How resilience is strengthened by exposure to stressors: the systematic self-reflection model of resilience strengthening

Abstract

Background: Exposure to demands is normally considered to drain resources and threaten wellbeing. However, studies have indicated a resilience-strengthening role for stressors.
Objectives: This paper introduces a unifying model, including five testable hypotheses regarding how resilience can be strengthened progressively via exposure to life-stressors.
Methods: We review and synthesize relevant scholarship that underpins the Systematic Self-Reflection model of resilience-strengthening.
Results: The model highlights the importance of a specific meta-cognitive skill (self-reflection on one’s initial stressor response) as a mechanism for strengthening resilience. The Systematic Self-Reflection model uniquely proposes five self-reflective practices critical in the on-going adaptation of three resilient capacities: (1) coping resources, (2) usage of coping and emotional regulatory repertoire, and (3) resilient beliefs. The self-reflective process is proposed to strengthen a person’s resilience by developing insight into their already-present capacities, the limitations of these capacities, and by stimulating the search for person-driven alternative approaches.
Conclusion: This model extends the existing scholarship by proposing how the experience of stressors and adversity may have resilience-strengthening opportunities. The implication of this model is that engaging with stressors can have positive consequences for longer-term healthy emotional development if scaffolded in adaptive reflective practices.

Full text

RUNNING HEADER: A NEW MODEL OF RESILIENCE 1
RUNNING HEADER: A NEW MODEL OF RESILIENCE
1
2
3
How resilience is strengthened by exposure to stressors: The Systematic Self-Reflection
4
Model of Resilience Strengthening
5
* a Crane, M.F., a Searle. B.J., abKangas, M., & a Nwiran, Y.
6
aDepartment of Psychology, Macquarie University
7
bCentre for Emotional Health, Macquarie University
8
Monique.crane@mq.edu.au
9
Ben.searle@mq.edu.au
10
Maria.kangas@mq.edu.au
11
Yezen.nwiran@live.com.au
12
Word count: 10402 (including abstract, table, and references)
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
*Correspondence to:
25
Department of Psychology,
26
Building 4FW, 4-First Walk,
27
Macquarie University,
28
North Ryde, NSW, 2109,
29
Australia
30
E: Monique.crane@mq.edu.au
31
P: +61 (2) 9850 8604
32
33

RUNNING HEADER: A NEW MODEL OF RESILIENCE 2
Abstract
34
Background: Exposure to demands is normally considered to drain resources and
35
threaten wellbeing. However, studies have indicated a resilience-strengthening role for
36
stressors.
37
Objectives: This paper introduces a unifying model, including five testable hypotheses
38
regarding how resilience can be strengthened progressively via exposure to life-stressors.
39
Methods: We review and synthesize relevant scholarship that underpins the Systematic
40
Self-Reflection model of resilience-strengthening.
41
Results: The model highlights the importance of a specific meta-cognitive skill (self-
42
reflection on one’s initial stressor response) as a mechanism for strengthening resilience. The
43
Systematic Self-Reflection model uniquely proposes five self-reflective practices critical in the
44
on-going adaptation of three resilient capacities: (1) coping resources, (2) usage of coping and
45
emotional regulatory repertoire, and (3) resilient beliefs. The self-reflective process is proposed
46
to strengthen a person’s resilience by developing insight into their already-present capacities,
47
the limitations of these capacities, and by stimulating the search for person-driven alternative
48
approaches.
49
Conclusion: This model extends the existing scholarship by proposing how the
50
experience of stressors and adversity may have resilience-strengthening opportunities. The
51
implication of this model is that engaging with stressors can have positive consequences for
52
longer-term healthy emotional development if scaffolded in adaptive reflective practices.
53
Keywords: Adversity; Stress appraisal; Coping strategies; Post-traumatic stress; Self-
54
reflection
55

RUNNING HEADER: A NEW MODEL OF RESILIENCE 3
How resilience is strengthened by exposure to stressors: The Systematic Self-Reflection
56
Model of Resilience Strengthening
57
This paper introduces a new model of how stressors and adversity may facilitate
58
strengthening resiliency. An increasing body of research is highlighting the ability of exposure
59
to stressors, and even potentially traumatic events, to increase resilience to future stressors
60
(Crane & Searle, 2016; Seery, Holman, & Silver, 2010; Seery, Leo, Lupien, Kondrak, &
61
Almonte, 2013). Recent research has found that between two to four adversities, and even
62
potentially traumatic events, resulted in greater resilience, compared with no adversity or more
63
than four events. Notably, the relationship between adversity and resilience reflected an
64
inverted U-shape, whereby moderate levels of adversity were related to greater resilience
65
(Seery, et al., 2010). Follow-up research by Seery and colleagues (2013) demonstrated the same
66
curvilinear relationship between cumulative life adversity and passive endurance of a pain
67
stressor including pain catastrophizing, whereby moderate lifetime adversity was related to less
68
negative responses to pain. This scholarship adds to a growing body of research whereby
69
scholars have considered the potentially adaptive role for stress (e.g., Sarkar & Fletcher, 2014;
70
Seery, 2011; Seery & Quinton 2016). These studies acknowledge that stressor exposure may
71
mean that an individual is functioning at a non-optimal level for a period, with some initial cost
72
in the form of reduced resources, and yet, there is also the downstream potential for stressors
73
to have a resilience-strengthening effect (see Seery, 2011; Seery & Quinton 2016 for
74
comprehensive reviews of this research; Oken, Charmine, & Wakeland, 2015). The implication
75
of this research is that engaging with stressors may have positive consequences for longer-term
76
healthy emotional development (e.g., Dienstbier, 1989; Hayes, Wilson, Gifford, Follette, &
77
Strosahl, 1996) and to a possible resilience-strengthening capacity for stressors whereby
78
stressor events allow changes in personal capacities that enhance resilience in the future (Oken,
79
et al., 2015).
80

RUNNING HEADER: A NEW MODEL OF RESILIENCE 4
This perspective contrasts research emphasizing the sensitizing role of stressors and
81
adversity, particularly chronic stress (e.g., McEwen & Lasley, 2003). A majority of research to
82
date has focused on the sensitizing and resource-depleting outcome of stressors. More research
83
is needed exploring the beneficial role of stressors. To achieve this, a framework and testable
84
hypotheses are required to guide future research into the mechanisms that allow resilience to
85
emerge from stressor exposure. The objective of this paper is to present an integrated model of
86
how resilient capacities are acquired through the experience of stressors and adversity. We
87
outline a model proposing how resilience is strengthened via a process of reflection on past
88
stressors and one’s coping and emotion regulatory approaches enabling the development of
89
personal insight, perspective, and the potential for growth. The current paper describes the
90
Systematic Self-Reflection model of resilience strengthening, the role coping self-reflection
91
plays in this framework, and outlines a series of testable hypotheses as a guide for future
92
research. Moreover, we describe the implications of this model in terms of developing human
93
resilience.
94
Stressor experience can trigger adaptive self-reflection
95
In the Systematic Self-Reflection model of resilience strengthening (Figure 1), we
96
suggest that individuals who develop, or eventually develop, the capacity for resilience from
97
exposure to stressors do something unique. For these people, the experience of initial
98
psychological stress or a less than optimal stressor response can become a trigger for an
99
important metacognitive process that allows the opportunity for resilience-strengthening:
100
systematic self-reflection. Self-reflection is best described as a metacognitive approach to
101
learning involving the development of self-awareness and evaluation of one’s thoughts,
102
feelings and behaviors that allows one to develop self-insight (Grant, Franklin, & Langford,
103
2002; Hattie, Biggs, & Purdie, 1996). Self-reflection facilitates the capacity to evaluate task-
104
orientated coping and problem-solving strategies and is proposed to enable the adaptation of
105

RUNNING HEADER: A NEW MODEL OF RESILIENCE 5
such approaches. In relation to the strengthening of resilience, daily stressors and life adversity
106
are proposed to have the potential to trigger a conscious process of self-reflection.
107
Self-reflection on stressor experiences, one’s initial response to stressors, and the
108
effectiveness of coping and emotion regulatory strategies are part of an on-going process of
109
maturation that can be encouraged via the presence of life stressors that signify a need for
110
adaptation. A similar proposal was highlighted in a recent review of the post-traumatic growth
111
literature (Eve & Kangas, 2015). These authors discuss current theory and research placing
112
effortful cognitive processing of potentially traumatic events at the center of post-traumatic
113
growth (Janoff-Bulman, 1992; Tedeschi & Calhoun, 2004) and recovery processes (Greenberg,
114
1995). Eve and Kangas (2015) suggested that the cognitive processes involved in normal
115
lifespan developmental maturation are comparable to those that are important to trauma
116
recovery and/or post-traumatic growth. Moreover, these authors underlined the potential for
117
accelerated cognitive maturation to arise from non-traumatic life stressors such as motherhood
118
as well as traumatic events. The Systematic Self-Reflection model describes how
119
metacognitive processes involved in skill development, and maturation, are a key mechanism
120
in strengthening resilience from a diversity of stressor events - from everyday life stressors to
121
potentially traumatic events.
122
Defining terms in the Systematic Self-Reflection model
123
Resilient outcomes and the capacity for resilience
124
As part of the Systematic Self-Reflection model of strengthening resilience, we
125
distinguish between the capacity for resilience and resilient outcomes. When researchers
126
measure resilience as the presence or absence of symptoms after a traumatic or stressful event,
127
then resilience is being measured as an outcome (e.g., de Roon-Cassini, Mancini, Rusch, &
128
Bonanno, 2010). In such cases, resilience has been demonstrated (via the absence of clinical
129
symptoms or presence of positive functioning), despite factors that place the individual at
130

RUNNING HEADER: A NEW MODEL OF RESILIENCE 6
increased risk of psychological dysfunction. Consistent with this perspective, resilience as an
131
emergent outcome has been defined as: “the maintenance or quick recovery of mental health
132
during and after exposure to significant stressors” (p. 786; Kalisch, et al., 2017). In contrast,
133
the capacity for resilience is characterized by the psychosocial assets and protective factors
134
(e.g., extraversion; Campbell-Sills, Cohan, & Stein, 2006) that increase the potential for
135
resilience in the future.
136
The capacity for resilience captures what has been described as the first wave of
137
resiliency inquiry regarding the “phenomenological descriptors of resilient qualities of
138
individuals and support systems” (Richardson, 2002; p. 308). Broadly, these qualities include
139
coping strategies (i.e., cognitive and behavioral efforts to manage demands; Lazarus &
140
Folkman, 1984), conscious and unconscious, effortful and effortless processes that support
141
resilience. A number of models describe the diversity of individual and social factors that
142
comprise one’s capacity for resilience and moderate or mediate the relationship between
143
stressor events and psychological outcomes (Figure 1, path a). For example, Lent’s (2004)
144
Model of Restorative Well-being describes the complex interplay between personality and
145
affective dispositions, coping resources, and cognitive and behavioral responses that are likely
146
to determine this initial stressor response. Moreover, the Transactional Model of Stress and
147
Coping (Lazarus & Folkman, 1987) highlights the importance of the primary and secondary
148
event appraisal processes in influencing the initial stress response. Thus, the capacity for
149
resilience is the possession of resilience-supportive resources, characteristics, and the
150
utilization of resilience-supporting coping and emotion regulatory strategies (e.g., Carver,
151
1998) including emotion regulatory capacities (Gross, 2015) that modify the relationship
152
between stressors and the initial psychological outcomes. Most research examining resilience
153
focuses on the measurement of such resilient capacities that predict resilience (e.g., Major,
154
Richards, Cooper, Cozzarelli, & Zubek, 1998).
155

RUNNING HEADER: A NEW MODEL OF RESILIENCE 7
Describing all the capacities that enable resilience or other initial psychological
156
outcomes is not the purpose of this model. Rather we move beyond this initial reaction (denoted
157
path a, Figure 1) to describe the subsequent process that allows resilience to be strengthened in
158
response to life stressors. In the Systematic Self-Reflection model, the capacity for resilience
159
includes three broad elements: (1) coping resources, (2) usage of coping and emotional
160
regulatory repertoire, and (3) resilient beliefs (captured by the dashed box in Figure 1) that
161
work to contribute to increasing the likelihood of resilient outcomes. Although the capacity for
162
resilience may encompass a plethora of resilient qualities, as outlined above, the Systematic
163
Self-Reflection model specifically addresses only those capacities that may be modified by the
164
self-reflective process.
165
Stressors and their psychological outcomes
166
Resilient trajectories have been identified across a range of stressors and potentially
167
traumatic events (e.g., Bonanno, Galea, Bucciarelli, & Vlahov, 2007; Crane & Searle, 2016;
168
Masten, Best, & Garmezy, 1990). The objective magnitude of events lie on a continuum from
169
everyday stressors, adverse life-events that do not constitute trauma (e.g., acute illness,
170
relationship breakdown), to potentially traumatic events (operationalized in Criterion A of the
171
Posttraumatic Stress Disorder criteria in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
172
Disorders; American Psychiatric Association, 2013). These events place the individual at
173
greater risk in the sense that they are a “statistical correlate of poor or negative outcomes”
174
(Masten, et al., 1990, p. 426). The Systematic Self-Reflection model is potentially applicable
175
to everyday stressors and potentially traumatic events.
176
In understanding the Systematic Self-Reflection model of strengthening resilience, it is
177
also necessary to acknowledge the distinction between psychological stress and distress. Stress
178
refers to the moderate perturbation resulting in a short-term state change away from optimal
179
functioning (Oken, et al., 2015). Distress, on the other hand, reflects a longer-term state-change
180

RUNNING HEADER: A NEW MODEL OF RESILIENCE 8
causing significant health, social and occupational problems reflecting clinical levels of
181
dysfunction. Although there are some stressor features that seem more likely to elicit distress
182
(e.g., potentially traumatic events), the initial psychological response is highly subjective and
183
dependent on a variety of individual factors (Oken, et al., 2015) that comprise one’s capacity
184
for resilience at the time of the stressor occurrence.
185
In the Systematic Self-Reflection model of strengthening resilience, stressors and
186
adversity can have a range of psychological outcomes (Figure 1, path a). These outcomes are
187
typically conceptualized as a continuum from the absence of stress to the presence of severe
188
distress. However, to better clarify our predictions we have simplified this continuum into three
189
sections as illustrated in Figure 1 as (1) distress, (2) moderate stress, and (3) mild to no stress.
190
Models of resilience (e.g., Richardson, 2002; Richardson, Neiger, Jensen, & Kumpfer, 1990)
191
and wellbeing (e.g., Lent, 2004) often address when a resilient outcome is more likely by
192
summarizing the actions of several mechanisms and factors (e.g., personality, coping). The
193
interaction between stressors and these mechanisms is not represented in Figure 1. Figure 1
194
illustrates the role of self-reflection in strengthening resilience, rather than trying to represent
195
a model of existing resilience. However, these factors are considered to be operating in parallel
196
to, and determining, the initial psychological response.
197
Accounting for evidence that stressors and adversity create greater sensitivity to future
198
stressors
199
Given that the Systematic Self-Reflection model proposes a resilience-strengthening
200
role for stressors, we need to reconcile this proposal with the evidence that stressor exposure
201
may sensitize individuals to future lower level stressors (e.g., Stroud, Davila, Hammen, &
202
Vrshek-Schallhorn, 2011). Stress sensitization refers to an increased tendency to developing
203
psychological distress as lesser stressors become capable of triggering a variety of
204
psychological disorders (Hammen, 2015; Stroud et. al., 2011). In the Systematic Self-
205

RUNNING HEADER: A NEW MODEL OF RESILIENCE 9
Reflection model, self-reflection is more likely during moderate levels of stress, but less likely
206
during the experience of distress. In this way, adaptive self-reflection is more likely to occur in
207
response to everyday stressor events, compared to potentially traumatic events resulting in the
208
emergence of distress. The occurrence of distress is one potential pathway to stress
209
sensitization perhaps involving changes in the function and structure of certain brain autonomy
210
or stress sensitivity (Monroe & Harkness, 2005). Moreover, not all individuals engage in these
211
reflective practices and several characteristics may limit a person’s capacity to engage in an
212
honest reflection on their coping and emotion regulatory practices (e.g., avoidance, other-
213
blame, suppression). Thus, exposure to stressors does not necessarily lead to the development
214
of increasingly adaptive beliefs, coping resources, and usage of the coping and emotion
215
regulatory repertoire. In contrast, stressor exposure may lead to the practice of a limited number
216
of both voluntary coping responses (e.g., avoidance, distraction) and the reinforcement of
217
involuntary reactions (e.g., rumination, emotional numbing) (Connor-Smith, Compas,
218
Wadsworth, Thomsen, & Saltzman, 2000). Similarly, beliefs that undermine resilience (e.g.,
219
self-doubt) may also be reinforced. With subsequent and perhaps less severe events, these
220
practiced and reinforced responses may be triggered more easily, becoming part of one’s
221
stressor response leading to distress. A notable gap in this field is that the empirical work
222
demonstrating stressor sensitization rarely investigates the positive role of stressors in parallel
223
to their sensitizing role (e.g., Stroud, et al., 2010).
224
Core propositions of the Systematic Self-Reflection model
225
First, the Systematic Self-Reflection model proposes that the strengthening of resilience
226
is a process of experiential learning and more specifically learning through reflection on doing.
227
Stressors may provide opportunities for learning about one’s personal response to stress and
228
resilience and this is their broad contribution to growth. Mechanisms have been proposed
229
asserting how resilience may be enhanced via stressor exposure, including the adaptation of
230

RUNNING HEADER: A NEW MODEL OF RESILIENCE 10
coping strategies, the re-definition of one’s stressor experiences as opportunities for
231
development, the enhancement of core psychological resources such as self-efficacy, and
232
activating the recruitment of more resources previously lacking (Crane & Searle, 2016;
233
Hobfoll, 1989; Jamieson, Crum, Goyer, Marotta, & Akinola, 2018; Seery, et al., 2010; 2013).
234
The role of stressors in triggering a process of learning and skill development is a common
235
theme among these suggestions, but also in the historical stress inoculation literature
236
(Meichenbaum & Deffenbacher 1988). The content of this learning may involve reflecting
237
upon important questions such as: Who is a good person to speak to when I need emotional
238
support, and who is not? How long will these feelings last? What am I capable of? Consistent
239
with the Conservation of Resources (COR) model (Hobfoll, 1989; 2002), learning may also
240
involve eliciting adaptive actions such as acquiring access to important resources that are
241
necessary for coping (e.g., instrumental support from colleagues, accessing necessary
242
information). Like any other skill, resilience requires exposure to opportunities to apply learned
243
strategies (e.g., problem-solving strategies) and receive feedback from both internal (e.g.,
244
stress) and external (e.g., goal achievement) sources to allow the refinement of resilient
245
capacities. Perspectives on adult transformational learning have proposed that critical self-
246
reflection processes may be triggered by ‘disorientating’ events in one’s life prompting a
247
revision of assumptions, current ways of interpreting the world, and one’s approaches through
248
critical self-reflection (Mezirow, 1998). We propose that stressors can be a trigger for learning,
249
and effective learning promotes successful future adaptation.
250
Second, for individuals not experiencing psychopathology, the self-reflective process
251
strengthens the person’s resilience by developing their insight into already-present capacities
252
for resilience (Padesky & Mooney, 2012), the limitations of these capacities, and by stimulating
253
the search for person-driven alternative approaches to stressors. The self-awareness, evaluation
254
and self-driven adjustments emerging from the reflective process, contribute to the on-going
255

RUNNING HEADER: A NEW MODEL OF RESILIENCE 11
development of resilient capacities in response to stressors, increasing the likelihood of resilient
256
outcomes in the future. Similar insights are reflected in Bonanno and Burton’s (2013) analysis
257
of regulatory flexibility. These authors acknowledge that the efficacy of coping and emotion
258
regulation strategies change depending on the contextual demands (see Folkman & Moskowitz,
259
2004 for review). Although Bonanno and Burton’s (2013) analysis does not specifically
260
address strengthening resilience or self-reflection, these authors do acknowledge the
261
importance of self-examination of the coping process in flexibility and adjustment.
262
A final proposition is that the resilience-strengthening process is one that unfolds over
263
time. The systematic self-reflection model is a developmental process model of resilience-
264
strengthening and therefore includes a time element (see Figure 1). The exact period of time
265
remains undefined because it varies from person to person and the level of stress or distress
266
elicited by the stressor, adversity, or potentially traumatic event encountered. Richardson’s
267
(2002) metatheory of resilience and resiliency makes a similar claim about the timeline for
268
resilient reintegration suggesting that resilient reintegration could occur in a matter of seconds,
269
years, or even be postponed, depending on the severity of the stressor event. Importantly, the
270
initial (present moment) psychological response, as illustrated in Figure 1, is not necessarily a
271
resilient or optimal response to the stressor situation. This initial response may be maladaptive,
272
resulting in undesirable levels of stress or distress. However, engaging in systematic self-
273
reflection may enable the recognition (via enhanced self-awareness), that one’s coping and
274
emotion regulatory response is inadequate, and hence, may activate the search for alternative
275
approaches or better resources, thus increasing the potential for a resilient outcome in the
276
future.
277
278
279
280

RUNNING HEADER: A NEW MODEL OF RESILIENCE 12
281
A mechanism for strengthening the capacity for resilience: Systematic self-reflection
282
This section details the five self-reflective practices proposed to constitute resilience-
283
strengthening self-reflection. The five self-reflective practices illustrated in Figure 2 and
284
described in this section are private conscious strategies that occur in individuals likely to
285
experience a strengthening of their resilience in response to stressor exposure. As implied by
286
the definition of self-reflection, the first practice is self-awareness of one’s emotion generative
287
and regulatory processes in response to psychological relevant triggering events. Consistent
288
with Gross’ (2015) process model of emotional regulation, emotional awareness means being
289
consciously aware of one’s affective, physical, and behavioral response to a triggering event
290
and the detection of nuanced changes in these responses (Gross, 2015). Physical responses are
291
the noticeable physiological changes that may occur in response to a triggering event (e.g.,
292
increased heart rate, muscular tension or conversely feeling relaxed), and finally there may be
293
discrete behaviors that emerge in response to this cluster of changes. Self-awareness may also
294
involve the acknowledgment of one’s initial cognitive appraisal of events. There are many
295
possible appraisals identified in previous work (e.g., controllable, challenge, threat) that relate
296
to behavioral and physiological responses that characterize emotion (e.g., Lazarus & Folkman,
297

RUNNING HEADER: A NEW MODEL OF RESILIENCE 13
1987; see Moors, Ellsworth, Scherer, & Frijda, 2013, for review). Self-awareness is the
298
acknowledgment that these initial cognitive and emotional responses have taken place and that
299
they may change. This is compatible with the self-as-context dimension, which is a core
300
component of the Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) paradigm (Hayes, 2004).
301
Specifically, self-as-context in ACT represents pure awareness of the observing self whereby
302
the individual is able to observe these reactions in themselves as though they themselves are
303
the subject of inquiry (Harris, 2009).
304
The second reflective practice is trigger identification. This is the ability of the person
305
to identify specific situational triggers for their initial responses. This may be in relation to a
306
stressor event or other events that create even small shifts in these outputs. Related to the
307
concept of discriminative facility, individuals high in discriminative facility are better able to
308
link an emotional outcome to the triggering situation (Cheng, Chiu, Hong, & Cheng, 2001).
309
The ability to identify triggers is important because it allows initial reactions to be anchored to
310
a specific source, rather than the context more generically (e.g., ‘negative feedback’ vs ‘my
311
supervisor’). The identification of a specific trigger allows a greater capacity for the individual
312
to apply more adaptive coping (Bandura, 1986), and recognise opportunities for the
313
development of their capacity to address that problem (e.g., a walk improves my mood). The
314
combination of self-awareness and trigger identification helps the individual develop a nuanced
315
mental model of the relationships between specific events and their different emotional and
316
cognitive outcomes.
317
The combination of self-awareness and trigger identification is proposed to increase the
318
salience of how an individual might ideally like to manage a demand (e.g., negative feedback,
319
failure) and how their initial coping and emotion regulatory strategies may be inconsistent with
320
personal and professional values and valued goals. Values are ideals of how we would like to
321
behave across contexts, whereas goals are the specific achievements or behaviors that reflect
322

RUNNING HEADER: A NEW MODEL OF RESILIENCE 14
these values. According to the Systematic Self-Reflection model, values and goals provide
323
important context for coping and emotion regulation. First, addressing stressors in particular
324
ways are considered important to certain person-centered values and goals. Second, values
325
represent a standard by which to evaluate one’s stressor response and a means for attaining
326
feedback. Feedback regarding the usefulness of coping or emotion regulatory strategies is
327
achieved via an introspective process is comparable to monitoring goal progress and/or value
328
adherence whereby an individual acknowledges the characteristics of a response (e.g., study
329
procrastination) and compares it to the desired goal (e.g., doing well on an exam) or an
330
important value (e.g., persistence) (Harkin et. al., 2016).
331
Anseel and his colleagues (2009) demonstrated that the greatest performance gains
332
occurred when reflection was combined with feedback about performance, compared only with
333
reflection or feedback alone (Anseel, Lievens, & Schollaert, 2009). In this study, participants
334
were either given feedback on their task performance or else given no feedback. Participants
335
were then asked to reflect on what they did correctly and incorrectly in the task. In this way,
336
feedback and reflection were both important to performance improvement. The value of
337
feedback is, arguably, that it provides information about desired behaviors. Anseel et al., (2009)
338
suggested that one limitation of this study, which may account for the importance of external
339
feedback, is that there may have been too little information about the desired behavior. When
340
it comes to daily coping, there is rarely the opportunity for timely external feedback. However,
341
salient personal values and goals provide information about desired behaviors not present in
342
the experimental context. Thus, feedback is achieved via an introspective process whereby the
343
person compares their actual response to an ideal consistent with values and value-based goals.
344
The third practice is reappraisal. The self-reflection process encourages a re-
345
consideration of one’s initial event appraisals, allowing for the potential reappraisal of the
346
events in a way that is more adaptive. Learning to modify one’s appraisal of events in a way
347

RUNNING HEADER: A NEW MODEL OF RESILIENCE 15
that changes the nature of emotional outputs is a core part of existing psychological
348
interventions (Beck, 1983; Gross & Muñoz, 1995). In the Systematic Self-Reflection model,
349
the reappraisal process specifically involves the individual considering what can be learned
350
from the stressor. For example, practical skills may be developed for addressing the stressor
351
(e.g., managing a problematic colleague a work) or a psychological skill (e.g., acceptance of
352
uncertainty) (Jamieson et al., 2018). Salient values and goals in relation to the stressor situation
353
are proposed to provide a context for reappraisal as individuals consider the role of stressors in
354
advancing their coping skill set (e.g., dealing better with negative feedback). Initially, the
355
individual may have been more sensitive to the threats or demands present in the situation,
356
elevating the salience of threat appraisal (Lazarus & Folkman, 1987). However, via the
357
experience of one’s initial psychological response to an event and the salience of particular
358
values or goals the individual may begin to acknowledge that he/she may lack or not be
359
applying the necessary capacities to cope more effectively with this stressor. Therefore a
360
critical aspect of coping self-reflection involves the reappraisal of the experience of stress as
361
an opportunity to develop one’s capabilities for adapting to stressors.
362
The translation of stressors into opportunities for the development of resilience is likely
363
to be facilitated by a growth mindset (Dweck, 1986), which is an implicit assumption that
364
certain personal attributes, like resilience, are malleable and can be developed (Yeager &
365
Dweck, 2012). A growth mindset paves the way for one to consider the potential to develop
366
their resilience. A recent discussion of growth mindsets proposes that the belief certain abilities
367
(e.g., intellectual ability) can be developed is a coping resource that promotes resilience
368
(Yeager & Dweck, 2012). In the Systematic Self-Reflection model, a growth mindset can be
369
characterized as a resilient belief contributing to the capacity for resilience. However, we also
370
propose it has a second role as part of the reflective process, by encouraging individuals to
371
consider the potential for the development of resilient capacities following the initial reactions
372

RUNNING HEADER: A NEW MODEL OF RESILIENCE 16
to stressors. In this way, a growth mindset about the nature of resilience (i.e., that resilience
373
can be developed over time) encourages the perspective that stressors can be approached as
374
developmental opportunities (Jamieson et al., 2018). This tendency to consider the role of stress
375
in capacity building is referred to as a stress-as-enhancing mindset (Jamieson et al., 2018).
376
The above three practices can be collectively considered situation-focused and involve
377
cognitively dissecting one’s initial reaction to the situation. We propose that these processes
378
may enhance context sensitivity. Context sensitivity is an individual’s capacity to identify
379
demands and opportunities in the situation (see Bonnano & Burton, 2013 for review). For
380
example, identification of a specific emotional trigger may enhance perceptions of control over
381
the situation or one’s behavioral response. Moreover, the combination of these processes
382
allows for the recognition of potential self-development opportunities.
383
Practices four and five more directly influence the future development of the capacity
384
for resilience. Thus, we refer to these two practices as development-focused. The fourth
385
practice, evaluation, involves a dispassionate exploration of various aspects of one’s response
386
to stress that were effective, or ineffective, in enabling the achievement of personally held
387
values and value-based goals. Similarly, Carver and Scheier (1990) have proposed that a
388
process of comparison between current inputs (e.g., behaviors) and the desired goal-state is
389
engaged by increases in self-focused attention. In the Systematic Self-Reflection model, certain
390
voluntary and involuntary inputs (i.e., coping and emotion regulatory strategies) occur in
391
response to the stressor event. These initial inputs are then evaluated in terms of the ability to
392
achieve a personally held value or goal in the context of that stressor. Finally, the future-focus
393
prompts the individual to either identify what could be done differently in the future, engage
394
in a search for solutions or resources to ensure greater alignment between values and actions,
395
or attempt a different approach presently and/or in the future and reflect on the outcome. For
396
example, an individual may use humor to cope predominately with stressor events. However,
397

RUNNING HEADER: A NEW MODEL OF RESILIENCE 17
in some situations (e.g., the death of a friend), humor may be judged as an inappropriate coping
398
response that would violate their value of compassion. The reflection on this limitation may
399
initiate questions regarding what alternative strategies could be applied in this situation. The
400
individual may try something they have observed in others (e.g., distraction) or seek advice
401
about what to do. Such modifications may involve all aspects of Gross’ (2015) emotional
402
regulation framework (e.g., situation selection and modification, the re-direction of one’s
403
attention, cognitive change, and response modulation). Importantly, the development of one’s
404
resilient capacities is an iterative process. New emergent strategies may not get an individual
405
sufficiently close to their value or goal, but these strategies are again reviewed and modified
406
each time, with the potential of increasing the capacity for resilience.
407
Collectively, the self-reflective practices described represent a shifting from the
408
acknowledgment, analysis, and acceptance of the event to a development-focus with the goal
409
of learning and growth beyond the event. This idea is consistent with work by Bonanno, Pat-
410
Horenczyk, and Noll (2011) demonstrating the importance of shifting between processing the
411
potentially traumatic event (trauma-focus) and a focus on moving beyond the trauma (forward-
412
focus) in the prediction of better adjustment. The five reflective practices outlined are ideal;
413
however, individuals are likely to vary in the number of these practices engaged, the depth of
414
insight achieved, and the time duration of reflection.
415

RUNNING HEADER: A NEW MODEL OF RESILIENCE 18
Having noted the potential for coping self-reflection to be a resilience-strengthening
416
process, some previous research has shown an association between self-reflection and greater
417
stress and anxiety symptoms (Grant, et al., 2002). In contrast, Treynor, Gonzales, and Nolan-
418
Hoeksema (2003) have demonstrated the potential benefits of self-reflection, which predicted
419
a decline in depression longitudinally. Thus, there is inconsistency regarding the relationship
420
between self-reflection and symptoms. There are several plausible reasons for these mixed
421
findings. First, these studies only measured awareness of one’s thoughts and feelings.
422
Individuals who are aware of their feelings and thoughts may vary in their engagement in a
423
critical examination of their stress response (future-focus). Such individuals may not
424
experience the benefit of constructive self-reflection. Moreover, measuring the extent to which
425
one pays attention to one’s thoughts and feelings may serve only to capture the salience of
426
distressing experiences or to highlight them via reporting. A further consideration is study
427
design. Grant et al., (2002) utilized a cross-sectional design and Treynor et al. (2003) examined
428
self-reflection longitudinally. Given that this is a process, the benefits of self-reflection may
429
not emerge in the early stages of reflection, but rather only be evident later.
430

RUNNING HEADER: A NEW MODEL OF RESILIENCE 19
When stressor events encourage coping and emotion regulatory self-reflection
431
The Systematic Self-Reflection model of strengthening resilience proposes that the
432
initial psychological response (Figure 1) is a key determinant of whether an individual will
433
engage in systematic self-reflection. In the Systematic Self-Reflection model, psychological
434
stress (a movement away from an optimal psychological state) is the trigger for the above
435
described cascade of self-reflective practices (Figure 1, path b). The absence of unpleasant
436
emotions is less likely to spontaneously trigger an analysis of one’s response, although a
437
resilient outcome may reinforce a positive response via associative processes. If there is no
438
psychological stress experienced, then no self-reflection is triggered because the individual is
439
able to meet the demands of the event and therefore does not raise questions about how
440
responses could be improved. This perspective is consistent with the affect-as-information
441
theory (Clore & Huntsinger, 2008; Wyer, Clore, & Isbell, 1999) whereby negative affect
442
signals deviance from a safe state stimulating more systematic processing of information and
443
greater attention to the situation. In contrast, positive affect signals no special requirement to
444
modify the way in which the task is usually performed. Akin to models of self-regulation of
445
behaviour, the experience of negative affect (e.g., stress) is a signal to the system that
446
something needs to be adjusted to resolve a discrepancy; in contrast, positive affect prompts a
447
reduction in goal-directed effort (Carver & Scheier, 1998). In this case, the discrepancy is
448
between the demands imposed by a stressor event and the current capacity for resilience. Kaye-
449
Tzadok and Davidson-Arad (2016) recently demonstrated that growth is greatest at moderate
450
levels of resilience, suggesting that individuals with a high capacity for resilience may not
451
triggered into resilience-strengthening processes. Moreover, those with low capacity may often
452
feel overwhelmed by stressor demands allowing distress to occur, again limiting self-reflection.
453
In later case, reflection may be engaged when the distress has sufficiently subsided or if
454
triggered by an external influence (e.g., therapy or coaching). The time course is dependent on
455

RUNNING HEADER: A NEW MODEL OF RESILIENCE 20
how long it takes for distress to be reduced sufficiently to allow self-reflection. Thus, there is
456
an optimal level of perceived stress that promotes self-reflection (i.e. an inverted U-shape
457
relationship illustrated by path b). The following formal hypothesis is proposed:
458
H1: Coping and emotional regulatory self-reflection has an inverse-U shaped
459
relationship with initial psychological outputs when placed on a continuum from no
460
stress to distress (Figure 1, path b). The absence of stress or too much stress (distress)
461
results in a reduced likelihood of initial self-reflection. Moderate levels of initial
462
psychological stress predict the greatest likelihood of engaging in adaptive self-
463
reflection.
464
How systematic self-reflection enhances the capacity for resilience
465
Self-reflection is suggested to mediate the relationship between initial psychological
466
stress and what is broadly referred to as the capacity for resilience (Figure 1, paths b and c) by
467
enhancing usage of the coping and emotion regulatory repertoire, coping resources, and
468
resilient beliefs. Only the constituents of the capacity for resilience proposed to be directly
469
influenced by self-reflection are included. Coping resources are the available practical,
470
cognitive, motivational, and social resources that can help people to cope with stressors.
471
Coping resources may be limited or expanded by the availability of practical (e.g., fiscal, time),
472
cognitive (e.g., intellectual functioning), motivational (e.g., autonomous motivation in relation
473
to the task) and social resources (e.g., social support). An individual’s coping resources directly
474
and positively influence the usage of the coping and emotion regulatory repertoire available to
475
meet demands (Figure 1, path d). Moreover, such coping resources (e.g., less income decline,
476
social support, socio-economic status, intellectual functioning) have demonstrated direct
477
relationships to wellbeing outcomes and in this way contribute to the capacity for resilience
478
(e.g., Bonanno, et al., 2007; Ensel & Lin, 1991; Masten, et al., 1990).
479

RUNNING HEADER: A NEW MODEL OF RESILIENCE 21
Usage of the coping and emotion regulatory repertoire reflects the number and
480
variability of strategies individuals possess and the ability to apply different strategies over
481
time (Bonanno & Burton, 2013; Ntoumanis, Edmunds, & Duda, 2009). Accumulating research
482
is demonstrating the importance of a diversity of coping and emotion regulatory approaches
483
and the flexible deployment of these strategies to resilient outcomes (e.g., Bonanno & Burton,
484
2013; Cheng, Chui, Hong, & Cheung, 2001). This capacity reflects the ability to flexibly use a
485
range of adaptive coping and emotion regulatory strategies to meet contextual demands.
486
Having noted this, meta-analyses of the coping and emotion regulatory literature also indicate
487
that certain ways of coping with stressors are typically maladaptive (e.g., rumination,
488
avoidance, suppression) resulting in more internalizing symptoms (Compas, et al, 2017). Thus,
489
there may be some strategies that are generally maladaptive and not necessarily useful as part
490
of a diverse coping repertoire.
491
Resilient beliefs have a demonstrated ability to increase the likelihood of resilient
492
outcomes, such as self-efficacy, hope, a growth mindset, and optimism. Broadly speaking,
493
these are clusters of beliefs about how successful one will be when interacting with the world,
494
one’s capacity to change themselves in positive ways, and one’s confidence to do so (e.g.,
495
Bandura, 1982; Scheier & Carver, 1985). Existing models describe the importance of such
496
beliefs in moderating the stressor-distress relationship (e.g., Job-Demands and Resources
497
Model; Xanthopoulou, Bakker, Demerouti, & Schaufeli, 2007; Model of Psychological
498
Capital; Luthans, Luthans, & Luthans, 2004). However, these beliefs are not universally
499
adaptive across all outcomes (e.g., performance; Hmieleski & Baron, 2009), and are therefore
500
referred to specifically as ‘resilient beliefs’. Importantly, beliefs can be modified over time.
501
The development of these resilient beliefs is often described as a learning process that evolves
502
as part of one’s interaction with the world and people within it (e.g., Bandura, 1982; Lee,
503

RUNNING HEADER: A NEW MODEL OF RESILIENCE 22
Cohen, Edgar, Andrea, & Gagnon, 2006; Snyder, et al., 1996, see Snyder, Ilardi, Michael, &
504
Cheavans, 2000 for review).
505
Systematic self-reflection enables the individual to refine his or her mental models of
506
the coping and emotional regulatory experience, initiate a search for different approaches or
507
necessary coping resources, and the emergence of a more sophisticated and flexible coping and
508
emotion regulatory repertoire. Individuals who engage in systematic self-reflection as part of
509
their coping experience, either during or after the subsidence of a stressor, can identify and
510
remedy significant gaps in their resources or personal strategies that may undermine resilient
511
outcomes. If an individual’s current coping strategy is not sufficient to meet demands, self-
512
reflection is proposed to prompt the use of an alternative strategy. Alternatively, if coping
513
resources are too limited to meet demands, self-reflection may initiate activities to gather more
514
resources, increasing the number and diversity of one’s coping resources (e.g., the
515
identification of limited social support may lead to behaviors aimed at increasing supportive
516
networks). Further, resilient beliefs may emerge from successful coping attempts as an
517
individual acknowledges coping success that is integrated as a sense of agency, efficacy, and
518
control over stressor situations (e.g., ‘I have coped with it before, so I can do it again’).
519
However, even in the face of initial setbacks, the future-focus aspect of the self-reflective
520
process is likely to renew one’s sense of efficacy for addressing future stressors. This provides
521
a pathway for goal accomplishment, a sense of agency over the outcome (hope), and optimism
522
about positive outcomes in the future. In this way, self-reflection enables the on-going
523
development of one’s resources, repertoire and resilient beliefs.
524
Previous work has highlighted the use of systematic reflection for the broadening of
525
behavioral options and improving performance outcomes in the workplace (Ellis & Davidi,
526
2005; Ellis, Carette, Anseel, & Lievens, 2014). Ellis and colleagues (2005; 2014) describe how
527
learning does not automatically emerge from success or failure; rather it is one’s willingness
528

RUNNING HEADER: A NEW MODEL OF RESILIENCE 23
to engage in an elaborative process of evaluation and behavior change. After-Action Reviews
529
facilitate this elaborative process of self-explanation whereby individuals are required to
530
examine their performance and provide explanations for their success or failure on a task (Chi,
531
de Leeuw, Chiu, & Lavancher; Ellis & Davidi, 2005). In an evaluation of After-Action
532
Reviews, Israeli soldiers were identified to have a greater performance improvement when
533
reviews focused on both successes and failures, rather than only failures. Such performance
534
improvements emerge because examination of failures and successes enables amendments to
535
behavior, the emergence of new strategies, and reinforcement of effective strategies (Ellis &
536
Davidi, 2005) broadening the behavioral repertoire relating to performance.
537
Applied to the experience of addressing stressors, by analyzing successful and
538
unsuccessful coping and emotional regulatory experiences in context, individuals can develop
539
an awareness of their success and the effectiveness of their strategies, but at the same time
540
acknowledge the need for change in the future. Importantly, self-reflection occurs following
541
the initial stressor response initiated by stressor demands. However, coping resources and
542
repertoire may be modified or extended to meet the future demands based on the reflective
543
process in parallel to the initial response or retrospectively.
544
The above rationale and available empirical evidence have led us to propose that:
545
H2: Systematic self-reflection mediates the relationship between the initial
546
psychological stress response and the three described resilient capacities: Usage of the coping
547
and emotion regulatory repertoire, coping resources, and resilient beliefs (Figure 1, paths b and
548
c).
549
H3: Engagement in all five self-reflection practices (Figure 2) increases the three
550
resilient capacities specified in the model.
551
The relationship between usage of the coping and emotion regulatory repertoire and
552
resilient beliefs
553

RUNNING HEADER: A NEW MODEL OF RESILIENCE 24
Arguably, individuals with a broader repertoire of coping and emotion regulatory
554
strategies are more likely to feel as though they have agency, anticipate good outcomes, and
555
perceive pathways to achieving good outcomes. Previous research has demonstrated that
556
resilient beliefs may emerge from coping strategy usage (path e). Dijkstra and Homan (2016)
557
demonstrated that the relationship between coping strategy usage and wellbeing outcomes
558
occurs indirectly via beliefs (e.g., beliefs about control). Although this research was limited by
559
the cross-sectional design, the authors did demonstrate that this indirect pathway was stronger
560
than the alternative where beliefs anticipate wellbeing via the application of coping. Having
561
noted this, other research suggests that resilient beliefs relate to specific coping strategy use
562
(e.g., Dijkstra & Homan; 2016; Ensel & Lin, 1991; Major, et al., 1998). Therefore, this
563
potentially important relationship is also acknowledged in the present model (Figure 1, path f).
564
H4: There is a direct causal relationship between usage of the coping and emotion
565
regulatory repertoire and resilient beliefs (Figure 1, path e). A feedback loop also exists
566
between resilient beliefs and the coping and emotion regulatory repertoire (Figure 1,
567
path f) whereby resilient beliefs may also enhance the usage of the coping and emotion
568
regulatory repertoire.
569
A word on the capacity for resilience to lead to downstream resilience
570
The capacities for resilience included in the Systematic Self-Reflection model are three
571
of several important factors that interact with future stressors to influence the resulting
572
psychological outcomes and potential for resilience. Moreover, as the capacity for resilience
573
enables the experience of less distress emerging from future stressors, systematic self-reflection
574
may continue to contribute to the development of one’s capacity for resilience. This feedback
575
loop means that resilient capacities are reviewed and refined each time this process of reflection
576
occurs making resilient outcomes more likely, particularly for stressors one has encountered in
577
the past. Conversely, an individual may demonstrate resilience to one stressor, but then in the
578

RUNNING HEADER: A NEW MODEL OF RESILIENCE 25
context of another stressor may experience moderate stress and the reflective process may again
579
take place. In this way, the capacity for resilience is malleable and can be shaped, but there is
580
also an observable level of stability over time.
581
H5: Usage of the coping and emotion regulatory repertoire, coping resources, and
582
resilient beliefs, in part, comprise the capacity for resilience and increase the likelihood
583
of resilient outcomes.
584
Other models of resilience that implicate a role for stressors and life-adversity
585
A few models have considered the role of stressors and life-adversity in the
586
development of resilience. However, a limitation of these models is their failure to articulate
587
the processes that take place to turn the experience of life stressors into the capacity for
588
resilience. There is an absence of models with specific hypotheses that would enable a thorough
589
test of these mechanisms. Table 1 clarifies points of similarity and difference between the
590
proposed Systematic Self-Reflection model and past models suggesting a role for stressors in
591
the emergence of resilience. In summary, there are two central ways that this model contributes
592
to the current scholarship on stress and resilience. First, there are no current models that
593
articulate how stressor experiences are translated into the emergence of resilience or
594
acknowledge the importance of self-reflection in this process. Identifying this mechanism is
595
important for both training applications, but also to understand when stressors will have a
596
resilience strengthening capacity and when they will not. Second, the Systematic Self-
597
Reflection model reflects a shift from looking at stressors as ‘risks’ where stressors need to be
598
managed or avoided to examining the development of capacities that may be derived from
599
stressor exposure. This is in line with ‘stress mind-set’ research that suggests encouraging and
600
advocating for growth opportunities from stressor experiences may enhance aspects such as
601
performance, feedback seeking, and lessened cortisol reactivity (Crum, Salovey, & Anchor,
602
2013). This approach is distinct from other models that emphasize the management or
603

RUNNING HEADER: A NEW MODEL OF RESILIENCE 26
mitigation of stress, making only a cursory acknowledgment of the role of stress in enhancing
604
capacity.
605
Implications for research and practice
606
The contribution of this model to research is the provision of a testable model of
607
resilience-strengthening. Self-reflection is an understudied area, particularly in the context of
608
resilience development. Perhaps the most important practical implication of this model is that
609
it proposes a new framework for developing resilience in individuals not experiencing
610
psychopathology. Current stress management and resilience training programs focus on
611
teaching discrete coping and emotion regulatory skills (e.g., meditation, relaxation, cognitive
612
reframing) for the management of stressors (for review see: Robertson, Cooper, Sarkar, &
613
Curran, 2015; Vanhove, Herian, Perez, Harms, & Lester, 2015). Three opportunities emerge
614
from a self-reflection approach: (1) the strategies resulting from self-reflection are suited to the
615
individual’s values, culture, personal style, and strengths, because these strategies emerge from
616
the person’s unique reflections; (2) individuals can emerge with a personalized model of
617
resilience that is context specific allowing flexibility as contextual demands change; and (3)
618
this approach conveys that stressors can be an opportunity for growth and empowerment, rather
619
than implying that stressors need to be managed or mitigated, as is common for skills-based
620
techniques (Crum, et al., 2013). The training derived from this approach emphasizes the
621
capacity of the individual to make choices with respect to the engagement of resilient
622
capacities, contingent on one’s development and cognitive maturation. We suggest that the
623
initial focus of resilience training should be on encouraging participants to engage in the five
624
reflective practices identified above. These reflective practices can be encouraged via the use
625
of structured reflective journals or coaching sessions where individuals are asked to reflect on
626
their stressor experiences as well as their initial reactions, their approaches to managing
627
stressors, the effectiveness of these strategies, and how their capacities may be modified in the
628

RUNNING HEADER: A NEW MODEL OF RESILIENCE 27
future. However, the mechanism for eliciting reflection may require modification depending
629
on cognitive maturation. We propose that there is the potential to capitalize on the resilience
630
strengthening properties of stressors by encouraging these reflective practices. Future research
631
is required to identify how to best encourage such practices, and whether there are participant
632
characteristics that inhibit the development of these metacognitive skills.
633
Conclusion
634
Our vision is to move beyond a harm-reduction approach to stressors and determine
635
how individuals can use stressors and adversity as resilience-strengthening opportunities. The
636
Systematic Self-Reflection model provides a testable framework regarding a mechanism that
637
enables resilience to be strengthened throughout one’s cognitive maturation across the lifespan
638
via the use of five reflective practices. In combination, these reflective practices are expected
639
to facilitate the development and strengthening of three key resilient capacities (i.e., resilient
640
belief systems, usage of the coping and emotion regulatory repertoire, and coping resources)
641
that improve the likelihood of future resilient outcomes. The Systematic Self-Reflection model
642
proposes a new framework for developing resilience in individuals across the lifespan by
643
encouraging these reflective practices. To this end, longitudinal research is warranted to test
644
the five hypotheses outlined, as the findings from this line of inquiry have the potential to
645
inform the development and further refinement of resiliency-based interventions for
646
individuals across the lifespan. Moreover, as Systematic Self-Reflection is proposed to be
647
applicable to both life stressors and more serious adversities, it has the potential to inform
648
preventative treatment programs to extend people’s resilient-capacities, including at-risk
649
populations who may be more vulnerable to chronic stress exposure.
650
651
652
653

RUNNING HEADER: A NEW MODEL OF RESILIENCE 28
Table 1: Similarity and differences between the presently proposed Systematic Self-Reflection model and past models that suggest a role
654
of stressors in the emergence of resilience.
655
Existing model/theory
Similarities to the Systematic Self-Reflection
Model
Unique aspects of the Systematic Self-Reflection Model
Metatheory of resilience
and resiliency
(Richardson, 2002;
Richardson, Neiger,
Jensen, & Kumpfer,
1990).
Resilience strengthening is triggered by disruptive
events and involves a process of introspection related
to ‘identifying, accessing, and nurturing resilient
qualities’ (Richardson, 2002, p. 312). This process is
referred to as resilient reintegration. The model
proposes that without this process life events would
only continually create resource loss and disruption
because there is no process to acquire resilient
qualities. The model suggests that the resiliency
process may occur over seconds to years depending
on the severity and/or information that needs to be
integrated.
The model specifies that resilient reintegration depends on
particular skills (e.g., good interpersonal skills, creative
problem solving) and traits (e.g., sense of humour, self-
confidence). In the resiliency model, these skills and traits are
an amorphous cluster of factors facilitating resilient
reintegration. There is no clearly articulated process regarding
the way resilient reintegration occurs and how these factors
support it. In the Systematic Self-Reflection model of
resilience strengthening, we propose a well-articulated and
testable mechanism for the emergence of resilience from
stressors and adversity.
Model of restorative
wellbeing (Lent, 2004)
The Model of Restorative Well-being principally
describes the restoration of wellbeing when people
are beset by difficulty. Recovery from disruptive
events involves environmental supports and
The Model of Restorative Well-being does not describe how
the coping repertoire, coping efficacy, and resources are
enhanced in response to stressors. Moreover, enhancement is
considered to be derived directly from coping success. In

RUNNING HEADER: A NEW MODEL OF RESILIENCE 29
resources, coping efficacy, coping appraisals and
coping strategies. Similarly, the Systematic Self-
Reflection model that proposes that all these
processes are involved in one’s initial response to
stress (path a). The Model of Restorative Well-being
also acknowledges the potential for enhanced coping
to emerge from stressful life events. In particular,
successful coping is thought to enhance one’s coping
repertoire, sense of coping efficacy, and personal and
social resources that enable coping capacity into the
future.
contrast, the focus of the Systematic Self-Reflection model of
resilience strengthening is describing how resilience is
strengthened from stressor exposure. The Systematic Self-
Reflection model articulates the multifaceted self-reflective
practices necessary for strengthening resilience. Moreover,
the Systematic Self-Reflection model suggests that the
success of the initial stressor response is not necessary for
strengthening resilience. Even when the initial response is
inadequate to meet demands, capabilities can still be
developed if appropriate self-reflection takes place.
Stress inoculation
(Meichenbaum, &
Deffenbacher, 1988)
Stress inoculation involves the acquisition of new
coping and emotion regulatory skills as part of
exposure to stressors. The Systematic Self-Reflection
model of resilience strengthening similarly proposes
a capacity building role for stressors that lead to
downstream enhancements in resilience.
A first key difference is the population these perspectives are
applied to and why. Stress inoculation approaches are
typically applied to assist with the management of stress or
for those experiencing distress. The focus of the Systematic
Self-Reflection model of resilience strengthening is on the
development of resilient capacities from adversity in well
populations.
Second, in stress inoculation, the mechanism for ensuring that
stressor exposure results in adaptive, rather than maladaptive

RUNNING HEADER: A NEW MODEL OF RESILIENCE 30
coping is the psychologist. The psychologist provides
guidance regarding strategies to enhance the coping
repertoire. In the Systematic Self-Reflection model, the agent
of coping modification is the individual enabled by their
capacity to engage in adaptive self-reflection.
Third, during stress inoculation coping skills are rehearsed
during role-plays, simulations and using mental imagery that
evokes the experience of distress. In the Systematic Self-
Reflection model, the emphasis is on the development of
several self-reflective practices that enable the individual to
make their own judgments about effective and ineffective
coping and emotion regulatory approaches. The coping
repertoire is increased over time as one reflects on the
stressors he/she experiences, rather than teaching discrete
coping strategies for specific situations. The individual is
equipped to apply the self-reflective practice to any stressor
situation encountered in situ, rather than engaging in training
that is situation specific.
656
657

RUNNING HEADER: A NEW MODEL OF RESILIENCE 31
References
658
Anseel, F., Lievens, F., & Schollaert, E. (2009). Reflection as a strategy to enhance task
659
performance after feedback. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
660
110, 23–35. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2009.05.003.
661
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Post-traumatic stress disorder. In Diagnostic and
662
statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). (pp.271). Washington, DC: American
663
Psychiatric Publishing.
664
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
665
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
666
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37,
667
122–147. doi: 10.1037//0003-066X.37.2.122.
668
Beck, A. T. (1983). Cognitive therapy of depression: New perspectives. In: P.J. Clayton & J.E.
669
Barnett (Eds.). Treatment of depression: Old controversies and new approaches. (p. 265-
670
290). New York: Raven Press.
671
Bonanno, G. A., & Burton, C. L. (2013). Regulatory flexibility: An individual differences
672
perspective on coping and emotion regulation. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8,
673
591-612. doi: 10.1177/1745691613504116.
674
Bonanno, G. A., Galea, S., Bucciarelli, A., & Vlahov, D. (2007). What predicts psychological
675
resilience after disaster? The role of demographics, resources, and life stress. Journal of
676
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 75, 671–682. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.75.5.671.
677
Bonanno, G. A., Pat-Horenczyk, R., & Noll, J. (2011). Coping flexibility and trauma: The
678
perceived ability to cope with trauma (PACT) scale. Psychological Trauma: Theory,
679
Research, Practice, and Policy, 3, 117-129. doi: 10.1037/a0020921.
680

RUNNING HEADER: A NEW MODEL OF RESILIENCE 32
Campbell-Sills, L., Cohan, S. L., & Stein, M. B. (2006). Relationship of resilience to
681
personality, coping, and psychiatric symptoms in young adults. Behaviour research and
682
therapy, 44(4), 585-599. doi: 10.1016/j.brat.2005.05.001.
683
Carver, C. S. (1998). Resilience and thriving: Issues, models, and linkages. Journal of Social
684
Issues, 54, 245–266. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4560.1998.tb01217.x.
685
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1998). On the self-regulation of behavior. New York:
686
Cambridge University Press.
687
Cheng, C., Chiu C., Hong Y., & Cheung, J. S. (2001). Discriminative facility and its role in the
688
quality of interactional experiences. Journal of Personality, 69, 765–786. doi:
689
doi/10.1111/1467-6494.695163.
690
Chi, M. T. H., de Leeuw, N., Chiu, M. H., & Lavancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations
691
improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18, 439-477. doi:
692
10.1207/s15516709cog1803_3.
693
Clore, G. L., & Huntsinger, J. R. (2007). How emotions inform judgment and regulate thought.
694
Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11, 393-399. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2007.08.005.
695
Compas, B. E., Jaser, S. S., Bettis, A. H., Watson, K. H., Gruhn, M. A., Dunbar, J. P., . . .
696
Thigpen, J. C. (2017). Coping, emotion regulation, and psychopathology in childhood and
697
adolescence: A meta-analysis and narrative review. Psychological Bulletin, 143, 938-991.
698
doi:10.1037/bul0000110
699
Crane, M.F. & Searle, B.J. (2016). Building resilience through exposure to stressors: The
700
effects of challenges versus hindrances. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 21,
701
468-479. doi: 10.1037/a0040064.
702
Crum, A. J., Salovey, P., & Achor, S. (2013). Rethinking stress: The role of mindsets in
703
determining the stress response. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104, 716–
704
733. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031201
705

RUNNING HEADER: A NEW MODEL OF RESILIENCE 33
de Roon-Cassini, T. A., Mancini, A. D., Rusch, M. D., & Bonanno, G. A. (2010).
706
Psychopathology and resilience following traumatic injury: A latent growth mixture
707
model analysis. Rehabilitation Psychology, 55, 1-11. doi:
708
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0018601.
709
Dienstbier, R. A. (1989). Arousal and physiological toughness: Implications for mental and
710
physical health. Psychological Review, 96, 84-100. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.96.1.84.
711
Dijkstra, M. T., & Homan, A. C. (2016). Engaging in rather than disengaging from stress:
712
effective coping and perceived control. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1-12. doi:
713
10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01415.
714
Dweck, C. S. (1986), Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41
715
1040-1048. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.41.10.1040.
716
Ellis, S., Carette, B., Anseel, F., & Lievens, F. (2014). Systematic reflection: Implications for
717
learning from failures and successes. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23,
718
67–72. doi: 10.1177/0963721413504106.
719
Ellis, S., & Davidi, I. (2005). After-event reviews: drawing lessons from successful and failed
720
experience. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 857–71. doi: 10.1037/0021-
721
9010.90.5.857.
722
Ensel, W. M., & Lin, N. (1991). The life stress paradigm and psychological distress. Journal
723
of Health and Social Behavior, 32, 321-341. Retrieved from
724
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2137101.
725
Eve, P., & Kangas, M. (2015). Posttraumatic growth following trauma: Is growth accelerated
726
or a reflection of cognitive maturation? The Humanistic Psychologist, 32, 354–370.
727
http://doi.org/10.1080/08873267.2015.1025272.
728
Folkman, S., & Moskowitz, J. T. (2004). Coping: Pitfalls and promise. Annual Review of
729
Psychology, 55, 745–774. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.141456
730

RUNNING HEADER: A NEW MODEL OF RESILIENCE 34
Grant, A. M., Franklin, J., & Langford, P. (2002). The self-reflection and insight scale: A new
731
measure of private self-consciousness. Social Behavior and Personality: An International
732
Journal, 30, 821-835. doi: 10.2224/sbp.2002.30.8.821.
733
Greenberg, M. (1995). Cognitive processing in trauma: The role of intrusive thoughts and
734
reappraisals. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25, 1262–1296.
735
Gross, J. J. (2015). Emotion regulation: Current status and future prospects. Psychological
736
Inquiry, 26, 1–26. doi: org/10.1080/1047840X.2014.940781.
737
Gross, J.J., & Muñoz, R.F. (1995). Emotion regulation and mental health. Clinical Psychology:
738
Science and Practice, 2; 151–164. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2850.1995.tb00036.x.
739
Hammen, C. (2015). Stress Sensitivity in Psychopathology: Mechanisms and consequences.
740
Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 124, 152–154. doi: 10.1037/abn0000040.
741
Harkin, B., Webb, T. L., Chang, B. P. I., Prestwich, A., Conner, M., Kellar, I., . . . Sheeran, P.
742
(2016). Does monitoring goal progress promote goal attainment? A meta-analysis of the
743
experimental evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 142, 198-229. doi: 10.1037/bul0000025.
744
Harris, R. (2009). ACT made simple. New Harbinger Publications, Oakland: CA
745
Hattie, J., Biggs, J., & Purdie, N. (1996). Effects of learning skills interventions on student
746
learning: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 66, 99–136. doi:
747
10.3102/00346543066002099.
748
Hayes, S. C. (2004). Acceptance and Commitment Therapy, Relational Frame Theory, and the
749
third wave of behavior therapy. Behavior Therapy, 35, 639-665. doi: org/10.1016/S0005-
750
7894(04)80013-3.
751
Hayes, S. C., Wilson, K. G., Gifford, E. V., Follette, V. M., & Strosahl, K. (1996). Experiential
752
avoidance and behavioral disorders: A functional dimensional approach to diagnosis and
753
treatment. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64, 1152-1168.
754

RUNNING HEADER: A NEW MODEL OF RESILIENCE 35
Hmieleski, K. M., & Baron, R. A. (2009). Entrepreneurs' optimism and new venture
755
performance: A social cognitive perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 473-
756
488. doi: 10.5465/AMJ.2009.41330755.
757
Hobfoll, S. E. (2002). Social and psychological resources and adaptation. Review of General
758
Psychology, 6, 307–324. doi: 10.1037/1089-2680.6.4.307.
759
Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress.
760
American Psychologist, 44, 513–524. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.44.3.513.
761
Jamieson, J. P., Crum, A. J., Goyer, J. P., Marotta, M. E., & Akinola, M. (2018). Optimizing
762
stress responses with reappraisal and mindset interventions: an integrated model. Anxiety,
763
Stress, & Coping, 31, 245-261. doi: 10.1080/10615806.2018.1442615.
764
Janoff-Bulman, R. (1992). Shattered assumptions: Towards a new psychology of trauma. New
765
York, NY: Free Press.
766
Kalisch, R., Baker, D. G., Basten, U., Boks, M. P., Bonanno, G. A., Brummelman, E., ... &
767
Geuze, E. (2017). The resilience framework as a strategy to combat stress-related
768
disorders. Nature: Human Behaviour, 1, 784-790. doi: 10.1038/s41562-017-0200-8.
769
Kaye-Tzadok, A., & Davidson-Arad, B. (2016). Posttraumatic growth among women survivors
770
of childhood sexual abuse: Its relation to cognitive strategies, posttraumatic symptoms,
771
and resilience. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 8, 550.
772
doi: 10.1037/tra0000103.
773
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1987). Transactional theory and research on emotions and
774
coping. European Journal of Personality, 1, 141–169. doi: 10.1002/per.2410010304.
775
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer.
776
Lee, V., Cohen S. R., Edgar L., Andrea M. L., & Gagnon A. J. (2006) Meaning-making
777
intervention during breast or colorectal cancer treatment improves self-esteem, optimism,
778

RUNNING HEADER: A NEW MODEL OF RESILIENCE 36
and self-efficacy. Social Science & Medicine, 62, 3133-3145. doi:
779
http://dx.doi.org/10.13005/bpj/848.
780
Lent, R. W. (2004). Toward a unifying theoretical and practical perspective on well-being and
781
psychosocial adjustment. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51, 482-509. doi:
782
10.1037/0022-0167.51.4.482.
783
Luthans, F., Luthans K. W., & Luthans, B. C. (2004). Positive psychological capital: Beyond
784
human and social capital. Business Horizons, 47, 45–50. doi:
785
10.1016/j.bushor.2003.11.007.
786
Major, B., Richards, C., Cooper, M.L., Cozzarelli, C., & Zubek, J. (1998). Personal resilience,
787
cognitive appraisals, and coping: An integrative model of adjustment to abortion. Journal
788
of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 735–752. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.74.3.735.
789
Masten, A. S. (2007). Resilience in developing systems: Progress and promise as the fourth
790
wave rises. Development and Psychopathology, 19, 921-930. doi:
791
10.1017/S0954579407000442.
792
Masten, A. S., Best, K. M., & Garmezy, N. (1990). Resilience and development: Contributions
793
from the study of children who overcome adversity. Development and Psychopathology,
794
2, 425–444. doi: 10.1017/S0954579400005812.
795
McEwen, B., & Lasley, E. N. (2003). Allostatic load: When protection gives way to damage.
796
Advances in Mind-Body Medicine, 19, 28-33.
797
Meichenbaum, D. H., & Deffenbacher, J. L. (1988). Stress inoculation training. The Counseling
798
Psychologist, 16, 69-90. doi: 10.1177/0011000088161005.
799
Mezirow, J., (1998). On critical reflection. Adult Education Quarterly, 48, 185-198.
800
Moors, A., Ellsworth, P. C., Scherer, K. R., & Frijda, N. H. (2013). Appraisal theories of
801
emotion: State of the art and future development. Emotion Review, 5, 119–124. doi:
802
10.1177/1754073912468165.
803

RUNNING HEADER: A NEW MODEL OF RESILIENCE 37
Monroe, S. M., & Harkness, K. L. (2005). Life stress, the “kindling” hypothesis, and the
804
recurrence of depression: Considerations from a life stress perspective. Psychological
805
Review, 112, 417–445. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.112.2.417.
806
Ntoumanis, N., Edmunds, J., & Duda, J. L. (2009). Understanding the coping process from a
807
self‐determination theory perspective. British Journal of Health Psychology, 14, 249-260.
808
doi: 10.1348/135910708X349352
809
Oken, B. S., Chamine, I., & Wakeland, W. (2015). A systems approach to stress, stressors and
810
resilience in humans. Behavioural Brain Research, 282, 144–154.
811
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2014.12.047.
812
Padesky, C. A., & Mooney, K. A. (2012). Strengths-based cognitive-behavioural therapy : A
813
four-step model to build resilience. Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, 19, 283–290.
814
doi: 10.1002/cpp.1795
815
Sarkar, M., & Fletcher, D. (2014). Ordinary magic, extraordinary performance: Psychological
816
resilience and thriving in high achievers. Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology,
817
3, 46-60. doi: 10.1037/spy0000003
818
Scheier, M.F. & Carver, C. S. (1985). Optimism, coping, and health: Assessment and
819
implications of generalized outcome expectancies. Health Psychology, 4, 219-247. doi:
820
10.1037/0278-6133.4.3.219.
821
Seery, M. D. (2011). Resilience: A Silver Lining to Experiencing Adverse Life Events?
822
Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20, 390–394. doi:
823
10.1177/0963721411424740
824
Seery, M. D., Holman, E. A., & Silver, R. C. (2010). Whatever does not kill us: Cumulative
825
lifetime adversity, vulnerability, and resilience. Journal of Personality and Social
826
Psychology, 99, 1025–1041. doi: 10.1037/a0021344.
827

RUNNING HEADER: A NEW MODEL OF RESILIENCE 38
Seery, M. D., Leo, R. J., Lupien, S. P., Kondrak, C. L., & Almonte, J. L. (2013). An upside to
828
adversity? Moderate cumulative lifetime adversity is associated with resilient responses
829
in the face of controlled stressors. Psychological Science, 24, 1181–1189. doi:
830
10.1177/0956797612469210.
831
Seery, M. D., & Quinton, W. J. (2016). Understanding resilience: From negative life events to
832
everyday stressors. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 54, 181-245. doi:
833
/10.1016/bs.aesp.2016.02.002
834
Snyder, C. R., Ilardi, S., Michael, S., & Cheavans, J. (2000). Hope theory: Updating a common
835
pro- cess for psychological change. In C. R. Snyder & R. E. Ingram (Eds.), Handbook of
836
psychological change: Psychotherapy processes and practices for the 21st century (pp.
837
128-153). New York: John Wiley.
838
Snyder, C. R., Sympson, S. C., Ybasco, F. C., Borders,T. F., Babyak, M.A.,& Higgins, R. L.
839
(1996). Development and validation of the state hope scale. Journal of Personality and
840
Social Psychology, 70, 321-335. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.70.2.321.
841
Stroud, C. B., Davila, J., Hammen, C., & Vrshek-Schallhorn, S. (2011). Severe and non-severe
842
events in first onsets versus recurrences of depression: Evidence for stress sensitization.
843
Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 120, 142-154. doi: 10.1037/a0021659.
844
Richardson, G. E. (2002). The metatheory of resilience and resiliency. Journal of Clinical
845
Psychology, 58, 307-321. doi: 10.1002/jclp.10020.
846
Richardson, G. E., Neiger, B. L., Jensen, S., & Kumpfer, K. L. (1990). The resiliency
847
model. Health Education, 21, 33-39. doi: 10.1080/00970050.1990.10614589.
848
Robertson, I. T., Cooper, C. L., Sarkar, M., & Curran, T. (2015). Resilience training in the
849
workplace from 2003 to 2014: A systematic review. Journal of Occupational and
850
Organizational Psychology, 88, 533–562. doi: 10.1111/joop.12120
851

RUNNING HEADER: A NEW MODEL OF RESILIENCE 39
Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2007). The role of
852
personal resources in the job demands-resources model. International Journal of Stress
853
Management, 14, 121–141. doi: 10.1037/1072-5245.14.2.121.
854
Treynor, W., Gonzalez, R., & Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (2003). Rumination reconsidered: A
855
psychometric analysis. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 27, 247-259. doi:
856
10.1023/A:1023910315561.
857
Tedeschi, R. G., & Calhoun, L. G. (2004). Posttraumatic growth: Conceptual foundations and
858
empirical evidence. Psychological Inquiry, 15, 1–18. doi:
859
doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli1501_01.
860
Vanhove, A. J., Herian, M. N., Perez, A. L., Harms, P. D., & Lester, P. B. (2016). Can resilience
861
be developed at work? A meta‐analytic review of resilience‐building programme
862
effectiveness. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 89, 278-307. doi:
863
10.1111/joop.12123.
864
Wyer, R. S., Clore, G. L., Isbell, L. M. (1999) Affect and Information Processing. Advances in
865
Experimental Social Psychology, 31, 1-77. doi: 10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60271-3.
866
Yeager, D. S., & Dweck, C. S. (2012). Mindsets that promote resilience: When students believe
867
that personal characteristics can be developed. Educational Psychologist, 47, 302-314.
868
doi: 10.1080/00461520.2012.722805
869
870

RUNNING HEADER: A NEW MODEL OF RESILIENCE 40
Table 1: Similarity and differences between the presently proposed Systematic Self-Reflection model and past models that suggest a role
of stressors in the emergence of resilience.
Existing model/theory
Similarities to the Systematic Self-Reflection Model
Unique aspects of the Systematic Self-Reflection
Model
Metatheory of resilience
and resiliency
(Richardson, 2002;
Richardson, Neiger,
Jensen, & Kumpfer,
1990).
Resilient reintegration involves enhanced resilience
triggered by disruptive events. It involves a process of
introspection related to ‘identifying, accessing, and
nurturing resilient qualities’ (Richardson, 2002, p. 312).
The resiliency model proposes that without this process
of resilient reintegration, life events would continually
create resource loss and disruption, because there is
otherwise no process to acquire resilient qualities. The
model suggests that the resiliency process may occur
over seconds to years depending on the severity and/or
information that needs to be integrated.
The resiliency model specifies that resilient reintegration
depends on particular skills (e.g., good interpersonal
skills, creative problem solving) and traits (e.g., sense of
humour, self-confidence). In the resiliency model, these
skills and traits are an amorphous cluster of factors
facilitating resilient reintegration. There are no clearly
articulated processes regarding the way resilient
reintegration occurs and how these factors support it. In
the Systematic Self-Reflection model, we propose a
clear, specific, and testable mechanism for the
emergence of resilience from stressors and adversity.
Model of restorative
wellbeing (Lent, 2004)
The Model of Restorative Well-being principally
describes the restoration of wellbeing when people are
beset by difficulty. Recovery from disruptive events is
said to involve environmental supports and resources,
coping efficacy, coping appraisals and coping strategies.
The Model of Restorative Well-being does not describe
how the coping repertoire, coping efficacy, or resources
are enhanced in response to stressors over time.
Moreover, enhancement is considered to be derived
directly from coping success. In contrast, the focus of the

RUNNING HEADER: A NEW MODEL OF RESILIENCE 41
This is akin to the Systematic Self-Reflection model that
proposes that all these processes are involved in one’s
initial response to stress (path a).
The Model of Restorative Well-being also acknowledges
the potential for enhanced coping to emerge from
stressful life events. In particular, successful coping is
thought to enhance one’s coping repertoire, sense of
coping efficacy, and personal and social resources that
enable coping capacity into the future.
Systematic Self-Reflection model is describing how
resilience is strengthened from stressor exposure. In
particular, the Systematic Self-Reflection model
articulates specific self-reflective practices necessary for
strengthening resilience. Further, the Systematic Self-
Reflection model suggests that the success of the initial
stressor response is not necessary for strengthening
resilience. Even when the initial response is inadequate
to meet demands, capabilities can still be developed if
appropriate self-reflection takes place.
Stress inoculation
(Meichenbaum, &
Deffenbacher, 1988)
Stress inoculation involves exposure to stressors and the
idea that stress exposure allows for the acquisition of new
skills as part of exposure. The Systematic Self-
Reflection model similarly proposes a capacity-building
role for stressors that lead to downstream enhancements
in resilience.
A first key difference is the population these perspectives
are applied to and why. Stress inoculation approaches are
typically applied to assist with the management of stress
or for those experiencing distress. The focus of the
Systematic Self-Reflection model is on the development
of resilience from adversity in those who are not
necessarily experiencing distress.
Second, in stress inoculation, the mechanism for
ensuring that stressor exposure results in adaptive, rather
than maladaptive coping is the psychologist. The

RUNNING HEADER: A NEW MODEL OF RESILIENCE 42
psychologist provides guidance regarding strategies to
enhance the coping and emotion regulatory repertoire. In
the Systematic Self-Reflection model, the agent of
strategy modification is the individual, enabled by their
capacity to engage in appropriate self-reflection.
Third, during stress inoculation, coping skills are
rehearsed during role-plays, simulations and using
mental imagery that evoke the experience of distress. The
Systematic Self-Reflection model emphasizes
experiential learning via the development of five self-
reflective practices that enable the individual to make
their own judgements about effective and ineffective
approaches to coping an emotion regulation. In this way,
the coping and emotion regulatory repertoire is expanded
over time as a bi-product of self-reflection, as one
encounters stressors in one’s life, rather than being taught
discrete strategies for specific situations. Thus, the
individual is equipped to apply the self-reflective
practice to any stressor situation encountered in situ,
rather than engaging in training that is situation-specific.