Profiles of adversity and resilience resources: A latent class analysis of two samples

Abstract

Adversities refer to events that are characterized by perceived or actual threat to human functioning. Often considered deleterious for health and well‐being, recent work supports an alternative picture of the effects of adversity on human functioning, such that a moderate amount of adversity – when compared with none or high levels – can be beneficial. We extend this body of work in the current study by considering the breadth or type of adversities experienced simultaneously (referred to as polyadversity), with a focus on individual profiles of lifetime adversities. Latent class analysis was employed to explore different configurations of lifetime adversity experiences in two independent samples and examine how these latent classes differed with regard to resilience resources (i.e., optimism, hope, self‐efficacy, and bounce‐back ability). University students (N = 348) and members from the broader community (N = 1,506) completed measures of lifetime adversity exposure and resilience resources. Three polyadversity classes were revealed in each sample, with both producing a high and a low polyadversity class. The third class differed between samples; in the student sample, this class represented experiences of vicarious adversity, whereas in the community sample, it represented moderate levels of exposure to adversity. Support for the adaptive nature of a moderate amount of adversity exposure was found in the community sample but not in the student sample. This study produces initial evidence of how lifetime adversity experiences group together and how class membership is related to resilience resources.

Resilience profiles across context: A latent profile analysis in a German, Greek, and Swiss sample of adolescents

“…However, when we checked the mean values for symptoms, the Greek sample already showed significantly lower anxiety and HSCL total levels compared with the German and Swiss sample. Furthermore, the resilient profiles were in accordance with the theoretical and empirical backgrounds of resilience, which posit that a certain amount of adversity is necessary to show resilience [ 30 , 69 , 77 , 78 ]. Due to the cross-sectional nature of the data, it is not clear whether the number of mental health symptoms, which is just as high as in the nonresilient subgroup, is adequate for successful development over time.…”

“…There is an increasing number of empirical studies examining profiles (aspects) of resilience using latent class and profile analyses (LCA & LPA). A recent study from the United Kingdom and Western Australia, for instance, focused mainly on adversity (i.e., different configurations of lifetime adversities) and resilience resources (i.e., bounce-back, hope, self-efficacy, and optimism) [ 69 ]. The team used the adapted version of the cumulative lifetime adversity measure [ 70 , 71 ], the Bounce-back ability [ 72 ], the Adult Hope [ 73 ], the General Self-Efficacy [ 74 ] / a self-efficacy scale by Bell and Kozlowski [ 75 ], and the Life Orientation Test-Revised Scale [ 76 ].…”

“…These findings were statistically significant when comparing the Moderate class with the High Polyadversity class, but only partially significant (for bounce-back resilience and optimism) in comparing the Moderate with the Low Polyadversity classes. According to Lines et al [ 69 ] and previous studies [ 77 , 78 ], a moderate amount of exposure to adversity is ideal for opportunities to develop protective factors, and therefore to support resilience.…”

“…Independent LPAs for each grade [ 9 – 12 ] based on four positive mental health domains and internalizing and externalizing problems revealed four distinct subgroups—Complete Mental Health, Moderately Mentally Healthy, Symptomatic but Content, and Troubled. Like the general population sample in the study mentioned above [ 69 ], most students were in the Complete (30.5% Grade 9, 40.8% Grade 10, 20.5% Grade 11) or Moderately Mentally Healthy (43.4%, 32.0%, 44.3%) classes. The Troubled class (5.7%, 6.0%, 3.8%) represented the smallest number of individuals across all grades, while the Symptomatic but Content class (20.3%, 21.2%, 31.3%) was between these classes.…”

The Impact of Employees’ Psychological Capital on Innovative Work Behavior: The Chain Mediating Effect of Knowledge Donating and Knowledge Collecting

“…They are more likely to maintain an optimistic, confident, and hopeful state, do not easily give up in the face of difficulties and setbacks, and can quickly recover from failure and find solutions to problems. These traits will effectively eliminate the negative feelings that employees may experience regarding knowledge sharing ( Philipp et al, 2019 ; Lines et al, 2020 ), maintain, and enhance their willingness to collect and donate knowledge, and ultimately play an indirect and significant role in promoting IWB. However, due to different connotations and properties, knowledge collecting and knowledge donating may have correlation and different mediating effects, which is rarely concerned by research at present.…”