As is readily evident in this special issue, the concept of ‘stress’ is pervasive in biology, and the responses to stress can be appreciated at various timescales. The term also has both positive and negative connotations. If talking about physical strain, i.e. mechanical stress, then stress can be intertwined with normal developmental processes. In plants, for example, we see that the internal pressures generated inside cells provide the driving force behind growth, and these expanding cells in turn squeeze their neighbors, which can sense this and alter their own growth accordingly. These interactions create a complex set of feedbacks between cells that together help determine the final form of mature plant organs. So it is clear that stress can be a normal, even essential, part of the life cycle. (Paragraph 1)

But, of course, stress can also be a negative, as in the psychological stress that comes with writing an editorial under a tight deadline. Ecologists usually describe stress as any perturbation, such as a change in moisture or temperature, that reduces the fitness of the individual if left unattended. In response to stress, organisms may develop strategies to mitigate the harmful effects. One option is to curl up into a ball, shield yourself from outside elements, and hope for better times. This is seen in many organisms that undergo diapause or dauer transitions. Yet another option is to simply run away. For example, it is clear that animals can migrate to more favorable locales, and we can see this as the ranges of various species become altered by climate change. (Paragraph 2)

Escape is not an option for sessile organisms like plants, so in response to stressful conditions, such as intermittent periods of heat or drought, mechanisms may evolve that allow rapid physiological changes that help ‘move’ the individual back into its comfort zone. The evolution of these homeostatic mechanisms will inevitably depend on the strength of natural selection, determined by the magnitude of the stress and its frequency, as well as the cost of building up these defences. (Paragraph 3)

Samples of MCQ:

Question 1. “As is readily evident in this special issue, the concept of ‘stress’ is pervasive in biology” (Martin, 2014, p. R403) (Paragraph 1). What does “pervasive in biology” mean?

• A. important topic in biology

• B. recurrent theme in biology

• C. acerbic issue in biology

• D. None of the Above

Question 2. “In plants, for example, we see that the internal pressures generated inside cells provide the driving force behind growth, and these expanding cells in turn squeeze their neighbors, which can sense this and alter their own growth accordingly. These interactions create a complex set of feedbacks between cells that together help determine the final form of mature plant organs. So it is clear that stress can be a normal, even essential, part of the life cycle.” (Martin, 2014, p. R403) (Paragraph 1). Based on this description, stress experienced by a plant is a result of ___. (Choose the best option.)

• A. expansion of cells

• B. responses of neighboring cells

• C. All of the Above

• D. None of the Above

With regard to resilience, the authors further differentiate between emergent resilience (i.e., resilience following a chronic aversive event) and minimal-impact resilience (i.e., resilience following acute aversive events) (Bonanno et al., 2015). However, the trajectories of adjustment are conceptualized differently by other research groups. For example, Layne et al. (2009) delineate stress resistance and resilience. According to these authors, stress resistance refers to maintaining homeostasis and a stable adaptive functioning when faced with adversity (compare resilience according to Bonanno et al., 2015). Resilience, on the other hand, is rather understood as trajectory of recovery (i.e., full recovery of homeostasis following temporary perturbation in functioning after a stressor). Depending on the time required to restore healthy systems, resilience may also be distinguished from protracted recovery (i.e., gradual recovery). One step further, posttraumatic growth is another trajectory of adjustment that is differentiated from resilience in the literature (e.g., Layne et al., 2009). Whereas resilience relates to maintaining mental health or the full recovery of preadversity functioning, posttraumatic growth pertains not only to restoring homeostasis, but also to increasing the level of functioning compared to the outset prior to stressor exposure by positive transformations (Layne et al., 2009). In comparison to resilience that frequently occurs after adversity and is the most prevalent outcome (Angel, 2016), posttraumatic growth is seen as the rarer phenomenon that can be observed in less resilient individuals (Angel, 2016; Levine, Laufer, Stein, Hamama-Raz, & Solomon, 2009). According to Tedeschi and Calhoun (1996), posttraumatic growth includes the perception of benefits (i.e., meaning making) in different domains (i.e., closeness in social relationships, possibilities in life, personal strengths, spiritual change and appreciation of life) after a traumatic event. It results from reflective ruminative thinking (Angel, 2016; Zoellner & Maercker, 2006) and can in turn increase future resilience as soon as the individual had time to process the traumatic event (Angel, 2016; Tedeschi, 2011). Posttraumatic growth is associated with several resilience factors, such as optimism, positive reappraisal or sense of coherence (Zoellner & Maercker, 2006). However, since the associations between posttraumatic growth and mental dysfunctions (e.g., depression, PTSD) are less clear (Zoellner & Maercker, 2006), more research on posttraumatic growth as an adaptive phenomenon (as assumed for example by Tedeschi & Calhoun, 1996) is needed. (Paragraph 1)

To sum up, in current research, resilience as process is characterized by either a trajectory of undisturbed, stable mental health during or after a period of adversity or by a pattern of temporary disturbances that is followed by a relatively rapid and successful recovery (see also American Psychological Association, 2015; Kalisch et al., 2015; Mancini & Bonanno, 2009; Norris, Tracy, & Galea, 2009; Sapienza & Masten, 2011; Windle, 2011). As resilient individuals are able to adapt in the face of adversity, they are assumed as being less likely to engage in the meaning-making processes that are related with posttraumatic growth (Levine et al., 2009). (Paragraph 2)

Consequences of the conceptual heterogeneity in resilience definitions have already been discussed elsewhere (e.g., Davydov, Stewart, Ritchie, & Chaudieu, 2010; Kalisch et al., 2017; Luthar et al., 2000). With regard to intervention research that aims to modify certain behaviors and cognitions, a trait-oriented definition of resilience does not seem to be useful. Although individuals with certain resilience-conducive factors and traits may be more likely to have positive outcomes than others (Miller & Harrington, 2011), such resilience-conducive factors and traits should not be confounded with the resilient outcome itself (Kalisch et al., 2015). For intervention research, an outcome-oriented definition seems more appropriate since it views resilience as a modifiable and teachable construct. (Paragraph 3)

Sample of MCQ:

Question 1. “According to these authors, stress resistance refers to maintaining homeostasis and a stable adaptive functioning when faced with adversity (compare resilience according to Bonanno et al., 2015). Resilience, on the other hand, is rather understood as trajectory of recovery (i.e., full recovery of homeostasis following temporary perturbation in functioning after a stressor).” (Chmitorz et al., 2017) (Paragraph 1). Which of the following may be the reason behind the need of distinguishing between the phenomenon of stress resistance and the phenomenon of resilience? (Choose the best option.) That is because ___.

• • A. people may be different in terms of the level of stress resistance and the level of resilience that they can attain

  • B. people who are competent in attaining resilience after stress exposure may also enhance their ability toward stress resistance in the future

  • C. people who are undergoing the condition of stress resistance may not achieve resilience in the long run

  • D. people may eventually attain the condition of resilience if they can maintain in the condition of stress resistance for a long enough period of time