Pain Ratings Measure

Seery, Mark D.; Leo, Raphael J.; Lupien, Shannon P.; Kondrak, Cheryl L.; Almonte, Jessica L.

doi:10.1037/t50458-000

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…To further investigate the potential mechanisms underlying these observed relationships, Seery, Leo, Lupien, Kondrak, and Almonte (2011) conducted a laboratory study. After completing the lifetime adversity measure, healthy undergraduates were exposed to a standardized painful experience: immersing their hand in ice-cold water.…”

Section: Cumulative Lifetime Adversity: Resilience Versus Vulnerabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Resilience

Seery

2011

Curr Dir Psychol Sci

Self Cite

204

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When adverse life events occur, people often suffer negative consequences for their mental health and well-being. More adversity has been associated with worse outcomes, implying that the absence of life adversity should be optimal. However, some theory and empirical evidence suggest that the experience of facing difficulties can also promote benefits in the form of greater propensity for resilience when dealing with subsequent stressful situations. I review research that demonstrates U-shaped relationships between lifetime adversity exposure and mental health and well-being, functional impairment and health care utilization in chronic back pain, and responses to experimentally induced pain. Specifically, a history of some lifetime adversity predicts better outcomes than not only a history of high adversity but also a history of no adversity. This has important implications for understanding resilience, suggesting that adversity can have benefits.

show abstract

Section: Cumulative Lifetime Adversity: Resilience Versus Vulnerabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Resilience

Seery

2011

Curr Dir Psychol Sci

Self Cite

204

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Both robust and rebound pathways both reflect homeostatic processes of adaptation, maintaining or returning to baseline levels of functioning. However, resilience may also reflect allostatic processes of adaptation, leading to higher levels of functioning over time (Richardson, 2002;Galli and Vealey, 2008;Rutter, 2012;Seery et al, 2013). Such steeling pathways suggest that, in certain cases, exposure to stressors may ultimately lead to the acquisition and development of new resources which increase one's resilience to future stressors (Rutter, 2012).…”

Section: Studying Resilience As a Dynamic Processmentioning

confidence: 99%

Are we really studying resilience in sport? A critical review of adopted methodologies

Kegelaers

2023

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Psychological resilience has gained considerable attention in sport. Nevertheless, the construct often remains poorly understood and multiple conceptual and methodological issues pervade the literature. The purpose of the present article is to provide a critical review of the commonly adopted methodologies to study resilience in sport. This review is divided into four sections. The first section will briefly discuss opposing conceptualizations of resilience as a static trait or a dynamic process. The second section will then discuss key methodological implications relating to the conceptualization of resilience as a dynamic process. In the third section, common methodologies to study resilience in sport are presented and critically reviewed. These methodologies are broadly divided into: (i) self-report resilience measures, (ii) qualitative research, and (iii) direct assessment of functioning in relation to observed adversity. In the final section, some avenues for future research are offered.

show abstract

Pain Ratings Measure

Cited by 2 publications

References 0 publications

Resilience

Resilience

Are we really studying resilience in sport? A critical review of adopted methodologies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About