Introduction
A traumatic incident will almost certainly happen to everyone at some point in their lives, and each person’s experience with one will be unique. There is a broad range in how people are exposed to it, handle, and recover from it. Most frequently, the term resilience now refers to a person’s capacity to persevere through hardship and carry on with his or her regular growth.
With the help of this definition, sustainability is no longer seen as an abstract idea but as a more deeply entrenched concept of well-being. When seen in this light, resilience may be thought of as a social construct that describes the processes and results connected to what people themselves refer to as well-being (Masten et al., 2021). This demonstrates unequivocally that when specialists offer health care services, support, and resources that increase the likelihood that everyone can thrive in ways that are meaningful to his or her family and community, resilience is more likely to develop.
Over the past few decades, resilience research has gone through numerous stages. In its essence, the most common definition of resilience is a successful adaptation in the face of difficulty or trauma (Song et al., 2019). Psychologists started to understand that a lot of what seems to support resilience appears to occur outside of the individual after first focusing on the invulnerable or invincible youngster. Finding resilience variables at the individual, family, community, and cultural levels have resulted from this. There is rising interest in resilience as a quality shared by entire communities and cultural groupings, in addition to the impact communities and cultures have on the resilience of individuals.
The idea that resilience is a process has been aided by the fact that factors for resilience vary in various risk scenarios. Perceived prejudice and historical trauma are examples of the setting in many groups, and these factors must be considered in order to identify the process of resilience in a given environment (Masten et al., 2021). To preserve relative resistance, it is equally crucial to understand how certain protective variables interact with risk factors and other protective factors. A resilience framework was developed as a result of these advancements.
The theoretical approaches to resilience, which describe the same processes of the influence of stress on qualitative adaptation, have been referred to by various scholars by different names. They comprise a model of compensation, a model of challenge, and a model of protection against vulnerability. This research aims to concentrate on the theoretical framework of compensation and protection. The main objectives are to define each theory, contrast them, describe how effective each strategy is, and talk about the demographics who might benefit from each framework.
Compensatory Framework Overview
Resilience is taken into account by the compensating model as a factor that offsets exposure to risk. This framework may be investigated using a variety of statistical and methodological techniques, however, multiple regression analysis is typically used to evaluate it (Masten et al., 2021). Both compensating and risk factors work separately to influence the outcome of the prediction. Four key attributes that define anything as sustainable have been recognized under this idea. In order to keep a positive attitude in life, it takes a proactive approach to problem-solving, a propensity to see situations in the best possible light despite suffering, the capacity to draw positive attention from others, and a strong dependence on religion (Askeland et al., 2020). Several studies have also highlighted optimism, empathy, insight, intellectual prowess, self-esteem, direction or mission, as well as tenacity and perseverance as other secondary compensating elements (Grabbe et al., 2021). These aspects become the backbone parameters of the compensatory theoretical framework.
When the stability component opposes the risk factor or operates in the other direction, the compensating model best describes the circumstance. The stability factor directly affects the outcome, independent of the impact of the risk factor (Masten et al., 2021). In the compensatory paradigm, risk exposure is counteracted by different facilitators. Therefore, compensatory factors, for example, good diet and aggression, have the opposite influence on developmental outcomes from hazards. This is a direct result of dangers that are separated from them by a number of factors. By taking into consideration, the risks in the equation, compensating variables may then be added to the regression analysis to help forecast outcomes even more (Grabbe et al., 2021). For instance, it has been discovered that parental support can balance the dangers of fighting and being around aggressive individuals (Song et al., 2019). Another example is that support from parents was found to predict reduced aggressive conduct in teenage children in various research, and this impact was independent and went against potential risks (Askeland et al., 2020). The compensatory model thus takes the dichotomy of risks and compensations as its basis, which allows it to counter the consequences of traumas and other occurrences.
Efficiency and Population of Compensatory Factor Framework
When dealing with adolescents, the resilience compensatory system has proved to be effective. Parental support, adult mentorship, or community groups are examples of compensatory variables that may aid in the good development of children. External compensatory resources highlight how the social environment affects teenagers’ health and development and aids in setting sustainability theory in a more ecological framework (Masten et al., 2021). To assist adolescents, manage risks and avoid poor outcomes, this paradigm allows for external resources to be the center of change. Teenagers who self-identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, and/or other LGBTQ individuals are one of the primary demographics where the compensating system performs well (Askeland et al., 2020). Numerous studies have demonstrated a decline in suicide rates and an uptick in self-assurance (Matlin et al., 2019). However, the compensating approach is less useful for adults and areas with a long history of racism. The poor model performance results from the inability of compensatory resources and theoretical underpinnings to account for such a broad variety of variables.
Protective Factor Framework Overview
The protective factor theoretical overview aims to look closer at the factors and aspects that can facilitate greater resilience. This is manifested in different assets or resources that are used in a protective framework to lessen the impact of risk on a bad result. Protective factors can impact outcomes in a variety of ways. For instance, they might lessen dangers but not totally remove them, or they can help increase the beneficial impact of other motivating factors in reaching the goal (). These protective factors have different perspectives and can be assessed from different models employed within this framework. For instance, the protective-stabilizing model describes situations in which the protective factor aids in reducing the negative effects of risks (Song et al., 2019). As a result, when a protective factor is present, there is no correlation between risk and outcome, but higher levels of risk are linked to larger levels of the bad outcome when a protective component is lacking. Thus, the essence of the protective factor framework is the emphasis on the various aspects of protection, which correlate with the risks.
The protective factor model presupposes that enabling resources or assets alter the link between outcomes and risk, another enabling factor. Risk-protective and protective-preventive modes of protection are two options. According to risk protection theories, incentives work to diminish or lessen the relationship between risks and unfavorable outcomes (Askeland et al., 2020). For example, protective-defensive models attempt to increase the influence of each stimulus source independently in order to forecast the result (Matlin et al., 2019). Although there are several approaches to investigating this model, it is often assessed using an interaction term in multiple regression or group comparisons in structural equation modeling. When modeling structural equations, guard models are evaluated using interaction effects in regression or multigroup analysis (Masten et al., 2021). In essence, the protective factor model employs different resources to moderate or reduce the effects of a risk on a negative outcome, at the same time strengthening the resilience.
Efficiency and Population of Protective Factor Framework
When it comes to the efficiency of the protective framework and its target populations, there is a number of considerations. Several research on adolescent moms provides an illustration of the usefulness of the risk protection strategy. This research demonstrated how natural mentors shielded teen moms’ mental health from the damaging impacts of stress (Holz et al., 2020). A number of research on Native American youth’s self-image and cultural identification provide another illustration (Matlin et al., 2019). Using protective frames, the researchers discovered that, as a result of the interaction effect in the regression analysis, self-esteem increased the adverse connection between cultural identity and alcohol consumption (Grabbe et al., 2021). This shows the efficiency of the framework on certain populations.
Adolescents without an adult mentor or other protective resource, for instance, may engage in delinquent conduct as a result of their parents’ inadequate support or monitoring of risk factors, whereas youth with an adult mentor may not. When a protective factor lessens but does not entirely remove the anticipated link between risk and outcome, this situation is referred to as a protective model (Holz et al., 2020). Therefore, when the protective factor is lacking, the link between risk and result is higher. Teenagers who take drugs, for instance, maybe more inclined to engage in dangerous sexual conduct. For instance, teenagers who get comprehensive sexuality education in their schools may have a lesser correlation between drug addiction and hazardous sexual conduct than adolescents who do not (Matlin et al., 2019). This illustrates the potential efficiency of the protective framework in different social groups. Most of them, however, can be limited to the young population or cultural groups that are prone to discrimination or inequalities.
Comparing
The implications of the theoretical frameworks for potential action vary. Risk group-specific policy is established and directed to risk groups with the aid of the protection model in order to comprehend the traits of the risk group (Holz et al., 2020). A compensating model, on the other hand, suggests universal resource distribution where the protective factor is unaffected by risk variables and hence benefits everyone on its own. The comparison shows that exposure to protective variables may not have an immediate good impact but that it may develop over time and have a positive effect in the future. Individual strengths like self-assurance and coping mechanisms, as well as environmental elements like parental support, are examples of protective factors (Grabbe et al., 2021). In order to define resilience as a process rather than a fixed attribute, both models highlight the significance of both individual and environmental elements.
However, there are also universal concerns that unite both theoretical frameworks. The fact that resilience might vary depending on context and content is a key consideration to think about. Adolescents, for instance, could be resilient when faced with one kind of danger but not when faced with another. A variety of risk and result combinations may also be linked to various assets. This makes it challenging to pinpoint universal protective variables or coping mechanisms and prompts worries that asset lists can be construed as working uniformly for all populations, situations, or results. Resilience research is also somewhat constrained since it often only considers individual threats and a single driver, despite the reality that the majority of populations are really exposed to a variety of risks, have a variety of assets and have access to a variety of resources. Furthermore, in the lives of different individuals, dangers and protective factors often interact rather than acting independently of one another (Matlin et al., 2019). In order to fully comprehend resilience processes within this framework, it is necessary to take into account cumulative risks, assets, and resources that have been researched through time.
Conclusion
Resilience theories and frameworks have recently gained significant preventative value, in part because they have assisted in the shift of study attention from pathology to the potential for supportive action. Discovering strategies to assist families, communities, and individual members in developing resilience is a natural result of the desire to take action in support of resilience. In fact, studies have demonstrated that a large portion of what appears to support resilient adjustment to adversity takes place outside of the individual—in the family, community, society, culture, and environment (Masten et al., 2021). The broad scope of resilience frameworks application and its efficiency showed that the methodology could become a key for successful interventions in different social groups and populations.
The theoretical underpinnings of resilience aid in understanding why certain individuals who are exposed to dangers are able to do so and escape unfavorable outcomes. Several consistent characteristics appear despite the fact that the assets and resources that assist them in managing the negative impacts of risks may vary depending on the result, setting, and population being researched. For example, parental elements, such as encouragement, supervision, and communication abilities, are constant and crucial when it comes to young individuals and their resilience approach (Holz et al., 2020). In this regard, young individuals who are self-assured and have good social skills are also more likely to be resilient, regardless of the danger or result. The specific characteristics of the target population and the setting in which the method is being used must, however, be given special consideration in public health initiatives that employ the resilience approach. Overall, resilience theory and its theoretical frameworks offer academics and professionals a conceptual framework for comprehending how people deal with adversity and how this understanding may be applied to strengthen character traits and create positive parts of one’s life.
References
Askeland, K. G., Bøe, T., Breivik, K., La Greca, A. M., Sivertsen, B., & Hysing, M. (2020). Life events and adolescent depressive symptoms: Protective factors associated with resilience.PloS One, 15(6), e0234109. Web.
Grabbe, L., Higgins, M. K., Baird, M., & Pfeiffer, K. M. (2021). Impact of resiliency training to support the mental well-being of front-line workers: A brief report of a quasi-experimental study of the community resiliency model.Medical Care, 59(7), 616. Web.
Holz, N. E., Tost, H., & Meyer-Lindenberg, A. (2020). Resilience and the brain: A key role for regulatory circuits linked to social stress and support.Molecular Psychiatry, 25(2), 379-396. Web.
Masten, A. S., Lucke, C. M., Nelson, K. M., & Stallworthy, I. C. (2021). Resilience in development and psychopathology: Multisystem perspectives. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology,17(1), 521–549. Web.
Matlin, S. L., Champine, R. B., Strambler, M. J., O’Brien, C., Hoffman, E., Whitson, M. & Tebes, J. K. (2019). A community’s response to adverse childhood experiences: Building a resilient, trauma-informed community. American Journal of Community Psychology, 64(3), 451–466. Web.
Song, C., Fu, Z., & Wang, J. (2019). Social support and academic stress in the development of psychological adjustment in Chinese migrant children: Examination of the compensatory model of psychological resilience.Child Indicators Research, 12(4), 1275-1286. Web.