How to start a journal and beat the academic publishing racket

Academic publishing is a multi-billion pound industry, with profit margins reportedly higher than those of Apple, Google and Amazon. It has always struck me as a racket: academics sign over their work to private businesses for free, and then their universities pay the same businesses hefty fees in order to read what they publish. Academics are also responsible for editing these journals and providing the peer-reviews, usually for free.

It hasn’t always been this way. In a remarkable brief history of the academic publishing industry, Stephen Buranyi highlights the key role of Robert Maxwell, a brash business tycoon whose greatest desire was to “be a millionaire”. Maxwell arrived on the scene just after the Second World War, which was a key turning point in academic history. The post-war years saw a huge growth in the number of people attending higher education and also in the academic publishing trade. In 1950, there were 10,000 journals published worldwide, but by 1980, this was had reached 62,000. Robert Maxwell and other businessmen capitalised on this growth and took the opportunity to privatise what had previously been a largely non-profit sector. There is now growing awareness that this industry is both ludicrous and detrimental, unwieldily costly and harmful to the progression of science. However, solutions are slow in coming. While open-access journals are growing, the majority of these charge fees for publication that far outstrip real costs. For these reasons, I have been intrigued and encouraged to see the development of peer-reviewed open access journals which do not charge authors to publish with them. These include Musicology Research Journal (MRJ), whose Chief Editor is Dr James Williams, Senior Lecturer at the University of Derby, and Psychreg Journal of Psychology (PJP), whose Chief Editor is Dennis Relojo-Howell, founder of leading psychology blog Psychreg. These journals offer a solution that previously would have been regarded as impossible: they are both free to the authors and free to readers. I spoke to Williams and Relojo-Howell to understand more about their journals.

Why start a peer-reviewed academic journal?

As both Williams and Relojo-Howell attested, self-publishing an academic journal is a significant amount of work. So why do it? Williams said his motivation arose from his experience as a PhD Student and early career researcher. “Acceptance of manuscripts in current musicology-based journals can sometimes feel a little elitist. Editors and traditional publishers prefer to go with already-known academics, and are less likely to take on manuscripts from early-career scholars”. Williams also described his dissatisfaction with the traditional academic publishing industry, and its money-oriented focus. MRJ meets this gap by focusing on publishing the work of early career researchers, and by managing all copy-editing and manuscript management in-house. Relojo-Howell’s motivation was different. As a psychology blog editor, he had begun to receive blog post submissions that were overly long and technical. These posts weren’t suitable for publication as blog posts, but he could see their importance and academic merit. He created the journal to provide an outlet for these articles, and to broaden the overall scope of Psychreg. 

Ten steps for starting a journal

Whatever the focus of your journal, the steps for setting one up are similar.

  1. Identify the gap. What is the need your journal will meet? How will it improve information sharing in your field? Once you’ve identified this gap, you need to set the scope of your journal. Decide which types of articles you will include, and those you won’t.journal website
  2. Build a website that will home your journal. A full description of this process is beyond the capacity of this article (and my expertise!) but the key parts of this are to buy a domain name, find a web hosting company and then prepare the content within this. Popular web-creation platforms are wordpress.com, wix.com and weebly.com. Relojo-Howell suggested that it’s also worth looking into the Public Knowledge Project: this provides Open Journal Systems (OJS), federally funded software designed to support the set up and management of open access journals.
  3. Set up an editorial board. Both Williams and Relojo-Howell highlighted the importance of this. First, this group can provide the strategic direction and support that can get your journal started and help it grow. Second, this group can provide credibility to the project. As Relojo-Howell said, “When I started, potential contributors were only interested in who was on the editorial board. I have never been asked about the journal’s impact factor”.
  4. Involve associate editors who can provide support. Williams described the importance of including a multi-skilled team. “We have editors with different areas of expertise and varying skillsets, including people who are familiar with copy-editing and academic publishing”.
  5. Call for papers. You can spread the word about your new journal via social media, personal networks and by contacting other relevant university departments. Neither Williams nor Relojo-Howell had found this aspect challenging. As Williams said, “We have only ever advertised the journal in the UK, but we have received submissions from Australia, Canada, the USA and Asia”.academic publishing
  6. Manage your submissions. Traditional journals use manuscript-management software, but this comes with a steep price tag. “I contacted Emerald about their systems”, Relojo-Howell said, “but they asked for £38k”. Open Journal Systems (OJS) provides an alternative, free-to-use alternative, but this isn’t necessary. “I use a spread-sheet to keep on top of submissions”, Williams said. “It works fine”.
  7. Copy-edit and type-set your articles. While this may feel like a challenge, both Williams and Relojo-Howell said it was possible to do using widely available software. Williams said that he uses Word and Adobe programs to provide a professional-looking finish to his articles. Relojo-Howell commented on the fonts he uses: “I use a combination of paid-for fonts and some free Google fonts”.
  8. Apply for an International Standard Serial Number (ISSN). For us in the UK, this involves submitting an application to the British Library. Williams suggested that the British Library will expect to see evidence of around 3-4 previous publications and a commitment to continue publishing on a regular basis.
  9. Plan how to give your articles a Digital Object Identifier (DOI). DOIs are a string of numbers, letters and symbols used to permanently identify an article of document and link it to the web. Relojo-Howell recommends using Zenodo for this purpose. Initially funded by EU project funding, Zenodo is now open to all research outputs and offers its services free of charge for open access publishers.
  10. Wider registration. There are a variety of international platforms with which to register journals, including Web of Science, PubMed and SCOPUS. This type of registration seems to be a longer term process, however. Relojo-Howell said he had contacted both the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) and Thomson-Reuters, but they indicated that they would expect journals to be up and running for closer to five years before they would register them.

Other considerations

  • Finding peer-reviewers. My colleagues who edit traditional journals have described to me the challenges of finding peer-reviewers. While Williams and Relojo-Howell suggested this could also be challenging with new, open access journals, Williams suggested a personal touch could help support a positive response rate. “We approach academics who are working closely in the field of the article, and send personal requests. 60 or 70 per cent of the time, they agree”.
  • Clarify that you are a genuine academic ground-roots initiative. Unfortunately, at the same time that the genuine open-access field is growing, the number of predatory journals is proliferating at great speed. In a previous post, I clarify the warning signs of academic spam emails. However, if your potential contributors are concerned, let them know that the first clear distinction is that predatory journals ask for large sums of money and usually offer to rush through submissions at great speed. The second clear distinction is your academic board. You can signpost potential contributors to contact your board members for reassurances, if they are concerned.

Is it worth it?

Both Williams and Relojo-Howell admitted that their journals were time consuming and offered no financial benefits. However, what is clear is that starting these journals offers significant job satisfaction. As Williams said, “I saw it as a real problem – I wanted to help other graduating PhD music students… I don’t think I have reaped any rewards for myself, but I do know a lot of people now. It’s great for networking”. Similarly, for Relojo-Howell, the reward lies in contributing towards open science: “I wanted to demonstrate that dissemination of science can be reconstructed to become more democratic – a science that is shared for wider consumption”.

Ten tips for aspiring Clinical Psychologists

The competition to become a Clinical Psychologist is fierce. In the UK, the constituent parts of the training are a three-year undergraduate degree which is accredited by the British Psychological Society (BPS), and a three-year taught Clinical Psychology doctorate. The doctorate is full-time; candidates are employed by the NHS and complete a series of six-month placements in addition to coursework and a research project.

Psychology undergraduate students self-fund their degrees and as such, courses have flexibility about the number of students they can enrol. Psychology is consistently the second most popular degree in the UK, with an estimated 13,000 graduating each year. However, until recently, the only places offered on the doctorate were NHS funded, and therefore carefully regulated. Between 2012 and 2018, doctorate courses enrolled around 590 students per year altogether; just 15% of the total number of applicants. While three courses now include self-funded places, these come with a price tag of £20k+ a year, putting them out of reach of most graduates. 

Here, I offer 10 tips for aspiring Clinical Psychologists:

1. Know the bottom-lineIf you are at the point of applying for the doctorate, look at the particular courses you are interested in on the Clearing House website. What are their non-negotiables? Many courses now stipulate that candidates must have a 2:1 or a score above 65% in their undergraduate degree. Others require that applicants have a year’s clinical experience supervised by a qualified psychological therapist. If you don’t meet their stipulations your application will be automatically excluded, even if it is otherwise strong.  It is therefore worth researching each course’s bottom-lines before you apply.

2. Look into placement-year degrees. Several universities including Aston, Bath and Leeds (where I am based) offer applicants the opportunity to undertake a placement year ‘in industry’ between the second and third year. This means that students can gain relevant clinical experiences which can help them to be competitive applicants for graduate jobs. These placements are overseen by the universities, helping to ensure that they provide students with more useful experiences than they may gain through general volunteering. Some placements also offer a contribution towards expenses or a stipend, which volunteer roles generally do not. 

3. Consider the ‘Increasing Access to Psychological Therapies’ (IAPT) initiative for an alternative career as a psychological therapist. IAPT was launched in 2007 to provide greater access to psychological interventions for people with mild-to-moderate anxiety and depression. It is now planned to expand in order to provide therapies to 1.5million adults per year by 2020/2021. There are two main types of psychological therapists working in IAPT: Psychological Wellbeing Practitioners (PWPs) and High-Intensity CBT Therapists (HITs). PWPs are recruited into training positions with IAPT services on an NHS band 4; once they are qualified, they are paid at band 5 and can progress to band 6 (for information on NHS pay bands, see here). Similarly, HITs apply to train with specific NHS services. They train on band 6 and are paid on band 7 once qualified. Sign up to NHS jobs for alerts about these roles. A follow-up of HITs suggested that 79% stay in IAPT services after qualifying, 61% become CBT supervisors and 23% progress to more senior roles. It also possible to self-fund training to qualify as a CBT therapist, by undertaking a postgraduate course accredited as Level-2 by the British Association for Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapies (BABCP). 

4. “Remember at the end of the day, it’s just a job”. This was the best advice I was given before I attended my interviews for the Clinical Psychology Doctorate. A qualified Clinical Psychologist called me to give me some advice, and these words helped remind me that I wasn’t auditioning for the X-Factor: at absolute best, I would become a qualified psychological therapist. Imminent fame, stardom and riches were not around the corner. Being a Clinical Psychologist in the NHS is a wonderful job, but it is not without stress and strain, like any other healthcare related job. So, relax: it’s just a job.

5. Vary your experiences. Working as a research assistant or assistant psychologist will give you great experience for the Clinical Psychology doctorate, but more than a year in any one post will have diminishing returns. While you will always need to balance the opportunity to gain varied experience with the need to pay your rent and bills, it’s worth remembering that having a broad skillset will give you the strongest CV and application.

6. Treat applications like assignments and interviews like exams. You cannot assume that the knowledge and experience you have will naturally shine through: work hard to sell yourself. Consider carefully the range of experiences you have had. For example, what is the range of client groups you have worked with? What experiences have you gathered? Think carefully about the knowledge you have in relation to engaging different client groups, conducting assessments, collecting and storing sensitive data, managing risk, and applying psychological theory to individuals, for example by contributing to formulations or interventions. Also consider carefully the job which you are applying or interviewing for: who is interviewing you, and what is their area of interest? Which client group will you be working with, and what things might you need to be conscious of? Which therapeutic modalities might you be using, such as CBT or psychodynamic approaches? One way to impress your interviewers is to appear prepared for the opportunity they are offering.

7. Consider alternative psychology disciplines. If you have a BPS-accredited undergraduate degree, Clinical Psychology is not your only option for working therapeutically. For example, many posts which are open to Clinical Psychologists are also open to Counselling Psychologists. To train as a Counselling Psychologist, you can either do a self-funded doctorate degree or the BPS qualification in counselling psychology; this involves three years of supervised practice. More information is available here. Alternatively, for psychologists interested in working with forensic populations, Forensic Psychology may offer a fulfilling alternative career to Clinical Psychology. In some secure hospitals, much of the work of Forensic Psychologists involves delivering psychological therapy. To train as a Forensic Psychologist you can either complete a Doctorate in Forensic Psychology or a Masters in Forensic Psychology followed by two years of BPS training and supervised practice. More information on becoming a Forensic Psychologist is available here. It is also worth noting that the University of Birmingham now runs a four-year doctorate which offers candidates a dual qualification in both Forensic and Clinical Psychology (see here). 

8. Look for research opportunities. As an undergraduate I undertook some voluntary work as a research assistant with a professor and lecturer in my department. It was one of the best decisions I made: it paved the way to my Medical Research Council-funded PhD in Resilience to Suicidality and kick-started my love of improvement in healthcare. It also helped me to gather a range of experiences in working with clinical populations, as my PhD involved undertaking psychological assessments with people with psychosis and testing a novel mood-boosting intervention in this group. I would highly recommend seeking research opportunities to aspiring Clinical Psychologists. If you are currently a psychology undergraduate, seek opportunities with clinically-oriented researchers in your department. If you are a psychology graduate, sign up for job alerts at jobs.ac.uk and look for opportunities which would allow you to gain experience working with clinical psychologists and/or researching with clinical populations.

9. Keep your eye on the proposed role for ‘Clinical Associate Psychologists’. This is anticipated to take the form of an apprenticeship which will last 18 months and produce psychology professionals who undertake psychological assessment and formulation, and who deliver psychological interventions. At the moment, it is suggested that each Clinical Associate Psychologist will train on a Band 5 salary and be paid at Band 6 once qualified. The plans are currently in development, but should be in place in the coming year. 

10. Take heart: the need for psychologists is not diminishing. While the sense of competition may feel overwhelming, the demand for psychological therapies is increasing, which is reflected in the introduction of the IAPT initiative and the new role of the Clinical Associate Psychologist. While getting a place on the Clinical Psychology Doctorate may be challenging, if you have a passion for psychological work, the future is bright!

Finally, I want to note that while the cap on funded places for the Clinical Psychology doctorate produces a low success rate at the point of enrolment, I believe it also offers significant benefits. First, the competition that the cap creates means that aspiring Clinical Psychologists need to seek additional experience and training after their undergraduate degrees to strengthen their applications. This experience ensures that all doctoral trainees know the discipline they are working in and can feel confident in their career choice before they sign-up to the three-year course. This is reflected in the high retention rates of courses (99.4%): students rarely fail to complete their doctorate, once they’re on it. Second, it means that once qualified, Clinical Psychologists have good job prospects: 95% are employed in a clinical psychology job within 12 months of graduating. Deregulating the number of doctorate training places could shift this balance, creating the possibility that qualified Clinical Psychologists could become unable to find employment. By ensuring that applicants are experienced and committed, I believe that continuing to fund all forms of postgraduate psychological training offers the best outcome for applicants, healthcare providers and clients.

Building psychological resilience 2: how to reduce perfectionism and enhance flexible thinking

What is perfectionism?

We often use the term ‘perfectionist’ in a light-hearted way, to refer to a friend or colleague who’s being that bit too fussy about something. However, research suggests that having higher levels of perfectionism as a personality trait is one of the strongest factors which can reduce our resilience and make us vulnerable to stress (Johnson et al., 2011). At its heart, perfectionism describes the tendency to hold rigid, unrelenting, high standards. These are the kind of high standards that don’t bend in response to stress and don’t allow for excuses. It has been suggested that there are three types of perfectionism: self-oriented perfectionism, where we impose strict and high standards on ourselves, other-oriented perfectionism, where we impose strict and high standards on others, and socially prescribed perfectionism, where we believe that other people demand overly high standards from us (Hewitt and Flett, 1991). These three types of perfectionism cluster together – that is, if you are high in one, you are likely to be high in others.

What’s this got to do with resilience?

If having more of this trait makes us vulnerable to stress, what can this tell us about resilience? Well, every positive factor has a negative opposite – and every negative factor has a positive opposite. So if more perfectionism is bad, then less is good; and if perfectionism describes rigid, high standards, then the other end of this spectrum is mental flexibility (Figure 1).

perfectionism 1

It’s not high standards that are the problem

Let’s be clear, reducing perfectionism isn’t about lowering high standards. Having high standards is often a strength, driving people to make great achievements. The problem is not the standards themselves, but the fact that they are rigid and inflexible. Aiming high when you’re feeling strong can be positive, but insisting on reaching the same standard when you’re under unusually high pressure can be exhausting. There’s a need to maintain personal equilibrium, to adjust standards in response to what is manageable, given the situation. Doing this can ensure that you bend without breaking, and feel ready to return to full strength when your situation changes. On the other hand, piling on the pressure to meet overly high standards at all times is a recipe for burnout. 

Types of inflexible thinking

There are different thinking habits we can fall into that feed perfectionist thinking and reduce our ability to be flexible. These kinds of thinking habits are inflexible, rigid and demanding. Some examples are:

  • Black-and-white thinking. This is where you lose sight of the grey areas, and go into a mode which is ‘all or nothing’. The kind of thoughts you might have are “Anything less than the best is unacceptable” and “Asking for help makes me a failure”.
  • Catastrophic thinking. This is where you blow up the consequences and believe that if something goes wrong then it will be unmanageable. Some catastrophic thoughts are “If I fail the exam, my life is over” and “If I don’t get it right, I’ll never be able to face my parents”.
  • Probability overestimation. This is where you overestimate the likelihood of bad outcomes. Some thoughts you might have are “Although I revised for the exam all week, it won’t be enough”, and “There’s no point in entering the competition, because I’d never win”.
  • Should statements. This is where you put yourself under a tyranny of rules. These are rigid, and do not adapt or relax when under times of pressure. Some thoughts you might have are “I should always be polite”, and “I should always foresee potential problems”.

 

Some ways to enhance mental flexibility

  1. Develop self-awareness

Notice when you are falling into these thinking habits and pushing yourself too hard. Some useful questions to ask yourself are:

  • Am I feeling more irritable or distracted than usual?
  • Am I showing any physical signs of stress – am I more tired than usual, or struggling with sleep?
  • Is anyone else telling me that I’m pushing myself too hard to meet these standards?

It may be useful to keep a brief diary. Write down the events of the day, your thoughts/interpretations of these, and how you feel emotionally at the end of the day. This will help you understand your own patterns of behaviour, how you interpret events and how this effects you emotionally. For example:

Event Thoughts/interpretations Emotions
Passed exam, but with a lower grade than predicted

 

I should have seen this coming. That module was tough and I’m just not up to it. I’ll have to work twice as hard next time, if I want to stand any chance of having a successful future. Worried, embarrassed, downhearted.
Saw Mary, went for a drink It was great to catch up, it’s been too long. Sounds like she’s doing really well. Had forgotten some of those times we chatted about! Happy, hopeful.

 

  1. Do something to lift your mood

Negative emotions narrow the focus of our attention (Fredrickson and Joiner, 2002). This means that we are more likely to get stuck thinking about our problems, and lose sight of the bigger picture. By contrast, positive emotions can open the scope of our attention. They help us to think more broadly and to find different ways of looking at our situation. Perfectionistic thinking is closely linked with negative emotion: it is unrelenting and demanding, and rarely helps us to feel good. A good first step in tackling this can be to do something that makes you feel more positive. This might be doing something you enjoy, like seeing friends or going to a film or something active, like exercise. You might also want to engage in the Broad-Minded Affective Coping Procedure (BMAC), a therapeutic exercise designed to boost mood (for an example of this see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXLhtkHck78 ). The key thing is to do something that will give you a quick lift, as this will help you to think of things that can help you and implement change in the longer run.

 

  1. Set yourself some new, realistic and flexible standards

It can be useful to write yourself a new list of standards and statements, and to read these when you know you are pushing yourself too hard. Some examples of these are:

  • It’s not possible to be perfect all the time, and that’s ok
  • My own wellbeing is more important than my achievements
  • It’s ok to say the wrong thing sometimes, I’m only human
  • It’s not possible to be in a good mood all the time
  • I can only do my best, I can’t control all possible outcomes

 

  1. Think about your fears from someone else’s perspective

Confide your worries and fears to close friends or family who care about you and whose opinions you find helpful. Later on, when you are stressed and you think you may be pushing yourself too hard, you can then draw on these conversations in your mind. Think back to them and try and see your current situation from their perspectives. Ask yourself questions like:

  • If I told [friend or family member] how I had failed to achieve my usual standard, what would they say?
  • What advice would [friend or family member] give me about my current worry?
  • What advice would I give [friend or family member] if they had this same problem?

 

  1. Test your fears

Sometimes we need to change how we behave to change our thinking. In particular, it can be useful to challenge our fears in small ways. For example:

  • If you insist on always being early, try arriving at an event 10 minutes late.
  • If you hold very standards about your appearance, wear something that is old, creased or has a stain on it.
  • If have a very strict exercise regime, try doing no exercise for a week
  • If you have very high standards for how you behave socially, try saying something you would normally not allow yourself to do so

Before you test out your fear, write down a list of what you are worried will happen. What do you think will go wrong as a result? Then rate each fear on i) how likely you think it is to happen (from 0 [not at all likely]-100 [will definitely happen]) and ii) how bad the impact will be (from 0 [I’ll barely notice it] to 100 [it will affect every area of my life for good]). After you’ve completed the test, read your list of fears. Did they happen? For those that happened, how bad was the outcome in reality? Rate it again from 0-100. Compare your ‘before’ and ‘after’ lists. For example:

 

First list (before the test)

Feared event What I’m worried will happen How likely is it to happen? How bad will the impact be?
Wearing clothes with a mark on Other people will notice 100% 70%
  Other people will judge me, and give me funny looks 100% 80%
  I’ll be so embarrassed I’ll go bright red 100% 90%
  I won’t be able to think straight and get my words out 90% 100%
  I won’t be able to face them again 80% 100%

 

Second list (after the test)

Feared event What was worried would happen To what extend did this happen? How bad will the impact be?
Wearing clothes with a mark on Other people would notice 20% 0%
  Other people would judge me, and give me funny looks 0% 0%
  I’d be so embarrassed I’d go bright red 60% 20%
  I wouldn’t be able to think straight and get my words out 20% 40%
  I wouldn’t be able to face them again 0% 0%

 

When we do this we often realise how bad our fears were before we started. Afterwards, even though we may still be afraid of reducing our high standards, we see how that fear has been reduced. In CBT, we call this a ‘behavioural experiment’. For a video example of one of these in a therapy setting, please see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExNs8o8A4fI

Evidence for reducing perfectionism and enhancing flexibility

Enhancing flexible thinking is a key feature of most cognitive-behavioural interventions, but recent years have seen the development of some interventions focused specifically on developing this. There is now a strong body of evidence to suggest that these interventions are both successful in reducing perfectionism, and also in boosting overall mental wellbeing. A recent meta-analysis and systematic review identified 8 studies that had investigated this and reported a large-effect sizes for studies reducing perfectionism, and found evidence that these interventions also reduce anxiety and depression in participants (Lloyd et al., 2015).

 

FREDRICKSON, B. L. & JOINER, T. 2002. Positive emotions trigger upward spirals toward emotional well-being. Psychological Science, 13, 172-175.

HEWITT, P. L. & FLETT, G. L. 1991. Perfectionism in the self and social contexts: Conceptualization, assessment, and association with psychopathology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 456-470.

JOHNSON, J., WOOD, A. M., GOODING, P., TAYLOR, P. J. & TARRIER, N. 2011. Resilience to suicidality: The buffering hypothesis. Clinical Psychology Review, 31, 563-591.

LLOYD, S., SCHMIDT, U., KHONDOKER, M. & TCHANTURIA, K. 2015. Can psychological interventions reduce perfectionism? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Behavioural and cognitive psychotherapy, 43, 705-731.

For more information on some of these techniques and other ideas for overcoming perfectionism, see https://www.anxietybc.com/adults/how-overcome-perfectionism

 

This blog post was first published on 24th November 2016 at  https://www.psychreg.org/enhancing-self-esteem/

Building psychological resilience 1: How to enhance self-esteem

What is resilience?

As discussed in an earlier post, there are a number of definitions of resilience, but it’s generally used to describe an ability that some people demonstrate to withstand the negative impact of stress. These are the people who keep their cool and keep going in the face of problems. They don’t show undue distress, act out, or give up.

Is it possible to build or increase your levels of resilience?

There’s a common misperception that resilience is a rare quality, held by the special few. This is simply inaccurate. Life is full of decisions, choices and challenges, and we all need some level of resilience to get us through. However, it’s clear that some people have a higher threshold for managing stress than others. In the past it was often believed that these kinds of abilities were part of our genetic make up: either you had them or you didn’t. This view is now rapidly changing. An ever-growing body of psychological research shows that we can change the way we think and see the world, and we can build those factors that make us more resilient.

So… which factors in particular make us more resilient?

Together with my colleagues, I have undertaken a number of studies into the factors that confer resilience. This has included two large review papers. In the past, resilience research has often confused the concept of resilience with wellbeing, suggesting that people with high wellbeing must be resilient. However, it’s possible that people who are high on wellbeing are simply low on stress. To properly understand resilience, we need to go beyond this. We need to group people depending on whether they are i) under high or low stress and ii) maintaining or not maintaining their wellbeing (see Figure 1). When we do this, we can identify those people who are coping well with stress, and find out what it is about them that helps them to do this. It is this approach that my work has taken.  

building self esteem1

Our work has suggested that higher self-esteem, more flexible thinking and higher self-confidence confer resilience. These factors are often targeted by psychological therapy. In particular, techniques included as part of cognitive-behaviour therapy (CBT) aim to enhance or increase these beliefs and abilities. Interventions to enhance these abilities hasn’t just been limited to people with diagnosed mental health problems though: studies in groups of young people and workers in high-stress environments have also focused on enhancing these factors (Morton and Montgomery, 2013, Lin et al., 2004).

In this post, we’re going to look at two ways to enhance self-esteem using psychological techniques. These interventions are brief, so they can be used in workshop and training sessions, and research suggests they work. We’ll outline the background and process to these techniques before providing some evidence for their effectiveness.

  1. Self-affirmation techniques

Background

Self-affirmation theory is a social psychological theory. It views people as story tellers who have a powerful need to tell a coherent and continuous story about themselves as people who are able to control important and moral outcomes in their lives (Cohen and Sherman, 2014). In other words, self-affirmation theory suggests we have a strong need to see ourselves as being a ‘good person’. Events which threaten this story are perceived as threats which cause upset and distress. According to self-affirmation theory, these events need not be big, like a job loss or marriage breakdown. Our need to maintain a sense of ourselves as essentially ‘good’ is so strong that it means that even mundane events can be experienced as threatening.

The technique

The good news is that, according to the theory, we don’t need to see ourselves as ‘wonderful’ or ‘excellent’ to be happier: we just need to see ourselves as being adequate. However, if we are experiencing more challenging threats than usual, we can sometimes need help to restore and strengthen our story of ourselves as a being a ‘good person’. The most commonly used self-affirmation technique to achieve this is to write a list of core personal values. Once written, people choose one value that is particularly important to them (Cohen and Sherman, 2014). They then write about why the value is important to them, and describe a time when the value was important. People often write about relationships with family or friends, religion, kindness or humour. The idea behind this is that it reminds people of the fundamentals of their story and enables them to strengthen their personal narrative around this. An excerpt from Cohen and Sherman (2014) provides an example of what one college student wrote during the exercise:

“My relationship with my family is very important to me because it is my parents and brother who helped push me to be who I am today. Without them, I probably wouldn’t have the patience and motivation to have applied for this university and be successful here. Whenever I have a problem, it is my family I can go to to help me through it.”

The evidence

A large body of research suggests that self-affirmation interventions help people to deal more effectively with stressful events. People who use them demonstrate less of a physical reaction to stress (Creswell et al., 2005), are more likely to take positive action when told they have a health problem (Epton et al., 2015), and even gain higher academic grades (Cohen and Sherman, 2014). Why? Well, the theory states that performing self-affirmations helps to build a person’s self-esteem. Strengthened in their personal story, and in their sense of who they are as a good and valuable person, they are less vulnerable to events or information that could threaten this. This explanation has been supported by evidence that people high in trait self-esteem who perform self-affirmations are those who cope best with stress (Creswell et al., 2005).

  1. Tarrier’s (2001) Cognitive-behavioural technique

Background

Cognitive-behaviour therapy (CBT) suggests that poor mental wellbeing can result from negative underlying beliefs. We can have these beliefs for sometime without being fully aware of them, but when we come across a ‘trigger’ event, they can lead to vicious cycles of negative thoughts, emotions and behavours (Figure 2). For example, we may have an underlying belief that we are worthless, but for as long as we are employed, this belief is kept at bay. However, when we find ourselves made redundant from our job, this belief is activated, leading to negative thoughts such as “I knew this would happen, I could never hold onto a job” and “I’ll never another job, no other firm would employ me”. These thoughts can lead to sad emotions and a lack of motivation, which can then contribute to decisions to become less active, to disengage from friends and to stop applying for jobs.

build self-esteem

The technique

The good news is that if negative beliefs can bring us down emotionally, then CBT suggests that more positive beliefs can boost us, and this is the principle underlying Tarrier’s (2001) self-esteem building technique. In this technique, people are asked to generate a list of positive self-qualities or statements that they think describe them. The idea is that these will be generated over 5 sessions at a rate of 2 per session (10 in total) but this number can be adapted to suit the setting and format of the intervention. For each positive quality that has been suggested, people are then asked to list as many examples of themselves demonstrating this quality as they can think of. As far as is possible, these examples should be based in their own personal memories, and should be described in a good level of detail. Next, participants are asked to mentally rehearse the examples they have described in order to strengthen their access to these memories. Before and after this exercise participants are asked to rate their level of belief in the self-qualities that they have described (on a scale from 0-100). The idea of this is to demonstrate the importance of where our attention lies. In other words, this is done to show that when we think about good things about ourselves, we will believe it more strongly and feel better (Hall and Tarrier, 2003).

The evidence

This technique has now been explored in i) a case study with an older adult suffering from low mood and depression (Chatterton et al., 2007), ii)  a randomised-controlled trial with working age adults with mental health problems, (Hall and Tarrier, 2003) and iii) a group of working age adults with substance misuse problems (Oestrich et al., 2007). In each case, it has been found to be an effective intervention for boosting self-esteem.

Summary

Self-esteem is an important resilience factor, which can help us to maintain positive wellbeing when we are under pressure or stress. Two ways to boost our self-esteem are to remind ourselves of the values that we hold important, and the things about ourselves that are good. There are specific ways of doing this, and research suggests that when undertaken, doing this can help us to maintain a strong sense of self and to build our self-esteem.

Find out more about building resilience in my blog on how to reduce perfectionism.

 

CHATTERTON, L., HALL, P. L. & TARRIER, N. 2007. Cognitive Therapy for Low Self-Esteem in the Treatment of Depression in an Older Adult. Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy, 35, 365-369.

COHEN, G. L. & SHERMAN, D. K. 2014. The psychology of change: Self-affirmation and social psychological intervention. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 333-371.

CRESWELL, J. D., WELCH, W. T., TAYLOR, S. E., SHERMAN, D. K., GRUENEWALD, T. L. & MANN, T. 2005. Affirmation of personal values buffers neuroendocrine and psychological stress responses. Psychological Science, 16, 846-851.

EPTON, T., HARRIS, P. R., KANE, R., VAN KONINGSBRUGGEN, G. M. & SHEERAN, P. 2015. The impact of self-affirmation on health-behavior change: A meta-analysis. Health Psychology, 34, 187.

HALL, P. L. & TARRIER, N. 2003. The cognitive-behavioural treatment of low self-esteem in psychotic patients: a pilot study. Behaviour research and therapy, 41, 317-332.

LIN, Y.-R., SHIAH, I.-S., CHANG, Y.-C., LAI, T.-J., WANG, K.-Y. & CHOU, K.-R. 2004. Evaluation of an assertiveness training program on nursing and medical students’ assertiveness, self-esteem, and interpersonal communication satisfaction. Nurse education today, 24, 656-665.

MORTON, M. H. & MONTGOMERY, P. 2013. Youth empowerment programs for improving adolescents’ self-efficacy and self-esteem a systematic review. Research on Social Work Practice, 23, 22-33.

OESTRICH, I. H., AUSTIN, S. F., LYKKE, J. & TARRIER, N. 2007. The Feasibility of a Cognitive Behavioural Intervention for Low Self-Esteem within a Dual Diagnosis Inpatient Population. Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy, 35, 403-408.

TARRIER, N. 2001. The use of coping strategies and self-regulation in the treatment of psychosis. In: MORRISON, A. P. (ed.) Casebook of cognitive therapy for psychosis. London: Routledge.

What is psychological resilience?

What do we mean when we use the word ‘resilience’?

It’s widely accepted that when we talk about ‘resilience’ or ‘psychological resilience’, we are referring to an ability that some people show to withstand or quickly ‘bounce back’ from stress.

What can research tell us about resilience?

Researchers have been investigating psychological resilience for around 50 years. However, there have been a number of limitations with this research. For example, although we usually talk about psychological resilience as an ability to withstand stress, most researchers have not actually investigated their proposed resilience factors in relation to stress. Instead, they have simply measured their factor directly in relation to an outcome they’re interested in. For example, they have measured perceptions of social support in relation to wellbeing. They have found that high social support is linked with higher wellbeing, like this:

drawing[2]

However, if you think about it, the opposite of perceived social support is loneliness. And in fact, a number of researchers have previously shown us that feelings of loneliness are linked with indicators of poorer wellbeing, like this:

what is resilience 2

As you can see, this kind of ‘resilience’ research is not really telling us anything more than we used to learn from studies of risk factors!

So can resilience research tell us anything new?

Yes. However, we have to research it in the same way that we talk about: we need to study which variables reduce the likelihood that exposure to stressors will lead to negative outcomes. If we draw this out, it would look like this:

what is psychological resilience 3

If we research psychological resilience in this way, it becomes less important whether we use the term ‘high social support’ or ‘loneliness’: what is important is that our social relationships can influence how we will deal with stress. We can say that better social relationships can buffer or attenuate the likelihood that stress will lead to poor wellbeing, or that poorer social relationships harm our capacity for psychological resilience and will make us more vulnerable to poor wellbeing in response to stress.

To provide researchers with a guide for doing this kind of research, and to clarify the criteria that a variable should meet in order to be considered as conferring resilience, I have gathered these ideas together in a framework called ‘The Bi-Dimensional Framework’ (BDF) for resilience research (Johnson, 2016, Johnson et al., 2010a, Johnson et al., 2010b).

What advantages does the BDF offer resilience researchers?

  1. It overcomes the confusion caused by the range of terms that have been used to describe ‘resilience’

There have been a lot of words used in the research literature to describe psychological resilience, these include ‘mental toughness’, and ‘hardiness’, amongst others. This can be confusing. However, the BDF defines psychological resilience according to methodological criteria (i.e., what a variables does, or how it behaves), rather than terminology. It suggests that resilience factors are psychological variables which buffer the association between stress exposure (or exposure to risk factors) and the likelihood of negative outcomes. In particular, the BDF states that for low resilience individuals, there should be a clear increase in negative outcomes in relation to the amount of stress they experience. However, for high resilience individuals, there should be minimal increase in negative outcomes, no matter how much stress they experience. If we were to draw this relationship out, it would look like this:

psychological resilience

  1. It means we can use research to develop increasingly accurate concepts of resilience

In the past it has been common practice to propose a concept of psychological resilience, create a questionnaire to measure this, and then test it in relation to negative outcomes. If it is linked with lower levels of negative outcomes, the researchers conclude that the variable confers resilience. If it doesn’t, the researchers conclude that resilience doesn’t confer resilience in this instance. As outlined above, this doesn’t tell us whether the variable does indeed buffer the impact of stress. However, even more confusingly, how can a ‘resilience’ factor not confer resilience?! If this concept doesn’t confer resilience, then by the very definition of psychological resilience we must conclude that it is not in fact resilience at all. Instead, we could surmise that there are other factors which confer psychological resilience, which are not related to this concept.

This points to a need for concepts of psychological resilience which can be developed and adapted in response to research. As a framework for resilience research, the BDF allows for this kind of growth and development. In particular, it enables the systematic review of individual studies which have investigated factors which buffer the relationship between stress exposure and negative outcomes.

What do these reviews tell us?

Together with my collaborators, I have conducted two systematic reviews of resilience factors using the BDF approach, both of which have been published in a leading psychology journal (Johnson et al., 2016, Johnson et al., 2011). The first of these investigated psychological variables which buffer the relationship between exposure to any risk factor and suicidal thoughts. This suggested that hope, flexible thinking, self-confidence and a good way of looking at events conferred psychological resilience (Johnson et al., 2011). The second investigated psychological variables which buffer the relationship between exposure to failure experiences and psychological distress. This found that mental flexibility, higher self-esteem and a positive way of explaining events confer resilience to distress in response to failure (Johnson et al., 2016).

Together, these reviews suggest that even if you look at different kinds of negative outcomes, similar variables seem to confer psychological resilience. These variables relate to mental flexibility, self confidence and self-esteem, and a positive way of positive way of explaining events.

Can we train people to be more resilient?

Yes. The factors identified by these reviews (mental flexibility, self-esteem and self confidence and explanatory style) are those which are commonly targeted in cognitive-behaviour therapy, which is an evidence-based form of psychological therapy. CBT was initially developed as an intervention for people with mental health problems, but has since been found to be effective for improving mental wellbeing in a range of populations. With a collaborator in Australia, Dr Reema Harrison, I have been developing an intervention plan for training medical students in resilience which draws on CBT. This intervention is designed to train participants in resilience through three 60-minute workshops based on the principles of cognitive-behaviour therapy. These workshops will involve psychoeducation, experiential exercises and group work. We will be piloting this in Sydney in January 2017, and plan to then test this in subsequent research studies in different populations.

For more information on how to build psychological resilience, please see my blogs on enhancing self-esteem and reducing perfectionism.

References

JOHNSON, J. 2016. Resilience: The Bi-dimensional Framework. . In: WOOD, A. M. & JOHNSON, J. (eds.) Positive Clinical Psychology. Chichester: Wiley.

JOHNSON, J., GOODING, P. A., WOOD, A. M. & TARRIER, N. 2010a. Resilience as positive coping appraisals: Testing the schematic appraisals model of suicide (SAMS). Behaviour Research and Therapy, 48, 179-186.

JOHNSON, J., GOODING, P. A., WOOD, A. M., TAYLOR, P. J., PRATT, D. & TARRIER, N. 2010b. Resilience to suicidal ideation in psychosis: Positive self-appraisals buffer the impact of hopelessness. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 48, 883-889.

JOHNSON, J., PANAGIOTI, M., RAMSEY, L., BASS, J. & HARRISON, R. 2016. Resilience to emotional dysfunction in response to failure or error: A systematic review. Clinical Psychology Review, In press.

JOHNSON, J., WOOD, A. M., GOODING, P., TAYLOR, P. J. & TARRIER, N. 2011. Resilience to suicidality: The buffering hypothesis. Clinical Psychology Review, 31, 563-591.

Originally published 23rd Nov 2016 at https://www.psychreg.org/building-psychological-resilience/