Growth Following Adversity in Sport

A Mechanism to Positive Change

Ross Wadey, Melissa Day, Karen Howells, Ross Wadey, Melissa Day, Karen Howells

• Editorial: Routledge
• Año: 2020
• ISBN:
  9781000095753
• Edición: 1
• Categoría: Psychologie
• Categoría: Psychologie du sport

Growth Following Adversity in Sport: A Mechanism to Positive Change is the first text to carefully consider the positive changes that may follow adverse experiences in sport at micro (e.g., individual), meso (e.g., dyadic, team), and macro levels (e.g., organizational, cultural). While remaining respectful of the despair and distress that can follow adversity, this comprehensive text aims to provide a narrative of hope to those who have experienced adversity in sport by showcasing the latestadvances in research on growth following adversity.

This book covers topics as diverse as: conceptual, theoretical, and methodological considerations; cultural, organizational, and relational perspectives; population-specific insights (e.g., gender, disability, youth); and applied implications (e.g., evidence-based, practice-based). Written and edited by a team of international experts and emerging talents from around the world, each chapter considers the nature and meaning of growth, contains a comprehensive review of empirical research or reflections from professional practice, and offers exciting, novel, and rigorous suggestions for future programs of research that aim to promote positive change in sport to support the safety, wellbeing, and welfare of the people who take part (e.g., athletes, coaches, paid employees, volunteers).

Cutting-edge, timely, and comprehensive, Growth Following Adversity in Sport: A Mechanism to Positive Change is essential reading for postgraduate students and scholars in the fields of sport psychology, injury and rehabilitation, sport theory and other related sport science disciplines.

PART 1

Conceptual, Theoretical, and Methodological Perspectives

1

Growth Following Adversity

A Conceptual Perspective

Ross Wadey, Melissa Day, and Karen Howells

Introduction

As researchers who have heard countless stories of adversity in sport, as practitioners who have worked with sporting performers and practitioners to help manage the aftermath of adverse experiences, and as human beings who have encountered negative events in our own lives, we are convinced growth following adversity does exist. By growth, we broadly mean the potential to turn the most trying times around and developing as a result (e.g., athletes increasing their resilience, sporting teams working more collectively, organizations in sport improving policies and promoting social justice). However, as intuitive and enticing as the notion of growth following adversity may be to applied sport psychology researchers and practitioners, a closer inspection of the evidence base in sport reveals how it is peppered with conceptual ambiguity. The purpose of this chapter, therefore, is to take stock of the literature from a conceptual perspective by addressing a fundamental question: What is growth following adversity? The chapter is divided into two subsections, the first of which equips the reader with the multiple meanings of growth by unraveling the subtle differences in the various terms used to refer to the phenomenon (e.g., posttraumatic growth, stress-related growth, action-focused growth, benefit finding). Building upon this opening conceptual discussion, the second section critically considers two specific questions: “What is positive change?” and “Is growth more than an individual (psychological) experience?” Rather than striving for consensus on terminology, the chapter closes by celebrating and encouraging conceptual diversity in future research in applied sport psychology and beyond. But before addressing the purpose of this chapter, we first set the scene by providing a brief overview of the historical roots of growth following adversity to help contextualize and map the research landscape for readers who are unfamiliar with this area of research.

A Brief History

Growth following adversity is not a new concept. For thousands of years, there have been stories written and told of the positive changes experienced by individuals and societies as a result of suffering and distress (Tedeschi & Calhoun, 1995). To illustrate, the notion of growth has been referred to in the texts and teachings of many religions (e.g., Christianity, Buddhism, Judaism, Hinduism, Islam; Tedeschi, Shakespeare-Finch, Taku, & Calhoun, 2018) and is reflected in many philosophical writings. The most cited philosophical work in this field of research is arguably that of Friedrich Nietzsche, perhaps because of his well-cited quotation: “That which does not kill us makes us stronger” (see Joseph, 2012). Building upon these historical roots, several clinicians and scholars started to write about positive change following life crises in the twentieth century (e.g., Caplan, 1964; Dohrenwend, 1978; Maslow, 1954; Rogers, 1961; Yalom, 1980) such as Viktor Frankl’s work on how he (a holocaust survivor) created meaning in the midst of significant trauma (Frankl, 1963). However, it was not until the 1990s that the first systematic programs of research on growth came to fruition (e.g., O’Leary & Ickovics, 1995; Park, Cohen, & Murch, 1996; Tedeschi & Calhoun, 1995).

Fueled by the emergence of positive psychology (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000), research interest in the positive by-products of adversity accelerated in the twenty-first century and resulted in a voluminous and diverse body of literature. In an attempt to synthesize this burgeoning field of research, dedicated books (e.g., Joseph, 2012; Joseph & Linley, 2008; Park, Lechner, Antoni, & Stanton, 2009; Weiss & Berger, 2010), review papers (e.g., Hefferon, Grealy, & Mutrie, 2009; Joseph & Linley, 2004; Tedeschi & Calhoun, 2004), and journal commentaries (e.g., Applied Psychology: An International Review, vol. 56; European Journal of Personality, vol. 28; Psychological Inquiry, vol. 15) were published to help provide readers with a holistic understanding of the phenomena and to unravel several more nuanced and critical debates. But despite this increased research activity within several sub-disciplines of psychology, researchers in applied sport psychology were slow on the uptake to examine growth following adversity in sporting contexts. To illustrate, during this timeframe there were a few subtle suggestions and tentative findings that growth might be a recovery outcome following sport injury (e.g., Udry, Gould, Bridges, & Beck, 1997; Wiese-Bjornstal, Smith, & LaMott, 1995) and that adversity could be a critical factor in talent development (e.g., Connaughton, Wadey, Hanton, & Jones, 2008; Gould, Dieffenbach, & Moffett, 2002).

Building upon this early speculation, and a raised awareness of an ever-expanding evidence base on growth in the wider literature, the next generation of scholars developed several dedicated programs of research in applied sport psychology in the twenty-first century that systematically investigated and theorized about whether adversity can indeed function as a catalyst for positive change. These included research on growth following adverse events with elite athletes (e.g., Howells & Fletcher, 2015, 2016), injured athletes (e.g., Roy-Davis, Wadey, & Evans, 2017; Salim & Wadey, 2019), collegiate athletes (e.g., Galli & Reel, 2012a, 2012b), and female athletes (e.g., Tamminen, Holt, & Neely, 2013; Neely, Dunn, McHugh, & Holt, 2018), together with its implications for positive youth development (e.g., Collins & MacNamara, 2012; Massey & Whitley, 2016; Tamminen & Neely, 2016). However, while this increased research interest has led to a voluminous body of research (see Howells, Sarkar, & Fletcher, 2017) and the phenomenon becoming a more established field of inquiry in applied sport psychology, there remains conceptual ambiguity about the meaning of growth following adversity. The following section takes stock of the literature from a conceptual perspective by clarifying the various terms that have been used to refer to the phenomenon.

Growth Following Adversity: What Is It?

As in applied sport psychology research, a critical perusal of the wider literature on growth following adversity also reveals conceptual ambiguity. At a surface level, such ambiguity can be evidenced from the various labels that have been used to refer to the phenomenon including, inter alia, posttraumatic growth (PTG; Tedeschi & Calhoun, 1995), stress-related growth (SRG; Park et al., 1996), and benefit finding (Affleck & Tennen, 1996). While some researchers have suggested these terms broadly refer to the same underlying phenomena (e.g., Joseph, Linley, & Harris, 2004), a closer inspection reveals subtle differences, which revolve around the severity of the adversity (e.g., traumatic versus stressful events), validity of growth reports (e.g., perceived versus actual growth), and the types of positive change experienced (e.g., cognitive, emotional, physical, behavioral). We now turn to unraveling the differences between these terms.

One of the most commonly used and accepted terms in the literature is PTG. In 1995, Tedeschi and Calhoun coined the term and defined it as positive psychological change experienced as a result of the struggle with highly challenging life circumstances. Specifically, PTG is reported to be concerned with seismic events (i.e., traumatic events that shatter a person’s assumptive world) that cause profound and transformative changes (i.e., actual and enduring growth) in cognitive and emotional life that are likely to have behavioral implications (Tedeschi et al., 2018). These changes have been identified to occur across five dimensions: relating to others, new possibilities, personal strength, spiritual and existential change, and appreciation of life (see Tedeschi, Cann, Taku, Senol‐Durak, & Calhoun, 2017). The authors also delimited their definition of PTG by reporting how the concept is not concerned with less stressful events and changes that are not veridical or transformative in nature. Yet, how to operationalize what is (and is not) traumatic and veridical continues to vex researchers (e.g., Coyne & Tennen, 2010; Tennen & Affleck, 2002; Tedeschi et al., 2018).

Alternative conceptual approaches taken by other researchers include reframing how PTG is conceptualized or proposing a new phenomenon that is distinguishable from Tedeschi and Calhoun’s (1995) original conceptualization. For example, Joseph and Linley (2004, 2005) argued PTG should be reframed as psychological (eudemonic) wellbeing. The authors proposed the five domains of PTG are equivalent to the six psychological wellbeing domains as conceptualized by Ryff (1989): self-acceptance, personal growth, purpose in life, environmental mastery, autonomy, and positive relationships with others. In contrast, other researchers have proposed new phenomena by constructing their own labels, definitions, and conceptualizations of growth. For instance, Park et al. (1996) were interested with negative events that are less stressful than “seismic” events and coined the term SRG, which was defined as veridical positive changes that are more common and less dramatic or radical than PTG (Park, 2009). Specifically, SRG is concerned with attempts to make meaning by reappraising stressors or one’s global beliefs and goals resulting in relatively permanent changes in personal resources, social relationships, and coping skills.

For researchers less concerned with the severity of the adversity (e.g., seismic events, less stressful events), Affleck and Tennen (1996) coined two new terms: benefit finding (i.e., adaptive beliefs about the benefits of adversity) and benefit reminding (i.e., the use of knowledge from benefit finding as a deliberate strategy to cope during difficult times). Unlike PTG, for example, which is only concerned with profound and transformative changes (i.e., actual and enduring growth), benefit finding refers to perceptions of growth that are not always transformative (Davis & Nolen-Hoeksema, 2009). In a similar vein, like benefit reminding, which is defined as a coping strategy,¹ other researchers have also represented growth following adversity to be a coping strategy or style. For example, Carver, Scheier, and Weintraub (1989) proposed a dimension of coping labelled “positive reinterpretation and growth,” which was defined as “construing a stressful transaction in positive terms” (p. 269).

Another conceptual approach taken by researchers, who are more concerned with illusory reports of growth, was to extend Tedeschi and Calhoun’s (1995) original conceptualization of PTG. This conceptual approach is predicated on the assumption that self-reported PTG does not always reflect authentic or real growth. To clarify, Maercker and Zoellner (2004) proposed PTG to have two sides: a functional, self-transcending, or constructive side (i.e., constructive PTG) as defined by Tedeschi and Calhoun and an illusory, self-deceptive, or dysfunctional side (i.e., illusory PTG). It is proposed that illusory PTG is self-perceived growth that is self-deceptive and used to avoid a painful reality. In the short term, it can make people feel good, albeit temporally, but may be maladaptive in the long term because the person is avoiding dealing with their new reality.

A final way of conceptualizing growth in the literature has been to broaden or narrow the prior conceptualizations. For example, Park (2010) broadly defined growth as meanings made (i.e., the products of meaning-making processes), which encapsulate the five dimensions of PTG reported by Tedeschi and Calhoun (1995) with other variables (e.g., sense-making, acceptance, reattributions). Other researchers who have taken a narrower perspective, for example, include: (a) Hobfoll et al. (2007), who advocated an action-focused approach to PTG that emphasizes behavioral change (rather than cognitive and emotional) as an indicator of actual and enduring growth; (b) Hefferon (2012) who proposed the concept of corporeal PTG (e.g., a new relationship with one’s body) that is a more embodied dimension of growth that accounts for the corporeality of traumas; (c) Jayawickreme and Blackie (2014) who defined PTG explicitly as personality change (i.e., an enduring shift in the way people think, feel, and behave following a traumatic event); and (d) Pals and McAdams (2004) who proposed that PTG is a revision in one’s life narrative. For example, McAdams, Reynolds, Lewis, Patten, and Bowman (2001) coined the term redemptive narrative, which tells of a “transition from a bad, affectively negative life scene to a subsequent good, affectively positive life scene. The bad is redeemed, salvaged, mitigated, or made better in light of the ensuing good” (p. 474). Thus, according to this perspective, PTG could be an expression of a revision in one’s life narrative that can act as the catalyst for cognitive, emotional, and/or behavioral changes.

What we can learn from the diverse ways that growth has been labeled, defined, and conceptualized is that it clearly means different things to different researchers. Given this diversity, some researchers have argued for “consensus on terminology” (Park, 2009, p. 15), “a gold standard definition” (Joseph, Murphy, & Regel, 2012, p. 318), and “a concrete and agreed-upon definition of the construct” (Tennen, 2013; cited in Jayawickreme & Blackie, 2014, p. 313). However, we disagree. For us, such diversity should be celebrated and encouraged because we believe this will more likely lead to novel and exciting ways of understanding the phenomenon. That said, this does not mean that anything goes. It is important that researchers are clear how they define and conceptualize growth following adversity in their programs of research. Heeding this recommendation ourselves, the rationale for employing the term growth following adversity for the title of this book and this chapter was for the benefit of inclusivity. Given the diverse chapters in this book, terms such as PTG, SRG, or benefit finding would have restricted the focus on the book to “seismic” events, less stressful events, or perceptions of change, respectively. In contrast, growth following adversity herein reflects the broadest sense of the term and encapsulates its multiple meanings. Furthermore, unlike PTG and SRG, which are concerned with event severity and infer a threshold (i.e., “seismic” and traumatic stressors or less stressful and more “ordinary” stressors, respectively), we employ the term adversity because it is less stringent and more concerned with the experience of the event rather than the event itself; as adversity is a relational state between an individual and their environment (Jackson, Firtko, & Edenborough, 2007).

Other Conceptual Considerations

While the preceding discourse provides the reader with a broad understanding of the various meanings of growth, this section aims to ta...

Índice

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Table of Contents
• List of illustrations
• List of contributors
• Foreword
• Introduction: Growth Following Adversity in Sport: A Mechanism to Positive Change
• PART 1: Conceptual, Theoretical, and Methodological Perspectives
• PART 2: Cultural, Organizational, and Relational Perspectives
• PART 3: Population Perspectives
• PART 4: Applied Perspectives
• PART 5: Conclusion
• Index