到什么?

心理学中关于弹性概念的数量迅速增长，这混淆了弹性的真正含义。这是有问题的，因为概念化通常指导测量、分析和实际干预。最流行的心理弹性概念将其等同于(1)抵抗压力源的负面影响的能力，(2)从压力源中“反弹”，和/或(3)从压力源中成长的能力。在本文中，我们回顾了这三种概念，并认为它们反映了不同的概念。这一点得到了工程物理学的重要教训的支持，在工程物理学中，这些概念被精确的数学基础清楚地区分开来。在此背景下，我们概述了为什么心理弹性应该被概念化，并在压力源(即反弹)后返回到先前状态的过程中进行测量。通过建立更清晰的弹性语言和相关过程，心理学研究和实践中的测量和干预可以更精确地定位。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

New Ideas in Psychology Multiple-

CiteScore

4.80

自引率

3.80%

发文量

期刊介绍： New Ideas in Psychology is a journal for theoretical psychology in its broadest sense. We are looking for new and seminal ideas, from within Psychology and from other fields that have something to bring to Psychology. We welcome presentations and criticisms of theory, of background metaphysics, and of fundamental issues of method, both empirical and conceptual. We put special emphasis on the need for informed discussion of psychological theories to be interdisciplinary. Empirical papers are accepted at New Ideas in Psychology, but only as long as they focus on conceptual issues and are theoretically creative. We are also open to comments or debate, interviews, and book reviews.