Running head: A REVIEW OF PSYCHOLOGICAL RESILIENCE
1
1
2
3
4
Psychological Resilience: A Review and Critique of Definitions, Concepts and Theory
5
David Fletcher
1
6
1
Loughborough University, United Kingdom
7
Mustafa Sarkar
2
8
2
Middlesex University, United Kingdom
9
10
11
12
13
David Fletcher, School of Sport, Exercise and Health Sciences, Loughborough
14
University, United Kingdom; Mustafa Sarkar, School of Health and Social Sciences,
15
Middlesex University, United Kingdom.
16
Mustafa Sarkar is now at the School of Sport, Exercise and Health Sciences,
17
Loughborough University, United Kingdom.
18
This work was funded in part by Lane4 Management Ltd [grant number J12644]. A
19
summary of this work was presented at the 2011 European Congress of Sport Psychology,
20
Madeira, Portugal.
21
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to David Fletcher, School
22
of Sport, Exercise and Health Sciences, Loughborough University, Epinal Way,
23
Loughborough, Leicestershire LE11 3TU, United Kingdom. Telephone: 4415-0922-3271.
24
Fax: 4415-0922-6301. E-mail: D.Fletcher@lboro.ac.uk
25
26
A REVIEW OF PSYCHOLOGICAL RESILIENCE
2
Abstract
1
The purpose of this paper is to review and critique the variety of definitions, concepts and
2
theories of psychological resilience. To this end, the narrative is divided into three main
3
sections. The first considers how resilience has been defined in the psychology research
4
literature. Despite the construct being operationalized in a variety of ways, most definitions
5
are based around two core concepts: adversity and positive adaptation. A substantial body of
6
evidence suggests that resilience is required in response to different adversities, ranging from
7
ongoing daily hassles to major life events, and that positive adaptation must be conceptually
8
appropriate to the adversity examined in terms of the domains assessed and the stringency of
9
criteria used. The second section examines the conceptualization of resilience as either a trait
10
or process, and explores how it is distinct from a number of related terms. Resilience is
11
conceptualized as the interactive influence of psychological characteristics within the context
12
of the stress process. The final section reviews the theories of resilience and critically
13
examines one theory in particular that is commonly cited in the resilience literature. Future
14
theories in this area should take into account the multiple demands individuals encounter, the
15
meta-cognitive and -emotive processes that affect the resilience-stress relationship, and the
16
conceptual distinction between resilience and coping. The review concludes with
17
implications for policy, practice, and research including the need to carefully manage
18
individuals’ immediate environment, and to develop the protective and promotive factors that
19
individuals can proactively utilize to build resilience.
20
Keywords: adversity, appraisal, coping, positive adaptation, protective and promotive factors.
21
22
A REVIEW OF PSYCHOLOGICAL RESILIENCE
3
Psychological Resilience: A Review and Critique of Definitions, Concepts and Theory
1
Humans typically encounter a variety of difficulties and challenges during the course
2
of their lives, ranging from daily hassles to major life events. Indeed, Bonanno and Mancini
3
(2008) noted that most individuals experience at least one potentially traumatic event (PTE)
4
in their lifetime. The term “potentially” is important because it draws attention to the
5
differences in how people react to life events and whether trauma occurs as a result. To
6
illustrate, some individuals become overwhelmed by everyday hassles (DeLongis, Coyne,
7
Dakof, Folkman, & Lazarus, 1982) whereas others react positively to the most testing of
8
experiences (Bonanno, 2004). It is the study of psychological resilience that seeks to
9
understand why some individuals are able to withstand – or even thrive on – the pressure they
10
experience in their lives.
11
Within the field of psychology, early inquiry examining resilience represented a
12
“paradigm shift from looking at risk factors that led to psychosocial problems to the
13
identification of strengths of an individual” (Richardson, 2002, p. 309). Increasingly,
14
researchers focused on identifying the characteristics of individuals, particularly young
15
people, who thrived whilst living in difficult circumstances, such as poverty and parental
16
mental illness (Garmezy, 1991; Rutter, 1990; Werner & Smith, 1992). Examples of such
17
qualities were: an easy temperament, good self-esteem, planning skills, and a supportive
18
environment inside and outside the family. Thus, the thrust of early research examining
19
resilience was the search for factors that protect an individual from the stressors they
20
encounter, and distinguish between those who adapt to the circumstances and those who yield
21
to the demands. Since the early 1990s, the focus of resilience research has shifted away from
22
identifying protective factors to understanding the process through which individuals
23
overcome the adversities they experience (Luthar, Cicchetti, & Becker, 2000b).
24
Over the past two decades psychologists’ understanding of human functioning in
25
A REVIEW OF PSYCHOLOGICAL RESILIENCE
4
demanding situations has developed rapidly, with resilience being examined across a range of
1
contexts, including business organizations (see, e.g., Riolli & Savicki, 2003), education (see,
2
e.g., Gu & Day, 2007), military (see, e.g., Palmer, 2008), sport performance (see, e.g., Galli
3
& Vealey, 2008), and communities (see, e.g., Brennan, 2008). However, one of the main
4
difficulties in conducting research on resilience is that wide discrepancies exist in the way
5
that resilience is defined and conceptualized. For instance, the construct of resilience has
6
variously been defined as a trait, process or outcome. This definitional debate is important to
7
highlight since concepts provide researchers with theoretical boundaries that help determine
8
the nature, direction and veracity of research inquiry. Indeed, Davydov, Stewart, Ritchie and
9
Chaudieu (2010) recently observed that conceptual discrepancies hinder the evaluation and
10
comparison of resilience research findings, preclude meta-analysis, and make it difficult to
11
operationalize the construct for measurement purposes. Hence, they concluded that
12
“clarification … in this area must proceed firstly by conceptual unification” (p. 479). The
13
purpose of this paper is, therefore, to review and critique the variety of definitions, concepts
14
and theories of psychological resilience. It is hoped that synthesizing what is known in this
15
area will help elucidate the nature of this complex phenomenon and guide future research
16
development. To this end, the narrative is divided into three main sections. The first considers
17
the different ways resilience has been defined and discusses the need for lucidity in defining
18
two pivotal concepts related to resilience: adversity and positive adaptation. The second
19
section examines how resilience has been conceptualized and explores how it is distinct from
20
a number of related terms. The final section reviews the theories of resilience and critically
21
examines one theory in particular that is commonly cited in the resilience literature.
22
Definitions
23
Definitions provide a description of the nature, scope or meaning of a phenomenon.
24
The word resilience originates from the Latin verb resilire, or “to leap back”, and is defined
25
A REVIEW OF PSYCHOLOGICAL RESILIENCE
5
in the Oxford Dictionary of English as being “able to withstand or recover quickly from
1
difficult conditions” (Soanes & Stevenson, 2006, p. 1498). The term’s roots lie in science and
2
mathematics; for example, in physics, resilience is considered to be the “ability of a strained
3
body, by virtue of high yield strength and low elastic modulus, to recover its size and form
4
following deformation” (Geller et al., 2003, p. 458). Lazarus (1993) cited the example of
5
elasticity in metals, with a resilient metal bending and bouncing back (instead of breaking)
6
when stressed.
7
When used in relation to humans, numerous definitions of resilience have been
8
proposed in the psychology research literature. The specific nature of a definition is often
9
influenced by the historical and sociocultural context within which the research was
10
conducted, the researchers’ conceptual proclivities, and the population sampled. Examples of
11
some of the most commonly cited definitions of resilience are presented in Table I. Despite
12
the construct being operationalized in a variety of ways, most definitions are based around
13
two core concepts: adversity and positive adaptation. Since the introduction of these
14
concepts to the resilience literature by Luthar and colleagues’ (Luthar, 2006; Luthar &
15
Cicchetti, 2000; Luthar et al., 2000b), they have attracted considerable attention and
16
discussion amongst scholars (see, e.g., Masten, 2001; Rutter, 2006). Most researchers concur
17
that, for resilience to be demonstrated, both adversity and positive adaptation must be
18
evident. However, inconsistencies in the specific delineation of these concepts have led to
19
confusion about their meaning, and to some researchers questioning the scientific value of
20
resilience itself (Bodin & Winman, 2004). It is, therefore, important to address these
21
definitional concerns in order to provide an understanding of why different approaches have
22
prevailed, the results that have emerged, and, as knowledge has accumulated, the relative
23
strengths and weaknesses of theoretical explanations.
24
Regarding the term adversity, Luthar and Cicchetti (2000) stated that adversity
25