Talk:Psychological resilience

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Isabella De Marchena. 20:58, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 September 2020 and 25 November 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Gabrielleswisher. 20:58, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 August 2020 and 1 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jessrose96. Peer reviewers: JaymaGoodwin. 20:58, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 September 2021 and 18 November 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): JuliaWeinman. 20:58, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

New Edits to be Made

Focusing exclusively on post traumatic stress and resilience

1. Introduce and explain study of resilience in high risk children 2. Fix grammatical and spelling errors 3. Add possible protective factors

Dhamidov (talk) 02:56, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

"Psychological Resilience"

The selected Wikipedia article needs two primary upgrades. First it needs a more completed introduction that provides a better overview of what information will be covered. Second it needs a better summary of main points at the end of the article. These changes will provide better navigation guides and better take-away knowledge after reading the article.

Here is a list of relevant resources that can be used to enhance the article, "Psychological Resilience":

References

Kong, L., Liu, N., Liu, S., & Yu, N. (2018). Correlations among psychological resilience, self-efficacy, and negative emotion in acute myocardial infarction patients after percutaneous coronary intervention. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 9, 1.

Sarkar, M. (2017). Psychological resilience: Definitional advancement and research developments in elite sport. International Journal of Stress Prevention and Wellbeing, 1(3), 1-4. Retrieved from http://www.stressprevention.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/IJSPW-1-3.pdf

Sharpley, C. F., Bitsika, V., Jesulola, E., Fitzpatrick, K., & Agnew, L. L. (2016). The association between aspects of psychological resilience and subtypes of depression: implications for focussed clinical treatment models. International Journal of Psychiatry in Clinical Practice, 20(3), 151-156. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isabella De Marchena (talk • contribs) 17:01, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

self-efficacy for motivating endeavor at adaptation

Article phrase "self-efficacy for motivating endeavor at adaptation." -- Please dejargonate. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.130.15.14 (talk) 13:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

SuggestBot

 I wonder if Viktor Frankl with his observations of who survived nazi concentration camps would be an earlier example of resilience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mont109 (talk • contribs) 21:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow!

Suggestbot did suggested me this article to edit because bot predicts - I will enjoy this article.

Well...

SuggestBOT you need some modification/upgrade or may be installing Windows Vista will be great for you!

What is this resilience? Never heard about it. I have to consult few books. Okay, I will do it!

AnThRaX Ru

Reminders and Edits

As I was reviewing this article I noticed most of the sources are out of date. While editing an article, please make sure to find sources that are not only up-to-date, but credible as well. Try to find sources from .edu or .gov and use peer reviewed articles for more accuracy. Maddieb0608 (talk) 20:27, 11 February 2022 (UTC) Maddieb0608

HI! Thank you for this suggestion to the author. I was thinking along the same lines. More up-to-date sources would really boost the article. Aperry519 (talk) 04:30, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Sources

"Unpublished data" is not a valid source. Also, please provide a full citation so someone, in principle, could check the article. DCDuring 15:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC) I disagree that this article contains too much jargon. I am a mental health professional, and i think this is a fantastic resource! It spells out exactly what resilience is, in a way that psychiatric textbooks have difficulty in doing. Definitely do not delete it! Thanks for the extensive list of reference articles also. I think that people who find this concept to hard, are probably the type just to read the introduction and get a basic summary of it anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.45.186.249 (talk) 00:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I translated something from the German Wikipedia

I tried to translate something from the German Wikipedia. I hope you are pleased with it. English is my third language, so i would be very happy if you could help me and correct my language. Thanks a lot! --Resilienzi 18:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I tried to translate some more. Some of the statement are still without references, please do not delete them, for i will add the references soon :)--Resilienzi (talk) 12:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Why did you delete my contributions?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Psychological_resilience&diff=177589865&oldid=177589739 --Resilienzi (talk) 20:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Violation of timespace continuum.

"Positive adaptation, on the other hand, is considered in a demonstration of manifested behavior on social competence or success at meeting any particular tasks at a specific life stage, such as the absence of psychiatric distress after the September 11th terrorism attacks on the United States (Luthar & Cicchetti, 2000)."

It's possible I'm just taking this out of context, but the study cited is from 2000, and the article makes it seem as though it refers to 2001. Why after all would the article mention a specific traumatic event unless quoting the study. 76.196.110.161 (talk) 03:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Casey M

I agree. It's odd how September 11 is mentioned twice in that section. It should say something more general about a traumatic experience (and perhaps one example of which being 'terrorist attacks') to avoid sounding so strangely focussed on that particular event, out of all the traumatic events that have been happening to humans (globally) in the last several years.--Tyranny Sue (talk) 12:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposed change of "negative life conditions" to "challenging life conditions"

if no-one objects, I'll do this. (Reason: 'challenging' is much more descriptive.)--Tyranny Sue (talk) 12:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Putting emphasis on judgment made about adaptation (in resilience) and trying to clarify taht resilience is not (anymore) considered as an individual trait

If someone want to comment my adding in the introduction and in the definition, I'll try to answer. (November 21th, 2009)Zibudizz (talk) 20:50, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Quasi-meaningless generalization(s)

I found it difficult to accept the following passages at face value:

"A number of social and ethnic groups have been shown to be resilient. Among those are the children of European Jews in the United States, the children of the Vietnamese boat people in the United States. Middle class families in times of the great depression, children of farmers in times of economical crisis, children of Spanish and Vietnamese immigrants in Germany, adoptive children, who went through trauma and malnutrition. And the African American children of African slaves brought to America by slave traders."

and

"They have been studied a lot, and it has been found (as mentioned before) that Vietnamese parents value education and that Vietnamese students spend a lot more time learning than their German counterparts."

(These are just the two most salient btw.) So many exceptions to these statements can be found I'm not sure what the value is in asserting them. Furthermore, what groups could be identified who have been shown to NOT be resilient? (And if there aren't any, what's the value in identifying these? All it really is is a list of numerically populous marginalized groups.) Historian932 (talk) 20:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll change the paragraph a bit.-- Resilienzi (talk) 17:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Definition from other article

Someone put the following text in the resilience article. Putting it here only because it is (sort of) referenced, in case that is useful to this article:

Resilience is a term that has been borrowed from the more exact sciences and adopted by psychology. When used by psychologists it refers to the ability to recover from trauma or crisis. The term has generated much interest on the part of research psychologists (Bonnano, 2004) and has been used in developing programs to help people cope in the aftermath of traumatic events (Building Resilience Interventions, Baum, et al, 2009).

David Hollman (Talk) 23:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Stray comments

The sentence, "Two important principles that have been discovered in cumulative risk and resilience are those of developmental trajectories and clustering of factors. (Cairns & Cairns, n.d.)." requires correct referencing, providing a date, as well as referencing at the end of the article under the REFERENCES heading.

This page really needs A LOT of expansion. It is tiny, and there is so much information out there. 139.230.245.21 07:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

King's University College

―I have decided to edit this article for Psych 2410A at King’s 2012‖Dhamidov (talk) 03:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Factors

Under "Factors related to resilience", there is a bullet point list of other factors which starts with: "The ability to cope with stress effectively and in a healthy manner"

However, the very first sentence of the article defines "Psychological resilience is an individual's tendency to cope with stress and adversity.". Granted the premise, this sentence doesn't quite make sense. It's like saying a key factor of a circle is it's shape of being a circle.

Belfry (talk) 00:56, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

You are quite right! Please edit, especially if you have access to the source where this comes from.Lova Falk talk 11:00, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Role of religion Section Biased?

The Section is totally biased, using a christian news network as a source.Therefore it should be deleted, I hope someone who is in charge can do something about it i don't want to do it myself it maybe considered vandalism if i do it.Or some opposing views can be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.190.213.155 (talk) 16:49, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

In the Wake of the Death of a Family Member

Definitely great that a section got added on this, but I think it needs improvement. For the opening paragraph, I would be a bit clearer and more direct about what you will be discussing in that section. Overall though it just seems a bit complex. Perhaps making the wording a little simpler. I would also advise either dividing it into sections or changing it somehow to make it easier to find what one is looking for. Thanks for the contribution though! Hokinsc (talk) 17:14, 21 April 2015 (UTC)hokinsc

I noticed one of the paragraphs (third one in the section about components of resilience), cites its information from a source about violent deaths in a family specifically. Upon further reading of the source, it appears that those characteristics are specifically for those who apply to that. I'm going to go ahead and add a section about violent deaths and transfer that information over. Additionally, the second half of the paragraph needs work. While I like the information from the Belgian study, I would like to see other sources as well, since this study is very new and has a small sample size. It also goes on to list some important indicators of family resilience, but cites the wrong source. The source initially listed mentions nothing of any topic mentioned in the prior couple of sentences. However, that was all found in source 177, the article about the Belgian study. I went a head and fixed that citation. Was that source meant to be place elsewhere? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hokinsc (talk • contribs) 17:38, 21 April 2015 Hokinsc (talk) 17:39, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

This section is incredibly long to the point of being very boring. Thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 14:11, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

General

For a university group project, a couple of members and I worked to strengthen this page. For a quick summary of our major changes:

Added a couple of paragraphs to the section on Social Programs. These included two studies supporting social interventions. One was by the Department of Veteran Affairs and another from Israel. // A contrasting study of cognitive emotion regulatory strategies to the Building section // Two additional criticisms of resilience, both dealing with the definition // A description of thriving as it relates to resilience // Removed the section in the Role of Religion that cited Christianity Today and provided new sources and information. // Added another section of a specific population, High Achieving Professionals

If anyone has any comments or suggestions please let us know! Hokinsc (talk) 18:45, 21 April 2015 (UTC)hokinsc

While I did not look closely, what I did look at seemed well-done to me. Good finds on the Social Programs section. Good to see you caught the poor sourcing too. As I say above, the family section seems a good addition but very long and IMO could use some work. Nice job! Gandydancer (talk) 14:33, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree that the section could use a bit of work, but I'm not sure how. It appears that two other users added that section a couple of days ago, also as a university project separate from ours, if they have any ideas on how to organize that section better. Hokinsc (talk) 14:48, 22 April 2015 (UTC)hokinsc

I figured as much. In my work here I have found it to be extremely difficult to reorganize a long sprawling section. I really don't believe that instructors understand how hard it is to manage to improve articles. I've been here since 2006 and I still find it hard. Students are expected to manage avoiding copy vio, which in itself is extremely difficult, especially when one is new to a subject, and that's just for starters on the difficulties. Well, good luck... Gandydancer (talk) 15:47, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Issues

The lead needs to be restructured to conform to policies and guidelines. The second paragraph can possibly be placed in a Resilience section, with Background as a subsection, then some summary information brought up from the body to compliment the lead per: The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects..

The article touches on PTSD especially in the "Related factors" section but there is evidence that PTSD risks can be inherited. A number of 30% would be substantial and it seems this would certainly affect individual "resilience", especially from a family resilience point of view if inheritance was involved, and deserves some mention. A family is a group of individuals and this article is linked to from that one but I did not see a link here to that article. One would think that the Role of the family sub-section of the Children section would be a good place for a main article link. -- Otr500 (talk) 09:09, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I saw the casual link to family resilience (related concept) at the bottom of the lead. Otr500 (talk) 12:23, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Remove misrepresented bloat

I removed, "Individuals demonstrate resilience when they can face difficult experiences and rise above them with ease.". I didn't look at the history but the content is after the reference and includes what is misleading according to the reference. The reference states, "...the road to resilience is likely to involve considerable emotional distress. "Rising above "difficult experiences" with ease could not be a criteria for demonstrating resilience, and is conflicting. Otr500 (talk) 14:57, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Article issues

I picked an area, "Studies in specific populations", to spot check and am disturbed. I read over the rest of the article and find it lacking in several areas and generally not well written. I could get tired from placing valid maintenance tags and I will address the more serious. The main things are content (relevance versus bloat) and presentation. "IF" sections within this article branch into other areas such as Folk psychology then use a "Main article" template. We have a section titled Children then we have a section titled Studies in specific populations (that is more than likely off base by what is presented) that is predominantly about Children. Some reorganizing is obvious.

The sub-section, "Children of poor Vietnamese parents in the US and Germany", as part of this article should have content concerning such studies specifically related to Psychological resilience. Lacking of a direct correlation between content and title is an easy way to identify content as fringe theories. Just being referenced is not a lone criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. See: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. The content and supporting references in this sub-section are about as related to the title as boats are to desert living. The references, while supporting content, does NOT support the content in relevance to the title. What we have now is social studies content relevant to human society, humanities, and social sciences. This becomes synthesis which is original research. The same applies to content about Germany.

The Children of American farmers sub-section studies the children and children of children of farmers and how they utilize "resource mechanisms" to be academically successful and law-abiding. This is vague and does not examine or give any position of any correlation between the subjects, resources, and psychological resilience. The content uses "Most children" which obviously begs a question of which or a more exact number of how many. One has to read the title of the reference, Children of the Land: Adversity and Success in Rural America, to realize any correlation at all, and then only by surmising that "adversity" always fosters resilience at least "most of the time", because that would be the only way to make sense of the content.

• Issues with the article start at the beginning. The 4th paragraph under the "Resilience" section states, "Recently (when?) there has also been evidence (what evidence?) that resilience can indicate a capacity to resist a sharp decline in other harm (identify the "first" harm) even though a person temporarily appears to get worse.". The whole sentence does not actually make sense.

The 6th paragraph: "In all these instances, resilience is best understood as a process. It is often mistakenly assumed to be a trait of the individual, an idea more typically referred to as "resiliency".". This is a new paragraph so starting it with "In all these instances..." is not proper, and "It is often mistakenly assumed to be a trait of the individual, an idea more typically referred to as "resiliency", is confusing. We are not to confuse "resilience" as a trait, an idea referred to as "resiliency", that is apparently a trait. Right after that sentence "Most research now shows..." should not even be in the article.

7th paragraph: "The earlier focus on individual capacity which Anthony[20] described...". Pardon me but who the hell is Anthony?

Alright already! I decided to stop. This is a Doctor Feelgood article. The section about Criticism needs some summary in the lead for balance.

There is a big hole in that much of the content and references related to children, as if psychological resilience is predominantly something we learn in childhood, like manners or other human behaviors. Cognitive science, and especially Social psychology can't be all about the "good" so for balance "the other side" needs to be presented, otherwise there would be no more suicides as we would have found the "cure".

Late bloomers

If this article is going to be predominantly about "developmental psychology" then it needs to be presented as such, re-titled, or split.

Not being a trait, but something learned or acquired, resiliency can obviously break down. If any (or a number of) supporting factors fail, if something is so catastrophic as to take away "hope", or if there is an undiscovered psychological problem that can negatively impact resilience then something negative will likely result.

It seems good, resiliency as a continuum process rather than a trait. The below given answer of yours seem to support it.

A post published by Dale Archer M.D. on May 06, 2013, has a sub-caption, White, middle-age suicide spiked 40% in the last 10 years. While the term psychological resilience was not used there were words attributed to the term. It can not be said that all of the 40% were not "resilient" because they made it to middle age, and surely it was not because life was a box of chocolates for everyone up until something caused suicide.

Obviously there is no "baseline" measurement as all individuals will react differently to the same set of circumstances. These will likely vary according to past history, the severity of a circumstance, and any other mitigating factors, so surely there has to be "studies" to examine this aspect.

Presenting names, especially of people involved in studies: We have names like Nathan Caplan, Brad Evans and Julian Reid, Mustafa Sarkar and David Fletcher, Booth and Amato (2001), Hetherington (1999), Elder and Conger, Nathan Caplan, and all we know about these unknown people (never introduced) is that they must be part of the "groups" that have studied psychological resilience. If a person is involved in psychology then these names may mean something. To the general reader and layperson a name needs to be introduced as well as qualifications. This is just good writing. A reader is not to be expected to jump to the reference section when a name is introduced. This is an article not an essay or college paper.

References: There are references that are vague, not actually related to the subject, and that are lacking page numbers that are required.

Examples:

• Werner, E., & Smith, R. S. (1992). Overcoming the odds: high risk children from birth to adulthood. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. (There are several of these.)
• Wolin, S. J., & Wolin, S. (1993). Bound and Determined: Growing up resilient in a troubled family. New York: Villard.

External links: There are too many external links. More than three is really too many but 16 stretches the word excessive. Information in an external link that can be used in the article or to support the article needs to be used in the body of the article and the rest cut (See: WP:LINKFARM) to an acceptable minimum.

• • Summary: The article needs a rewrite and content that is not related taken out (moved etc...), improvements made to the layout and content to conform to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and the references addressed. Please see Wikipedia:Coherence and cohesion. Otr500 (talk) 13:20, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. I plan to do some major work on this article. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 13:54, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I quickly glanced over the newer edit history as well as a quick look at the layout. It is easy to see improvements especially in the external links section. I will go over the sections as soon as I can. I am appreciative of cooperation to make improvements that were surely needed. Otr500 (talk) 01:29, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

• • Thanks to the editors "stepping up to the plate". All one has to do is look at the revision of May 2015 to see the improvements. I have only made a "glanced-over" at this point but there are amazing improvements in what I have seen. One of my concerns was bloat. In May the article was all over the place (literally) with 116,652 bytes and is currently at 72,765 bytes. That's a lot of trimming. When I get in the right frame of mind I will re-read the improved version. Otr500 (talk) 12:32, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Cut down the bloat, though keep if anything seems helpful for a generic reader. Add additional content.

The idea of a 'biological model'

I shall admit that my latest justification for deleting this section was not my main issue with it. Instead, it's more a matter of style, as I mentioned on one of your IP talk pages (see the first note that I wrote). Second-person pronouns must not be used in articles without a good reason, that's the first point, but the main issue is the tone of it. It reads fluffy, with little substance to it at all. If one wishes to talk about biological models of resilience, a good article will get into the real detail very quickly, but this addition reads as an unnecessary introduction. Thanks, ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 17:56, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Every action, feeling, and thought has a physiological component. The somatic nervous system controls a person's physical actions and is the source of their self-confidence. The autonomic nervous system governs a person's feelings and is the source of your self-esteem and it is defined as healthy emotional opinion about oneself. The central nervous system includes the brain, and is the source of a person's verbal, conceptual thinking, this is the source of self-concept and it is defined as a person's collection of thoughts about who and what they are. These three elements self-confidence, self-esteem, and self-concept are what constitutes to a person's identity, it helps people to access control over life events & resiliency.

I dont find any problems, but if it could be re-written how would it go. Then again as talk cited the material appears to be a bit incomplete but it serves its function in describing what all physiological factors constitute resilience and the citation looks genuine.

"There is some limited research that, like trauma, resilience is epigenetic - that is, it may be inherited—but the science behind this finding is preliminary." This sentence also bugs me since it looks like half-baked.

117.213.23.142 (talk) 09:01, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that last sentence out, I have overlooked it in the past, and I'll take a look at it. Moving back to the main concern, I have given you some guidance as to what needs to be removed, but actually, if I sort it out and you tell me how you think of it.

By the way, would you consider creating an account? Although we can attribute your edits to the various IPs that you use, the addresses seem to change daily, making it hard for me to speak to you, for example, on that IP talk page because a day later you have another address. Thanks, ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 06:07, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Okay, so I've done it, but the real problem is the whole section: it has no flow to it. The paragraphs jump from one subject to another without much connection. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 06:27, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I have taken 2 links to read, I guess there would be useful content for "biological model" and psychological resilience in general. http://www.ir.canterbury.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10092/1443/thesis_fulltext.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y http://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion-files/9872.pdf Haven't gone through it yet.

Your edit looks good. I too share the same concern about the paragraphs. Would you be open to this edit, it simplifies those sections. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Psychological_resilience&oldid=713240500

Will comeback later. Thank you for cooperative edits and guidance.117.213.22.89 (talk) 18:35, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

BRD Request

Hope this revision is adequate. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Psychological_resilience&diff=prev&oldid=716557960

• Building (V), meaning "bolster" or "strengthen"/"develop" or "grow"
• Development, meaning "Act of improving by expanding, enlarging or refining"/"growth"

Looking through other terms in psychology development is a better choice and the both words share similar meaning. Changing as in the revisions to development seems to be the better tone. The rest of the changes are reversions of accidental deletion of operational definitions-Recheck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.215.196.85 (talk • contribs) 22 April 2016 11:28 (UTC)

Again, please read WP:BRD. Obtain wp:consensus before restoring your change. Otherwise, it is wp:disruptive editing and wp:edit warring. The American Psychological Association uses "build". "10 ways to build resilience". They don't use develop. Please do not change a quote. I.e. what is enclosed in quotes.

Please remember to sign your talk with four tildes: "~~~~"

I disagree with your change from build to 'develop. Build is used correctly here. The article should be written for laymen, not for psychologists. Get consensus before restoring your edit. Jim1138 (talk) 17:46, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Regarding your defining of Hardiness (psychological) and Self-efficacy. Their removal was not "accidental". Please read wp:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Please don't add definitions. Jim1138 (talk) 18:05, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Ah, thank you for clearing this. But operational definitions seemed useful, that is a systematic approach used in research which describes what they are to the specific research statement. The same would be normally supported by existing sources. I found that bit helpful while going through the article. The rest I leave to your judgement.117.213.18.10 (talk) 10:37, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Content expansion

This article requires content expansion.79.141.161.8 (talk) 04:02, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Lean on social factors

I know this is kind of a personal nit-pick, but I'm incredibly psychologically-resilient, and also don't respond well to social support at all. I've been able to cope with and self-correct depression; and have no trouble with psychiatric treatment because things like severe anxiety, drug withdrawal, and severe depression as side-effects don't bother me--inasmuch as I find these feelings annoying, and have observed the workings of my mind reasoning out that suicide would be the most-appropriate response, and found this pleasingly enlightening as I now understand why people kill themselves when extremely depressed. Obviously I didn't kill myself; it was only a drug side-effect and, while unpleasant, could be eliminated in any case by waiting long enough or finding appropriate treatment. It's not that nothing phases me; negative experiences have profound impact, and later similar experiences are easier to handle because they are familiar and thus do not require nearly as much effort to bring under control. External experiences—including psychiatric issues—can be corrected so as to remove the source of the problem.

In my case, my key social need is to get away from people. I don't want or need support; and support doesn't actually exist, because other people's concern severely interferes with my ability to cope. I don't really have friends and have no concept of whatever the emotional basis of family is, as much as I've had others try to explain it.

This is common in writings about depression, anxiety, ADHD, substance abuse, and other psychiatric problems. It's not just Wikipedia; every credible text on ADHD or depression will necessarily emphasize the need for social support from family and close friends, going as far as to dictate in no uncertain terms that a lack of sufficient support is a perfect guarantee of failure. I can't believe I'm a subset of one in that nobody else is actively-harmed by such emotional support; I understand I have safety behaviors and that I'm lacking the coping mechanisms to deal with that additional negative stimulus, although one could argue that such stimulus comes almost exclusively when ability to cope is already stretched to the limit in general.

As with all people, I find things more-interesting when they seem more personally-relevant; and I would be interested in seeing any modern research on people who need to avoid social support as such. As always, WP:NOR; but hasn't anyone in the field of psychiatry and clinical psychology noticed this in some subset of individuals? Is there just a one-sentence notation for specific populations that needs to point to this particular psychiatric condition? --John Moser (talk) 00:30, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Related Factors

I don't see where in this reference there is mention of factors which develop and sustain a person's resilience. Can someone help me out or provide an alternate reference? Thanks. --Dr.enh (talk) 05:25, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

References

Annotated Bibliography - Isabella De Marchena

Article Topic: Psychological Resilience

Changes Proposed: I proposed two changes to the article. First, I needed a stronger introduction that provided background information and a better road map for the article. Second, it needed a stronger conclusion.

Annotated Bibliography

Kong, L., Liu, N., Liu, S., & Yu, N. (2018). Correlations among psychological resilience, self-efficacy, and negative emotion in acute myocardial infarction patients after percutaneous coronary intervention. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 9, 1. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2018.00001

This peer reviewed journal article studied the relationship between resilience and outcomes of post-heart attack interventions. The study involved 88 heart attack patients. It was hypothesized that a positive correlation existed between psychological resilience and intervention outcomes. The findings supported this hypothesis. The implication is that resilience helps people to recover more effectively from medical crises, such as heart attacks. This information will be used in the revised introduction to support the position that resilience is important and impacts people’s recovery from crises.

Sarkar, M. (2017). Psychological resilience: Definitional advancement and research developments in elite sport. International Journal of Stress Prevention and Wellbeing, 1(3), 1-4. Retrieved from http://www.stressprevention.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/IJSPW-1-3.pdf

This article explored the definition of psychological resilience. Sarkar (2017) provided an advanced definition of psychological “the role of mental processes and behavior in promoting personal assets and protecting an individual from the potential negative effect of stressors” (p. 1). This definition will be added to the introduction so that readers will have a better understanding of the concept and what the article will be discussing.

Sharpley, C. F., Bitsika, V., Jesulola, E., Fitzpatrick, K., & Agnew, L. L. (2016). The association between aspects of psychological resilience and subtypes of depression: implications for focussed clinical treatment models. International Journal of Psychiatry in Clinical Practice, 20(3), 151-156. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/13651501.2016.1199810

This peer reviewed article presented a study that evaluated the relationship between depression and psychological resilience. The authors hypothesized that psychological resilience would minimize depression severity and longevity in individuals. The study surveyed 330 people in Australia with depression. The people were asked to complete Conners-Davidson Resilience Scale (CDRISC) and the Zung Self-rating Depression Scale (SDS). The scores were then correlated. The findings revealed that psychological resilience does have some mitigating effects on depression. This information will be used to highlight one of the advantages of developing psychological resilience in the introduction of the article.

Walton, A.G. (2015). Recovering resilience: 7 methods for becoming mentally stronger. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/alicegwalton/2015/03/02/growing-resilience-7-strategies-to-become-mentally-stronger/#4f64e0287193

This article demonstrates the importance of psychological resilience in the business sector and provides seven strategies for developing it. The seven methods were: (1) practice problem solving and being flexible, (2) learn to see both positive and negative things, (3) learn, (4) build physical health, (5) take a break when you are tired, (6) build a social network and remain socially active, and (7) practice positive self-talk. This information will be used in the revision of the introduction of my article to provide an overview of topics that will be discussed in the article, as well as to reinforce the perspective that psychological resilience is important to all sectors of life, including one’s professional life.

Waters, B. (2013). 10 traits of emotionally resilient people: Part 1 of 2 in this blog series, “cultivating resilience for total well-being." Psychology Today. Retrieved from https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/design-your-path/201305/10-traits-emotionally-resilient-people

This blog from Psychology Today provides a discussion of ten traits that people with emotional resilience have. The ten traits are: (1) know your boundaries, (2) keep good company, (3) self-awareness, (4) acceptance, (5) ability to remove one’s self from the chaos of modern life, (6) acknowledge that you don’t know everything, (7) practice self-care, (8) have and use a support team, (9) flexibility, and (10) able to focus on nothingness. When revising the introduction, this information will be used for two purposes. First, to show that psychological resilience includes emotional resilience, and second, to provide a list of traits that people need to develop to have psychological resilience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isabella De Marchena (talk • contribs) 18:08, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

@Isabella De Marchena: I've partially reverted your recent edit. Above you wrote: I proposed two changes to the article. First, I needed a stronger introduction that provided background information and a better road map for the article. Second, it needed a stronger conclusion. There appear to be two major misunderstandings of encyclopedic style in your proposed changes: First, an article's lead should not be a "road map" or outline of the structure of the article; rather, it should be a summary of its most important contents (as MOS:LEAD says), which is different. Second, encyclopedia articles do not have a "conclusion". The second paragraph that you added to the lead (and I removed) is a perfect example of the first misunderstanding, so I will quote it in full:

To understand psychological resilience, several topics need to be covered. First, it is helpful to review the background and history of psychological resilience to gain a theoretical understanding of the concept. Second, it is useful to review how psychological resilience is developed. Third, to understand why and how psychological resilience is beneficial, it is important to read how this concept benefits specific groups of people, such as children, workers, people in the military, and athletes. Finally, reviewing the criticisms of psychological resilience helps to create a point of balance about the concept, its utilization, and what research is still needed to justify its use. In the following discussion, each of these topics is reviewed in detail.

— Isabella De Marchena, Special:Diff/847201000

This paragraph is written as if it is an introduction to a presentation that you are giving to your class in school; it gives a "road map" of the structure of your presentation. In an oral presentation it can (sometimes) be helpful to "tell 'em what you're gonna tell 'em" in that way, but, as mentioned above, that kind of structural outline is not how the lead of an encyclopedia article should be written. For examples of lead sections that properly summarize the article's most important contents, see: Wikipedia:Good articles/Social sciences and society § Culture, sociology, and psychology.

I added the phrase "In cognitive behavioral therapy" to the sentence Building resilience is a matter of mindfully changing basic behaviors and thought patterns, which you added in this edit, because you sourced that paragraph to the article "Strengths-Based Cognitive-Behavioural Therapy: A Four-Step Model to Build Resilience", so it is important to properly indicate the context of these instructions, which is cognitive behavioral therapy. You should also try to include an inline citation for every claim that you add to the encyclopedia; every claim in the paragraph about cognitive behavioral therapy should have an inline citation. Biogeographist (talk) 12:25, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Spiritual

What is meant by spiritual in this paragraph.

Resilience is the integrated adaptation of physical, mental and spiritual aspects in a set of "good or bad" circumstances, a coherent sense of self that is able to maintain normative developmental tasks that occur at various stages of life.

Modern psychology looks for natural explanations as opposed to supernatural ones. The mind being a product of the brain, etc. While some scientists, for example Carl Sagan used the word spiritual he used it in an idiosyncratic way, to mean any experience that takes your breath away and/or produces a sense of awe.

But the fact the the word "spiritual" is used by different people to mean very different things, means that I have absolutely no idea what "spiritual" means as used above. Xanomead (talk) 11:22, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Unclear source(s) paragraph "Resilience in individualist and collectivist communities"

I spent all afternoon looking for the source(s) for the statements and more in general the distinction individualistic-collectivistic cultures. The sources mentioned (Ma et al, 2004) cannot be found on the web, however there is a source "Family resilience und er economic hardship", Ma et al, 2003, according to Google Scholar cited twice as "Family resilience under economic recession", which, as far as I can see, only can be downloaded in Chinese from The Hong Kong Institute of Asian-Pacific Studies. When I translate it provisionally (Google Translate after OCR in ABBYY), there is nothing to be found about the statements (like “I am analytical and curious”, “belong, duty, give, harmony, obey, share, together”) or the subject in general. Googling for those quotes renders not even more than a few hits, none in this context of individualistic-collectivistic culture. So where do the sentences come from? It's a sensible, relevant and interesting paragraph, but it needs a traceable source, in my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niccienic (talk • contribs) 16:49, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Psychology Capstone

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 May 2022 and 6 August 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Haleymck (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Smalls2023.

— Assignment last updated by Smalls2023 (talk) 15:39, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Gondwana

Kh 176.202.18.219 (talk) 18:29, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Psychology Capstone

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 May 2023 and 11 August 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Djward21 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: CDLR50, Skycbradford, Deezytings, Wmosely001, Awatson723.

— Assignment last updated by Rahneli (talk) 19:35, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Neuroscience

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2023 and 18 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): MoniBerry1 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Janaebrianne.

— Assignment last updated by Janaebrianne (talk) 20:54, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Adjusting the "thickness"

For want a better word this artical is quite "thick" and goes above and beyond the role of most articals in being a gateway to the broader subject.

I think at very least there should be a "light" "easyily digestable" opening written in a wording that reflects that most of wikipedia's readers will not have English as their first language but use it as thier "Lingua franca" Back ache (talk) 09:28, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

@Back ache Great point! Usually with complex topics like this the best way to do this is to create a really good lead. Making sure that the lead is at least understandable can make an article less technical. You may want to check out Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable and Wikipedia:How to create and manage a good lead section. IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:30, 8 November 2024 (UTC)