Pathways to Resilience III: Beyond Nature vs. Nurture

Measuring Resilience:

Abstract #219
The Relationship Between Valuye Priorities and Resilience (Pilot Study)
Presenter: Alexander Makhnach Co-presenters: Anna Laktionova, Julia Postylyakova
Abstract:
Objective: We hypothesized that certain combination of values priorities reduces or increases resilience. 
Methods: The sample (n=152) completed: Schwartz Value Survey (SVS, Schwartz, 1992), RRC-ARM (Ungar, Liebenberg, 2013). According the results of RRC-ARM sample was divided on two groups with high (127+ scores, n = 20), and low resilience (less than 97 scores, n = 22). 
Findings: All RRC-ARM and SVS data significantly higher in the group with high resilience. Correlations between values in the group with low resilience show that a large focus on conformity and self-direction negatively associated with spirituality as the resilience context; the benevolence value associated only with individual peer support. In the group with high resilience benevolence value correlate with the context of culture, security value positively associated with psychological caregiving and individual social skills. High resilience group has universalism and autonomy values associated with individual skills. In low resilience group revealed conflicting combination of values: safety and autonomy - in contrast to the group with high resilience. 
Conclusion: The combination of conflicting values affects resilience, potentially reducing it. Resilient respondents have no values, reducing the resilience’ components; low resilient respondents focusing on the value reduces some resilience components.

Abstract #238
Measuring Protective Factors for Psychological Health: The Development of a New Measure of Individual Resilience (The Lifespan Individual Resilience Scale) and the Relations Between Individual Resilience, Self-Esteem, Coping Style, and Life Satisfaction
Presenter: Julie Ann Pooley Co-presenters: Lynne Cohen, Craig Harms
Abstract: 
While much of the research has focused on maintaining or recovery in psychological health despite experiencing adversity, the impact of the protective factors (or individual resilience) has also been of interest to researchers and practitioners. This current study describes the development of the Lifespan Individual Resilience Scale (LIRS) that improves on the gaps in conceptual and methodological characteristics of previous measures of individual resilience. Through the use of exploratory (sample 1: N =413) and confirmatory (sample 2: N= 240) factor analysis support is presented for a single hierarchical (3 sub-factors) as an explanation for the degree of association of the 12 items developed to measure individual resilience in adult populations. Evidence for the criterion and predictive validity of the LIRS were identified from the overall pattern of correlations (for the second sample of participants) between individual resilience and measures of self-esteem as well as coping styles (of which 8 were derived from an exploratory factor analysis) and support for the model where individual resilience totally (for all but of the coping styles) mediated the effect of coping style on life satisfaction. Although future testing of the LIRS is needed with adolescent and older adults, the LIRS represents a psychometrically sound scale applicable for the assessment of individual resilience resources in the context of health and other forms of adversity.

Abstract #264
Resilience as a Dynamic Network: The Resilience Network Model
Presenter: Sofie Vindevogel
Abstract:
Many controversies in resilience research originate from discord between underlying modeling approaches used to represent how the relation between the resilience construct and its indicators is theoretically understood. The fundamental question guiding the distinction between these models is whether resilience is considered as a real entity giving rise to observable indicators (reflective model) or an abstract label to describe what these indicators collectively represent (formative model). This question reflects the tension between nature and nurture, which made resilience research alternately focus on dispositional and situational aspects. Current theorizing and empirical evidence move beyond this dichotomy and indicate that resilience has concurrently dispositional and thus eliciting components as well as situational and thus achieved components. However, not a reflective nor a formative model allow the representation of resilience by indicators that can simultaneously reflect the underlying construct and contribute to its formation. This presentation introduces the resilience network model and illustrates how it has potential to counter shortcomings of the conventional modeling approaches and take into account topical theoretical understanding of resilience. The advantage of a network model is that it embodies a concrete way to combine the competing views that hitherto have been source of extended debate and exerting a divisive influence on the field of resilience research.