Academic journal article Journal of Counseling and Development : JCD

Resilience: A Meta-Analytic Approach

Academic journal article Journal of Counseling and Development : JCD

Resilience: A Meta-Analytic Approach

Article excerpt

Resilience has been referred to as the personal qualities and skills that allow for an individual's healthy/successful functioning or adaptation within the context of significant adversity or a disruptive life event (Connor & Davidson, 2003; Luthar, Cicchetti, & Becker, 2000; Masten & Obradovic, 2006). Resilience may be an important factor in explaining why some individuals cope with traumatic injuries more successfully than others (White, Driver, & Warren, 2010). After reviewing previous resilience literature, we found resilience to be a multidimensional variable consisting of psychological and dispositional attributes, such as competence, external support systems, and personal structure (Campbell-Sills, Cohan, & Stein, 2006; Connor & Davidson, 2003; Masten, 2001). Individuals who possess a greater number of attributes associated with resilience are more likely to successfully adapt to a disruptive event (e.g., traumatic injury, loss of job, and death of spouse), whereas individuals who have fewer of these attributes will not adapt as successfully (White et al., 2010).

There are two points of view that define resilience. The ability to "bounce back" is considered to be an individual trait in the first view. Resilience as a trait is fixed and stable, referring to a personality trait for negotiating, managing, and adapting to significant sources of stress or trauma. Block and Block (1980) defined resilience, in a psychoanalytic view, as ego resiliency (Block & Kremen, 1996). According to some researchers (Asendorpf & van Aken, 1999; Hart, Hofmann, Edelstein, & Keller, 1997; Robins, John, Caspi, Moffitt, & Stouthamer-Loeber, 1996), resilience can be explained within the concept of the trait types: resilient, overcontrolled, and undercontrolled.

However, the view of resilience as a fixed and stable individual trait fails to account for the notion that adaptation is derived from the whole interaction between individuals and the environment around them, such as family, community, or the social system. Roberts and Masten (2004) claimed that environmental and contextual factors play important roles in shaping personal resiliency. In this sense, the second view reflects the notion of resilience as a dynamic process (e.g., Luthar et al., 2000). Resilience is regarded as not fixed but dynamic, changeable over time, and dependent on interactions among various factors surrounding the individual (Dyer & McGuinness, 1996). In this point of view, the concept of resilience fits well with the evaluation of a change in response to related variables including specific prevention or intervention strategies.

Recently, many researchers have defined resilience as a developmental process (Luthar et al., 2000; Yates, Egeland, & Sroufe, 2003). According to B. W. Smith et al. (2008), most assessment instruments designed to measure resilience are based on facets of resilience that might be facilitated by protective factors. A few scales have been developed to measure resilience as a process, such as the Baruth Protective Factors Inventory (Baruth & Carroll, 2002), the Resilience Scale for Adults (Friborg, Hjemdal, Rosenvinge, & Martinussen, 2003), the Resilience Scale (RS; Wagnild & Young, 1993), and the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC; Connor & Davidson, 2003). However, the Baruth Protective Factors Inventory is limited by age and race generalizations. The Resilience Scale for Adults also has generalization problems because this scale was developed with a sample consisting only of outpatients.

On the other hand, the RS has been validated in numerous studies. This scale was widely applied with samples of all sexes, as well as multiple ages and ethnic groups. The concurrent validity support was shown by high correlations of the RS with well-established validated measures on the constructs linked with resilience (Ahem, Kiehl, Sole, & Byers, 2006). …

Search by... Author
Show... All Results Primary Sources Peer-reviewed

Oops!

An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.