English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Open

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Insights

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Resilience research is undergoing a shift away from trait approaches, acknowledging the inherent process and dynamism of stress interactions. Hill et al. (2018) suggest that to understand the iterative nature of the multifactorial resilience process, a dynamical systems approach needs to be used. We suggest that explaining resilience through Whetten’s (1989) what, how, where and when of theory building will elucidate our understanding of both the disruptive and reintegrative pathways of resilience. Adopting this approach to resilience, we clarify (a) self-regulatory and episodic pathways to positive adaptation in the face of a broader range of stressors, and (b) we use conservation of resources theory to explain the fluctuation and developable capacity of resilience. Researchers and practitioners are encouraged to develop resilience interventions for specific predictable adversities in sport. Building strategies around the dual pathway model will promote preventive and reintegrative resilience approaches, optimizing performance episodes and well-being in ongoing sporting endeavors.

The what, how, where and when of resilience as a dynamic, episodic, self-regulating system: A response to Hill et al. (2018).