PSYCHOLOGICAL RESILIENCE AND APPLICATIONS FOR COACHING

Posted on January 26, 2016 by David Rickabaugh, One of Thousands of Executive Coaches on Noomii.

The positive psychological construct of resilience, defined as the “ability to recover from negative emotional experiences, resilience involves a process whereby an individual experiences positive emotions in the face of adverse circumstances” (e.g. stress, trauma, disappointment, fear, etc.) (Lyubormirsky & Della Porta, 2010, p. 456) Based on this definition, it appears that the resilience construct and its theoretical base could be helpful in a coaching context. To this end, the author will seek a better understanding of resilience and its application to coaching, leveraging existing literature.

DISCUSSION
PSYCHOLOGICAL RESILIENCE
Resilience appears to have numerous variations in definitions and variations, but as the construct has evolved, it appears to be comprised of two dominant themes: First, as a response to stressful events, it focuses on recovery, resolving stress and returning to equilibrium and a healthy state. Secondly, but just as importantly, is the theme of sustainability, which describes the continuation of recovery, and extends it to a function of growth and enhancement as a result of a more adaptive and positive reaction to a negative experience (Reich, Zautra, & Hall, 2010).

Resilience may be related to the construct of coping, particularly as described in the first theme above, but the literature describes coping historically as a set of behaviours that contribute to physical survival, and in a more modern sense, as a set of cognitive processes that serve to reduce anxiety or other negative emotions (Folkman & Lazarus, 1988). Resilience may serve a similar purpose as coping in that it aids an individual to deal with negative experiences, but it is described as additionally as assisting the individual to take proactive behavioural actions in such a way that the individual is able to make more positive emotional appraisals of his experience (Folkman & Lazarus, 1985). In a sense, coping allows an individual to survive a negative emotional experience, but resilience enables an individual to bounce back from as well as grow — and possibly thrive — as a result of applying positive emotions to a negative emotional experience.

The American Psychological Association (2015) states that supportive relationships are the primary factor in developing psychological resilience, with additional factors including the capacity to make and execute realistic plans, having a positive view of oneself that includes confidence in one’s strengths and abilities, communication and problem solving skills, and a capacity to manage strong feelings and impulses.

MEASURES
A recent methodological review of resilience measurement tools identified 19 measures, and found all to be lacking information on psychometric properties. Of the 19, 4 scored the highest: The Resilience Scale for Adults (37 items), the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (25 items), the Brief Resilience Scale, and the Resilience Scale for Adults (33 items). The authors of this review found no “gold standard” because all are in the early stages of development and require further development and validation (Windle, Bennett, & Noyes, 2011).

CURRENT RESEARCH
There is a vast amount of research on resilience, with a significant amount that is current. A search of PsychInfo for peer-reviewed literature that includes psychological resilience as a key word yielded 7,691 articles, with 1,293 of those published since 2013. Current research correlates positive emotions to resilience from a number of different perspectives (B. Fredrickson, 2001; Barbara L. Fredrickson & Branigan, 2005; Lyubormirsky & Della Porta, 2010; Ong, Bergeman, Bisconti, & Wallace, 2006; Ong, Bergeman, & Chow, 2010). Three theoretical models have been identified by the author as having merit to discuss in the coaching context in building resilience in coaching clients: the Three Factor Model of Personal Resiliency (Prince-Embury, 2014), Broaden and Build Theory (B. Fredrickson, 2001; Barbara L. Fredrickson & Branigan, 2005; Barbara L Fredrickson, Tugade, Waugh, & Larkin, 2003), and Shame Resistance Theory (B. Brown, 2006, 2012).

RESILIENCE MODELS AND THEIR APPLICATION TO COACHING
THREE FACTOR MODEL OF PERSONAL RESILIENCY
This model was developed by Prince-Embury (2014) as a way to simplify resilience theory for practical application, it is based on research with children and adolescents, and it leverages the co-developed Resiliency Scales for Children and Adolescents (RSCA) for measurement (Prince-Embury, 2008). The Three Factor Model identifies three core developmental systems as Sense of Mastery, Sense of Relatedness, and Emotional Reactivity and the relationship of these to one another as the focus for resiliency development and measurement.

Prince-Embury describes Mastery as a combination of self-efficacy, competence, problem-solving skills, and curiosity, and is based on a breadth of research in the field, notably Bandura (1977). Mastery supports the individual’s ability to have realistic positive expectations and to experience a sense of optimism and adaptability. To develop mastery, model identifies key techniques such as self-praise and acknowledgment, strengths identification, breaking tasks down into smaller steps, and developing an “I think I can” attitude. Relatedness supports the individuals actual and perceived ability to access interpersonal support to transit through negative experiences, and is based in part upon research demonstrating that resilient youth seek the support of non-parental adults more often than non-resilient youth (Werner & Smith, 1982).

Interventions to support relatedness include development of social skills, trust, tolerance of others, and communication skills. Emotional Reactivity speaks to how an individual is able to self regulate in the face of adversity to modulate emotional responses, reduce and redirect emotional arousal, prevent a negative emotional spiral, and to harness positive emotions for recovery. Interventions for emotional reactivity include developing an awareness of triggers, an ability to relax, self-soothing skills, and may include such things as breathing exercises, self-talk, muscle relaxation, and guided imagery.

IMPLICATIONS FOR COACHING

While the Three Factor Model is based on research on children and adolescents, it appears that the model can be leveraged for coaching interventions for adults as well. Coaching for mastery could include cognitive behavioural coaching to address automatic negative thoughts and replace them with positive thinking, including performance enhancing thoughts (Wiliams, Palmer, & Edgerton, 2014), solution focused coaching (Green, Oades, & Grant, 2006) and goal development, including breaking goals down into smaller action steps, developing self efficacy (Bandura, 1977), as well as coaching leveraging hope theory (Snyder, 2000) to develop both a stronger sense of agency and the ability to identify pathways toward goal or desired, better future.

Coaching for relatedness may be less direct than approaches for mastery, but it could leverage cognitive behavioural coaching to encourage productive relationships with others and generally encouraging and reinforcing positive, supportive relationships and their development through trust, tolerance, and communication skills. Coaching for emotional (non)reactivity would likely leverage mindfulness training to develop awareness and an attentional capacity to aid in redirecting negative emotions and preventing unproductive behavioural reactions to them (K. W. Brown, Ryan, & Creswell, 2007; Cameron & Fredrickson, 2015; Cavanagh & Spence, 2013; Garland & Fredrickson, 2013).

BROADEN AND BUILD THEORY
Fredrickson developed the Broaden and Build Theory of Positive Emotions to describe the unique effects of positive emotions (Barbara L Fredrickson, 1998). Broaden and Build states that “certain discrete positive emotions … all share the ability to broaden people’s momentary thought-action repertoires and build their enduring personal resources, ranging from physical and intellectual resources to social and psychological resources (B. L. Fredrickson, 2001, p. 219).

In developing this theory, Fredrickson began with an understanding of negative emotions (e.g. fear, anger) and how they, through the construct of specific action tendencies, drive specific behaviour (e.g. flight, fight) that have enabled the human species to survive (Levenson, 1994; Tooby & Cosmides, 1990). Research has also demonstrated that negative emotions narrow an individual’s attention, resulting in a perceived reduction of options, and are related to negative states like anxiety, depression, and failure.

Positive emotions, on the other hand, do not appear to generate specific action tendencies, and that they are generally described by a lack of autonomic reactivity (B. Fredrickson, 2001). Additional evidence exists that positive emotions may promote both psychological health and physical well-being by leveraging positive emotions at appropriate moments to cope with negative emotions (Barbara L Fredrickson, 2000).

In testing the relationship between resilience and Broaden and Build, Fredrickson used a time-pressured speech preparation task to induce negative emotion, measuring participants’ cardiovascular activation. Resilient individuals – those reporting higher levels of positive affect and positive emotions like happiness and interest – experienced a faster return to baseline cardiovascular activation than did non-resilient individuals (B. Fredrickson, 2001). She has also demonstrated that resilient individuals, who experience pre-crisis positive emotions in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States, experienced less depression and a greater capability of post-crisis growth and thriving (Barbara L Fredrickson et al., 2003).

IMPLICATIONS FOR COACHING

Given that Broaden and Build theory is centred on how positive emotions build enduring personal resources and are positively related to resilience, coaching applications would leverage positive psychological interventions such as the following (Boniwell, Kauffman, & Jordan, 2014):

Three Good Things, in which the individual writes down three things each evening that went well during that day.
Three question process, where the coach asks the coachee “What gives you meaning?”, “What gives you pleasure?”, and “What engages you?”. The coach should encourage the coachee to take time to answer these questions reflectively, and the coach should look for areas where the answers overlap and reflect this back to the client.
Gratitude visit, where the individual writes a letter to someone for whom they feel gratitude toward, and then reads it aloud to that person, in person.
Savouring, involves noticing and savouring good things in life, in order to attend to, enhance, and appreciate positive experiences in life. Coaches can support coaches in this process by encouraging coaches to intentionally focus on, and savour, particular experiences in order to slow life down and to better manage stress.
Best possible future self, where coachees are encouraged to imagine a future where everything in their life has gone well and all their goals have been realised. This exercise enhances optimism and helps clarify goals and priorities.
Using your signature strengths in a new way, which involves choosing a top signature strength and using it in a new manner every day for a week. Coaches can support clients by helping them brainstorm new ways to use this strength.
Seligman, Steen, Park, and Peterson (2005) demonstrated that two of these approaches (Three good things and Using your signature strengths in a new way) increased happiness and decreased depressive symptoms for at least six months post-test, while others had a more limited effect.

SHAME RESILIENCE THEORY
This model is included in this discussion specifically because it originates from outside the field of positive psychology, and was developed from a sociological perspective by Brené Brown, at the University of Houston (B. Brown, 2006). As the discussion below will demonstrate, and despite having a negative emotion in its title, Shame Reslience Theory leverages a positive psychosocial approach that has similar characteristics to the Three Factor Model, and it presents specific utility to coaching that may not be covered elsewhere in positive psychology literature.

Shame has only recently come under increased scrutiny by researchers and is suspected to contribute to a number of mental and public health issues including depression, addiction, suicide, family violence, etc. (B. Brown, 2006). Some researchers in the field call it the “master emotion of everyday life” (Scheff, 2003, p. 239), which is alarming given it’s negative affect. Brown (2006, p. 45) defines shame as “an intensely painful feeling or experience of believing we are flawed and therefore unworthy of acceptance and belonging,” or in more lay terms as a feeling of “I’m not (e.g. good, perfect, thin, smart…) enough” (B. Brown, 2012).

The research found that shame is differentiated from guilt, which is more closely related to behaviour, while shame is perceived as being more about self. Brown proposes that shame is a psychosocial construct, in which the psychological component relates to emotions, thoughts, and behaviours of self, while the social component relates to the way in which individuals experience shame in an interpersonal context. Individuals experiencing shame often feel trapped, powerless, and isolated.

According to Brown’s research, shame resilience is developed by moving away from feeling trapped, powerless, and isolated, and by creating opportunities to experience empathy, connection, power and freedom. To this end, Shame Resilience Theory includes four component elements:

Recognising shame and its triggers – essentially practicing mindfulness and self awareness to understand when shame is being experience and identifying messages and expectations that trigger it.
Practicing critical awareness – critically assess the messages and expectations that trigger the shame being experienced and whether they are realistic, obtainable, and what the individual or others really want from the individual,
Reaching out – the process of the individual sharing and owning in manner that connects with others and enables empathy,
Speaking shame – the process of the individual sharing the emotions she is feeling and asking for the support of others (B. Brown, 2006, 2012).
In comparing this resilience model to the Three Factor model discussed above, it appears that the first two elements address managing emotional reactivity, while the second two address relatedness. In considering this model critically, it seems that the notion of mastery (self efficacy, confidence) could be a missing critical element, particularly if a coach wants to generalise the learnings from this model. However, as it stands based on the research, it appears to be a valid approach to improve the resilience of those experiencing shame.

IMPLICATIONS FOR COACHING

Similar to the possible coaching approaches described in the Three Factor model, mindfulness training could be helpful in assisting the individual be more aware of the triggers that evoke shame and in building a more critical perspective in assessing the messages and expectations evoked by them. Coaching to support better relatedness could involve development of self efficacy and confidence in order to have the courage to “speak shame” and reach out to others, which requires the individual to experience vulnerability, especially in the early stages of resilience development.

As in the Three Factor model, the coach could also leverage cognitive behavioural coaching to encourage productive relationships with others and generally encouraging and reinforcing positive, supportive relationships and their development through trust, tolerance, and communication skills. Psychoeducation on the shame construct and Shame Resistance Theory could also be helpful to individuals experiencing shame related issues and assist them in being more resilient in that context.

CONCLUSION
This paper has presented the positive psychological construct of resilience, and discussed measurement and current research, including three key models – the Three Factor Model, Broaden and Build Theory, and Shame Resistance Theory — that pertain to resilience. Each model appears to be useful in the coaching context, and while the Shame Resilience model appears to be lacking a mastery component, coaches can still use existing approaches to develop self efficacy and confidence in their clients so they may be more effective in become shame resilient. Measurement appears to be a weak spot for the shame construct, but it appears that development and refinement of appropriate measurement tools is ongoing.

REFERENCES
Association, A. P. The Road to Resilience. Retrieved 18/04/2015, from www.apa.org/helpcenter/road-resilience.aspx

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191.

Boniwell, I., Kauffman, C., & Jordan, S. (2014). The Positive Psychology Approach to Coaching. In E. Cox, T. Bachkirova, & D. A. Clutterbuck (Eds.), The complete handbook of coaching: Sage.

Brown, B. (2006). Shame Resilience Theory: A Grounded Theory Study on Women and Shame. Families in Society, 87(1), 43-52.

Brown, B. (2012). Daring greatly: How the courage to be vulnerable transforms the way we live, love, parent, and lead: Penguin.

Brown, K. W., Ryan, R. M., & Creswell, J. D. (2007). Mindfulness: Theoretical Foundations and Evidence for its Salutary Effects. Psychological Inquiry, 18(4), 211-237. doi: 10.1080/10478400701598298

Cameron, C., & Fredrickson, B. L. (2015). Mindfulness facets predict helping behavior and distinct helping-related emotions. Mindfulness, No Pagination Specified.

Cavanagh, M. J., & Spence, G. B. (2013). Mindfulness in Coaching. The Wiley-Blackwell Handbook of the Psychology of Coaching and Mentoring, 112-134.

Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1985). If it changes it must be a process: study of emotion and coping during three stages of a college examination. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48(1), 150.

Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1988). Coping as a Mediator of Emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(3), 466. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.54.3.466

Fredrickson, B. (2001). The Role of Positive Emotions in Positive Psychology: The Broaden-and-Build Theory of Positive Emotions. American Psychologist, 56(3), 218-226.

Fredrickson, B. L. (1998). What good are positive emotions? Review of General Psychology, 2(3), 300.

Fredrickson, B. L. (2000). Cultivating positive emotions to optimize health and well-being. Prevention & Treatment, 3(1), 1a.

Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56(3), 218-226.

Fredrickson, B. L., & Branigan, C. (2005). Positive emotions broaden the scope of attention and thought‐action repertoires. Cognition and Emotion, 19(3), 313-332. doi: 10.1080/02699930441000238

Fredrickson, B. L., Tugade, M. M., Waugh, C. E., & Larkin, G. R. (2003). What good are positive emotions in crisis? A prospective study of resilience and emotions following the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11th, 2001. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(2), 365.

Garland, E. L., & Fredrickson, B. L. (2013). Mindfulness broadens awareness and builds meaning at the attention-emotion interface. Kashdan, Todd B [Ed]; Ciarrochi, Joseph [Ed] (2013) Mindfulness, acceptance, and positive psychology: The seven foundations of well-being (pp 30-67) x, 335 pp Oakland, CA, US: Context Press/New Harbinger Publications; US, 30-67.

Green, L. S., Oades, L. G., & Grant, A. M. (2006). Cognitive-behavioral, solution-focused life coaching: Enhancing goal striving, well-being, and hope. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 1(3), 142-149. doi: 10.1080/17439760600619849

Levenson, R. W. (1994). Human emotion: A functional view. The nature of emotion: Fundamental questions, 123-126.

Lyubormirsky, S., & Della Porta, M. (2010). Boosting Happiness, Buttressing Resilience. In J. W. Reich, A. Zautra, & J. S. Hall (Eds.), Handbook of adult resilience. New York: Guilford Press.

Ong, A. D., Bergeman, C., Bisconti, T. L., & Wallace, K. A. (2006). Psychological resilience, positive emotions, and successful adaptation to stress in later life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(4), 730.

Ong, A. D., Bergeman, C., & Chow, S.-M. (2010). Positive emotions as a basic building block of resilience in adulthood. Handbook of adult resilience, 81-93.

Prince-Embury, S. (2008). The resiliency scales for children and adolescents, psychological symptoms, and clinical status in adolescents. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 23(1), 41-56.

Prince-Embury, S. (2014). Three-factor model of personal resiliency and related interventions Resilience interventions for youth in diverse populations (pp. 25-57). New York, NY: Springer Science + Business Media; US.

Reich, J. W., Zautra, A., & Hall, J. S. (2010). Handbook of adult resilience. New York: Guilford Press.

Scheff, T. J. (2003). Shame in self and society. Symbolic interaction, 26(2), 239-262.

Seligman, M. E., Steen, T. A., Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2005). Positive psychology progress: empirical validation of interventions. American Psychologist, 60(5), 410.

Snyder, C. R. (2000). Handbook of hope: Theory, measures, and applications: Academic press.

Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (1990). The past explains the present: Emotional adaptations and the structure of ancestral environments. Ethology and sociobiology, 11(4), 375-424.

Werner, E. E., & Smith, R. S. (1982). Vulnerable but invincible: A study of resilient children and youth: McGraw-Hill Companies.

Wiliams, H., Palmer, S., & Edgerton, N. (2014). Cognitive Behavioural Coaching. In E. Cox, T. Bachkirova, & D. Clutterbuck (Eds.), The Complete Handbook of Coaching (2nd ed.). London: Sage.

Windle, G., Bennett, K. M., & Noyes, J. (2011). A methodological review of resilience measurement scales. Health and quality of life outcomes, 9(8), 1-18.