Chapter 5). However, they also include a range of other factors such as financial/
material resources. The model predicts that when faced with stress people will seek
to minimize the potential loss of resources. In the absence of stress, Hobfoll suggests
they will seek to build resources as a hedge against future stressors. He argues that the
association of social resources with positive well-being is an example of the benefits
of resource building (e.g. Cohen and Wills, 1985).
A central principle of the theory is that ‘resource loss is disproportionally more salient
than resource gain’ (Hobfoll, 2001: 343), so that in circumstances of equal resource
loss and gain, the loss will have greater impact. Hobfoll suggests that this emphasis on
resources differentiates this theory from transactional theory, which emphasizes
appraisals. In the COR approach, although stress processes may be assessed via people’s
appraisals, most are resources that are objectively observable. The model is also distinct
from the transactional theory in its idea of building resources for prevention of, or
protection against, future stressors. Thus it highlights the importance of proactive
coping (see Chapter 5). It also introduced the notion of ‘resource caravans’. This is
the idea that resources cluster together in groups so that if you have one major resource
such as self-efficacy this is likely to be linked to a range of others such as social support
and other positive coping styles. Over time these caravans travel with us such that
resources at one time period tend to carry over into future times (Hobfoll, 2001).
Hobfoll further suggests the notion of loss or gain spirals whereby initial resource gain
leads to future gain and loss leads to future loss. These principles seem intuitively
sensible and Hobfoll supports them with examples, frequently drawing on studies of
stress and coping in disaster areas.
The model is underpinned by its own questionnaire, the Conservation of Resources
Evaluation (COR-E) (Hobfoll, 2007). This consists of a list of 74 resources ranging
from ‘adequate income’, ‘support from coworkers’ to ‘adequate home furnishings’ and
‘positive feelings about myself’. Currently, there is little research using this model to
predict major physical health outcomes, however, resource loss has been linked to
depression and other psychological strains. For example, Ennis, Hobfoll and Schröder
(2000) report that lack of resources such as low income or poor education was almost
unrelated to depressed mood whereas loss of material resources (e.g. deterioration in
finances) was highly related.
More recently, Hobfall has suggested that resources are an important predictor of
resilience in the face of disasters (Hobfall, 2011). Research based on data from the 11
September 2001 terrorist attack in New York, supports this theory. The presence of
resources (such as social support) predicted resilience, whereas those who experienced
resource loss (in terms of income decline) were less than half as likely to be resilient
as participants who did not experience this loss. Resilience was defined in terms of
low levels of depression, substance abuse and post-traumatic stress disorder (Bonanno
et al., 2007; for more on resilience see Chapter 5).
The model has produced a certain amount of controversy, particularly as it can be
seen as a challenge to Lazarus’ highly influential theory. It was hotly debated in a series
of articles in Applied Psychology: An International Review(2001). Here Hobfoll describes
the theory and a number of other experts, including Lazarus himself, debate the issues
in a series of subsequent articles. Lazarus (2001) attacks the theory in no uncertain terms
and states that all the elements of the COR theory can already be found in his
transactional theory. For example, there are plenty of references to resources within
STRESS THEORY AND RESEARCH 61