The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/2042-6763.htm

Resilience
Resilience research and social research
marketing: the route to
sustainable behaviour change
Matthew Wood 77
Business School, University of Brighton, Brighton, UK
Received 23 January 2018
Revised 13 April 2018
Accepted 14 June 2018
Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to argue that resilience – and its underlying socio-ecological perspective – is a
critical concept that could serve to integrate different views on, and approaches to, social marketing. The aim
is to inspire social marketers to move away from narrow, issue-based interventions targeting individual
behaviours and to consider the impact of social ecologies, particularly the contribution resilience research can
make to behaviour change.
Design/methodology/approach – This is a conceptual paper; socio-ecological models and the resilience
concept are discussed and applied to a current “wicked problem” – obesity.
Findings – From a socio-ecological perspective, research findings highlight the impact macro, meso and
micro forces have on behaviour and the importance of a child’s micro-system and the influence it has on
development and life outcomes. Building resilience requires a relationship-building, person-centred, holistic
and long-term developmental approach to behaviour change.
Research limitations/implications – This is a conceptual paper that introduces new concepts to the
social marketing field. Future research should focus on understanding how to implement a resilience-building
approach in practice – including the interrelationships and interactions between individual, family and
community resilience – and how resilience can be integrated within systematic, socio-ecological thinking
when addressing “wicked problems”.
Practical implications – Rather than blaming and targeting individuals, the goal should be to create an
environment that supports parents, families and communities to build resilience at the micro, meso and macro
levels. The findings support the argument that social marketers should adopt an upstream approach to
develop interventions that make the environment the primary focus. Social marketers should collaborate with,
and learn from, social workers, psychologists and educationalist to further their understanding of resilience.
This would have a positive, sustainable impact on a whole range of social and health issues, ultimately
helping to address the overarching issue of social inequality.
Social implications – Building resilience amongst individuals, families and communities offer a means to
achieve fundamental positive social change and to reduce social, economic and health inequality.
Originality/value – The paper offers a unique perspective on how and why resilience – and its underlying
socio-ecological framework – should be applied within the social marketing field.
Keywords Obesity, Resilience, Social marketing, Parents, Social ecologies,
Upstream social marketing
Paper type Conceptual paper

Introduction and background

This paper argues that resilience – and its underlying socio-ecological perspective – is a
critical concept which could serve to integrate different views on, and approaches to, social
marketing. Social marketing has seen important developments in the past four decades since Journal of Social Marketing
it was first defined in Kotler and Zaltman’s (1971) pioneering paper. Subsequently, social Vol. 9 No. 1, 2019
pp. 77-93
marketing scholars shifted the focus from promoting social good using traditional © Emerald Publishing Limited
2042-6763
marketing techniques – viewing issues and ideas as “products” needing to be “sold” – DOI 10.1108/JSOCM-01-2018-0006
JSOCM towards an individual-focussed approach (Andreasen, 1994), drawing influence from areas
9,1 such as applied behaviour analysis (Geller, 1989). These earlier views on social marketing
focus almost exclusively on attempting to change the behaviour of individuals through the
application of existing marketing frameworks such as the 4Ps (Kotler and Lee, 2008). This
downstream approach to social marketing places responsibility for change with the
“consumer”, although it is recognised that “target audiences” may require support and
78 encouragement (Wood, 2016a).
The relevance of the 4Ps for commercial marketing in the contemporary era had already
been challenged by the rise of relationship marketing, value creation, service-dominant logic
and the power of branding (Wood, 2008; Vargo and Lusch, 2012; Russell-Bennett et al., 2013;
French and Gordon, 2015). By definition, the 4Ps focus on products, tools and tactics rather
than people, despite marketing’s claim to be a consumer-oriented approach to business.
Marketing in general, and social marketing in particular, principally concerns people,
relationships and emotions (Lefebvre, 2012; Wood, 2012; Wood and Fowlie, 2013). It is
argued that current theories and approaches to social marketing are unhelpful and there is a
need for a new perspective on social marketing, which recognises the complexities of
behaviour change and focusses on human beings within a systems/social-ecological context
(Brychkov and Domegan, 2017; Domegan et al., 2016; Brennan et al., 2016; Wood, 2016b).

The development of social marketing: from downstream to upstream

Upstream and downstream are terms first used in a public health metaphor and are now
used to describe two alternate approaches to prevent and deal with health, environmental
and other social issues (Gordon, 2013; Donovan and Henley, 2010; Dorfman, 2003;
Wood, 2016a). As discussed earlier, downstream social marketing primarily focusses on
attempting to change the behaviour of individuals by using interventions developed on
the basis of consumer insight (Wood, 2016b). More recently, researchers have stressed the
importance of “upstream” social marketing, which involves influencing policy and
changing the environment within which individuals are situated (Gordon, 2013, 2012;
Hoek and Jones, 2011; Wymer, 2011, 2010). In recent years, behavioural economics – with
its emphasis on policy-making – has also become popular with governments, although
scholars highlight a lack of integration with upstream social marketing initiatives
(Dessart and van Bavel, 2017). Upstream social marketing focusses efforts on decision-
making groups who have an influence over a target market and include politicians, media
figures, community activists, corporations, schools and foundations (Gordon, 2013;
Kotler and Lee, 2008), while. Gordon (2011) discusses the application of upstream social
marketing activities to influence policy around issues such as tobacco, alcohol, food and
gambling. Gordon’s view of upstream social marketing includes advocacy and lobbying
and is supported by Wood (2012), Wymer (2011, 2010); Hoek and Jones (2011); Kennedy
and Parsons, 2012).
At the same time, there has also been a much greater emphasis in the social marketing
literature on the co-creation and delivery of customer-oriented services: “midstream” social
marketing (Lefebvre, 2012; Russell-Bennett et al., 2013; Zainuddin, 2013). Midstream social
marketing should be used to help ensure that health and other services are designed,
developed and delivered to meet the needs of users. Furthermore, frontline service staff can
be pivotal in establishing effective relationships and conversations with clients
(Wood, 2016a; Wood and Fowlie, 2010). This paper argues that resilience can be developed
through positive interactions with professionals. (Wood, 2012; Russell-Bennett et al., 2013;
Hart et al., 2007). In moving beyond individually focussed strategies, which risk “blaming”
individuals for the current standard of health and social wellbeing in a community, social
marketers should focus on enabling individuals to make healthier choices by improving the Resilience
environment, addressing inequalities and encouraging policymakers to address the research
underlying causes of health and social problems (Brennan et al., 2016; Wood, 2016b; Hoek
and Jones, 2011). The three levels of social marketing activity discussed here can also be
interpreted using social-ecological models (discussed in the following section) and together
can contribute to the development of resilience amongst individuals, families and
communities.
79
A socio-ecological approach to social marketing
Social marketing principles demand that mixed-methods interventions should be developed
based on audience insight and understanding, taking into account segmentation, competition
and exchange processes (Andreasen 2002; National Social Marketing Centre, 2007). These
approaches largely ignore the social ecology of behaviours. For example, there is a clear
association between most health and social issues (obesity, smoking, alcohol, drugs, teenage
pregnancy, etc.) and deprivation (Pickett and Wilkinson, 2015). Deprived individuals and
their families face poverty, unemployment, poor housing and inadequate education and are
much more likely to experience the issues and problems which become the target of social
marketing interventions. Rothschild (1999) acknowledges that some individuals and families
may not have the resources, education or self-efficacy to change behaviour easily. So, even if
they are given the opportunity to change and are motivated, their lack of ability can make
this change problematic. Using problem drinking as an example, Rothschild argues that this
situation can be addressed through education and social marketing. Those lacking
motivation would require additional legal action to bring about positive behavioural change.
Rothschild’s conceptual framework offers useful guidance for social marketers designing
interventions to achieve behaviour change, and it acknowledges the need to integrate social
marketing with other approaches, such as education and regulation. However, it does not
address the underlying causes of “problem” behaviours and how individuals, families and
communities can build resilience to mitigate against the challenges and risks they are
exposed to over time. It is therefore argued that attempting to change specific behaviours,
while ignoring their underlying socio-economic and environmental bases, is illogical and
largely ineffectual: social marketing is treating the symptoms rather than their underlying
causes (Brennan et al., 2016; Wood, 2016b). Socio-ecological models are particularly useful
for understanding these underlying causes and associated factors when considering
behaviour change (Campbell et al., 2012; Wood, 2016b). Resilience researchers tend to focus
on the impact of child development and changes over the life course (chronosystem) on long-
term outcomes (Bronfenbrenner 1986; Ungar, 2015) (Figure 1).
This model – which uses alcohol, tobacco and other drugs (ATOD) as an example –
demonstrates the complexities of changing problem behaviours (or maintain health
behaviours) around substance abuse. The individual is at the heart of a nested series of ever-
widening environmental influences starting with family, friends and school, which are
situated within the microsystem (Wood, 2016b). This is the level in which most (downstream)
social marketing operates, targeting the individual – possibly, but not always – within the
context of a family, school or work microsystem. In some ways, this is consistent with the
place component of the 4Ps (Lee and Kotler, 2016). According to these others (p. 315), “Place is
where the target audience will perform the desired behaviour, acquire any related goods, and
receive the associated services”. It makes sense when attempting to influence the behaviour
of adolescents or children to conduct insight research and deliver interventions in the school
or family home. However, a socio-ecological approach to behaviour change goes further and
deeper than this conceptualisation of place applied within the 4Ps context, which
JSOCM Policy/Enabling Environment
9,1 (naonal & local poliices, laws and
regulaons around ATOD; media and
cultural influences on ATOD behaviours)

Organizational (public services

and social institutions working with
ATOD users)

80 Community (relationships between

organizations - cultural and social
capital; policies to discourage ATOD
use; cultural norms)

Interpersonal (families,
friends, social networks -
adues towards and use
of ATOD; social norms)

Individual
(ATOD knowledge,
atudes,
behaviors)
Figure 1.
Socio-ecological
model applied to
ATOD
Source: Bronfenbrenner 1977, 1986

Kennedy and Parsons (2012) describe this as “micro-social marketing”. They argue that
influences on behaviour change are generally too complex and powerful to succeed through
micro-social marketing alone, although choosing the most appropriate place for these
interventions is important. Families, schools, etc. constitute interacting microsystems, which
may have a profound influence on behaviours and operate in dynamic manner over a period
of time. Furthermore, these microsystems are related to – and interact with – other systems
which are more distanced from the individual (Brennan et al., 2016).
The ultimate purpose of ecological models of health behaviour is to inform the
development of comprehensive intervention approaches that can systematically target
mechanisms of change at several levels of influence (Sallis et al., 2008). Behaviour
change is more likely when environments and policies support healthful choices, when
social norms and social support for healthy choices are strong and when individuals are
motivated and educated to make those choices (Brennan et al., 2016). Interactions
between various microsystems create the mesosystem – “systems of relationships
between the different microsystems” (Sudbery, 2010, p. 302) – and outside of this, the
exosystem comprises organisations (e.g. parents’ employers) and networks
(e.g. community health services) which the individual may not be directly part of, but
which can still influence his or her behaviour, Sudbery (2010, p. 302) describes the
exosystem as “various systems of which the child is not even a part, but which
nevertheless affect the child’s development”. The importance of the exosystem is
recognised in community-based social marketing (McKenzie-Mohr, 2013; Bryant et al.,
2000) and could also include midstream social marketing as defined above (Russell-
Bennett et al., 2013). At the broadest level, the macrosystem compromises wider social,
cultural and political/legal/economic forces which influence all individuals, groups and
organisations within the social-ecological system. Macro and upstream social
marketing should operate at this level, although how to do this effectively is not always
clear (Gordon, 2013; Domegan, 2008).
 Typical, downstream social marketing interventions would target (usually older) Resilience
individuals with harmful drink or drug behaviour patterns (Wood, 2016b). Social marketing research
principles demand that mixed-methods interventions should be developed based on
audience insight and understanding, taking into account segmentation, competition and
exchange processes (Andreasen, 2002; National Social Marketing Centre, 2007). These
approaches largely ignore the social ecology of behaviours. For example, there is a clear
association between most health and social issues (obesity, smoking, alcohol, drugs, teenage 81
pregnancy, etc.) and deprivation (Pickett et al., 2005). Individuals and their families who face
poverty, unemployment, poor housing and inadequate education are much more likely to
experience the issues and problems which become the target of social marketing
interventions. Behaviours such as smoking and drinking may offer short-term benefits to
individuals who are struggling to survive and may be suffering from depression or mental
illness (Strine et al., 2008). They are unable or unwilling to consider the long-term
consequences of their actions, which are understandable in the circumstances. It is therefore
argued that attempting to change specific behaviours, while ignoring their underlying socio-
economic and environmental bases, is illogical and largely ineffectual: social marketing is
treating the symptoms rather than the underlying causes (Brennan et al., 2016).

Resilience – an integrating concept

Theories of resilience have developed in much the same way as socio-ecological theory, with
researchers now recognising that resilience not as an individual characteristic, but rather a
product of the environment in which a person learns to cope with adversity (Ungar, 2008).
Resilience is closely connected with the application of social-ecological models, which focus
on the impact of environmental factors and child development on long-term outcomes
(Campbell et al., 2012; Wood, 2016b). In the social marketing discipline, resilience is typically
used in the context of ecological sustainability (Cinderby et al., 2016; Eagle et al., 2016),
sustainable tourism (Hall, 2016), or the ability of communities to cope with disasters
(Daellenbach et al., 2016; Rawson, 2016). In the fields of developmental psychology and
social work, resilience has traditionally referred to an individual’s ability to adapt and
“bounce back” when faced with adversity (Masten and Coatsworth, 1998). More recently, the
socio-ecological model has been applied by Ungar et al. (2013), who state that to develop
effective interventions to build resilience, the primary focus should not be on understanding
characteristics of individuals but rather on the socio-ecological environment in which an
individual resides and how the multiple systems that they interact with facilitate them to
develop resilience or not. Ungar’s (2008, p. 225) definition of resilience offers a way forward
for social marketers:
In the context of exposure to significant adversity, resilience is both the capacity of individuals to
navigate their way to the psychological, social, cultural and physical resources that sustain their
well-being, and their capacity individually and collectively to negotiate for these resources to be
provided and experienced in culturally meaningful ways.
This definition of resilience has particular value for social marketers and resonates with the
work of researchers who take a systems perspective on social marketing (Brychkov and
Domegan, 2017; Domegan et al., 2016). A resilience-based approach to behaviour change
would look at the relationships and communications between individuals, families, schools,
service providers and the wider community with a view to offering appropriate support
through a consistent, holistic multileveled programme (Hart and Heaver, 2013). As with
social marketing, the client lies at the heart of this approach, but much greater emphasis is
JSOCM given to the environmental forces – including commercial marketing activities – that impact
9,1 his/her behaviour.
The resilience approach means switching from targeting “problem behaviours” and
short-term behaviour change to thinking about working with young people and families to
build long-term resilience to a range of risk factors, including ATOD and unhealthy food –
popular “issues” for social marketers (Hart et al., 2016; Wood, 2016b, 2016c). Resilience
82 depends upon – or can be fostered by – positive relationships and emotional attachments
(Wood, 2008; Wood and Fowlie, 2010). We also know that resilience is influenced at the
individual, family and community levels (Wood and Fowlie, 2010, 2013). Resilience has
the potential to redefine social marketing in a way that focusses on personal support, the
delivery of effective public services and reducing inequality (Wood, 2012; Russell-Bennett
et al., 2013; Wood, 2016a, 2016b).

What can resilience contribute to social marketing?

In advocating a socio-ecological approach to resilience, Ungar (2015, p. 6) argues that “change is
unsustainable without access to an environment that supports the client’s process of growth”.
This approach entails integrating individual, family and community interventions and
adapting services to enable behaviour change. The underlying premise from which social
marketing can learn is that changes to social ecologies are likely to have a much greater impact
on behavioural outcomes than interventions focussed on individuals (Prilleltensky, 2012).
According to Ungar (2005), people who cope well and overcome adversity succeed at two
processes: navigation and negotiation. Individuals and communities must be able to navigate
their way to the requisite resources, which must be available and accessible. However, these
resources must be meaningful to those in need of the service, who must also have the ability to
negotiate for what is important to them. Supporting arguments put forward in recent social
marketing literature (Russell-Bennett et al., 2013; Brennan et al.,2016; Wood 2016a, 2016b) a
socio-ecological approach to resilience-centred behaviour change enables individuals, families
and communities to navigate and negotiate for meaningful resources (Hart et al., 2007, 2016).
Cameron et al. (2007, p. 296) propose seven factors associated with resilience:
(1) Relationships: This is building relationships with “significant others”, including
peers, family, mentors, service professionals and members of the wider
community.
(2) Identity: It is a sense of purpose and “who one is”; beliefs, values and aspirations.
(3) Power and control: It is the self-efficacy and the ability to change one’s
environment to access resources.
(4) Social justice: This is finding a meaningful role in the community, social equality
and the right to participate.
(5) Access to meaningful resources: This is the availability of educational, health and
financial services/resources and access to food, clothing and shelter.
(6) Cohesion: This is balancing personal interests with a sense of responsibility for the
greater good, a sense that life has meaning.
(7) Cultural adherence: This is the assertion of values and beliefs passed between
generations and participation in family and community cultural practices.

The authors (p.297) describe these factors as “tensions” and resilience as an outcome of the
successful negotiation for resolution to all seven tensions simultaneously: “accomplishing
this is an individual and collective act, taking place within contextually specific ecologies
that are developmentally, geographically, and temporally bounded.” Most of these factors Resilience
relate closely to the ethos of social marketing and to the ideas developed throughout this research
paper. Putting these principles into social marketing practice entails understanding how
families, schools, communities, service providers and other stakeholders (e.g. commercial
organisations) contribute to, or offer the means to overcome, health and social problems
(Ungar, 2015). In this way, individual or family-based therapies (e.g. counselling or cognitive
behavioural therapy) can be integrated with changes to social ecologies to maximise
effectiveness. When dealing with disadvantaged communities in particular, upstream, 83
preventative interventions are more cost-effective than downstream individual behaviour
change interventions (Hart et al., 2007; Wood, 2016b).
Two concepts that are critical to understanding resilience are protective and risk
factors (Este et al., 2009). Protective factors, such as good cognitive skills, having
effective parents and benefiting from good schools/pre-school education, predict better
outcomes, particularly in adverse situations (Labella and Masten, 2017; Wood, 2016c).
Understanding the nature of these protective factors and why some individuals
continue to thrive in the face of adversity is the key to helping others who are exposed
to similar threats to their well-being. At the community level, resilient communities
have the capacities to provide a network of services and support when things go wrong,
e.g. a natural disaster (Ungar, 2015; Masten, 2014). These capacities include caring and
supportive relationships, collective identification with a common goal, a shared culture,
equitable access to resources and spiritual leadership (Bell, 2011). A strengths-based
approach to resilience research – and an important lesson for social marketing –
enables us to focus on positive attributes and capabilities, in contrast to a
preoccupation with problems and deficiencies (Este et al., 2009). For example, good
parent–child relationships and the capacity of parents to effectively monitor their
children are factors that contribute to the development of child resilience (Ungar, 2015).
Ungar and Liebenberg (2009) stress the need for more research to demonstrate the
effectiveness of capacity-building initiatives (e.g. developing effective parenting skills,
which will help the child build resilience to a range of issues) rather than those that
“alleviate disorder” (i.e. focussing on behavioural issues, such as unhealthy eating or
substance misuse).
However, resilience research also entails studying risk: understanding stressors
(risk factors such as poverty, poor housing, abuse, disease, lack of education and ineffective
parenting) which can have a negative effect on the health and well-being of individuals
(particularly young people) in the culture and context in which they live (Labella and
Masten, 2017; Ungar and Liebenberg, 2009). The more risk factors a child is exposed to, the
higher the probability that he/she will experience negative life outcomes (Feinstein and
Peck, 2008). Young people are motivated to seek well-being, but their chances of success
depend on a range of individual and socio-cultural factors. According to Ungar (2004), at the
intersection of individual motivation and the resources an environment has to mitigate risk
exposure lies young people’s “hidden resilience”. Ungar (2015) believes that individuals’
motivation to achieve positive outcomes, avoid risk factors or change behaviour is less
important than the resources and services provided by caregivers, educators and
policymakers (Hart et al., 2016). Citing the US Pathways to Education intervention, he
argues that highly motived students in non-supporting socio-cultural environments are less
likely to succeed compared with less-motivated individuals who benefit from good quality
education, effective parenting and other supports. Social marketing interventions designed
to increase motivation may be doomed to failure unless there is a parallel change in levels of
appropriate service and support available in target audiences’ environments. This supports
JSOCM Rothschild’s (1999) argument that lack of opportunity is a major contributor to “problem”
9,1 behaviours.
Social marketing can also learn from resilience in its approach to gathering and
analysing “consumer” insight. According to Ungar and Liebenberg (2009), resilience
research should address a number of issues:
 Power relations: The relationship between researchers and participants is
84 characterised by a power imbalance, particularly when dealing with young and
disadvantaged individuals. More participatory methods are required to hear their
voice and understand their lived experience (Vincent et al., 2017).
 Oppressive methods: Many researchers approach research from their own
“contextually bound academic positioning” (Denzin, 1998, p. 23). Interpretations of
which behaviours are healthy or unhealthy, and measures of well-being, are typically
biased towards Western culture and values. Trust and mutual understanding must be
developed to mitigate against bias and feelings of oppression on the part of
respondents (Sanders and Munford, 2005).
 Cultural sensitivity: Ungar and Liebenberg (2009) argue that the objectification or
“othering” of subjects means that the research findings are likely to be incorporated
into existing systems of power and domination. However, resilience researchers are
attempting to work more reflexively to develop a “multi-voiced text that is grounded
in the experiences of oppressed peoples” (Denzin, 1998, p. 28). By adopting more
participatory research methods, voices of participants can be heard in a way that
values their insights into their own lives. Successful research is community-based and
sensitive to local institutions, traditions and values (Ungar and Liebenberg, 2009). It
may also benefit from community members having substantial control over the
research process [co-creation]: they generate ideas, design and manage projects and
draw conclusions from the experience (Hart et al., 2016; Ungar and Liebenberg, 2009).
Harper (2002, p. 15) regards this as “postmodern dialogue based on the authority of
the subject rather than the researcher”.

How can resilience research and practice benefit from social marketing?
Much resilience research has focussed on individual and family behaviour change. Social
marketing’s understanding of segmentation – as part of its broader insight-driven approach –
and targeting can scale up resilience interventions to reach wider groups. Segmentation goes
hand-in-hand with “consumer” insight research methods. Recent moves towards co-creation
and transformative social marketing (Lefebvre, 2012; Russell-Bennett et al., 2013) fit well with
resilience’s emphasis on participatory research (Denzin, 1998). These contemporary social
marketing approaches may offer practical tools and techniques to help research and
interventions become truly co-created (Hart et al., 2016). Social marketers have a good
understanding of how commercial marketing influences target consumers through product
design, promotion and distribution (Hastings et al., 2005). The value of the 4Ps model lies not in
using it to design social marketing interventions but in understanding how its use negatively
impacts people. A significant omission from resilience research and literature is a recognition of
how pervasive marketing, especially through the use of branding and social media, is in
reaching and influencing the lives of people (Jones et al., 2015; Hastings et al., 2005). Social
marketing is well placed to build this into insight research and to help targeted groups build
resilience to negative marketing.
 Social marketing offers the opportunity to bring together different stakeholders and Resilience
disciplines through the common goal of helping people make healthier choices. Social research
marketing has roots in social science, advocacy and campaigning, as well as commercial and
non-profit marketing. It is taught in business, social science and public health schools, and
its language and approach are accessible and understandable across professional
boundaries. Social marketers are committed to social change and reducing inequality; their
skills, experience and values complement those found amongst resilience researchers,
psychologists and social workers (Hart et al., 2016).
85

Case example: a socio-ecological/resilience-based approach to obesity

The following case example follows Brennan et al.’s (2016) application of the socio-ecological
approach to address “wicked problems” such as alcohol abuse and obesity. The aim is to
demonstrate the critical importance of understanding the macro, meso and micro factors,
relationships and interactions that influence weight-related behaviours amongst individuals
and families. The resilience dimension extends this application by making explicit the
impacts child development, parenting skills and family eating patterns have on the
likelihood of an individual becoming overweight or obese in later life. It is argued that
building resilience to obesity at the micro level through appropriate parental and family
support, alongside working with community groups and organisations in the meso and exo
systems (e.g. food retailers, restaurants, schools and charities) and policy changes within the
macrosystem (e.g. sugar tax and restriction on the marketing of energy-dense food products
to children), would be a more effective long-term approach to tackling this issue than relying
on downstream social marketing interventions to change the behaviours of individuals who
are already suffering from weight-related issues.
Roberto et al. (2015) explored the dichotomy of individual versus environmental drivers of
obesity, concluding that although individuals bear some personal responsibility for their
health, environmental factors can readily support or undermine their ability to act in their own
self-interest. They argue that contemporary food environments exploit people’s biological,
psychological, social and economic vulnerabilities, making it easier for them to eat unhealthy
foods. This reinforces preferences and demands for foods of poor nutritional quality, furthering
the unhealthy food environments. Critical social marketers argue that commercial companies
are more-or-less free to market harmful products and brands (including energy-dense food and
drinks, but also tobacco and alcohol) to people who lack the education, resources and resilience
to make healthy choices (Hastings, 2017; Gordon, 2013, 2011). Many of these products are
specifically marketed to children and/or their parents, contributing to the “obesogenic
environment” they have to deal with (Swinburn et al., 1999).
According to Hanratty et al. (2012), this environment encourages the over-consumption
of energy-dense foods and discourages physical activity. These macro-environmental forces
mean that it is frequently very difficult for certain groups and individuals to make healthy
choices, leading them and their children to become overweight. We also know that socio-
economic background and childhood development has a profound influence on future life
outcomes, including health issues such as obesity (Walsh and Cullinan, 2015; Knai et al.,
2012; Hawkins et al., 2008; Pickett et al., 2005). In their ecological study, Story et al. (2008)
pointed out the disparities in food access for low-income and minority groups. The social
determinants of health were acknowledged in the UK Government’s review of health
inequalities, which resulted in the crucial Marmot Report (Marmot and Bell, 2012; Marmot
et al., 2008; CSDH, 2008). Families from deprived areas are more likely to be overweight than
those from professional classes (Walsh and Cullinan, 2015; Knai et al., 2012; Williams and
JSOCM Kumanyika, 2003). So, there are “upstream” macro-social and policy issues to consider when
9,1 developing social marketing obesity interventions.
Regulatory actions from governments and increased efforts from industry and civil
society are required to break these vicious cycles (Roberto et al., 2015; Swinburn et al., 2015).
Critical social marketers (Gordon, 2011) and those calling for a shift in focus to upstream
behaviour change propose measures such as restricting the marketing of unhealthy food to
86 children, making healthier food more affordable, e.g. through subsidies on fruit and
vegetables, and making less healthy food more expensive by using taxes, e.g. on sugary
drinks (Hawkes et al., 2015; Kleinert and Horton, 2015; Kapetanaki et al., 2014; Wymer,
2010). WHO (2010) published a set of guidelines to help policymakers regulate the marketing
of food and drink products to children. This is resisted by companies, and to an extent
governments, who tend to favour voluntary agreements. However, there is little systematic
evidence for the effectiveness of these voluntary measures, which do not include more
radical changes in pricing, marketing regulation and sugar content (Knai et al., 2015).
Dattilo et al. (2012) argue that the early years of life are crucial for targeting behaviours that
could address the current obesity crisis. Twiddy et al. (2012) found that the main motivation for
parents seeking help for their obese child was concern for their child’s psychological well-being,
and Maziak et al. (2008) argued that interventions tackling childhood obesity should include
strategies for the development of positive mental health. Other researchers have similarly
argued that attention should shift from focussing solely on weight, and instead focus on the
psychological aspects of obesity by building resilience and self-esteem, as both have been
linked with lower weight status (Walker Lowry et al., 2007; Stewart-Knox et al., 2012). The
research is focussed on the child’s micro-system, but the interpretation adopts social-ecological
theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1977) to make recommendations for policymakers to enhance the
micro-, meso- and macrosystems in which children are raised to build resilience as a way of
supporting healthy behaviour changes to reduce and prevent childhood obesity.
Stewart-Knox et al. (2012) studied the psychological and physical impacts on body mass
index (BMI) in Portuguese and British adult men, and their research provides evidence that
there is a link between resilience and obesity. They discovered that men with high BMI had
lower resilience, were older, had a lower level of education and were generally physically
inactive (Stewart-Knox et al., 2012). This compares with findings that obesity resilient
mothers were younger, physically active and more highly educated (Ball et al., 2012). Both
studies highlighted education, age and physical activity levels as relevant factors that need
addressing when considering ways to increase resilience and support different groups
effectively. Stewart-Knox et al. (2012) argued that their findings added to the body of
literature recognising socio-economically disadvantaged segments of the population as a
crucial focus for minimising obesity and recommended that future studies should include
building resilience as part of obesity interventions.
The groups most at risk of becoming obese are those from a lower socioeconomic
position (SEP) (Ball and Crawford, 2005), women of childbearing age (18-45 years old) and
children (Ball et al., 2002). Although the literature is not extensive when linking resilience to
obesity, the comprehensive Resilience for Eating and Activity Despite Inequality (READI)
study, based in Victoria, Australia, focussed on mothers in the “at risk” group but who
demonstrated obesity resilient characteristics. They defined obesity-resilient women as
those who despite their SEP were within a healthy weight range, regularly consumed fruit
and vegetables and were physically active (Williams et al., 2011). In contrast, the Healthy
Weight, Healthy Lives report (DOH, 2008) identified families from a similar SEP who were
of an unhealthy weight, engaged in poor child feeding practices and held attitudes and
beliefs that suggested they had low resilience.
 Building on the socio-ecological model discussed above, Birch and Ventura (2009) Resilience
critically evaluate the obesogenic environment in which families find themselves in much research
of the developed world. They show how traditional parenting and child-feeding practices,
which developed over centuries of food scarcity, contribute to obesity. They argue that
obesity interventions must start at an early age and should take place in family and
community contexts, not just schools (the place for most social marketing initiatives).
Parenting styles are related to the attitudes and beliefs that determine how a parent
87
interacts with their child and are “conceptualized as providing a context for development,
which can either undermine or facilitate the parenting practices a parent employs”
(Ventura and Birch, 2008, pp. 3-4).
There are three commonly defined parenting styles: authoritative (high control and high
warmth), authoritarian (high control and low warmth) and permissive (low control and low
or high warmth) (Hubbs-Tait et al., 2008). These researchers mapped parenting styles onto
child feeding practices, which include perceived responsibility, concern about weight,
restriction, pressure to eat and monitoring. Research conducted by Rhee et al. (2006)
assessed the impact of parenting style on children’s weight and found that children of
authoritative mothers had the lowest risk of obesity, whereas children of authoritarian
mothers had the highest. Children of permissive mothers were twice as likely to be
overweight than those with an authoritative mother. Pearson et al.’s (2010) study also
showed that adolescents with authoritative parents had the healthiest food consumption.
This relates to social-ecological theory, as it recognises the impact that a child’s
microsystem – their parents – can have on their weight status. Authoritative parents
demonstrate “high paternal affection and responsivity, as well as high expectations or
respectful limit setting” (Hubbs-Tait et al., 2008, p. 1154). These traits are recognisable in the
resilient mothers from the READI study, who exerted control over feeding by regulating the
daily availability of unhealthy food but allowing it on special occasions (Ball et al., 2013).
The links between an authoritative parenting style and children’s weight status seem to
have a similar pattern to resilience and weight status.
A recent study by Wood and Shukla (2018) found that awareness and knowledge of a
healthy diet is insufficient to change child feeding behaviours; it is the confidence and ability
of caregivers to act upon this knowledge which results in healthier child feeding practices
and diet. Their findings help to explain why higher resilience in parents has been linked to
healthier weight status in children (Ball et al., 2012) and why understanding resilience is so
crucial for the development of future social marketing interventions that promote behaviour
change based not only on what parents feed their children but also on how they facilitate and
encourage their children to eat a healthy diet. This in turn supports calls for social marketing
approaches to adopt an upstream approach (Wood, 2016a, 2016b, 2016c), developing
interventions that have a stronger focus on constructing the right environment to prompt
positive behaviour change, as opposed to focussing on individual behaviours (Ungar, 2015).
Overall, from a socio-ecological perspective, the results of this study confirm the importance
of a child’s environment and the influence it has on their development (Ungar et al., 2013), in
this instance, their weight-related health. If parental resilience impacts a child’s weight status,
as these findings imply, then interventions should focus on developing services within the exo-
and macrosystems surrounding families that are specifically designed to facilitate an increase
in resilience to have positive impacts on the microsystem and behaviours within it. As Ungar
et al. (2013) argue, resilience is not the result of an individual’s personality or characteristics, but
rather the provision of supportive networks within their ecological system that enable them to
access the services they need to become resilient.
JSOCM Conclusions
9,1 Building resilience should play a key role in future social marketing interventions
designed to reduce and prevent a range of social and health issues, e.g. childhood
obesity. From a socio-ecological perspective, research findings highlight the
importance of a child’s micro-system and the influence it has on his/her development
(Wood, 2016b). This supports the argument that social marketers should adopt an
88 upstream approach to develop interventions that make the environment the primary
focus of research. Focussing on resilience implies a relationship-building, person-
centred, holistic and long-term developmental approach (Masten, 2016). Rather than
blaming and targeting individuals, the goal should be to create an environment that
supports parents, families and communities to build resilience at the micro, meso and
macro levels (Brennan et al., 2016). This would have a positive, sustainable impact on a
whole range of social and health issues, ultimately helping to address the overarching
issue of social inequality (Hart et al., 2016). Social marketing can contribute to resilience
research by helping to understand the environmental and systematic influences on
families and the parenting support they need. It could also be used to encourage and
enable parents to use appropriate early-years education services and to ensure that
those services are delivered appropriately (through non-profit and services marketing
strategies) (Russell-Bennett et al., 2013). Upstream social marketing could be used to
influence policy to ensure that there is adequate provision for parents and families.
For social marketers driven by a desire to improve individual and social welfare and to
reduce inequality in society, resilience offers a means to understand behaviour change
holistically. It has the potential to move us away from issue-based interventions, targeting
individuals who are perceived as having a “problem”, to thinking about the emotional,
relational, environmental and systemic influences on behaviour. Systematic social marketing
thinking, allied with the skills and knowledge of educators, psychologists and social workers,
would be a powerful force for social change. This paper has conceptualised the value of the
resilience concept for social marketing. Future research should focus on understanding how to
implement a resilience-building approach to social marketing in practice – including the
interrelationships and interactions between individual, family and community resilience – and
how resilience can be integrated with systematic, socio-ecological thinking when addressing
“wicked problems” (Domegan et al., 2016; Masten, 2016; Brennan et al., 2016).

References
Andreasen, A.R. (1994), “Social marketing: its definition and domain”, Journal of Public Policy and
Marketing, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 108-114.
Andreasen, A.R. (2002), “Marketing social marketing in the social change marketplace”, Journal of
Public Policy & Marketing, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 3-13.
Ball, K. and Crawford, D. (2005), “Socioeconomic status and weight change in adults: a review”, Social
Science & Medicine (1982), Vol. 60 No. 9, pp. 1987-2010.
Ball, K., Brown, W. and Crawford, D. (2002), “Who does not gain weight? Prevalence and predictors of weight
maintenance in young women”, International Journal of Obesity, Vol. 26 No. 12, pp. 1570-1578.
Ball, K., Abbott, G., Cleland, V., Timperio, A., Thornton, L., Mishra, G., Jeffery, R.W., Brug, J., King, A.
and Crawford, D. (2012), “Resilience linked to obesity among socioeconomically disadvantaged
women: the READI study”, International Journal of Obesity, Vol. 36 No. 6, pp. 855-865.
Ball, K., Cleland, V., Salmon, J., Timperio, A., McNaughton, S., Thornton, L., Campbell, K., Jackson, M.,
Baur, L., Mishra, G., Brug, J., Jeffery, R., King, A., Kawachi, I. and Crawford, D. (2013), “Cohort
 profile: the resilience for eating and activity despite inequality (READI) study”, International Resilience
Journal of Epidemiology, Vol. 42 No. 6, pp. 1629-1639.
research
Bell, C.C. (2011), “Trauma, culture, and resiliency”, in Southwick, S.M., Litz, B.T., Charney, D. and
Friedman, M.J. (Eds), Resilience and Mental Health: Challenges across the Lifespan, Cambridge
University Press, New York, NY, pp. 176-187.
Brennan, L., Previte, J. and Marie-Louise Fry, M.L. (2016), “Social marketing’s consumer myopia:
applying a behavioural ecological model to address wicked problems”, Journal of Social
Marketing, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 219-239. 89
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977), “Toward an experimental ecology of human development”, American
Psychologist, Vol. 32 No. 7, pp. 513-531.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986), “Ecology of the family as a context for human development”, American
Psychologist, Vol. 22 No. 6, pp. 723-742.
Bryant, C.A., Forthofer, M.S., Brown, K.R.M., Landis, D.C. and McDermott, R.J. (2000), “Community-
based prevention marketing: the next steps in disseminating behavior change”, American
Journal of Health Behavior, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 61-68.
Brychkov, D. and Domegan, C. (2017), “Social marketing and systems science: past, present and future”,
Journal of Social Marketing, Vol. 7 No. 1.
Cameron, C.A., Ungar, M. and Liebenberg, L. (2007), “Cultural understandings of resilience: roots for
wings in the development of affective resources for resilience”, Child and Adolescent Psychiatric
Clinics of North America, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 285-301.
Campbell, F.A., Pungello, E.P., Burchinal, M., Kainz, K., Pan, Y., Wasik, B.H. and Ramey, C.T. (2012),
“Adult outcomes as a function of an early childhood educational program: an abecedarian
project follow-up”, Developmental Psychology, Vol. 48 No. 4, pp. 1033-1043.
Cinderby, S., Haq, G., Cambridge, H. and Lock, K. (2016), “Building community resilience: can everyone
enjoy a good life?”, Local Environment, Vol. 21 No. 10, pp. 1252-1270.
CSDH (2008), Commission on Social Determinants of Health Final Report: Closing the Gap in A
Generation: Health Equity Through Action on The Social Determinants of Health, World Health
Organization, Geneva.
Daellenbach, K., Daellenbach, K., Dalgliesh-Waugh, C., Dalgliesh-Waugh, C., Smith, K.A. and Smith,
K.A. (2016), “Community resilience and the multiple levels of social change”, Journal of Social
Marketing, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 240-257.
Dattilo, A., Birch, L., Krebs, N., Lake, A., Taveras, E. and Saavedra, J.M. (2012), “Need for early
interventions in the prevention of pediatric overweight: a review and upcoming directions”,
Journal of Obesity, Vol. 2012, pp. 1-18.
Denzin, N. (1998), “Introduction: entering the field of qualitative research”, in Denzin, N. and Lincoln, Y.
(Eds), Strategies of Qualitative Inquiry, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 1-32.
Department of Health (DOH) (2008), Healthy Weight, Healthy Lives: Consumer Insight Summary, UK
Department of Health, London.
Dessart, F.J. and van Bavel, R. (2017), “Two converging paths: behavioural sciences and social
marketing for better policies”, Journal of Social Marketing, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 355-365.
Domegan, C.T. (2008), “Social marketing: implications for contemporary marketing practices
classification scheme”, Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 135-141.
Domegan, C., McHugh, P., Devaney, M., Duane, S., Hogan, M., Broome, B.J., Layton, R.A., Joyce, J.,
Mazzonetto, M. and Piwowarczyk, J. (2016), “Systems-thinking social marketing: conceptual
extensions and empirical investigations”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 32 Nos 11/12,
pp. 1123-1144.
Donovan, R. and Henley, N. (2010), Principles and Practice of Social Marketing, Cambridge University
Press, New York, NY.
JSOCM Dorfman, L. (2003), “Using media advocacy to influence policy”, in Bensley, R.J. and Brookins-Fisher, J.
(Eds), Community Health Education Methods: A Practitioner’s Guide, 2nd ed., Jones and Bartlett,
9,1 Sudbury, MA.
Eagle, L., Hamann, M. and Low, D.R. (2016), “The role of social marketing, marine turtles and sustainable
tourism in reducing plastic pollution”, Marine Pollution Bulletin, Vol. 107 No. 1, pp. 324-332.
Este, D., Sitter, K. and Maclaurin, B. (2009), “Using mixed methods to understand youth resilience”, in
Ungar, M. and Liebenberg, L. (Eds), Researching Resilience, University of Toronto Press, Toronto.
90
Feinstein, L. and Peck, S.C. (2008), “Unexpected pathways through education: why do some students not
succeed in school and what helps others beat the odds?”, Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 64 No. 1, pp. 1-20.
Geller, S.E. (1989), “Applied behavior analysis and social marketing: an integration for environmental
preservation”, Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 45 No. 1, pp. 17-36.
Gordon, R. (2011), “Critical social marketing: definition, application and domain”, Journal of Social
Marketing, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 82-89.
Gordon, R. (2012), “Re-thinking and re-tooling the social marketing mix”, Australasian Marketing
Journal (AMJ), Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 122-126.
Gordon, R. (2013), “Unlocking the potential of upstream social marketing”, European Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 47 No. 9, pp. 1525-1547.
Hall, C.M. (2016), “Intervening in academic interventions: framing social marketing’s potential for
successful sustainable tourism behavioural change”, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Vol. 24
No. 3, pp. 350-375.
Hanratty, B., Milton, B., Ashton, M. and Whitehead, M. (2012), “McDonalds and KFC, it’s never going to
happen: the challenges of working with food outlets to tackle the obesogenic environment”,
Journal of Public Health, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 548-554.
Harper, D. (2002), “Talking about pictures: a case for photo elicitation”, Visual Studies, Vol. 17 No. 1,
pp. 13-26.
Hart, A. and Heaver, B. (2013), “Evaluating resilience-based programs for schools using a systematic
consultative review”, Journal of Child and Youth Development, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 27-53.
Hart, A., Blincow, D. and Thomas, H. (2007), Resilient Therapy: Working with Children and Families,
Routledge, London.
Hart, A., Gagnon, E., Eryigit-Madzwamuse, S., Cameron, J., Aranda, K., Rathbone, A. and Heaver, B. (2016),
“Uniting resilience research and practice with an inequalities approach”, SAGE Open, Vol. 6 No. 4.
Hastings, G., Anderson, S., Emma Cooke, E. and Gordon, R. (2005), “Alcohol marketing and young people’s
drinking: a review of the research”, Journal of Public Health Policy, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 296-311.
Hawkes, C., Smith, T.G., Jewell, J., Wardle, J., Hammond, R.A., Friel, S., Thow, A.M. and Kain, J. (2015),
“Smart food policies for obesity prevention”, The Lancet, Vol. 385, pp. 2410-2421.
Hawkins, S.S., Cole, T.J. and Law, C. (2008), “An ecological systems approach to examining risk factors
for early childhood overweight: findings from the UK millennium Cohort study”, Journal of
Epidemiology and Community Health, Jech-2008.
Hoek, J. and Jones, S. (2011), “Regulation, public health and social marketing: a behaviour change
Trinity”, Journal of Social Marketing, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 32-44.
Hubbs-Tait, L., Kennedy, T.S., Page, C.M., Topham, G.L. and Harrist, A.W. (2008), “Parental feeding
practices predict authoritative, authoritarian, and permissive parenting styles”, Journal of the
American Dietetic Association, Vol. 108 No. 7, pp. 1154-1161.
Jones, S.C., Wyatt, A. and Daube, M. (2015), “Smokescreens and beer goggles: how alcohol industry
CRM protects the industry”, Social Marketing Quarterly, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 264-279.
Kapetanaki, A.B., Brennan, D.R. and Caraher, M. (2014), “Social marketing and healthy eating: findings
from young people in Greece”, International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing, Vol. 11
No. 2, pp. 161-180.
Kennedy, A.M. and Parsons, A. (2012), “Macro-social marketing and social engineering: a systems Resilience
approach”, Journal of Social Marketing, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 37-51.
research
Kleinert, S. and Horton, R. (2015), “Rethinking and reframing obesity”, The Lancet, Vol. 385 No. 9985,
pp. 2326-2328.
Knai, C., Petticrew, M., Durand, M.A., Eastmure, E., James, L., Mehrotra, A., Scott, C. and Mays, N.
(2015), “Has a public-private partnership resulted in action on healthier diets in England? An
analysis of the public health responsibility deal food pledges”, Food Policy, Vol. 54, pp. 1-10.
Kotler, P. and Lee, N.R. (2008), Social Marketing: Influencing Behaviors for Good, Sage, Thousand Oaks,
91
CA.
Kotler, P. and Zaltman, G. (1971), “Social marketing: an approach to planned social change”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 3-12.
Labella, M.H. and Masten, A.S. (2017), “Family influences on the development of aggression and
violence”, Current Opinion in Psychology, Vol. 19, pp. 11-16.
Lee, N.R. and Kotler, P. (2016), Social Marketing: Changing Behaviors for Good, Sage, Thousand Oaks,
CA.
Lefebvre, R.C. (2012), “Transformative social marketing: co-creating the social marketing discipline and
Brand”, Journal of Social Marketing, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 118-129.
McKenzie-Mohr, D. (2013), Fostering Sustainable Behavior: An Introduction to Community-Based Social
Marketing, New Society, Gabriola Island.
Marmot, M. and Bell, R. (2012), “Fair society, healthy lives”, Public Health, Vol. 126, pp. S4-S10.
Marmot, M., Friel, S., Bell, R., Houweling, T.A., Taylor, S. and Commission on Social Determinants of
Health (2008), “Closing the gap in a generation: health equity through action on the social
determinants of health”, The Lancet, Vol. 372 No. 9650, pp. 1661-1669.
Masten, A.S. (2016), “Resilience in developing systems: the promise of integrated approaches”,
European Journal of Developmental Psychology, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 297-312.
Masten, A.S. (2014), “Global perspectives on resilience in children and youth”, Child Development,
Vol. 85 No. 1, pp. 6-20.
Masten, A.S. and Coatsworth, J.D. (1998), “The development of competence in favorable and unfavorable
environments: lessons from research on successful children”, American Psychologist, Vol. 53
No. 2, p. 205.
Maziak, W., Ward, K.D. and Stockton, M.B. (2008), “Childhood obesity: are we missing the big picture?”,
Obesity Reviews : An Official Journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity,
Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 35-42.
National Social Marketing Centre (2007), “Social marketing big pocket guide”, available at: www.
thensmc.com/resource/big-pocket-guide-social-marketing (accessed 22 January 2018).
Pearson, N., Atkin, A.J., Biddle, S.J., Gorley, T. and Edwardson, C. (2010), “Parenting styles, family
structure and adolescent dietary behaviour”, Public Health Nutrition, Vol. 13 No. 8,
pp. 1245-1253.
Pickett, K.E., Kelly, S., Brunner, E., Lobstein, T. and Wilkinson, R.G. (2005), “Wider income gaps, wider
waistbands? An ecological study of obesity and income inequality”, Journal of Epidemiology and
Community Health, Vol. 59 No. 8, pp. 670-674.
Pickett, K.E. and Wilkinson, R.G. (2015), “Income inequality and health: a causal review”, Social Science
& Medicine (1982), Vol. 128, pp. 316-326.
Prilleltensky, I. (2012), “Wellness as fairness”, American Journal of Community Psychology, Vol. 49
Nos 1/2, pp. 1-21.
Rawson, E. (2016), “Te waioratanga’: health promotion practice-the importance of Maori cultural values
to wellbeing in a disaster context and Beyond”, Australasian Journal of Disaster and Trauma
Studies, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 81-87.
JSOCM Rhee, K.E., Lumeng, J.C., Appugliese, D.P., Kaciroti, N. and Bradley, R. (2006), “Parenting styles and
overweight status in first grade”, Official Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics,
9,1 Vol. 117 No. 6, pp. 2047-2054.
Roberto, C.A., Swinburn, B., Hawkes, C., Huang, T.T., Costa, S.A., Ashe, M., Zwicker, L., Cawley, J.H.
and Brownell, K.D. (2015), “Patchy progress on obesity prevention: emerging examples,
entrenched barriers, and new thinking”, The Lancet, Vol. 385 No. 9985, pp. 2400-2409.
Rothschild, M.L. (1999), “Carrots, sticks, and promises: a conceptual framework for the management of
92 public health and social issue behaviors”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 63 No. 4, pp. 24-37.
Russell-Bennett, R., Wood, M. and Previte, J. (2013), “Fresh ideas: services thinking for social
marketing”, Journal of Social Marketing, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 223-238.
Sallis, J.F., Owen, N. and Fisher, E.B. (2008), “Ecological models of health behaviour”, Health Behavior
and Health Education: Theory, Research, and Practice, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 465-486.
Sanders, J. and Munford, R. (2005), “Activity and reflection: research and change with diverse groups of
young people”, Qualitative Social Work, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 197-209.
Stewart-Knox, B., Duffy, M.E., Bunting, B., Parr, H., Vas de Almeida, M.D. and Gibney, M. (2012),
“Associations between obesity (BMI and waist circumference) and socio-demographic factors,
physical activity, dietry habits, life events, resilience, mood, perceived stress and hopelessness in
healthy older Europeans”, BMC Public Health, Vol. 12 No. 1.
Strine, T.W., Chapman, D.P., Balluz, L.S., Moriarty, D.G. and Mokdad, A.H. (2008), “The
associations between life satisfaction and health-related quality of life, chronic illness, and
health behaviors among US community-dwelling adults”, Journal of Community Health,
Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 40-50.
Sudbery, J. (2010), Human Growth and Development: An Introduction for Social Workers, Routledge,
Oxon.
Swinburn, B., Egger, G. and Raza, F. (1999), “Dissecting obesogenic environments: the development and
application of a framework for identifying and prioritizing environmental interventions for
obesity”, Preventive Medicine, Vol. 29 No. 6, pp. 563-570.
Swinburn, B., Kraak, V., Rutter, H., Vandevijvere, S., Lobstein, T., Sacks, G., Gomes, F., Marsh, T. and
Magnusson, R. (2015), “Strengthening of accountability systems to create healthy food
environments and reduce global obesity”, The Lancet, Vol. 385 No. 9986, pp. 2534-2545.
Twiddy, M., Wilson, I., Bryant, M. and Rudolf, M. (2012), “Lessons learned from a family-focused
weight management intervention for obese and overweight children”, Public Health Nutrition,
Vol. 15 No. 7, pp. 1310-1317.
Ungar, M. (2004), Nurturing Hidden Resilience in Troubled Youth, University of Toronto Press, Toronto.
Ungar, M. (2008), “Resilience across cultures”, British Journal of Social Work, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 218-235.
Ungar, M. (2015), Working with Children and Youth with Complex Needs, Routledge, New York, NY.
Ungar, M. and Liebenberg, L. (Eds) (2009), Researching Resilience, University of Toronto Press,
Toronto.
Ungar, M., Ghazinour, M. and Richter, J. (2013), “Annual research review: what is resilience within the
social ecology of human development?”, Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, Vol. 54 No. 4,
pp. 348-366.
Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F. (2012), “The nature and understanding of value: a service-dominant logic
perspective”, Review of Marketing Research, Vol. 9, pp. 1-12.
Ventura, A.K. and Birch, L. (2008), “Does parenting affect children’s eating and weight status?”,
International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, Vol. 5 No. 1.
Vincent, J., Potts, M., Fletcher, D., Hodges, S., Howells, J., Mitchell, A., Mallon, B. and Ledger, T. (2017),
“I think autism is like running on Windows while everyone else is a Mac’: using a participatory
 action research approach with students on the autistic spectrum to rearticulate autism and the Resilience
lived experience of university”, Educational Action Research, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 300-315.
research
Walker Lowry, K., Sallinen, B.J. and Janicke, D.M. (2007), “The effects of weight management programs
on self-esteem in pediatric overweight populations”, Journal of Pediatric Psychology, Vol. 32
No. 10, pp. 1179-1195.
Walsh, B. and Cullinan, J. (2015), “Decomposing socioeconomic inequalities in childhood obesity:
evidence from Ireland”, Economics & Human Biology, Vol. 16, pp. 60-72.
WHO (2010), “Set of recommendations on the marketing of foods and non-alcoholic beverages to
93
children”, available at: www.who.int/dietphysicalactivity/publications/recsmarketing/en/
Williams, J.D. and Kumanyika, S.K. (2003), “Is social marketing an effective tool to reduce health
disparities?”, Social Marketing Quarterly, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 14-31.
Williams, L.K., Veitch, J. and Ball, K. (2011), “What helps children eat well? A qualitative exploration of
resilience among disadvantaged families”, Health Education Research, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 296-307.
Wood, M. (2008), “Applying commercial marketing theory to social marketing: a tale of four Ps (and a
B)”, Social Marketing Quarterly, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 76-85.
Wood, M. (2012), “Marketing social marketing”, Journal of Social Marketing, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 94-102.
Wood, M. (2016a), “Midstream social marketing and the co-creation of public services”, Journal of Social
Marketing, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 277-293.
Wood, M. (2016b), “Social marketing for social change”, Social Marketing Quarterly, Vol. 22 No. 2,
pp. 107-118.
Wood, M. (2016c), “The role of resilience and parenting style in social marketing: feeding practices and
childhood obesity”, European Social Marketing Conference, Espoo, 21-23 September.
Wood, M. and Fowlie, J.A. (2010), “Community cohesion in the London borough of barking and
dagenham”, Local Economy, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 293-304.
Wood, M. and Fowlie, J.A. (2013), “Using community communicators to build trust and understanding
in the United Kingdom”, Local Economy, Vol. 28 No. 6, pp. 527-538.
Wood, M. and Shukla, P. (2018), “Resilience, parenting style and children’s eating behaviour, social
marketing quarterly”, in review.
Wymer, W. (2010), “Rethinking the boundaries of social marketing: activism or advertising?”, Journal
of Business Research, Vol. 63 No. 2, pp. 99-103.
Wymer, W. (2011), “Developing more effective social marketing strategies”, Journal of Social
Marketing, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 17-31.
Zainuddin, N. (2013), “Examining the impact of experience on value in social marketing”, Journal of
Social Marketing, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 257-274.

Further reading
Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F. (2004), “Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 68 No. 1, pp. 1-17.

Corresponding author
Matthew Wood can be contacted at: Matthew.Wood@brighton.ac.uk

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com