All but which of the following are considered psychological moderators of stress

Hardiness

8.04.3 Appraising Resilience: A Commentary

Surfacing under various labels—stress resistance, relative invulnerability, hardiness, competence, stress buffering, or, more recently, resilience—an important factor in the clinical lexicon pertains to differences in people's presumed capacity to rebound from disruption and minimize the risks associated with various forms of stress. To account for people's protective proclivities, including resilient coping, clinical investigations have sought to identify the sources of stress resistance both within the individual (e.g., personality, genetic predispositions, the central nervous system) and within social settings (e.g., availability of network social support, the quality of the doctor-patient relationship). The study of resilience has expanded over the past 20 years, representing a shift away from the discipline-wide concern for adaptive deficits or pathology toward a focus on individual differences in psychological fitness.

Early accounts of stress resilience tended to view it in dispositional or trait terms (as a stable individual difference). Such a view overlooked the role of situational, cultural, and biological influences. Others examined resilience as an outcome. However, equating resilience with indices of adjustment raises the specter of definitional circularity, a problem also noted below with respect to definitions of coping. By contrast, several formulations (e.g., Bryan et al., 2018; Karoly, 2010a; Montpetit et al., 2010) depict resilience as a complex, dynamic, self-directing process reflective of the individual's ability to safeguard resources and withstand minor and major threats to control-system integrity. To appreciate resilient coping as a higher order self-regulatory process, a process reciprocally linked to stress, investigators must attempt to understand how coping strategies emerge, change, and develop over time under the interactive influence of culture, situational constraints, burdened resources, neurophysiological processes, and the immediate press of stressful events. Such a conceptual undertaking depends upon at least two elements. First, the temporal and contextual unfolding of observable, stress-dampening maneuvers must be tracked in real time and seen to operate in both a reactive, problem-awaiting, compensatory mode and in a prospective, problem-anticipating mode, with the latter permitting pre-planning, problem avoidance, stress inoculation, and even personal growth. Relatedly, a systems approach to stress resilience requires the specification and assessment of a delimited set of top-down and bottom-up regulatory mechanisms that, when jointly activated in context, serve as the oft cited “resistance resources” presumed capable of short-circuiting or moderating diverse threats to personal safety and integrity.

Importantly, the processes noted regarding stress resilience also apply to understanding its opposite—stress vulnerability. That is, a dynamic analysis of susceptibility to coping failure can proceed by tracking unintentional stress-enhancing activities over time and by specifying where, when, and how an individual's top-down regulatory mechanisms misfire. It is worth noting that Lazarus and Folkman (1984) viewed vulnerability as stemming from a person's goal commitments. In essence, the more a person cares about a meaningful life objective, the more susceptible he or she would be when challenges arise to disrupt its pursuit.

Ahead, I make the case that a motivational model built around goals, their self-regulatory scaffolding, their unique organization within the individual, and their sensitivity to changing circumstances can address coping success and coping failure in a direct, coherent, and flexible fashion, and can therefore serve as a blueprint for future research and practice. Moreover, goal engagement can hardly be a villain in this story.

Validity

Individual dispositions and attitudes

It appears that coping strategies may reflect long-standing personality traits, attitudes and learned habits. In particular, dispositions such as hardiness (Wallston 1989), sense of coherence (Antonovsky 1990) and self-efficacy (Holahan et al 1996) appear to help people cope positively with illness, and other adverse events. These variously named dispositions all tend to be associated with a strong sense of control, meaningfulness, optimism, and resistance to highly negative (or ‘catastrophic') thoughts. There is abundant evidence that patients who fall prey to negative thinking, tend to be more depressed and tend to fare less well in coping with illness and rehabilitation. For example, Keefe et al (1989) showed that high levels of catastrophic thinking among people with rheumatoid arthritis was highly predictive of poorer rehabilitation outcomes one year later, and greater levels of impairment, even when other significant variables were controlled for. Conversely, optimism and a combative attitude seem on balance to promote increased well-being and adherence to treatment (e.g. Abbott et al 2001). In addition to general control beliefs, research suggests that patients' confidence in their ability to perform specific actions (self-efficacy) may be even more predictive of successful coping. For example, Bennett et al (1999) studied patients treated for a first myocardial infarction (heart attack). Those who had low self-efficacy concerning their ability to carry out exercise, and negative beliefs about the health benefits of exercise, were less likely to adopt health-promoting diet and exercise patterns in the subsequent three months. Beliefs in the possibility of personal control and influence over the course of illness appear to motivate coping and behavioural adaptation. On the negative side, for certain intractable illnesses, strong beliefs in control may at times give rise to frustration and self-blame.

Spirituality and Psychological Well-Being in Substance Abuse Treatment

Among substance abusers, religious faith and spirituality are positively associated with indicators of psychological well-being, including optimism, social support, hardiness to stress, and life satisfaction. They are also negatively correlated with indicators of poor psychological well-being and psychopathology including trait anxiety, depression, resentment, and stress. Correlations between religion, spirituality, and psychological well-being indicators, such as these, tend to be in the low to moderate strength range, suggesting there is some degree of variability in the degree to which they may affect (or be effected by) psychological well-being.

Forgiveness is also an indicator of psychological well-being, being negatively associated with anger, resentment, and depression, and also central to Christianity and the Twelve Steps. Hence, interest in how or if forgiveness is associated with a spirituality–recovery relationship has greatly increased. There are several types of forgiveness, including forgiveness of others, self-forgiveness, receiving forgiveness from others, and receiving forgiveness from God, but at their core they all involve the purposeful releasing of anger and resentment (whether it be directed at others or self). Currently, there is little research on the role that feeling forgiven by others or God has on a recovery from substance abuse. What is known is that a client’s spirituality can predict the degree to which they feel forgiven and that feeling forgiven in turn predicts lower levels of resentment and greater purpose in life. How this directly contributes to substance use behaviors after treatment is unclear.

Research has predominately explored forgiveness of others and forgiveness of self. What is supported by current research is that forgiveness of others and forgiveness of self can be predicted by a person’s level of spirituality, can increase during participation in faith-based treatment, and are negatively associated with resentment. This suggests that as people in treatment explore their faith and become more religious or spiritual they may also become more forgiving of others and themselves. Furthermore, forgiveness of self and forgiveness of others are associated with a reduction in the negative consequences of drinking, prolonged abstinence, and improved mental health. Generally, forgiveness of others is more strongly associated with anger and hostility, whereas forgiveness of self is more consistently associated with anxiety-based symptomatology (e.g. anxiety, somatization, obsessive compulsive measures). In particular, self-forgiveness has emerged as being at least as influential on recovery outcomes as forgiveness of others (which has traditionally been the emphasized type of forgiveness).

Substance abusers are highly stigmatized and it has been theorized that the anger, resentment, and pride that often hinders engagement in treatment and degrades social systems may actually be a defense against the shame associated with stigmatization. Thus, treatment that focuses on reducing shame and low self-esteem via increasing self-forgiveness may help promote recovery.

5.1 Efficacy and Hardiness

Work by Salvador Maddi and Suzanne Ouellette Kobasa helped provide a framework for thinking about staying healthy in the face of challenge. They call these personality attributes hardiness. First, they suggest that a healthy personality maintains a sense of control. This is not necessarily a wild sense of optimism, but rather a sense that one can control one's own behaviors. Second, there is a commitment to something that is important and meaningful in their lives. This may also involve values and goals. Third, hardy people welcome challenge. For example, they may view change as an exciting challenge to their growth and development. Efficacy and hardiness generally involve a productive orientation, a sense of mastery, and a zest for life (Bandura 1997).

Alternative research perspectives to mental toughness

Another approach to studying mental toughness has focused on the development and subsequent application of measures of mental toughness. One such approach has capitalized on the concept of hardiness (Kobasa 1979), which incorporates challenge, control and commitment. Golby & Sheard (2004), using the established hardiness measure, found that elite performers in rugby league scored more highly on all three elements than performers at lower levels. They also measured mental toughness using a measure from Loehr (1986) and found differences in two of seven subscales. This study suggests that hardiness can discriminate performers at different levels more effectively than the mental toughness measure.

A related development focusing on measuring the construct is the work of Clough and colleagues (2002), who developed a questionnaire based on the three subcomponents of hardiness (control, challenge and commitment) with the addition of confidence (a recurring attribute from the studies above). They called this scale the Mental Toughness Questionnaire (MTQ48). This is a little confusing because it measures the entire hardiness construct, with just one quarter of it measuring something beyond this. Nevertheless, the scale seems to have been welcomed by researchers, who have employed it at face value to describe differences and relationships (Horsburgh et al 2009, Levy et al 2006, Nichols et al 2008, 2009). None of these researchers has scrutinized or evaluated the properties of the scale.

A difficulty with the conceptual approach of this line of research is that hardiness and the MTQ48 seem to assume that the construct being measured is stable and trait-like and that performers would exhibit it across domains (cf. my earlier comments on the trait versus process conceptualizations of coping). At the same time, the researchers are interested in the construct in order to intervene and assist performers to become more mentally tough. In fact, the company website that markets the MTQ48 questionnaire advertises development courses. This inconsistency is puzzling and casts some doubt on the approach. If a construct can be readily measured by one administration of a questionnaire, this suggests it is measuring something dispositional (permanent) but if it can be influenced through a training programme then the construct is much more malleable and this raises some questions about the questionnaire's ability to measure mental toughness.

Aside from several lines of enquiry that have developed different questionnaires, one final approach to mental toughness deserves mention. Dienstbier (1989) investigated toughness from a physiological response perspective and suggested that the hormonal response to stress was indicative of a level of toughness. Specifically, cortisol, a catecholamine from arousal of the hypothalamus–pituitary–adrenal axis, was associated with a lack of appropriate responses. Conversely, increasing control and positive interpretation – challenge rather than threat – was associated with reduced cortisol levels. While there are complexities involved in measuring cortisol, which are only made worse by attempting this with performers whose physical activity levels disturb hormonal activity, such investigations are possible. Eubank and colleagues (1997) found responses consistent with Dienstbier's conceptualization in canoeists, based on appraisal-related differences. Crust (2008) identifies this approach in some detail in reviewing mental toughness, but consideration of this theoretical basis for toughness, with associated measurement opportunity, is notable by its absence in the bulk of the literature. This may yet prove to be the best approach in order to make significant and meaningful advances in this area.

Repressive Coping

•

Repressors tend to avoid unpleasant thoughts, emotions, and memories.

Repressive coping appears to operate primarily through emotion-focused mechanisms (such as emotional dissociation). This is in contrast to hardiness and self-enhancement which operate primarily on the level of cognitive processes.

Emotional dissociation is generally viewed as maladaptive and associated with long-term health costs. However, these tendencies do appear to foster adaptation to extreme adversity.

Although repressors reported initial increased somatic complaints, over time they did not demonstrate greater somatic or health problems than other participants.

SELECTION OF SPECIES SUITABLE FOR AQUACULTURE

There are a number of characteristics that make an organism desirable as a candidate for aquaculture. For small-scale aquaculture projects focusing on food production, it is important that the selected species is easy to culture. Culturability criteria include ease of reproduction in captivity, hardiness of eggs and larvae, simplicity of feed requirements, adaptability to crowding, and tolerance of a wide range of water quality factors.

Ease of reproduction is an important factor for the culture of most fish species such as carps or tilapias that breed easily in captivity and produce large numbers of eggs per spawn. However, there are a number of fish species that can be cultured by rearing them from larvae or juveniles that have been collected in the wild. For example, in many parts of Southeast Asia much of the culture of milkfish, Chanos chanos, in brackish water estuarine ponds is based on the collection of larvae. Although the techniques for hatching and rearing milkfish larvae in hatcheries has been developed (Lee & Liao 1985), most of the culture of this species is based on the collection of larval and juvenile fish from a capture fishery (Villaluz 1986). For the most part, the small-scale cultivation of oysters and mussels is conducted by collection of spat, the collection of the settling larval stages on to some suitable substrate or artificial collector (Grizel 1993).

For aquaculture species that rely on captive spawning for success, the hardiness of eggs and larvae is an important factor. The freshwater carps and tilapias in addition to easy breeding produce eggs and larvae that are very hardy. Most of the cultured tilapias are mouth brooders that effectively use this behavioral strategy to protect their eggs and larvae from predation. On the other hand, carps have a tendency to cannibalize their own eggs in the close-quarters situation of aquaculture ponds, but culture methods include procedures for separating eggs and larvae from parent stock.

There are essentially two approaches to the feeding of aquacultured species. The first approach, which is usually most appropriate for artisanal aquaculture, is to focus on the culture of species that feed low on the food chain—that is, require very little food inputs because they rely on the algae, aquatic plants, or detritus naturally produced in their own ponds. The most basic example of this strategy is the culture of filter-feeding mollusks such as oysters and mussels that feed on phytoplankton and other naturally occurring particulates, but the culture of herbivorous fish is another example because of the reliance on the primary productivity of the ponds. In these simple pond aquaculture systems, the production may be boosted by the supplementary addition of fertilizers to increase primary productivity or adding supplemental feeds that may be simply agricultural wastes. The second approach to feeding is to focus on fish that feed high on the food chain, that require relatively expensive protein-rich diets. This approach, which is often employed by large-scale commercial aquaculture operations such as the pen farming of Atlantic salmon in temperate waters, requires a high market price for the end product (Bettencourt & Anderson 1990). Although the approach of focus on high-value species is most often employed by commercial firms concerned with marketing their product internationally, there are some instances in which this approach has been adopted by artisanal aquaculturists. The techniques for the culture of tropical sea basses, snappers, and groupers in small-scale floating net pens was first developed in Penang, Malaysia in 1973 and spread to a number of other countries in Southeast Asia and Northern Australia (Teng et al. 1978). But if aquaculture systems such as floating cages are adopted that require the feeding of fish, the economic viability of the operation often rests on the ability of the fish to utilize feeds in a cost-effective manner.

Adaptability to crowding is an important criterion to consider when selecting a species for artisanal culture. In the case of fish species, there are those that will tolerate considerable crowding. For example, carps and tilapias are known to tolerate extreme crowding conditions in ponds and indoor culture systems in which water quality is closely monitored and treated. Some species of fish such as the channel catfish of North America are highly territorial in the wild but are adaptable to pond culture at adult stocking densities of 1 fish/m2. Likewise, there is evidence that some territorial marine species such as seabass and groupers (Rice & Devera 1998) can be adaptable to pen culture. Lack of adaptability to crowding may not be a totally exclusionary criterion for considering a species for aquaculture. If a fish species has a high market value, the stocking densities of territorial fish may possibly be increased using artificial hiding places for fish to seek out (Teng & Chua 1979).

One of the single most important criteria for selecting a species for a small-scale aquaculture project is tolerance of a wide range of water quality factors. Fish with very tightly defined water quality requirements can be cultured successfully, but there is considerable expense incurred to flush ponds with fresh water or to intensively treat the water. Fish that are easily stressed by inadequate water quality are prone to stunted growth, more frequent disease outbreaks, and fish kills. For artisanal aquaculture, especially in small ponds, it is best to select species that are tolerant to fluctuations and extremes of water quality (Swift 1985).

Criterion/Predictive

As evidence of criterion/predictive validity, Spielberger and Reheiser (2010) stated that, suppressed anger, as measured by the Anger-In subscale of the STAXI is a key factor in hypertension (e.g., Johnson, Spielberger, Worden, & Jacobs, 1987; van der Ploeg, van Buuren, & van Brummelen, 1988). The STAXI has also been used in studies of hardiness, well-being, and coping with stress (Schlosser & Sheeley, 1985); anger in patients treated for Hodgkin’s disease and lung cancer (McMillan, 1984); Type A behavior (Booth-Kewley, & Friedman, 1987); the effects of marijuana use (Pape, 1986; Stoner, 1988); and chronic pain (Curtis, Kinder, Kalichman, & Spana, 1988). Likewise, Antypa et al. (2013) reported that STAXI Anger-Out scores significantly predicted ‘anger expressed outwards … in male suicidal patients compared to controls (p<.001)’ (p. 393). Also, Deschênes, Dugas, Fracalanza, and Koerner (2012) reported that the STAXI-2 significantly predicted generalized anxiety disorder severity. Coates and Pretty (2003) reported that the STAXI-2 Trait Anger and Anger-Out scales significantly predicted future arthritic health status.