Positive growth from adversity and beyond: Insights gained from cross-examination of clinical and nonclinical samples.

Abstract

Growth following adversity is a well-known phenomenon. Yet studies often focus on specific populations and/or specific types of adversities, thus limiting opportunities to identify underlying common processes of growth. The present study sought to identify shared positive change processes in different samples of individuals each of whom faced life adversities (clinical/nonclinical) and experienced growth as a result. We conducted a secondary analysis comparing in-depth interviews from 2 independent study samples including 27 Israeli adults that experienced spiritual growth and 31 American mental health peer-providers in recovery. Using the grounded theory approach (Strauss & Corbin, 1998), the findings point to existing shared transformative positive change pertaining to one's way of being and adhering to a generative orientation (Erikson, 1963) in the world. These changes were conceptualized under 3 growth dimensions: (a) strengthened sense of self, manifested in self-integration, self-acceptance, and enhanced ability to face further adversity; (b) development of compassion, acceptance of others, and a deep sense of connection to others; and (c) a prosocial commitment characterized by generativity and active contribution. These findings point to shared growth processes among individuals with a different backgrounds and different kinds of adversities. This change goes beyond mere coping, to an inner transformation in one's self, connection to others, and development of a proactive-prosocial approach in the world. The implications for health care practitioners and the importance of acknowledging the potential for growth following adversity and supporting such growth are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record

Generativity among persons providing or receiving peer or mutual support: A scoping review.

“…Themes describing facilitators of generativity included individual-level and organizational-level factors. With respect to individual-level facilitators, the motivation to engage in generative actions was described as important in studies evaluating providers of peer support (Einat, 2017; Moran et al, 2012b; Russo-Netzer & Moran, 2018); recipients of peer support (Austin et al, 2014; Coatsworth-Puspoky et al, 2006); and members of mutual support groups (Bellamy et al, 2012; Bromley et al, 2013; Finn et al, 2009; Whitley et al, 2008). One study exploring how recipients perceived peer relationships also described how helping others in need depended on participants’ “level of wellness” (Coatsworth-Puspoky et al, 2006).…”

“…Eight studies included providers of peer support (Austin et al, 2014; Boardman et al, 2015; Einat, 2017; Johnson et al, 2014; Moran et al, 2012a, 2012b; Russo-Netzer & Moran, 2018; Salzer et al, 2013); five included recipients of peer support (Coatsworth-Puspoky et al, 2006; Meehan et al, 2002; Russinova et al, 2014; Salzer et al, 2016; Vayshenker et al, 2016); and five included members of mutual support groups (Bellamy et al, 2012; Bromley et al, 2013; Finn et al, 2009; Galanter, 1988; Whitley et al, 2008). Only four studies explicitly investigated or described the concept of generativity (Bromley et al, 2013; Moran et al, 2012a, 2012b; Russo-Netzer & Moran, 2018). The remaining studies examined outcomes and processes that fit within the definition of generativity without using this conceptual term.…”

“…Of the included studies that explicitly used the term generativity, three employed qualitative methods (Bromley et al, 2013; Moran et al, 2012b; Russo-Netzer & Moran, 2018), while the fourth employed quantitative methods using a small sample size (Moran et al, 2012a). There is therefore a need for greater qualitative and quantitative research examining the concept of generativity, as well as mixed-methods approaches that can rely on the strengths of both (Creswell & Clark, 2007).…”

“…Most studies were conducted within the United States (n = 12). Four studies explicitly evaluated or described the concept of generativity (Bromley et al, 2013;Moran et al, 2012aMoran et al, , 2012bRusso-Netzer & Moran, 2018).…”

The Relationship between Emotional Intelligence and Non-cognitive Factors in Dental Students

“…29 Experiencing adversities can profoundly affect a student's sense of self, motivation, and relationship management. [30][31] 34 The survey question in the study also indicated that counseling, nutrition workshops, and fitness classes were the top three resources that students expressed interest in for managing stress and emotional well-being. Providing a space for reflection during the busy school schedule may help students strengthen emotional competencies through more instant and relevant reflection of professional growth that the gap year does not provide.…”