The Wither or Thrive Model of Resilience: an Integrative Framework of Dynamic Vulnerability and Resilience in the Face of Repeated Stressors During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Abstract

During the first 2 years of the COVID-19 pandemic, empirical efforts in the psychological sciences have been unequivocally focused on understanding the psychosocial impact on resilience and vulnerability. While current empirical work is guided by different existing theoretical models of resilience and vulnerability, the emerging datasets have also pointed to a necessity for an update of these models. Due to the unique features and developments specific to the current pandemic such as the occurrence of repeated collective stressors of varying durations, in the current position paper, we introduce the Wither or Thrive model of Resilience (With:Resilience). It integrates key aspects of prevailing psychological resilience frameworks within the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, and extends them by (1) moving away from single scale approaches towards a higher-order latent expression of resilience and vulnerability incorporating also non-clinical mental health markers, (2) proposing different trajectories of resilience-vulnerability emerging across repeated stressors over long periods of time, and (3) by incorporating multiple influencing factors including aspects of the socio-economic concept of social cohesion as well as separate mediating processing mechanisms. We propose that With:Resilience will enable a more nuanced approach and appropriate analytical investigation of the vast incoming data on mental health and resilience during the COVID-19 pandemic, and we suggest some concrete methodological approaches. This framework will assist in the development of actionable public health guidelines for society in the present and future pandemic contexts as well as aid policy making and the interventional sciences aimed at protecting the most vulnerable amongst us.

Interplay between uncertainty intolerance, emotion regulation, cognitive flexibility, and psychopathology during the COVID-19 pandemic: a multi-wave study

“…In line with recent models of resilience and vulnerability processes in the pandemic context 21 , IU is expected to predict psychopathology, and ER difficulties and CCF are considered to modulate the impact of this factor on the trajectory of psychopathology. In line with these theoretical models, studies have vouched for a mediating effect of ER difficulties in the relationship between IU and psychopathology 23 , 67 , and another study has shown that different levels of CCF moderate the relation between IU and psychopathology 61 .…”

“…Despite the progress that has been made in understanding risk factors that aggravate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, there is much that remains to be understood about the interplay between key risk and protective factors for mental health. A recent conceptual framework proposed that the pandemic has challenged people in at least three ways, namely dealing with uncertainty, regulating negative emotions, and flexibly adapting to changing contexts 21 . Difficulties in these domains may engender mental health issues 22 – 24 .…”

Heterogeneous Mental Health Responses to the COVID-19 Pandemic in Germany: An Examination of Long-Term Trajectories, Risk Factors, and Vulnerable Groups

“…In particular, few of these longitudinal studies showed that levels of mental health problems tended to increase with each measurement occasion [26,27], which is in line with cumulative risk models [28][29][30]. This points to a unique feature of the COVID-19 pandemic, such that the longer individuals were under strict lockdown conditions, the worse their mental health became, leading to what can be termed a pandemic fatigue effect [31].…”

Resilient Stress Reactivity Profiles Predict Mental Health Gains from Online Contemplative Training: A Randomized Clinical Trial

“…Thus far, however, most studies have investigated time-stable moderators of intervention responses, such as personality traits, socio-demographic variables, dispositional mindfulness and response styles, or baseline symptom levels [8,10,13]. However, the prevailing models of resilience conceptualize resilient mental wellbeing as a dynamic process 2 of 13 of stress recovery that evolves over time in response to encountered life stressors, and not as a mere reflection of specific time-stable psychological aspects [14,15]. Consequently, it can be extrapolated that dynamic stress recovery profiles, derived from an ecologically valid assessment of reactivity to naturalistic stressors, might be more uniquely suited to predicting individual differences in intervention gains since they index the individual capacity for plasticity in response to dynamic contexts, explaining who shows responsivity in a mental training context [16].…”