Deconstructing Resilience: Myriad Conceptualizations and...

International Journal of Arts and Sciences 3(15): 155 - 176 (2010)

CD-ROM. ISSN: 1944-6934 © InternationalJournal.org

155

Deconstructing Resilience: Myriad Conceptualizations and Interpretations Arshi Shaikh, Laurentian University, Canada. Carol Kauppi, Laurentian University, Canada. Abstract: The construct of resilience has captured the imagination of researchers across various disciplines over the last five decades (Ungar, 2008a). Despite a growing body of research in the area of resilience, there is little consensus among researchers about the definition and meaning of this concept. Resilience has been used to describe eight kinds of phenomena across different disciplines. These eight phenomena can be divided into two clusters based on the disciplinary origin. The first cluster mainly involves definitions of resilience derived from the discipline of psychology and covers six themes including (i) personality traits, (ii) positive outcomes/forms of adaptation despite high-risk, (iii) factors associated with positive adaptation, (iv) processes, (v) sustained competent functioning/stress resistance, and (vi) recovery from trauma or adversity. The second cluster of definitions is rooted in the discipline of sociology and encompasses two themes including (i) human agency and resistance, and (ii) survival. This paper discusses the inconsistencies in the varied definitions used within the published literature and describes the differing conceptualizations of resilience as well as their limitations. The paper concludes by offering a unifying conceptualization of resilience and by discussing implications for future research on resilience. Keywords: Resilience, Definitions, Interdisciplinary Introduction The construct of resilience has captured the imagination of researchers across various disciplines over the last five decades. This interest appears to derive from the view that resilience emphasizes the strengths of human beings rather than the deficits (Fergusson & Horwood, 2003; Ungar, 2008a). The term resilience has its most precise meaning in physics and material sciences (Tarter & Vanyukov, 1999). In material sciences it is defined as a property of material that allows it to resume its original shape or position after being bent, stretched or compressed. In the social sciences, this term is used less consistently. In fact there is little consensus among researchers in the social sciences about the definition and meaning of this concept (Glantz & Sloboda, 1999; Kaplan, 1999). Different definitions and meanings of resilience can be organized into two broad clusters (see Figure 1). The first cluster contains definitions derived primarily from the discipline of psychology and influenced by a positivist research orientation. In this cluster, definitions of resilience cover six themes including (i) personality traits, (ii) positive outcomes/forms of adaptation despite high-risk, (iii) factors associated with positive adaptation, (iv) processes, (v) sustained competent functioning/stress resistance, and (vi) recovery from trauma or adversity.



156

The second cluster of definitions, with origins in the disciplines of social work and sociology, heavily emphasizes assumptions linked to constructionist and interpretive worldviews. This cluster conceptualizes resilience in terms of two themes including (i) human agency and resistance and (ii) survival. The various definitions of resilience with roots in different disciplines and research orientations do not represent mutually exclusive categories. In fact, there is a considerable overlap in the features and elements of these definitions which are considered diverse manifestations of resilience (Ungar, 2008a). Common features across different definitions suggest that resilience occurs in the presence of adversities or risks and emerges from the transaction between an individual and his/her environment. The diversity in the definitions indicates that scholars have been unable to reach an agreement about any universal quality, process or outcome that can be consistently construed as “resilience” (Glantz & Sloboda, 1999). Moreover, the defining language of those working in this area is often so imprecise that it is difficult to decipher which of the above meanings of resilience is applicable within their studies (Kaplan, 1999). This is evident, for example, when resilience is defined with reference to multiple meanings as “the process of, capacity for, or outcome of successful adaptation despite challenging or threatening circumstances” (Masten, Best, & Garmezy, 1990, p. 426). Moreover, the term resilience is applied to different entities such as individuals, families and communities (Keri & Marie, 2008; Kimhi & Shamai, 2004). This paper discusses the inconsistencies in the varied definitions used within the published literature and describes the differing conceptualizations of resilience as well as their limitations. The paper concludes by offering a unifying conceptualization of resilience and by discussing implications for future research on resilience. Figure 1 shows the types of definitions of resilience found within the literature. 1. Psychological Perspective Research on “resilience” has its roots in the emergence of the field of developmental psychopathology in the 1970s (Garmezy, 1995). Early studies in this field attempted to predict disorder and deviance in adulthood from the patterns of childhood adversities (Garmezy, 1971, 1974; Werner & Smith, 1982). The findings of some of these studies revealed that not all children developed psychopathology in adulthood despite exposure to high biogenetic, familial, or socio-cultural risk factors. These observations challenged deterministic theorizing which stated that adverse circumstances led to pathological developmental outcomes across the life span among high risk populations and spurred interest in research on resilience (Garmezy, 1995). In subsequent years, researchers defined and operationalized the construct of resilience in myriad ways. The main definitions and approaches utilized by the researchers in the discipline of psychology are presented in the following sections.



157

Figure 1. Clusters of definitions and approaches to resilience

1.1Personality Traits The conceptualization of resilience with reference to personality traits has its roots in the construct of hardiness or dispositional resilience (Bartone, Ursano, Wright, & Ingraham, 1989;



158

Kobasa, 1979). Kobasa defined hardiness as a three dimensional construct involving the elements of control, commitment and challenge. The dimension of control referred to the belief that one can influence the events of life. The dimension of commitment meant an ability to involve oneself deeply in the activities of life. Lastly, the dimension of challenge referred to the acceptance of change as an opportunity for further growth and development in life. Kobasa found that hardiness differentiated between executives who experienced high levels of stress without falling ill and those who experienced illness under comparable levels of stress. Wagnild and Young (1993) defined resilience as an enduring personality trait consisting of five interrelated components. These components included equanimity, perseverance, self-reliance, meaningfulness, and existential aloneness. Equanimity was defined as a balanced perspective on one’s life and experiences, perseverance referred to the willingness to continue the struggle against adversity, self-reliance meant a belief in oneself and ability to depend on oneself, meaningfulness pertained to the realization that life has purpose and existential aloneness reflected the realization that each person’s life path is unique. This definition encompasses personality traits as well as the philosophical orientation of a resilient individual. Connor and Davidson (2003) conceived resilience as a multidimensional personal characteristic that would enable an individual thrive in the face of adversity. They identified hardiness, clarity of goal/aim, action orientation, strong self-esteem, adaptability, social problem solving skills, humour in the face of stress, patience and tolerance as salient features of resilience. Based on the identification of these features, the authors developed the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC) for adults and tested its psychometric properties. Resilience operationalized as CD-RISC was found to have a negative correlation with neuroticism and low to moderate positive correlations with the personality traits of openness, agreeableness, extraversion and contentiousness (Campbell-Sills, Cohan, & Stein, 2006; Yu & Zhang, 2007). In summary resilience has been portrayed as a constellation of personality traits including activity level, optimism, positive responsiveness to others, equanimity, perseverance, self-reliance, meaningfulness and existential aloneness (Greeff & Ritman, 2005; Jacelon, 1997). The major limitation of this conceptualization is that resilience is construed as a static individual trait implying that those who are not able to yield positive outcomes in the face of severe risk/adversity are responsible for their plight (Marecek, 2002). Hence, this conceptualization has the potential to blame the victim for poor adaptation in the face of adversity/stressor (Tarter & Vanyukov, 1999). Additionally, it may connote that some people have “resilience”, while others do not possess this static trait (Luthar, Cicchetti, & Becker, 2000). This definition conceals the dynamic quality of resilience which may vary with regard to differing stressors or outcomes over time (Kaplan, 1999; Lepore & Revenson, 2006). Besides being misleading in conveying the notion that resilience is a fixed personality trait, this perspective does not guide the further search for processes underlying resilience or the design of appropriate interventions/initiatives in the practice and policy domains (Luthar et al., 2000).



159

1.2 Positive Adaptation despite High-Risk or High-Adversity Within the first cluster of definitions, the second theme equates resilience with a pattern of positive adaptation in the context of significant risk or adversity (Masten & Powell, 2003). According to this conceptualization, an individual may be considered resilient based on two major kinds of judgments (Masten, 2001). Firstly, the individual faces significant risk or adversity and secondly, the quality of adaptation is acceptable. Positive adaptation in the absence of risk/adversity is not considered a manifestation of resilience. Different researchers have operationalized risks or adversities in varied ways in the studies on resilience. Some examples of indicators of risks or adversities include low birth weight, chronic illness, malnutrition, low socioeconomic status, and maltreatment (Masten & Powell, 2003). Similarly, adaptive outcomes are operationalized in terms of the absence of psychopathology and the achievement of major developmental tasks for a person of a given age and gender (Garmezy & Masten, 1986; Masten, 1994, 2001; Werner & Smith, 1982). This approach to defining resilience has several limitations and has garnered wide-spread criticism. There is no consensus as to what constitutes high risk or adversity (Kaplan, 1999). Some researchers argue that individuals who are labeled resilient are not actually at risk. Such individuals, who are deemed to be at high risk yet resilient, may not experience the same level of actual risk due to other factors (e.g., assets or protective factors) present in their lives as compared to high-risk non-resilient individuals who lack these other factors. Schoon (2006) argues that there is a difference between statistical and actual risk experienced by the individuals. Therefore, it is difficult to determine whether all individuals identified as resilient have actually experienced comparable levels of risk/adversity. Another concern in the evaluation of risks is related to the plurality of the associated meanings (Rauh, 1989). Risk can mean a probable negative outcome variable, a specific early predictor of unfavourable later outcomes, unfavourable life conditions (e.g., poverty) or rational behaviour choices. According to some researchers, the identification of risk, adaptation, and resilience is relative, situational and attributional whereby the construct may have greater significance to researchers than to the persons who experience it (Schoon, 2006). It is possible that a person labeled as “high-risk” by a researcher may not consider this label appropriate. Luthar et al. (2000) provide a counterargument by asserting that resilience is precisely about the study of the factors (e.g., protective factors or assets) which differentiate individuals who function well from those who are dysfunctional in the face of stressors. Resilience researchers must take into account particular factors and processes underlying healthy functioning such as the case in which a well-functioning child has a nurturing grandparent who may buffer the child against risks. In addition, researchers must gain an understanding of the perceptions of individuals with regard to risks. For example, if most individuals perceive a specific event as posing a risk, while a subset subjectively perceives it to be neutral, researchers should investigate why a subset of individuals differs from the norm.



160

In addition to the controversies surrounding the concept of risk, there is a debate about what it means to be a successfully adapted individual and more specifically about who gets to define successful adaptation (Schoon, 2006). Successful adaptation differs in relation to historical, cultural and developmental contexts (Masten & Coastworth, 1998). Additionally, the conceptualization of resilience encapsulates the view that adaptation can occur through trajectories that defy “normative” expectations and therefore the criteria for positive outcomes reflect normative judgments grounded in the dominant culture or society. Such judgments tacitly support the assumption that “normal” functioning is by nature healthy and adaptive (Glantz & Sloboda, 1999). Another issue of concern is the diversity of the criteria used to identify good or positive adaptation. These varied criteria make it difficult to aggregate findings and draw coherent conclusions about resilience (Masten & Powell, 2003; Masten & Coatsworth, 1998). Such challenges have led some researchers to focus on domain-specific resilience with an increased recognition that a person may show competent functioning in one domain while showing impaired functioning in another domain in the face of adversity. To add to the debate, outcome variables indicating positive adaptation in one context may be viewed as correlates of positive adaptation in another context depending on whether adjustment is viewed as a process or as a level of functioning at one point in time (Kaplan, 1999). Hence, particular outcomes are rarely final end points as it must be recognized that they contribute to subsequent situations and events. Another limitation of this approach is that outcomes are often viewed as dichotomies (e.g., negative or positive) without giving attention to the possibility that outcomes might be mixture of two (Glantz & Sloboda, 1999). Despite several limitations, this conceptualization of resilience is widely utilized in research on resilience among children and adolescents in the field of developmental psychopathology. 1.3 Factors Associated with Positive Adaptation In a variant of the above conceptualization, some researchers equate resilience with factors that facilitate positive adaptation in the face of adversity or risk rather than understanding it as an adaptive outcome itself. Within this variant are two main factors including protective and compensatory factors (Fergusson & Horwood, 2003). According to Rutter (1985, p. 600), protective factors refer to “influences that modify, ameliorate, or alter a person’s response to some environmental hazard that predisposes to a maladaptive outcome”. The protective factors are likely to have beneficial effects on those exposed to risks as opposed to those not exposed. Risk factors are considered direct correlates of poor or negative outcomes, while resilience is considered to reflect protective factors which may moderate the effects of the risk factors so that the adaptation is positive (Masten et al., 1990). Protective factors may not constitute pleasurable experiences in any ordinary sense of the term and may not be experiences at all, rather they may reflect qualities of the individual (Rutter, 1985). This is where an overlap between the concept of protective factors and personality traits



161

occurs; however, Rutter insists that personal qualities should not be interpreted as constitutional or unmodifiable traits. Although Rutter’s conceptualization of protective factors may enhance our understanding of the construct of resilience, it is important to note that not all factors contributing to adaptive outcomes interact with and mitigate against the effects of risk factors. Some factors might directly influence the nature and course of adaptation (Fergusson & Horwood, 2003). These factors are called compensatory factors. Compensatory factors are assumed to have beneficial effects on those exposed and not exposed to the adversity; this is further discussed with reference to the main effect model described in the following section. Several investigators have attempted to uncover the factors leading to positive adaptation among high-risk individuals. Three sets of factors are considered significant for the development of resilience (Garmezy & Nuechterlein, 1972; Luthar et al., 2000; O’Leary & Bhaju, 2006; Wolff, 1995). These factors include (i) attributes of the individuals (e.g., intellectual functioning, social disposition), (ii) aspects of their families (e.g., a caring parent figure, connection to extended family networks) and (iii) characteristics of their wider social environments (e.g., bonds to prosocial adults outside the family, attendance at effective schools). In addition to the psychosocial factors, potential biological contributors (e.g., neural plasticity, neuroendocrine and immune functioning, and genetics) to resilience are proposed by Curtis and Cicchetti (2003). There are several limitations of the conceptualization of resilience in terms of compensatory and protective factors associated with positive adaptation or outcome. Masten and Coastworth (1998) caution that the protective factors within the individual and their environment might not reflect resilience. On the contrary, these characteristics could be the outcome of resilience. Furthermore, these characteristics might not be adaptive in all situations; hence, an individual may have different vulnerabilities and protective systems at different ages and points in development. Further criticism pertains to the inconsistent use of the pivotal terms to describe resilience (Luthar et al., 2000). The terms protective, ameliorative, resource, resilient and compensatory factors are used interchangeably by the researchers. To further complicate matters, certain factors are found to exert both compensatory and protective effects depending on the outcome criteria being used (Lam & McBridge-Chang, 2007). Similarly, Stouthamer-Loeber, Loeber, Farrington, Zhang, van Kammen, and Maguin (1993) found that risk and protective effects co-occurred in the same variables in relation to delinquency among school-age boys. As a result, few variables exerted exclusively risk effects or protective effects. Kaplan (1999) further asserted that protective factors are relevant to understanding adaptation amongst well functioning/low-risk individuals in addition to high functioning/high risk (resilient) individuals, because there is a possibility that the presence of protective factors forestalled the experience of risks by well functioning/low risk individuals.



162

1.4 Processes Subsequent to the identification of “resilient” factors associated with positive adaptation, some investigators have attempted to unravel the mechanisms by which the factors work to produce adaptive outcomes in the context of stressors and adversities. Two major models of resilience processes have emerged from longitudinal research. These models include interactive processes model and main effect model. Rutter (1985) espoused an interactive process model to explain the mechanisms underlying resilience. This process model was developed on the basis of a prospective follow-up study of two groups of women, including 94 women reared in institutions and 51 women reared with their families in their childhood (Quinton, Rutter, & Liddle, 1984). The results revealed that a small subgroup of institutionally reared women showed competent functioning in psychosocial and parenting domains. These women had non-deviant spouses/partners and enjoyed harmonious relationships with them which had powerful protective effects on women’s level of functioning. This model has become widely accepted in the field of developmental psychopathology with implications for the treatment interventions. Intervention strategies informed by this model may focus on altering the level of a particular risk or on enhancing the protective processes which mediate the risk and adaptive outcomes (Masten, 2001). A main effect model describes the mechanisms through which the compensatory factors work (Fergusson & Horwood, 2003). This model proposes that if an individual is resilient, it is because the weight of the stressor or adversity is counterbalanced by compensatory experiences or events. Fergusson & Horwood conducted a longitudinal study of an unselected birth cohort of 1265 children born in an urban region of New Zealand. Data were collected on several outcome measures (e.g., major depression, conduct disorders), measures of childhood adversity (e.g., family socioeconomic status, parental change and conflict) and measures of factors assumed to form the foundation of resilience (e.g., parental attachment, peer affiliation, school retention) from multiple sources (e.g., parents, teachers). The statistical modeling revealed that several factors such as gender, personality traits (e.g., high self-esteem, low neuroticism), peer affiliations (e.g., avoidance of delinquent peers), and attachments (e.g., strong parental attachments) combined additively to compensate for the risk of developing psychopathology. As a result, risk and resilience were found to be the opposite sides of the same coin. For example, if low self-esteem was a risk factor, then high self-esteem was a compensatory factor leading to adaptive outcome. Over the years, this model has informed intervention strategies which mainly focus on resource/asset building in a person’s life so that these assets can offset the burden of risk/adversities (Masten, 2001). Despite their application in practice settings, the interactive and main effect models have several limitations. One of the major shortcomings is the tendency to view factors as mono-directional influences as opposed to bi-directional influences (Glantz & Sloboda, 1999). These models fail to delineate how all factors can be the influences, mediators and outcomes tied in varying degrees to the entire system of variables. Despite the large number of empirical studies



163

examining the above models, there are not sufficient details available about how and why the protective or compensatory factors directly or indirectly influence the outcomes (Lepore & Revenson, 2006). Liddle (1994) argues that these models fail to pay sufficient attention to the contextual nature of resilience. For instance, if an individual perceives something as a threat or risk, while the significant or supporting others do not support this perception, how will resilience be manifested under such circumstances given the primacy of relationships in adaptive coping? If the environment challenges an individual’s interpretation of the “stimulus”, how will resilience occur? The interactive and main effect models seem to leave these questions unanswered. These multifactorial models appear to study the relationship between individual, familial and extra-familial factors, but fail to elucidate structural, material and cultural aspects of the society which shape or explain the phenomenon of resilience (Ungar, 2008a). The investigation of processes underlying resilience through sophisticated statistical modeling techniques continues to the present. Notwithstanding these developments, there is also another conceptualization of resilience which emphasizes the dialectic between successful coping and the struggles associated with this process (Cicchetti & Garmezy, 1993). This conceptualization may be termed sustained competent functioning or stress resistance and is explored in the subsequent section. 1.5 Sustained Competent Functioning/Stress Resistance According to Cicchetti & Garmezy (1993) resilience may refer to the maintenance of competent functioning in the presence of adversity or interfering emotionality. The resilient individual might experience transient perturbations in functioning but generally shows a stable trajectory of healthy functioning across time. Additionally, the resilient individual is capable of generative experiences and positive emotions in the face of trauma or life threatening events (Bonanno, 2004). This definition implies a dynamic process whereby individuals sustain adaptive or competent functioning when faced with significant stressors and cope with the demands of the situation (Luthar et al., 2000; Masten 1994). Resilience is not depicted as a static trait; rather, new vulnerabilities and/or strengths may emerge during developmental transitions throughout the life course as well as during periods of acute stress. The roots of this conceptualization can be found in the literature on stress and coping among children who were labeled as “stress-resistant” or “invulnerable” due to the maintenance of competent functioning under acute or chronic stress (Anthony, 1974; Garmezy, 1971, 1974; Masten et al., 1990). A stressor is an event or experience that may arouse significant strain or tension in many people and may interfere with normal functioning (Masten, 1994). A stressor has three essential components: (i) the stimulus is a manifest event or class of events (ii) the event(s) is perceived as a potential threat (or threats) by the individual and (iii) the event produces physiological changes



164

with certain emotional components such as anxiety, guilt, and sadness (Garmezy & Masten, 1986). According to Lazarus and Folkman (1984, pg. 141) coping refers to “constantly changing cognitive and behavioural efforts to manage specific external and/or internal demands that are appraised as taxing or exceeding the resources of the person”. This definition states that coping refers to “efforts” to manage the demands, through action or thoughts, regardless of how well or poorly the efforts might work. In contrast, resilience implies effective coping in the face of stressful experiences resulting in effective adaptation (Rolf, 1999). Thus resilience is reflected in those “coping efforts” which lead to successful adaptation or developmental outcomes under stressful circumstances. Successful coping or resilience implies (i) recognizing a situation as the source of the problem, (ii) knowing which strategies or resources to call upon in order to modify the situation, and (iii) having the confidence (internal locus of control) to maintain a sense of self-worth while attempting to gain control (Rauh, 1989). This conceptualization of resilience has not escaped criticism. Specifically, the construct of stress has several shortcomings: (i) there are multiple meanings of stress as it is a “subjective” phenomenon, (ii) stress can work both as a stimulus and a response in triggering adaptive coping or maladaptive behaviour and (iii) multiple response parameters (e.g., behavioral, psychological and visceral) may represent manifestations of stress (Garmezy & Masten, 1986; Mason, 1975). According to Rauh (1989), the construct of stress may refer to an aversive environmental challenge, a positive or negative experience, or an unpleasant mental and emotional state resulting from strain or a force requiring the reestablishment of homeostasis. Moreover, experience of one stressor may moderate the effect of another stressor (Kaplan, 1999). Thus there can be interactions between different stressors in an individual’s life. Similarly the concept of coping is as ambiguous as stress (Garmezy & Masten, 1986). Coping can refer to strategies, tactics, responses, cognition or behaviours (Kafanelis, Kostanski, Komesaroff, & Stojanovska, 2009). Both adaptive and maladaptive coping can co-occur in an individual in relation to the same stressor (Clauss-Ehlers, 2008). Moreover, a particular coping strategy considered adaptive or resilient in one situation might be considered inappropriate and maladaptive in another setting (Lam & McBride-Chang, 2007). For instance, the use of problem-focused strategies is believed to be an adaptive coping strategy as opposed to emotion-focused strategies. However, under certain circumstances (e.g., death of a loved one) emotion-focused strategies might be more effective than problem-focused strategies. Furthermore, certain strategies are blends of both problem-focused and emotion-focused strategies. Another difficulty in conceptualizing coping pertains to the issue of cultural differences. The ability to cope and how it is defined can be different across various cultures (Clauss-Ehlers, 2008). Based on this premise, the Cultural Resilience Scale has been developed to examine how cultural factors relate to the development of coping and resilience. Notwithstanding these limitations, researchers are continuing to conduct studies on resilience in relation to a single



165

stressor or a composite of heterogeneous stressors through mainly retrospective research designs (Cicchetti & Rogosch, 1997; Masten et al., 1990). 1.6 Recovery from Trauma or Adversity An alternative approach in defining resilience is to equate it with the recovery of adaptive functioning after a period of maladaptation in the face of stressors (Cicchetti and Rogoscho, 1997; Masten 1994, 2001; Roisman, 2005). The roots of this conceptualization can be found in the works of Murphy and Moriatry (1976) who defined resilience as the recovery of smooth functioning after the loss of integration in the face of stressor(s) or trauma. This type of resilience may include an element of “rebound” after a period of regression and static functioning. This form of resilience is described as having both a biological and a psychological foundation (Murphy & Moriatry, 1976). The biological nature of resilience can be seen in the capacities of the cells to regenerate tissues damaged by illness or accident when an individual receives the appropriate amount of rest, sleep and care. On the other hand, the psychological restorative processes of resilience may include active problem solving, seeking help, receiving loving care, striving for mastery, or using defense mechanisms. Thus resilience refers to the human capacity to recover from periods of malfunction, to self-repair and to master the vicissitudes of life on the basis of psycho-physiological restorative processes. This definition of resilience has several detractors. The opponents argue that resilience is not equivalent to recovery from stressors or the traumas of life, because resilience refers to the experience of insight and growth after being exposed to disruption in life, while recovery refers to a return to the pre-disruption homeostasis without any experience of growth or insight from the adversity (Bonanno, 2004). Richardson (2002) proposes that resilience is a process which begins at any point in time when a person has adapted to his/her situation in life. This condition is called biopsychospiritual homeostasis where body, mind and spirit are in harmony with one another as well as with the external circumstances of the individual. The biopsychospiritual homeostasis is routinely attacked by internal and external life prompts, stressors, adversities, and opportunities. Disruption in biopsychospiritual homeostasis may lead to the first stage of the resilience process wherein a person experiences self-doubt, hurt, guilt, fear, and confusion. With the passing of time, an individual begins to think about what he/she should do under the given circumstances. At this stage the process of reintegration emerges. A person can reintegrate resiliently, attempt to return to pre-event homeostasis, reintegrate with loss or reintegrate dysfunctionally (Richardson, 2002). Resilient reintegration involves the experience of insight or growth and the strengthening of resilient qualities. Reintegration back to the pre-event biopsychospiritual homeostasis implies recovery without growth. Recovery with loss means that people give up some motivation, hope or drive because of the demands of life. And lastly dysfunctional reintegration refers to the use of substances and other forms of destructive behaviours to deal with life events.



166

Sandler, Wolchik, and Ayers (2008) corroborate the assertions that resilience is distinct from recovery, specifically in the context of bereavement and grief following the death of a loved one (e.g., parent). Recovery may imply that grief is a disorder from which one recovers to establish pre-existing levels of functioning or health, rather than as a normal process of adaptation and change following loss. In contrast, resilience can be studied through the notions of cumulative risk and protective factors underlying adaptation in the context of bereavement. While the debate about this conceptualization of resilience continues, there are some scholars who maintain that both recovery and reconfiguration (growth) are manifestations of resilience and researchers should specify what form of resilience they are referring to in their studies (Lepore & Revenson, 2006). 2. Sociological Perspective The sociological perspective describes active decision making, resistance to structural conditions and survival as major forms of resilience. These definitions not only signify the familial and extra-familial contexts of individuals but also emphasize the structural and material conditions which shape and are shaped by resilience. These definitions of resilience are mainly derived from the studies of marginalized and oppressed individuals in the society. 2.1Human Agency and Resistance Human beings are not passive recipients of their environmental stimuli (e.g., internal and external), instead they seek out environments consequent to their experiences (Tarter & Vanyukov, 1999). Some factors such as social support and family cohesion are considered to contribute towards positive adaptation; however, it is plausible that individuals’ contribution to these factors may confer upon them the status of resilience. For instance, a resilient person may have an ability to seek and extract support from others as well as enhance his/her social support. Similarly, a person may contribute to the cohesion of his/her family (Hoge, Austin, & Pollack, 2007). Hence it is not the mere availability of support, but it is the active engagement of a person with the relationships which may have the protective effects of resilience. This is where the concept of human agency arises in relation to the construct of resilience. Resilience connotes human agency which can be defined as intentionally making choices and taking actions (Hitlin & Elder, 2007). Four variants of human agency including existential, identity, pragmatic and life course are proposed by Hitlin and Elder. The concept of existential human agency seems to overlap with the construct of resilience. Existential human agency refers to the capacity to make sense of one’s experiences, assign meaning to them and consequently make choices and take actions within a particular social and historical context. Viktor Frankl (1968, 1970), a Viennese psychiatrist who survived confinement in a Nazi concentration camp, espoused the view that individuals who demonstrate resilience in the face of multiple forms of psychological and physiological trauma are able to construct meaning and purpose of the human existence, of their personal sufferings, of their own lives and exercise their “free will” by making deliberate choices. According to Frankl, a person has the will and freedom



167

to choose at least his/her attitude in a given situation. Hence the concept of resilience reflects this existential capacity labeled as human agency in the discipline of sociology (Hitlin & Elder, 2007). The concept of existential human agency overlaps with Wagnild and Young’s (1993) definition of resilience as a personality trait consisting of interrelated components of meaningfulness and existential aloneness. Kennedy (2005) reported that the capacity of making meaning out of painful circumstances and achieving a subjective understanding of personal experiences were signs of resilience among urban adolescent mothers of colour living amidst violence and poverty. The findings showed that the young mothers actively made choices and decisions that positively influenced their lives. These decisions ensured the personal safety of the young mothers and children, facilitated gratification of basic needs with limited material resources and enabled these mothers to seek out connections with friends and extended family members to deal with the issues of life. Each mother showed a distinct trajectory of human agency, inner strength and resilience while negotiating the day-to-day realities of life rife with parental and partner violence. Similarly, Zink, Jacobson, Pabst, Regan, & Fisher (2006) found that some women in a long term abusive relationship were able to find meaning and pleasure in life by reappraising themselves, their abusers and their relationship. Additionally, their role of “homemaker” and their engagement with the external world allowed them to find meaning beyond the abuse. A study on menopause revealed that middle-aged women’s deep reflections upon the nature of life experiences, themselves, and others enabled them to define and experience menopause on their own terms and to demonstrate resilience during this period of transition (Kafanelis et al., 2009). Additionally, human agency can be manifested in the form of resistance to the established order or structural conditions. Therefore, the concept of resistance should be included in the conceptualization of resilience (Anderson & Danis, 2006; Marshall, 2000). Resistance can take place at micro and macro levels (Raby, 2006). At micro level it may involve overt or covert resistance to dominant social forces, while at the macro level it may include collective, progressive or revolutionary actions characterizing a social movement. At the micro level, resistance can take different forms including “deviant” responses of truancy and fighting to deal with a problem. This form of resistance overlaps with the conceptualization of resilience as “survival” described in the subsequent section. Additionally, resistance may involve negotiation where the dominant cultures are both adopted and contested. At times resistance may take the form of ambiguity where a person may walk between the spaces of dominant and non-dominant social forces. Regardless of the form of resistance, it implies agency and resilience among individuals. Resilience in the form of resistance to oppression is specifically evident in studies involving marginalized populations. For example, a qualitative study on the adult daughters of battered women revealed that the participants developed several adaptive strategies spontaneously in childhood to withstand and resist the oppressive home environment created by domestic violence



168

(Anderson & Danis, 2006). Later, these same strategies were actively applied throughout adulthood as well. These strategies reflected the notions of human agency, strengths, resourcefulness, coping and resilience in their adult life. Similarly, Bachay and Cingel (1999) reported the ways in which minority women resisted the constraints of racial oppression and patriarchal social structures to chart out successful career paths for themselves. Their resilience was characterized by optimism, faith in themselves and God, strong familial relationships, cultural values and ethnic identity, and the reframing of life’s challenges along with a refusal to be marginalized. Similarly, undocumented Mexican women in the USA showed personal strengths in overcoming multiples barriers created by race, culture, language, social position, economic conditions, and immigration status. These women managed to acquire education, employment and housing for themselves and their families and took pride in their achievements (Campbell, 2008). In summary, the concept of human agency characterizes individuals as autonomous, purposive and creative actors (Lister, 2003). However, feminist standpoint theorists caution that individuals as agents are neither fully free nor fully determined. Hallstein (1999) prefers to use the term “constrained agency” to describe this particular tenet of feminist standpoint theory. 2.2 Survival A completely different form of resilience is referred to as survival (Hunter, 2001). This type of resilience may not necessarily lead to normative outcomes or positive adaptation. In fact, this form of resilience may lead to apparently negative outcomes. For instance, inner-city adolescents might survive in their environment by dropping out of school and participating in activities that might not be legal but socially acceptable in their circle. Hence, resilience in adolescence may not be an adaptable, flexible and competent process. Rather it may be characterized by a process of defensive tactics such as insulation, isolation, disconnection and violent responses required to survive the adversities (Hunter & Chandler, 1999). Similarly, Ungar (2008a) asserts that a young man in rural India may join a paramilitary group to participate in the defense of his ethnic community’s rights to self-determination and may achieve a sense of belonging or personal meaning, experience self-efficacy and gain life skills which are all aspects of healthy functioning associated with resilience. The paramilitary affiliation might be seen as an unconventional and illegal activity; however, it may be a viable solution to a dangerous and disempowering existence. Hence, the researchers need to refrain from categorical judgments about what is and is not adaptation under adversity and stress. Surviving and being defensive might be perceived as strengths even though the way a person survives may appear to be maladaptive. Therefore, resilience can be conceptualized as survival and can potentially incur both short-term and long-term negative consequences while a person attempts to overcome adversities (Hunter, 2001). Hunter and Chandler (1999) propose a continuum of resilience. On one end there is less optimum resilience featuring aggressive



169

survival tactics (e.g., violence), while on the other end there is optimum resilience characterized by healthy tactics of flexible and adaptive coping (e.g., competence, trust, connecting with others). A person’s position on the continuum might be determined by the nature of adversity, age, developmental stage and culture (Hunter, 2001). An example of this continuum is the life of Nelson Mandela. He participated in violent struggle in his youth and then developed strategies manifesting optimal resilience after his release from prison. However, the massive social and political changes in South Africa were vital factors in this shift in tactics. 3. A Unifying Conceptualization of Resilience The above conceptualizations of resilience contextualize risk and document a number of protective/compensatory factors and processes that lead to positive outcomes, sustained competent functioning, recovery from trauma, resistance to oppression and survival. However, there are two major limitations of these approaches to defining resilience (Ungar, 2008a). Firstly, they highlight individual and relational factors typical of mainstream western culture and, secondly, they lack the recognition of community and cultural factors that contextualize resilience and influence how it might be defined by different populations across various non-western cultures. Michael Ungar (2008a) proposes a definition of resilience which addresses the above limitations and unifies apparently disparate conceptualizations of resilience. According to this definition, “resilience is the capacity of individuals to navigate their way to resources that sustain well-being, the capacity of individuals’ physical and social ecologies to provide these resources and the capacity of individuals and their families and communities to negotiate culturally meaningful ways for resources to be shared” (Ungar, 2008b, p. 22-23). This definition emphasizes the capacity of individuals to exercise personal agency to make their way to the many resources (e.g., internal and external) to meet their needs. The exercise of personal agency may take place within the context of personality disposition, past experiences, current situation, cumulative risks/adversities, future goals, physical ecology, social factors, structural conditions and personal understandings of oneself and the world around us (Fine, 1991; Hitlin & Elder, 2007). At the same time, resilient individuals require resilient physical and social ecologies which are culturally determined (Ungar, 2008a, 2008b). The physical ecology may include tangible aspects of environment such as the quality of housing, water, safety of streets and levels of pollutants in the air. The social ecology may include personal attachments and structural supports like schools, transportation, and health care. The degree of resilience displayed by a person in a given context is dependent upon the extent to which that context contains elements to nurture resilience. If an individual does not adapt to adverse circumstances, the reason might be that the environment lacks the resilience to negotiate with the individual and to provide what is needed. In such a case, an individual’s environment lacks resilience and not the individual per se. Hence it can be said that resilient individuals require resilient families and resilient communities. However, this relationship between individual resilience and the resilience of the families and communities is not unidirectional. Communities need resilient individuals and families who can resist adverse social and political



170

conditions and create more resources or assets. Similarly, families need resilient individuals and communities in order to thrive in the face of adversities and stressors. Finally, Ungar’s definition emphasizes how culture may inform the meaning of resilience. Understanding which aspects of physical and social ecologies influence resilience depends upon an appreciation for how these aspects are valued by a particular culture. For instance, resources such as medical care, education and foster care might be adequate to protect against risks and stressors, but of little use to a particular individual if what is offered is not valued by the culture of the individual. Similarly, a pattern of resistance and survival through “maladaptive” means might not necessarily be a sign of disorder, but it may mean that there is either dearth of resources or that the available resources lack cultural relevance. Hence while defining risks, protective or compensatory factors, processes and outcomes in the study of resilience, researchers should take cultural perspectives into consideration. At the same time, researchers need to be open to the possibility of culture being resisted or rejected and an alternate culture being adopted as a pathway to successful adaptation. Although the definition provided by Ungar (2008a, 2008b) ties diverse definitions of resilience together, it seems to be less explicit about certain structural conditions (e.g., policies) that can shape the resilience of individuals, families and communities. Seccombe (2002) argues that conceptualization of resilience as an individual disposition, a family characteristic or a community phenomenon with ecological, cultural and developmental nuances is insufficient. Resiliency cannot be researched by merely focusing on these individual-level factors. Instead careful attention must be paid to the structural deficiencies (e.g., social and economic policies) that might need to be changed in order for individuals, families and communities to become stronger, more competent and better functioning in the adverse situations. Researchers and practitioners need to move away from blaming individuals, families and communities when they do not surmount their problems. Instead, they should strive towards changing the social and economic policies that might contribute towards improved lives and enhanced resilience. 4. Implications for Future Research The review of definitions reveals that the concept of resilience transcends the boundaries of academic disciplines and represents an area for interdisciplinary inquiry. Despite the confusion generated by multiple definitions, the underlying idea of overcoming odds and rebounding from the disturbances seems to have universal appeal and cultural resonance. At present resilience research appears to be anchored in a Eurocentric epistemology. There is a need to carry out studies among populations in non-western cultures and countries. Furthermore, researchers must focus not only on how individuals, families and communities surmount adversities (e.g., poverty), but how structural conditions (e.g., social and economic policies) shape and are shaped by resilience. There is a need to conduct research that can inform both micro and macro levels of interventions designed to nurture or enhance resilience. This will require that researchers work in collaboration with individuals, communities and front line workers as well as policy makers.



171

References Anderson, K. M., & Danis, F. S. (2006). Adult daughters of battered women: Resistance and

resilience in the face of danger. Journal of Women and Social Work, 21 (4), 419-432. Anthony, E. J. (1974). Introduction: The syndrome of the psychologically vulnerable child. In E.

J. Anthony & C. Koupernik (Eds). The child in his family: Yearbook of the international association for child psychiatry and allied professions. Volume III (pg 3-9). New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc.

Bachay, J. B., & Cingel, P. A. (1999). Restructuring resilience: Emerging voices. Affilia, 14 (2),

162-175. Bartone, P. T., Ursano, R. J., Wright, K. M., & Ingraham, L. H. (1989). The impact of a military

air disaster on the health of assistance workers: A prospective study. The Journal of Mental and Nervous Disease, 177 (6), 317-328.

Bonanno, G. A. (2004). Loss, trauma and human resilience: Have we underestimated the human

capacity to thrive after extremely aversive events? American Psychologist, 59 (1), 20-28. Campbell, W. S. (2008). Lessons in resilience: Undocumented Mexican Women in South

Carolina. Journal of Women and Social Work, 23 (3), 231-241. Campbell-Sills, L., Cohan, S. L., & Stein, M. B. (2006). Relationship of resilience to personality,

coping and psychiatric symptoms in young adults. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 44, 585-599.

Cicchetti, D., & Garmezy, N. (1993). Prospects and promises in the study of resilience.

Development and Psychopathology, 5, 497-502. Cicchetti, D., & Rogoscho, F. A. (1997). The role of self organization in the promotion of

resilience in maltreated children. Development and Psychopathology, 9 (4), 799-817. Clauss-Ehlers, C. S. (2008). Sociocultural factors, resilience, and coping: Support for a culturally

sensitive measure of resilience. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 29, 197-212.

Connor, K. M., & Davidson, J. R. T. (2003). Development of a new resilience scale: The Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC). Depression and Anxiety, 18, 76-82.



172

Curtis, W. J., & Cicchetti, D. (2003). Moving research on resilience into the 21st century: Theoretical and methodological considerations in examining the biological contributors to resilience. Development and Psychopathology, 15, 773-810.

Frankl, V. (1968). Psychotherapy and existentialism: Selected papers on logotherapy. New

York: A Touchstone Book. Frankl, V. (1970). The will to meaning: Foundations and applications of logotherapy. New

York: New American Library. Fergusson, D. M., & Horwood, L. J. (2003). Resilience to childhood adversities: Results from a

21-year study. In S. S. Luthar (Ed). Resilience and vulnerability: Adaptation in the context of childhood adversities (pp130-155). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Fine, S. (1991). Resilience and human adaptability: Who rises above adversity? The American

Journal of Occupational Therapy, 45 (6), 493-503. Garmezy, N. (1995). Development and adaptation: The contributions of MacArthur Foundation

and William Bevan. In F. Kessel (Ed). Psychology, science and human affairs: Essays in honour of William Bevan. (pp. 109-124). USA: Westview Press.

Garmezy, N. (1974). The study of competence in children at risk for severe psychopathology. In

E. J. Anthony and C. Koupernik (Eds). The Child in his family: children at psychiatric risk (Vol. 3, p. 77-97). New York: Wiley.

Garmezy, N. (1971). Vulnerability research and the issue of primary prevention. American

Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 41, 101-106. Garmezy, N., & Masten, A. S. (1986). Stress, competence and resilience: Common frontiers for

therapist and psychologist. Behaviour Therapy, 17, 500-521. Garmezy, N., & Nuechterlein, K. (1972). Invulnerable children: The fact and fiction of

competence and disadvantage. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 42, 328-329. Glantz, M. D., & Sloboda, Z. (1999). Analysis and reconceptulization of resilience. In M. D.

Glantz and J. L. Johnson (Eds.) Resilience and development: Positive life adaptations (pp 17-83). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.

Greeff, A. P., & Ritman, I. N. (2005). Individual characteristics associated with resilience in

single-parent families. Psychological Reports, 96, 36-42.



173

Hallstein, D. L. O. (1999). A postmodern caring: Feminist standpoint theories, revisioned caring, and communication ethics. Western Journal of Communication, 63 (1), 32-56.

Hitlin, S., & Elder, G. E. (2007). Time, self, and the curiously abstract concept of agency.

Sociological Theory, 25 (2), 170-191. Hoge, E. A., Austin, E. D., & Pollack, M. H. (2007). Resilience: Research evidence and

conceptual considerations for posttraumatic stress disorder. Depression and Anxiety, 24, 139-152.

Hunter, A. (2001). What is resilience? Contemporary Psychology: APA Review of Books, 46 (4),

420-422. Hunter, A., & Chandler, G. E. (1999). Adolescent resilience. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 31

(3), 243-247. Jacelon, C. (1997). The trait and process of resilience. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 25, 123-

129. Kafanelis, B. T., Kostanski, M., Komesaroff, P. A., & Stokanovska, L. (2009). Being in the

script of menopause: Mapping the complexities of coping strategies. Qualitative Health Research, 19 (1), 30-41.

Kaplan, H. B. (1999). Toward an understanding of resilience: A critical review of definitions and

models. In M. D. Glantz and J. L. Johnson (Eds.) Resilience and development: Positive life adaptations (pp 17-83). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.

Kennedy, A. C. (2005). Resilience among urban adolescent mothers living with violence.

Violence Against Women, 11 (12), 1490-1514. Keri, B., & Marie, L. (2008). A conceptual review of family resilience factors. Journal of Family

Nursing, 14 (1), 33-55. Kimhi, S., & Shamai, M. (2004). Community resilience and the impact of stress: Adult response

to Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon. Journal of Community Psychology, 32 (4), 439-451. Kobasa, S. (1979). Stressful life events, personality and health: An inquiry into hardiness.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37 (1), 1-11. Lam, C. B., & McBridge-Chang, C. A. (2007). Resilience in young adulthood: The moderating

influences of gender-related personality traits and coping flexibility. Sex Roles, 56, 159-172.



174

Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal and coping. New York: Springer

Publishing Company. Lepore, S. J., & Revenson, T. A. (2006). Reslience and posttraumatic growth: Recovery,

resistance, and reconfiguration. In L. G. Calhoun & R. G. Tedeschi (Eds). Handbook of posttraumatic growth: research and practice (pp. 24-46). New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.

Liddle, H. A. (1994). Contextualizing resilience. In M. C. Wang Emotional resilience in inner-

city America challenges and prospects (pp. 162-177). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Lister, Ruth (2003). Citizenship: Feminist Perspectives (2nd Edition). NewYork, USA: New

York University Press. Luthar, S. S., Cicchetti, D., & Becker, B. (2000). The construct of resilience: A critical

evaluation and guidelines for future work. Child Development, 71, 543-562. Marecek, J. (2002). Unifished business: Postmodern feminism in personality psychology. In M.

Ballou & L. S. Brown (Eds). Rethinking mental health & disorder: Feminist perspectives (pp. 3-28). New York: The Guilford Press

Marshall, V. W.(2000). Agency, structure and the life course in the era of reflexive

modernization. Presented in a symposium on “The Life Course in the 21st Century”, American Sociological Association meetings, Washington DC, August 2000.

Masten, A. S. (1994). Resilience in Individual Development: Successful adaptation despite risk

and adversity. In M. C. Wang and E. Gordon (Eds). Educational resilience in inner-city America: Challenges and prospects (pp 3-25). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erilbaum Associates, Inc.

Masten, A. S. (2001). Ordinary magic: Resilience processes in development. American

Psychologist, 56 (3), 227-238. Masten, A. S., & Coatsworth, J. D. (1998). The development of competence in favourable and

unfavourable environments: Lessons from research on successful children. American Psychologist, 53, 205-220.

Masten, A. S., & Powell, J. L. (2003). A resilience framework for research, policy and practice.

In S. S. Luthar (Ed). Resilience and vulnerability: Adaptation in the context of childhood adversities (pp. 1-25). New York: Cambridge Press.



175

Masten, A., Best, K., & Garmezy, N. (1990). Resilience and development: contributions from the study of children who overcome adversity. Development and Psychopathology, 2, 425-444.

Mason, J. W. (1975). A historical view of the stress field. Journal of Human Stress, 1, 22-36. Murphy, L. B., & Moriarty, A. E. (1976). Vulnerability, coping and growth. New Haven,

Connecticut, USA: Yale University Press. O’Leary, V., & Bhaju, J. (2006). Resilience and empowerment. In J. Worell and C. D. Goodheart

(Eds). Handbook of girls’ and women’s psychological health (pg: 157-165). New York: Oxford University Press Inc.

Quinton, D., Rutter, M., & Liddle, C. (1984). Institutional rearing, parenting difficulties and

marital support. Psychological Medicine, 14, 107-124. Raby, R. (2006). Talking (behind your) back: Young women and resistance. In Y. Jiwani, C.

Steenbergen, & C. Mitchell (Eds). Girlhood: Redefining the limits (pp. 138-154). New York, USA: Black Rose Books.

Rauh, H. (1989). The meaning of risk and protective factors in infancy. European Journal of

Psychology of Education, 4(2), 161-173. Richardson, G. E. (2002). The metatheory of resilience and resiliency. Journal of Clinical

Psychology, 58 (3), 307-321. Rolf, J. E. (1999). Resilience: An interview with Norman Garmezy. In M. D. Glantz and J. L.

Johnson (Eds.) Resilience and development: Positive life adaptations. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.

Roisman, G. I. (2005). Conceptual clarifications in the study of resilience. American

Psychologist, 60(3), 264-265. Rutter, M. (1985). Resilience in the face of adversity: Protective factors and resilience to

psychiatric disorder. British Journal of Psychiatry, 147, 598-611. Schoon, I. (2006). Risk and resilience: Adaptation in changing times. New York: Cambridge

University Press. Sandler, I. N., Wolchik, S. A., & Ayers, T. S. (2008). Resilience rather than recovery: A

contextual framework on adaptation following bereavement. Death Studies, 32, 59-73.



176

Seccombe, K. (2002). “Beating the odds” versus “changing the odds”: Poverty, resilience and family policy. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 384-394.

Stouthamer-Loeber, M., Loeber, R., Farrington, D. P., Zhang, Q., van Kammen, W., & Maguin,

E. (1993). The double edge of protective and risk factors for delinquency: Interrelations and developmental patterns. Development and Psychopathology, 5, 683-701.

Tarter, R. E., & Vanyukov, M. (1999). Re-visiting the validity of the construct of resilience. In

M. D. Glantz and J. L. Johnson (Eds.) Resilience and development: Positive life adaptations (pp 17-83). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.

Ungar, M. (2008a). Resilience across cultures. British Journal of Social Work, 38, 218-235. Ungar, M. (2008b). Putting resilience theory into action: Five principles for intervention. In L.

Liebenberg & M. Ungar (Eds.). Resilience in action: Working with youth across cultures and contexts. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.

Wagnild, G. M., & Young, H. M. (1993). Development and psychometric evaluation of the

Resilience Scale. Journal of Nursing Measurement, 1 (2), 165-178. Werner , E. E., & Smith, R. S.(1982). Vulnerable but invincible: A study of resilient children.

New York: McGraw-Hill. Wolff, S. (1995). The concept of resilience. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry,

29, 565-574. Yu, X., & Zhang, J. (2007). Factor analysis and psychometric evaluation of Connor-Davidson

Resilience Scale (CD-RISC) with Chinese People. Social Behaviour and Personality, 35 (1), 19-30.

Zink, T., Jacobson, C. J., Pabst, S., Regan, S., & Fisher, B. S. (2006). A lifetime of intimate

partner violence: Coping strategies of older women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21 (5), 634-651.

Deconstructing Resilience: Myriad Conceptualizations and...

Documents

Transcript of Deconstructing Resilience: Myriad Conceptualizations and...