Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T20:28:59.707Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Opponent Process Theory Can Help Explain Some Effects of Resilience

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2016

Nathan A. Bowling  and
Terry A. Beehr
Nathan A. Bowling*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Wright State University
Terry A. Beehr
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Central Michigan University
*
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Nathan A. Bowling, Department of Psychology, Wright State University, 303C Fawcett Hall, 3640 Colonel Glenn Highway, Dayton, OH 45435-0001. E-mail: nathan.bowling@wright.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

We read the focal article by Britt, Shen, Sinclair, Grossman, and Klieger (2016) with special interest. About 10 years ago, we were asked to write a chapter on hardiness (Beehr & Bowling, 2005), and in doing so we had many observations about hardiness that were similar to Britt et al.’s observations about resilience. Our chapter was most closely aligned with the “capacity” concept of resilience, but we think that both the “capacity” approach and the “demonstration” approach to resilience have merit.

Type
Commentaries
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 9 , Issue 2 , June 2016 , pp. 486 - 490
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Beehr, T. A., & Bowling, N. A. (2005). Hardy personality, stress, and health. In Cooper, C. L. (Ed.), Handbook of stress medicine and health (2nd ed., pp. 193–211). London, UK: CRC Press.Google Scholar
Bonanno, G. A. (2004). Loss, trauma, and human resilience: Have we underestimated the human capacity to thrive after extremely aversive events? American Psychologist, 59, 20–28.Google Scholar
Bowling, N. A., Beehr, T. A., Wagner, S. H., & Libkuman, T. M. (2005). Adaptation-level theory, opponent process theory, and dispositions: An integrated approach to the stability of job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1044–1053.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Britt, T. W., Shen, W., Sinclair, R. R., Grossman, M. R., & Klieger, D. M. (2016). How much do we really know about employee resilience? Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 9 (2), 378–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamza, C. A., & Willoughby, T. (2015). Nonsuicidal self-injury and affect regulation: Recent findings from experimental and ecological momentary assessment studies and future directions. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 7, 561–174.Google Scholar
Landy, F. J. (1978). An opponent process theory of job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 533–547.Google Scholar
Leknes, S., Brookes, J. C. W., Wiech, K., & Tracy, I. (2008). Pain relief as an opponent process: A psychophysical investigation. European Journal of Neuroscience, 28, 794–801.Google Scholar
Markowitz, S. M., & Arendt, S. M. (2010). The exercise and affect relationship: Evidence for the dual-mode model and modified opponent-process theory. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 32, 711–730.Google Scholar
Meichenbaum, D. (2007). Stress inoculation training: A treatment approach. In Lehrer, P. M., Woolfolk, R. L., & Sime, W. E. (Eds.), Principles and practice of stress management (3rd ed., pp. 497–516). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Solomon, R. L. (1980). The opponent-process theory of acquired motivation: The costs of pleasure and the benefits of pain. American Psychologist, 35, 691–712.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Solomon, R. L., & Corbit, J. D. (1974). An opponent-process theory of motivation: I. Temporal dynamics of affect. Psychological Review, 81, 119–145.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed