Introduction

In this paper we present some experiences with the use of tools for measuring psychological resilience, focusing on two research questions – verifying the theoretical model underlying each methodology and identifying gender differences in resilience scores, as well as the specifics of resilience scores in career-successful women.

From the many definitions of psychological resilience found in the professional literature (see e.g. Davidson et al., 2005, p. 43; Tugade and Fredrickson, 2004, p. 320; Luthar and Cicchetti, 2000, p. 858; Connor and Davidson, 2003, p. 76; Miller, 2003, p. 245), we prefer the definition by Masten (2001): Resilience represents a group of phenomena that underlie a good outcome achieved by a person despite serious threat to their adaptation or development. (Masten, 2001, p. 228). However, the specific "content" of the concept of resilience is operationalized by individual authors in their measurement tools with greater or lesser mutual deviations.

In the current theoretical space, where psychology continuously introduces new conceptualizations of personality dimensions that capture various aspects of performance and achievement, "differential diagnosis" is at least as important as the definition itself. Therefore, it is very useful to distinguish resilience from three related concepts: hardiness, thriving, and posttraumatic growth. Hardiness (Kobasa, 1982) consists of three components – a sense of control over one's own life, awareness of the meaning of one's life, and viewing change as a challenge; thriving (Carver, 1998) represents reduced reactivity to stressors and growth in "coping" with stressors; posttraumatic growth (Linley, Joseph, 2004; Tedeschi, Calhoun 1996, 2004) consists of personal growth following a trauma.

Method

In the study we used two methodologies for measuring resilience. The first was the Resilience Scale for Adults (hereinafter RSA) (Friborg, Hjemdal, Rosenvinge & Martinussen), which operationalizes resilience in four factors: - Experience with stressors - Personality adaptability - Supportive social environment - Experience and assessment of the ability to compensate/solve problems

The second methodology was The Baruth Protective Factors Inventory (hereinafter BPFI) (Baruth & Carroll), which operationalizes resilience in three areas, the first of which has four sub-areas:

  • Dispositional attributes:

  • belief in personal competence

  • life optimism
  • degree of structure in life

  • social competence

  • Family cohesion

  • External social support system

Detailed study of the individual items of these methodologies led us to reflect that several areas conceptually overlap between the two methodologies – we have marked them in the text (above) in italics. In addition, each methodology presents some areas that are unique to it – in the case of RSA, it is experience with stressors, and in the case of BPFI, it is life optimism and degree of structure in life.

We were interested in (1) whether the theoretical models (i.e., the operationalized areas of resilience) that these two methodologies represent would be confirmed, and (2) whether a joint factor analysis of the results from both methodologies would show overlap, i.e., theoretical proximity of the individual areas of resilience – especially those where we assumed conceptual proximity based on item comparison. In addition, given the availability of data from a specific sample of career-successful women, we were also interested in (3) whether career-successful women, compared to a representative population sample, can be characterized by a different level of resilience (and in what specifically). In this context, however, it was also interesting to look at gender differences in resilience (in a representative population sample).

Sample

The research sample consisted of a quasi-representative sample of the adult population of working age 18 to 65 years (N 500) from the Nitra region (balanced by gender, age, and education). In addition, we had data available from 16 career-successful women who were part of another research project (research on determinants of women's careers – participants were top managers in both the public and private sectors, successful entrepreneurs, successful artists, etc.).

Results

  1. Verifying the theoretical model

We calculated the reliability index (Cronbach's Alpha) and factor analysis for each methodology. For the RSA scale, the factor analysis confirmed 4 factors (explaining a total of 61.4% of the variance), but the reliability index was barely at a satisfactory level (Cronbach's Alpha 0.69). For the BPFI scale, factor analysis yielded 8 factors (explaining a total of 58.4% of the variance) instead of the 6 dimensions of the theoretical model; however, most dimensions were confirmed, some were only indicated; the reliability index was satisfactorily high (Cronbach's Alpha 0.87). Our empirical data thus largely confirmed the individual theoretical models behind the RSA and BPFI reliability scales.

However, when we performed a joint factor analysis of all items (48 in total) from both the RSA and BPFI methodologies, we obtained 12 factors (explaining a total of 61.8% of the variance) and virtually no overlap of related dimensions from the RSA and BPFI scales emerged – as if there were no agreement between what one methodology and the other, both intended to measure the level of resilience, actually measure. This surprising finding is difficult to interpret at this point and will require further empirical investigation.

  1. Gender differences

When examining gender differences in the representative population sample, significant differences emerged, the vast majority of which are "in favor" of men:

We can therefore state that it was shown that in the dimensions of resilience, men dominate over women in:

  • personality adaptability,
  • experience/assessment of the ability to compensate/solve problems,
  • belief in personal competence,
  • life optimism.

Women dominate over men in only one dimension of resilience, namely

  • external social support system.
  1. Resilience of "successful women"

Given that we had data on resilience scale scores from an extreme sample of 16 highly career-successful women, we were interested in whether and to what extent they differ from the representative female population in individual dimensions of resilience. The table shows that significant differences in the direction of higher resilience scores were found in six out of eight dimensions. In one dimension (experience with stressors), the score of successful women was surprisingly lower than in the representative sample, and in only one dimension was the difference not significant (external social support system).

What makes "successful women" different? Successful women dominate over women in the representative population sample in their reflection of the following dimensions:

  • personality adaptability,
  • experience/assessment of the ability to compensate/solve problems,
  • belief in personal competence,
  • life optimism,
  • family cohesion,
  • supportive social environment, and
  • low experience with stressors.

Discussion

The data obtained lead us to considerable caution in viewing psychological resilience as an unequivocally defined and bounded psychological dimension. It seems necessary to emphasize that, although the measurement tools we used (the RSA and BPFI questionnaires in our translation) relatively reliably reflected the four- and six-dimensional model of the individual theoretically assumed dimensions of resilience, we were unable to demonstrate even the slightest theoretical overlap between their dimensions. This is despite the fact that, in conceptual comparison, several dimensions of these methodologies are based on similar theoretical assumptions about what should "lie behind" the dimension of psychological resilience. Verifying the concept of psychological resilience, and especially its differential diagnostic distinction from related concepts, thus remains a major challenge for basic research.

Nevertheless, we consider the findings on gender differences in the postulated dimensions of resilience to be noteworthy. They indicate that men can be expected to have significantly higher scores in some dimensions that could be important for achieving outstanding performance and facing various barriers on the path to goals: personality adaptability, experience/assessment of the ability to compensate/solve problems, belief in personal competence, and life optimism. Conversely, in women, one can count on a significantly greater influence of perceived external support in the social system than in men.

Furthermore, a stimulating finding, which provides another serious argument for discussions on the possibilities and ways of achieving gender equality, is that highly career-successful women possess a self-image that, from the perspective of the concept of resilience, is not some identification with a male stereotypical self-image (in the sense of "matching men"), but rather represents a distinct structure. This structure is characterized by significant dominance in almost all dimensions of the psychological resilience model (personality adaptability, experience/assessment of the ability to compensate/solve problems, belief in personal competence, life optimism, family cohesion, supportive social environment) over the representative sample of women, with two exceptions: one is reduced experience with stressors compared to the representative sample of women, and the other is the indifference of the external social support system for the resilience of successful women.

Authors: Gabriel Bianchi, Ivan Lukšík, Miroslav Popper Centre of Excellence of the Slovak Academy of Sciences for Research and Development of Citizenship and Democracy and the Institute of Social Communication of the Slovak Academy of Sciences* References:*

Baruth, K. E., & Carroll, J. J. (2002). A formal assessment of resilience: The Baruth Protective Factors Inventory. Journal of Individual Psychology, 58, 235 - 244.

Carver, C. S. (1998). Resilience and thriving: Issues, models, and linkages. Journal of Social Issues, 54, 245 - 266.

Connor, K. M., & Davidson, J. R. T. (2003). Development of a new resilience scale: The Connor-Davidson resilience scale (CD-RISC). Depression and Anxiety, 18, 76 - 82.

Davidson, J. R. T., Payne, V. M., Connor, K. M., Foa, E. B., Rothbaum, B. O., Hertzberg, M. A. et al. (2005). Trauma, resilience, and saliostasis: Effects of treatment in post-traumatic stress disorder. International Clinical Psychopharmacology, 20, 43 - 48.

Friborg, O., Hjemdal, O., Rosenvinge, J. H., & Martinussen, M. (2003). A new rating scale for adult resilience: what are the central protective resources behind healthy adjustment? International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 12, 65 - 76.

Kobasa, S. C. (1982) The hardy personality: Toward a social psychology of stress and health. In: Glenn S. Sanders, Jerry Suls (Eds.): Social Psychology of Health and Illness, LEA, pp. 3 - 32.

Linley, P. A., & Joseph, S. (2004). Positive change following trauma and adversity: A review. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 17, 11 - 21.

Luthar, S. S., & Cicchetti, D. (2000). The construct of resilience: Implications for interventions and social policies. Development and Psychopathology, 12, 857 - 885.

Masten, A. (2001). Ordinary magic: Resilience processes in development. American Psychologist, 56, 227 - 238.

Miller, E. D. (2003). Reconceptualizing the role of resiliency in coping and therapy. Journal of Loss and Trauma, 8, 239 - 246.

Tedeschi, R., & Calhoun, L. (1996). The Posttraumatic growth inventory: Measuring the positive legacy of trauma: Journal of Traumatic Stress, 9, 455 - 471.

Tedeschi, R., & Calhoun, L. (2004). Posttraumatic growth: Conceptual foundations and empirical evidence. Psychological Inquiry, 15, 1 - 18.

Tugade, M. M., & Fredrickson, B. L. (2004). Resilient individuals use positive emotions to bounce back from negative emotional experiences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 320 - 333.

Wald, J., Taylor, S., Asmundson, G. J. G. , Jang, K. L., Stapleton, J., McCreary, D. (2006). Literature review of Concepts - Psychological Resiliency. Toronto, Defence R&D Canada

The paper was presented at the 5th annual conference entitled "Psychology of Health 2010", held on May 19, 2010 in Bratislava. The conference was organized by the Health Psychology Section of the Slovak Psychological Society at the Slovak Academy of Sciences in collaboration with the Health Section of the Ministry of Health of the Slovak Republic. Also participating in the preparation of the event were: the National Institute of Cardiovascular Diseases in Bratislava, St. Elizabeth University of Health and Social Work in Bratislava, the WHO Office in Slovakia, KISH Košice, the Department of Psychology of the Faculty of Arts of the Catholic University in Ružomberok, and the Department of Psychology of the Faculty of Arts of the University of Trnava.

The proceedings of the 5th Conference on Health Psychology, Bratislava, 2010 were published only in electronic form Availability: http://www.prohuman.sk/psychologia/zbornik-prispevkov-z-konferencie-psychologia-zdravia-2010