See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/265381148

Weaknesses of casual models with multiple roles elements

Conference Paper · January 2014

DOI: 10.13140/2.1.3153.8566

CITATIONS READS

0 54

1 author:

Sebastian Novotny
St. Ann's University Hospital Brno
36 PUBLICATIONS   10 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Sebastian Novotny on 06 September 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 3rd International e-Conference on Optimization, Education and Data Mining in Science,
Engineering and Risk Management 2013/2014 (OEDM SERM 2013/2014)

Weakness of Causal Models with Multiple Roles Elements

Jan Sebastian Novotný
University of Ostrava, Czech Republic
sebastian.novotny@osu.cz

Abstract
Modeling has become integral part of scientific work, as it provides means for lucid and systematic
projection of complex reality. However even contemporary sophisticated models cannot handle some
situation (not only rare and specific, but also common). The article illustrates one of these problems
that is the issue of multiple roles elements i.e. elements that affects more variables in model. This is
demonstrated on the interactions of self–esteem and resilience. One possible solution of this issue is
based on multidimensional systemic modeling technique that offers means to project separated,
detailed as well as developmental processes and interactions of various model elements. However,
further analysis and discussion of this issue is needed.
Keywords: modeling, model, element, multiple roles

I. INTRODUCTION

Theoretical and research models (and their models) are successfully used to explanation, or
illustration of assumptions, ideas, variables, elements and their interrelationships within a
variety of theories, theoretical concepts, etc. Their“simplicity” (given by need to be clear) and
visual form greatly facilitates the communication of otherwise complex relationships and
interactions.
If we are aware of the models’ limitations (whether specific or general), they represent an
useful tool. We discussed the issue of applicability and limitations of the models in several
previous works (cf. Novotný, 2011, 2012, 2013), in which we demonstrate the usefulness of
the models and also described their weaknesses and propose some possible solutions.
In this paper, we would like to analyze another problematic issue in using current models,
which is based primarily on the causal characteristics of most models. It is the problem of
multiple roles of some elements. This problem is illustrated specifically on the relationship
between resilience and self-esteem.

II. GENERAL MODEL OF RESILIENCE

The resilience is a constantly evolving concept. A general model of resilience is therefore

variable and depends on the theoretical approach on which it is based. This is reflected by the
ampleness of resilience definitions. Resilience can be described as an individual’s ability to
maintain, restore or improve its mental health after serious life events (Ryff, Singer, Dienberg
Love, & Essex, 1998), successful adaptation after exposure to stressful life events (Werner,
1993), the capacity of individuals to transform and change (Lifton, 1993), an individual’s
ability to develop in terms of normal or healthy development despite the presence of serious
negative and risky circumstances (Grotberg, 1997), an individual’s capacity to navigate to
health resources and a condition of the individual’s family, community, and culture to provide
these resources in culturally meaningful ways. (Ungar et al., 2008), an adaptation to specific
type of stress, danger and adversity (Masten, Best, &Garmezy, 1999), or the self-governing
power within each of us that leads the individual to the pursuit of self-actualization, altruism,
wisdom and harmony with a spiritual source of strength (Richardson, 2002).
Besides the “fragmentation” of the definitions the resilience differ also in elements, factors
and mechanisms that the authors tie to resilience (this fact is illustrated by enormous number

© Publishing House Curriculum. ISBN 978-80-87894-01-9 443

 3rd International e-Conference on Optimization, Education and Data Mining in Science,
Engineering and Risk Management 2013/2014 (OEDM SERM 2013/2014)

of resilience assessment tools - just our own database contains over 70 questionnaires and
methods). It is obvious that universal model of resilience is essentially impossible to describe.
The more specific model we want to create the more difficult it is. Nevertheless we’ll try to
define such general model of resilience, so we could demonstrate the problem of multiple
roles elements.
In the modeling of resilience model, we can come out from two characteristics/issues of the
resilience theory. The first is the question how to understand resilience. Presently exist three
different approaches: resilience as the sum/series of protective factors
(multifactorial/multidimensional approach). Resilience is here made up of a complex of
personality and social (environmental) factors that together, in different ways and in
different combinations (depending on the individual’s personality, characteristics of the
situation, etc.) impact the overall ability to cope with negative life circumstances (Connor &
Davidson, 2003; Friborg, Hjemdal, Rosenvinge, &Marinussen, 2003; Ryan &Cantabiano,
2009; Prince–Embury, 2007; Madsen & Abel, 2010; Constantine, Benard& Diaz, 1999;
Baruth& Carroll, 2002; Polk, 1997; Ungar et al., 2008; Ungar& Liebenberg, 2011).
The second approach sees resilience as a result (outcome). This concept has its basics in the
relationship between resilience and positive outcomes, as reported in several studies (Linsley,
2003, 2004). This approach is mainly based on monitoring of the presence/absence of
adverse/pathological manifestations, consequences and outcomesin relation to the earlier
exposure to stressful, risky or otherwise unfavorable situations (Bonanno, 2004, 2005, 2011;
Luthans, 2002; Luthans, Luthans, &Luthans, 2004; Luthans, Vogelgesang, & Lester, 2006;
Luthar, 1999; Masten, 2001; Spreitzer, Sutcliffe, Dutton, Sonenshein, & Grant, 2005).
A third approachunderstands resilience as a process that can be conceptualized in two ways.
The first waysees it as specific process (unique in every situation) that uses all available
resources and generates the outcome of a situation in which an individual copes with the
impact of negative circumstances (Winfield, 1994; Benard, 1995; Anteghini, Fonseca, Ireland,
& Blum, 2001; Botvin, Malgady, Griffin, Scheier, & Epstein, 1998; Griffin, Scheier, Botvin,
Diaz, & Miller, 1999; Deković, 1999; Lloyd–Richardson, Papandonatos, Kazura, Stanton,
&Niaura, 2002; Gucciardi, Jackson, Coulter, &Mallett, 2011). The second view emphasizes
situational/individual conditionality of resilience and its variability in time/ developmentof the
individual (Luthans, et al., 2006; Spreitzer et al., 2005). Synthetically is thus resilience the
process in the process.
The second issue of resilience theory is the question about the basis of resilience, whether on
the individual’s personality (more generally, this issue may be included under the so-called
“state vs. trait question”),on its surroundings (relationships, etc.), or both. This generates the
question “what is the driving force of resilience?”Researchers view is again not uniform.
Some see the resilience basis in the trait (traits) of personality (O’Dougherty Wright,
&Masten, 2005; Cohen & Edwards, 1989; Letzring, Block, & Funder, 2004; Bonanno, 2004;
Maddi&Khoshaba, 2005; Maddi et al., 2006; Drake & Myers, 2006; Elliot, 2008), others
emphasize the central role of relationships and social environment of the individual (Jenkins,
1993; Harter, 1993; Jordan, 2005; L’Abate, 2005, 2008; L’Abate, Cusinato, Maino, Colesso,
&Scilletta, 2010; Spencer, 2000; De Genova& Rice, 2005; Collins, 2000; Maddi&Khoshaba,
2005; Reis, Clark, & Holmes, 2004; Waugh & Fredrickson, 2006), others focus on the
concepts of self and its role (Murray, Griffin, Rose, &Bellavia, 1998; Stinson et al., 2008;
Park & Crocker, 2005; Aron, Aron, Tudor, & Nelson, 1991; Hinde, Finkenauer, &Auhagen,
2001; Baumeister, 1993; Anthony, Wood, & Holmes, 2007; Leary &Baumeister, 2000;
Murray, Griffin, Rose, &Bellavia, 2003; Vohs& Heatherton, 2001). It seems, that the Self(and
concepts associated with it) playsmore important and complicated role in the resilience
process,than it is currently conceived.

© Publishing House Curriculum. ISBN 978-80-87894-01-9 444

 3rd International e-Conference on Optimization, Education and Data Mining in Science,
Engineering and Risk Management 2013/2014 (OEDM SERM 2013/2014)

Based on the above mentioned information, we propose the following general model of
resilience (see Figure 1), supplemented by additional knowledge about resilience. Resilience
is conditioned primarily by the presence of risk or life adversity (although this condition is
presently disputed in some cases). How will the individual operate in this situation (how he
transform input factors to specific outcomes) is influenced by other factors.
Supportinginfluenceis provided by protective factors that generally increase an individual’s
ability to cope positively with the risks he/she faces. Most of contemporary theories of
resilience provide various concepts and overviews of protective factors (e.g. self-esteem,
sense of humor, positive goals and aspirations, intelligence and good mental functioning,
functioning relationships, social support, caring parenthood, cultural identification, religion
etc.). Conversely, the risk factors have negative effect.Risk factors include various negative
circumstances and disadvantage that don’t represent above mentioned basic developmental
risk/adversity). These factors can be classified as low self-esteem, cognitive disabilities, social
isolation, racial exclusion, lack of effective coping mechanisms etc. In addition, resilience
processes are also affected by other internal and external aspects (personality and social
environment). Those are the variables that a) can affect how an individual copes with the
adversity, but were not identified as a direct protective/risk factors; b) constitute a more
general basis or the broader context of the resilience process; or c)haven’t clearly defined
positive or negative impact. These include for example political and economic situation,
moral “maturity” of society, temperament, personality structure, or self-esteem (if we ignore
its direct influence, but we understand it as the intervening variable, that affects and
moderates i.e. the cognitive information processing through the emotional basis).
These four general areas provide “input”that affects the resilience processesthemselves,
which further lead to specific outcomes. These outcomes may occur in personal or/and social
areas and may be positive, neutral or negative (although the negative outcomes are more
associated with the absence or lack of resilience). For example positive outcomes may include
strengthening of self-efficacy, self-confidence, elimination of developmental risk, growing of
inter-individual relationships etc. Negative outcomes may include depression, post-traumatic
stress disorder, developmental disruption (in endangered area), social withdrawal,
aggressiveness, derogation of self-efficacy etc. These outcomes may also (as shown) further
affect (positively or negatively) personality and social environment of the individual,
influencing and changing the future resilience processes.

© Publishing House Curriculum. ISBN 978-80-87894-01-9 445

 3rd International e-Conference on Optimization, Education and Data Mining in Science,
Engineering and Risk Management 2013/2014 (OEDM SERM 2013/2014)

Figure 1: General model of resilience

III. CONCEPTS OF SELF

In contemporary personality psychology are several concepts related to Self and identity of
the individual. The main concepts are self-esteem, self-concept and self-efficacy.
Furthermore, we can mention self-confidence (as a combination of self-esteem and self-
efficacy), self-worth, core self-evaluation, self-enhancement, self-awareness etc. Most of
these concepts have also confirmed a strong link to the resilience (cf. Murray,Holmes,
MacDonald, &Ellsworth, 1998; Stinson et al., 2008; Park & Crocker, 2005; Drake & Myers,
2006; Elliot, 2008; Hinde, Finkenauer, &Auhagen, 2001).
Self-efficacy can be defined as strength of one’s belief in one’s own ability to complete tasks
and reach goals (Bandura, 1977; Ormrod, 2006). In other words, it is the belief in own
capability to plan and produce behavior that will lead to the desired goal (which is different
from outcome expectations that represents the belief that certain behavior will lead to that
goal).
The self–concept thus organizes and manages information about how we see ourselves
(Baumeister, 1999) and includes „self–knowledge“ about ourselves in various domains (racial
identity, academic performance, gender roles, sexuality, personality traits etc.). Self–concept
is thus cognitive or descriptive component of one’s self. Generally, self-concept embodies the
answer to „Who am I?“
Self–esteem is a term that describes person's overall emotional evaluation of his or her own
worth (Gecas, 1982; Rosenberg, Schooler, Schoenbach, & Rosenberg, 1995). It includes both
the evaluation of oneself and attitude to oneself, as well as the emotions related to oneself
(e.g. despair, pride, shame, etc.). Self–esteem thus answers the question „How I feel about

© Publishing House Curriculum. ISBN 978-80-87894-01-9 446

 3rd International e-Conference on Optimization, Education and Data Mining in Science,
Engineering and Risk Management 2013/2014 (OEDM SERM 2013/2014)

myself?“
One‘s positive or negative self–esteem not only defines, who the individual is, but may also
influence other domains of one’s personality and functioning. This can be demonstrated on
the interaction of self–esteem and resilience. First, self-esteemis involved in the processes of
resilience (or adaptation). From this viewpoint, it represents specific factor (dimension) of
resilience. The concept of self-esteem however offers also a different view on the relationship
with resilience that symbolizes self-esteem rather as basic filter of resilience processes, or
(figuratively speaking) structural grid, in whose specific shapes then “fit” the individual
factors of resilience. This approach can be illustrated on the process of Ego identity
development within the theory of psychosocial development by Erik Erikson.
Erikson (1993) describes the development of the individual within several milestones - skills
of identity - that man should achieve during life. In each of these life stages may occur the
impairment of development (for which it is possible to observe a certain parallels with the
effects of adverse circumstances - risks - within the theory of resilience), or, better said, the
problems with adopting of needed Ego skills. If such significant (progressive) disruption of
development occurs, it results in problematic, unrealistic or otherwise “deformed „Ego
identity. Because it is a fundamental characteristic of the individual (core self), it affects self-
perception and other mental processes and behavior. For example disrupted confidence may
manifest as suspicion and pessimism towards others, or withdrawal from the surroundings (in
relation to the development of attachment); problems with building of autonomy, initiative
and diligence may parallelly add up (one affects the following) and reflect further as reduced
trust in oneself, feelingsof own inadequacy, perception of the environment as degrading own
abilities (later, ironically as overestimating one’s ability), etc. As this development takes place
in strong interaction with the environment and other people, it not only disrupts self-
perception, but also complicates the interpersonal interactions (mostly due to a dysfunctional
relationships leading/contributing to the disruption of Ego development, and subsequently due
to disturbed perception of oneself and due to the gap between own self-image, anticipated
image of oneself at others and the real perception of the individual by others).
The influence of self-esteem (and also self-concept, self-worth, etc.) in the context of
resilience operates in two ways. The first is the “simple” effect of positive self-esteem as one
of the protective factors (in interaction with other mechanisms) and negative self-esteem as a
risk factor. The second view represents deeper (more basic) level on which the current level
or form of self-esteem modifies other processes, mechanisms and resilience factors. If we put
an example of distorted self-esteem, expressible in inner conviction “I’m not valuable and
important for others (they don’t need me in life)”, and (internally generalized) “I am
worthless, incompetent ...” (as belief, based on past experience and feedback from others),
then this basic concept of oneself affects the individual processes of resilience (especially
in a negative regard). For example at social support (or, more generally, help from others,
their interest, support, empathy, etc.) occurs the situation when an individual doesn’t use this
important resource, not because it isn’t available, but because his inner convictions doesn’t
allow him to perceive the availability of this resources (he lacks sensitivity to the
manifestations of social support from others) and even expect it. This can further projects to
the later reduction of the sense of self-worth, increase in strenuousness of the whole coping
process (which means higher risk of unsuccessful adaptation), etc. Similarly, on the level of
internal resilience factors occurs deterioration not of the presence of potential sources of
strength (to cope with negative life circumstances), as they may be in fact accessible, but of
the accessibility of these resources for conscious/unconscious use (for example mistrust in the
ability to handle the situation (self-efficacy), based on self-denigrating perceptions of own
abilities) (further cf. Murray, Holmes, MacDonald, &Ellsworth, 1998; Stinson et al., 2008;
Park & Crocker, 2005; Aron,Aron, Tudor, & Nelson, 1991; Hinde, Finkenauer, &Auhagen,

© Publishing House Curriculum. ISBN 978-80-87894-01-9 447

 3rd International e-Conference on Optimization, Education and Data Mining in Science,
Engineering and Risk Management 2013/2014 (OEDM SERM 2013/2014)

2001; Baumeister, 1993; Anthony, Wood, Holmes, 2007; Leary, Baumeister, 2000; Murray,
Griffin, Rose, &Bellavia, 2003; Vohs, Heatherton, 2001).
In this approach self-esteem is not only one of the mechanisms of resilience (as it is often
perceived to be), but the affecting power in the background that modifies usability,
implementation and outcomes (e.g. in the form of evaluation of own success) of all processes,
involved in coping with life adversity and in maintaining of unhindered development of the
individual (i.e. resilience).

IV. MULTIPLE ROLES OF SELF-ESTEEM IN RESILIENCE PROCESSES

If we apply the above mentioned second approach to self -esteem on the process of resilience,
we created the situation when one concept (or variable) may hold several positions/roles. To
illustrate this problem it is firstly necessary to broaden the perspective on a more general
process of “dealing with risk/adversity.” Outside the narrower perspective of the resilience
processes we have to take into account also the situations where the individual cannot cope
effectively with the risks, which leads to the disruption of development, or more generally to
negative consequences (this perspective thus includes the dynamic of “non-resilient”
individual).
Self-esteem (in this case high self-esteem) can firstly be one of the protective factors of
resilience. In this situation it has a direct impact on an individual’s ability to cope with the
situation in a way that results in positive (or at least neutral) outcomes. In the same way, low
self-esteem acts as a direct risk factor (in both cases, the direct effect of self-esteem is
conceived primarily statistically, e.g.by correlation analysis, regression analysis, structural
equation modeling etc.).
Under certain circumstances self-esteem (low) pose a direct developmental risk (life
adversity). This can happen when we focus on those areas of personality or psyche of
individual whose development is influenced by the characteristics and contents of self -esteem
(such as identity).
As a personality trait self-esteem can negatively affect all “inputs” in the process of
resilience and resilience processes themselves (as illustrated above). These inputs include not
only the perception and appraisal of adversity, or protective and risk factors, but also other
personality traits and comprehension of social environment.
Finally, the self-esteem (and its shaping and molding) may represents the outcome of
resilience process or, more generally, of dealing with adversity (especially at a younger age).
Single concept - self-esteem thus can serve almost any role in the process of resilience.

This reality poses a problem already for process of data acquisition. It is questionable, how to
gather data that distinguishes the position/role of self-esteem in the process of resilience. This
issue will be discussed elsewhere. Another problem is how to model these different and
multiple roles of self-esteem.

V. MODELING OF MULTIPLE ROLES OF SELF-ESTEEM

Current capabilities of modeling don’t enable capture of multiple roles of specific variables,
or allow it in very limited and inaccurate way. Also advanced statistical modeling (e.g. IBM
AMOS) doesn’t accurately capture this reality. It presents a problem in simple capturing of
resilience process in a specific situation. Even major problem emerges when we try to capture
the developmental aspect, in other words, the development of resilience in the long term
perspective.
If we use current options of research, collected data about the complex of resilience (including

© Publishing House Curriculum. ISBN 978-80-87894-01-9 448

 3rd International e-Conference on Optimization, Education and Data Mining in Science,
Engineering and Risk Management 2013/2014 (OEDM SERM 2013/2014)

the level of self-esteem) and used statistical modeling techniques - exploratory analysis
(which most comprehensively captures the possible relationships), we can get following
model1 (see Figure 22).

Figure 2: Illustrative model of low self-esteem effect on „dealing with adversity“ process elements

As we can see, the basic analysis reveals the influence of self-esteem in all positions
(additional cleaning of model would therefore lead primarily to a reduction of reality) and
doesn’t sufficiently accurately capture the development of the impact of self-esteem,
transferred (vicarious) influences etc. In this case, low self-esteem negatively affects the
protective factor perceived social support (see above), risk factor academic stress (that is
perceived as more serious), perceived justice in society, positive identity and resilience
processes themselves. Similarly, low self-esteem has positive correlations with outcomes low
social esteem and self-denigration (that in turn affects the identity). This statistical model
however doesn’t allow to display (or analyze) the exact effect of self-esteem on the process of
resilience (cannot distinguish what is direct and what is indirect - mediated effect),as it
doesn’t allow a general model of resilience.
Just described problem creates the question “how effectively model the multiple roles
elements? „If we pass over the question how to obtain data that will allow such detailed
analysis of not only mutual relations and influences, but also the dynamics of self-esteem in
resilience process, the modeling itself, in our opinion, may be solved by using the
multidimensional systemic modeling technique. We described this procedure previously

1
this model is strictly illustrative and all variables and values are fictional (for best illustration of described
issue)
2
dashed lines illustrates relationships from general model (see Figure 1)
© Publishing House Curriculum. ISBN 978-80-87894-01-9 449
 3rd International e-Conference on Optimization, Education and Data Mining in Science,
Engineering and Risk Management 2013/2014 (OEDM SERM 2013/2014)

(Novotný, 2012). The core of the technique lies in the extension of the standard two-
dimensional model with the third dimension. This dimension may be spatial or developmental
(representing time line). In the case of multiple roles of self-esteem is more suitable use of the
developmentally conceived third dimension, because not only long-term development of
resilience, but also “short-term” (actual) analysis of the relations and interactions of individual
model components is inherently dynamic, i.e. developmental in a very short time.
The basic procedure of modeling is a division of the basic model (see above) into separate
phases, where is each phase represented by simplex model (see Figure 3a-d). These steps
capture sequential dynamics of the process of dealing with adversity.

Figure 3a: First stage of “dealing with adversity” process

Figure 3b: Second stage of “dealing with adversity” process

© Publishing House Curriculum. ISBN 978-80-87894-01-9 450

 3rd International e-Conference on Optimization, Education and Data Mining in Science,
Engineering and Risk Management 2013/2014 (OEDM SERM 2013/2014)

Figure 3c: Third stage of “dealing with adversity” process

Figure 3d: Fourth stage of “dealing with adversity” process

The next step is the inclusion of individual stages models on the third (time) axis and the
inclusion of inter- stages relationships (see Figure 43). For better clarity are the inter-stages
relations marked red. This concept of model allows also capturing the circular conditioning
when individual “later” elements may additionally affect the previous elements (as is shown
in blue). This procedure allows more precisely modeling the impact of individual elements
within the model and eliminating transferred (indirect) influences of multiple roles elements
(in this case self-esteem). As is evident from the model, direct effect of self-esteem is limited
3
This graphic solution is only one of possible options. Based on specific needs of a particular problem or need
for more complex projection, it is possible to adjust the visual solutions to different forms, for example in
situations, where is not convenient to place the multiple roles element directly in the model, or when dynamics
of multiple elements should be projected. This can be done by color differentiating of each variable based on the
effect size of multiple roles element, by using and combination of principles of meteorological modeling and
spectral analysis etc. These solutions will be discussed in future.
© Publishing House Curriculum. ISBN 978-80-87894-01-9 451
 3rd International e-Conference on Optimization, Education and Data Mining in Science,
Engineering and Risk Management 2013/2014 (OEDM SERM 2013/2014)

to some protective and risk factors, personality and social environment. The impact on
resilience processes itself is mediated through these variables.

Figure 4: Multidimensional model of resilience process 4

VI. CONCLUSION
Modeling has become an integral and necessary part of science not only in psychology field.
Despite its advantages, the capability of modeling (especially the modeling of theoretical
concepts) is limited and in some situations modeling reaches its potential. One such example
is the situation where the model elements may hold more positions/roles within the model.
The problem is not only the detection of the individual positions of such elements, but also

4
in this case we should speak rather about „dealing with adversity“ process, because low self–esteem creates a
situation in which we would label the individual more like as „non–resilient“.
© Publishing House Curriculum. ISBN 978-80-87894-01-9 452
 3rd International e-Conference on Optimization, Education and Data Mining in Science,
Engineering and Risk Management 2013/2014 (OEDM SERM 2013/2014)

capture of dynamics and gradual direct and indirect effects of these elements on other
variables in the model.
Aside from the problem of how to get valid data that allow the differentiation of individual
effects, a possible solution may be the use of multidimensional systemic modeling technique.
As we illustrated above, this approach offers a means to model and display the effects of
multiple roles elements. This more detailed approach allows better structuring of informations
and provides a more accurate basis for understanding the problem, further research, or direct
(e.g. clinical) interventions. Further analysis and discussion of this issue is however needed.

FUNDING ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The paper was supported by the Czech Science Foundation [grant number 13-19519P].

REFERENCES

[1] Anteghini, M., Fonseca, H., Ireland, M., & Blum, R. W. (2001). Health risk behaviors and associated risk
and protective factors among Brazilian adolescents in Santos, Brazil. J. Adolesc. Health, 28, 295–302.
[2] Anthony, D. B., Wood, J. V., & Holmes, J. G. (2007). Testing sociometer theory: Self-esteem and the
importance of acceptance for social decision-making.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43,425–432.
[3] Aron, A., Aron, E. N., Tudor, M., & Nelson, G. (1991). Close relationships as including other in the self.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60,241–253.
[4] Bandura A. (1977). Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychol Rev, 84 (2), 191–
215.
[5] Baruth, K. E., & Carroll, J. J. (2002). A formal assessment of resilience: The Baruth Protective Factors
Inventory. The Journal of Individual Psychology, 58, 235-244
[6] Baumeister, R. F. (1993). Self-esteem: The puzzle of low self-regard. New York: Plenum Press.
[7] Baumeister, R. F. (Ed.) (1999). The Self in Social Psychology. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press (Taylor &
Francis).
[8] Benard, B. (1995). Fostering Resilience in children (ERIC Digest, EDO-PS-95-9). Urbana, IL: University of
Illinois.
[9] Bonanno, G. A. (2004). Loss, trauma, and human resilience: Have we underestimated the human capacity to
thrive after extremely aversive events? American Psychologist, 59(1), 20–28.
[10] Bonanno, G. A. (2005). Resilience in the face of potential trauma.Current Direction in Psychological
Science, 14(3):135–138.
[11] Bonanno, G. Pat-Horenczyk, R., & Noll, J. (2011). Coping Flexibility and Trauma: The Perceived Ability to
Cope with Trauma (PACT) Scale. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice and Policy, 3 (2), 117–
129.
[12] Botvin, G. J., Malgady, R. G., Griffin, K. W., Scheier, L. M., & Epstein, J. A. (1998). Alcohol and
marijuana use among rural youth: interaction of social and intrapersonal influences. Addict Behav, 23, 379–387.
[13] Cohen, S., & Edwards, J. R. (1989).Personality characteristics as moderators of the relationship between
stress and disorder. In R. W. J. Neufeld (Ed.), Advances in the investigation of psychological stress (pp. 235–
283). New York, Wiley.
[14] Collins, P. H. (2000). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness and the politics of empowerment.
New York: Routledge.
[15] Connor, K. M., & Davidson, J. R. (2003). Development of a new resilience scale: The Connor Davidson
Resilience Scale (CD-RISC). Depression and Anxiety, 18, 76-82.
[16] Constantine, N. A., Benard, B., & Diaz, M. (1999).Measuring Protective Factors and Resilience Traits in
Youth: The Healthy Kids Resilience Assessment. Presentation on Seventh Annual Meeting of the Society for
Prevention Research, New Orleans, LA.
[17] De Genova, M. K., & Rice, F. P. (2005).Intimate relationships, marriages and families(6th Edition).
Boston: McGraw-Hill.
[18] Deković, M. (1999). Risk and Protective Factors in the Development of Problem Behavior During

© Publishing House Curriculum. ISBN 978-80-87894-01-9 453

 3rd International e-Conference on Optimization, Education and Data Mining in Science,
Engineering and Risk Management 2013/2014 (OEDM SERM 2013/2014)

Adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 28 (6), 667–685.

[19] Drake, R. A., & Myers, L. R. (2006). Visual attention, emotion, and action tendency: Feeling active or
passive. Cognition and Emotion, 20, 608–622.
[20] Elliot, A. J. (2008). Handbook of approach and avoidance motivation. New York: Psychological Press.
[21] Erikson, E. H. (1993). Childhood and Society. New York: W. W. Norton Company.
[22] Friborg, O., Hjemdal, O., Rosenvinge, J. H., &Martinussen, M. (2003). A new rating scale for adult
resilience: What are the central protective resources behind healthy adjustment? International Journal of
Methods in Psychiatric Research, 12, 65–76
[23] Gecas,V. (1982). The Self-Concept.Annual Review of Sociology, 8, 1–33.
[24] Griffin, K. W., Scheier, L. M., Botvin, G. J., Diaz, T., & Miller, N. (1999). Interpersonal aggression in
urban minority youth: mediators of perceived neighborhood, peer, and parental influences. J Community
Psychol, 27, 281–298.
[25] Grotberg, , E. (1997). A guide to promoting resilience in children: Strenghtening the human spirit. Haag,
Bernard van Leer Foundation.
[26] Gucciardi, D. F., Jackson, B., Coulter, T. J., &Mallett C. J. (2011). The Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale
(CD-RISC): Dimensionality and age-related measurement invariance with Australian cricketer. Psychology and
Sports, 1, 1–11.
[27] Harter, S. (1993).Causes and consequences of low self-esteem in children and adolescents. In R. Baumeister
(Ed.), Self-esteem: The puzzle of low self regard (pp. 87–116). New York: Plenum.
[28] Hinde, R. A., Finkenauer, C., &Auhagen, A. E. (2001).Relationships and the self-concept.Personal
Relationships, 8, 187–204.
[29] Jenkins, Y. M. (1993). Diversity and social esteem. In J. L. Chin, V. DaLacamelas, & Y. M. Jenkins (Eds.),
Diversity in psychotherapy: The politics of race, ethnicity and gender (pp. 45–63). Westport, CT: Praeger.
[30] Jordan, J. V. (2005). Relational Resilience in Girls.In S. Golstein, R. B. Brooks (Eds.), Handbook of
Resilience in Children (pp 79–90). New York: Springer.
[31] L‘Abate, L. (2005). Personality in intimate relationships: Socialization and psychopathology. New York:
Springer Science.
[32] L‘Abate L. (2008). A hierarchical framework for relational competence theory.PsychologiaRozwojowa, 13,
9–19.
[33] L‘Abate, L., Cusinato, M., Maino, E., Colesso, W., &Scilletta, C. (2010). Relational competence theory:
Research and mental health applications. New York: Springer.
[34] Leary, M. R., &Baumeister, R. F. (2000). The nature and function of self-esteem: Sociometer theory. In M.
P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (vol. 32) (pp. 1–62). San Diego: Academic Press.
[35] Letzring T. D., Block J., & Funder, D. C. (2004). Ego-control and ego-resiliency: Generalization of self-
report scales based on personality descriptions from acquaintances, clinicians, and the self. Journal of Research
in Personality, 39 (4), 395–422.
[36] Lifton, R. J. (1993). The protean self: Human resilience in an age of transformation. New York: Basic
Books.
[37] Linsley, P. A. (2003). Positive adaptation to trauma: Wisdom as both process and outcome. Journal of
Trauma and Stress, 16(6), 601–610.
[38] Linsley P. A. (2004). Positive Change Following Trauma and Adversity: a Review. Journal of Trauma and
Stress, 17 (1), 11–21.
[39] Lloyd-Richardson, E. E., Papandonatos, G., Kazura, A., Stanton, C., &Niaura, R. (2002).Differentiating
stages of smoking intensity among adolescents: stage-specific psychological and social influences.J Consult
ClinPsychol, 70, 998–1009.
[40] Luthans, F. (2002). The need for and meaning of positive organizational behavior. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 23, 695-706.
[41] Luthans, F., Luthans, K. W., &Luthans, B. C. (2004). Positive psychological capital: Beyond human and
social capital. Business Horizons, 47 (1), 45–50.
[42] Luthans, F., Vogelgesang, G. R., & Lester, P. B. (2006).Developing the psychological capital of
resilience.Human Resource Development Review, 5 (1), 25–44.
[43] Luthar, S. S. (1999). Poverty and children’s adjustment.Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

© Publishing House Curriculum. ISBN 978-80-87894-01-9 454

 3rd International e-Conference on Optimization, Education and Data Mining in Science,
Engineering and Risk Management 2013/2014 (OEDM SERM 2013/2014)

[44] Maddi, S. R., &Khoshaba, D. M. (2005).Resilience at work: How to succeed no matter what life throws at
you.New York: Amacom.
[45] Maddi, S. R., Harvey, R. H., Khoshaba, D. M., Lu, J. L., Persico, M., & Brow, M. (2006). The personality
construct of hardiness, III: Relationships with repression, innovativeness, authoritarianism, and performance.
Journal of Personality, 74 (2), 575–598.
[46] Madsen, M. D., & Abel, N. (2010). Trauma Resilience Scale: Validation of Protective Factors Associated
With Adaptation Following Violence. Research on Social Work Practice, 20 (2), 223-233.
[47] Masten, A. S., Best, K. M., Garmezy, N.(1990). Resilience and development: contributions from the study
of children who overcome adversity. Development and Psychopathology, 2, 425–444.
[48] Masten, A. (2001). Ordinary Magic. Resilience Processes in Development. American Psychologist, 56(3),
227–238.
[49] Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., MacDonald, G., & Ellsworth, P. C. (1998). Through the looking glass darkly?
When self-doubt turns into relationship insecurities.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1459–
1480.
[50] Murray, S. L., Griffin, D., Rose, P., &Bellavia, G. (2003).Calibrating the sociometer: The relational
contingencies of self-esteem.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85,63–84.
[51] Novotný, J. S. (2011). Přínosvyužitímodelů v teorii resilience.Psychologie a jejíkontexty, 2 (1), 65-78.
[52] Novotný, J. S. (2012). The use of multidimensional systemic modeling in increasing of miscellaneous
theoretical conceptions’ teaching effectiveness. In P. Záškodný, P. Procházka et al. (Eds.), The proceedings of
1st International e-Conference on Optimization, Education and Data Mining in Science, Engineering and Risk
Management 2011 (pp. 13-26). Praha: Curriculum Publisher.
[53] Novotný, J. S. (2013). The capability of dynamic graphical modeling in the application of theoretical
models into practice. In P. Záškodný, P. Procházka et al. (Eds.), The proceedings of 2nd International e-
Conference on Optimization, Education and Data Mining in Science, Engineering and Risk Management 2012
(pp. 22–30). Praha: Curriculum Publisher.
[54] Ormrod, J. E. (2006). Educational psychology: Developing learners (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall.
[55] O’Dougherty Wright, M., &Masten, A. S. (2005). Resilience Processes in Development. In S. Golstein, &
R. B. Brooks (Eds.), Handbook of Resilience in Children (pp. 39–48). New York, Springer.
[56] Park, L. E., & Crocker, J. (2005).Interpersonal consequences of seeking high self-esteem.Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 1587–1598.
[57] Polk, L. V. (1997). Toward Middle Range Theory of Resilience.Advances in Nursing Science, 19 (3), 1–13.
[58] Prince-Embury, S. (2007).Resiliency Scales for Children and Adolescents: A Profile of Personal Strengths.
San Antonio,TX: Harcourt Assessment, Inc.
[59] Reis, H. T., Clark, M. S., & Holmes, J. G. (2004).Perceived partner responsiveness as an organizing
construct in the study of intimacy and closeness.In D. J. Mashek, & A. Aron (Eds.), Handbook of closeness and
intimacy (pp. 201–225). Mahwah, Erlbaum.
[60] Richardson, G. E. (2002). The metatheory of resilience and resiliency. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 58,
307-321.
[61] Rosenberg, M., Schooler, C., Schoenbach, C., & Rosenberg, F. (1995).Global Self–Esteem and Specific
Self–Esteem.American Sociological Review, 60, 141–156.
[62] Ryan, L., &Cantabiano, M. L. (2009). Development of a New Resilience Scale: The Resilience in Midlife
Scale (RIM Scale). Asian Social Science, 5 (11), 39-51.
[63] Ryff, C. D., Singer, B., Dienberg Love, G., & Essex, M. J. (1998).Resilience in adulthood and later life. In
J. Lomaranz (Ed.), Handbook of aging and mental health: An integrative approach (pp. 69-96). New York:
Plenum Press.
[64] Spencer, R. (2000). A comparison of relational psychologies.Work in Progress, No. 5. Wellesley: Stone
Center Working Paper Series.
[65] Spreitzer, G., Sutcliffe, K., Dutton, J., Sonenshein, S., & Grant, A. M. (2005). A Socially embedded model
of thriving at work.Organization Science, 16 (5), 537–549.
[66] Stinson, D. A., Logel, C., Zanna, M. P., Holmes, J. G., Cameron, J. J., Wood, J. V., & Spencer, S. J. (2008).
The cost of lower self-esteem: Testing a self- and social-bonds model of health. Journal of Personality and

© Publishing House Curriculum. ISBN 978-80-87894-01-9 455

 3rd International e-Conference on Optimization, Education and Data Mining in Science,
Engineering and Risk Management 2013/2014 (OEDM SERM 2013/2014)

Social Psychology, 94, 412–428.

[67] Ungar, M., Liebenberg, L., Boothroyd, R., Kwong, W. M., Lee, T. Y., Leblanc, J., …Makhnach, A. (2008).
The Study of Youth Resilience Across Cultures: Lessons from a Pilot Study of Measurement Development.
Research in Human Development, 5 (3), 166–180.
[68] Ungar, M., & Liebenberg, L. (2011). Assessing Resilience across Cultures Using Mixed-Methods:
Construction of the Child and Youth Resilience Measure-28.Journal of Mixed-Methods Research, 5 (2), 126–
149.
[69] Vohs, K. D., & Heatherton, T. F. (2001). Self-esteem and threats to self: Implications for self-construals and
interpersonal perceptions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,81, 1103–1118.
[70] Waugh, C. E., &Fredricskon, B. L. (2006).Nice to know you: Positive emotions, self–other overlap, and
complex understanding in the formation of a new relationship. J Posit Psychol, 1 (2), 93–106.
[71] Werner, E. E., (1993). Risk, resilience, and recovery: Perspectives from the Kauai Longitudinal Study.
Development and Psychopathology, 5, 503-515.
[72] Winfield, L. F. (1994). Developing resilience in urban youth. Naperville, IL: North Central Regional
Educational Laboratory.

© Publishing House Curriculum. ISBN 978-80-87894-01-9 456

View publication stats