The Pros And Cons Of Psychological Resilience

1504 Words4 Pages

There is emerging research evidence to show that positive emotions, like joy, are connected with psychological and physical benefits for a person (Sheldon & Lyubomirsky, 2006). Additionally, majority of the people worldwide state they have a longing to be happier in life (Sheldon & Lyubomirsky, 2006). In this critic review the focus on the two well-being interventions are, hardship trauma and coping (psychological resilience) and religion and spirituality, and will look into the advantages and limitations they both possess.

Firstly will look at the psychological resilience as an intervention programme to well-being. Craver (1998) had given the definition for someone having resiliency to be adept to “bounce back” from traumatic or worrying events efficiently and quickly (as cited in, Tugade, Fredrickson & Barrett, 2004). The concept is hard to understand about the significance between positive emotions and psychological resilience, in people who have experienced a traumatic event. Studies involving in resilience normally try to look for vulnerability and protective factors that may change the undesirable effects of hardship situations and, when they have done this, it looks into finding out what mechanisms or processes are involved with this sort of associations (as cited in, Luthar & Cicchetti, 2000). Vulnerability factors are those that have the tendency to aggravate the negative effects of the situation (Luthar & Cicchetti, 2000), for instance living in a urban poverty city, the vulnerability marker would be the male gender in that society (e.g. Kraemer et al., 1997). Whereas protective factors can be seen as, things that can change negative effects of risk into a good path (Luthar & Cicchetti, 2000). For example having ...

... middle of paper ...

...tation of using this intervention is that the religious/spiritual measures used is based on a Christian perspective or the view that there is a God as a tool of measurement (Stanard et al., 2000). The question here arises is whether this intervention method is considered to be representative of the societies around the world.

Overall there is a need for well-being and this is not just to create long-lasting happiness, but also to strengthen one’s ability to cope through times of hardship. Although, researchers need to understand that it is important to realize the need for, more empiricism in well-being intervention studies. For instance, the methods used to measure well-being instruments like the SWBS is better for certain groups of people, compared to the SAI which needs more work on before it can be used in health care services (Brown, Johnson & Parrish, 2007).

Open Document