See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/263651506

Psychological resilience: A review and critique of definitions, concepts, and

theory

Article  in  European Psychologist · April 2013

DOI: 10.1027/1016-9040/a000124

CITATIONS READS

550 38,579

2 authors:

David Fletcher Mustafa Sarkar

Loughborough University Nottingham Trent University
97 PUBLICATIONS   4,078 CITATIONS    29 PUBLICATIONS   1,653 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Achievement despite adversity: A qualitative investigation of undrafted National Hockey League players View project

Sports Teams Under Pressure: Antecedents and Consequences of Team-Level Resilience Characteristics View project

All content following this page was uploaded by David Fletcher on 12 June 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Original Articles and Reviews

Psychological Resilience
A Review and Critique of Definitions,
Concepts, and Theory
David Fletcher1 and Mustafa Sarkar2
1
School of Sport, Exercise and Health Sciences, Loughborough University, Loughborough, UK,
2
School of Health and Social Sciences, Middlesex University, London, UK

Abstract. The purpose of this paper is to review and critique the variety of definitions,
concepts, and theories of psychological resilience. To this end, the narrative is divided
into three main sections. The first considers how resilience has been defined in the
psychology research literature. Despite the construct being operationalized in a
variety of ways, most definitions are based around two core concepts: adversity and
positive adaptation. A substantial body of evidence suggests that resilience is
required in response to different adversities, ranging from ongoing daily hassles to
major life events, and that positive adaptation must be conceptually appropriate to
the adversity examined in terms of the domains assessed and the stringency of
criteria used. The second section examines the conceptualization of resilience as
either a trait or a process, and explores how it is distinct from a number of related
terms. Resilience is conceptualized as the interactive influence of psychological
characteristics within the context of the stress process. The final section reviews the
theories of resilience and critically examines one theory in particular that is
commonly cited in the resilience literature. Future theories in this area should take
into account the multiple demands individuals encounter, the meta-cognitive and
-emotive processes that affect the resilience-stress relationship, and the conceptual
distinction between resilience and coping. The review concludes with implications for
policy, practice, and research including the need to carefully manage individuals’
immediate environment, and to develop the protective and promotive factors that
individuals can proactively use to build resilience.

Keywords: adversity, appraisal, coping, positive adaptation, protective and promotive

factors

Human beings typically encounter a variety of difficulties Within the field of psychology, early inquiry examining
and challenges during the course of their lives, ranging resilience represented a ‘‘paradigm shift from looking at
from daily hassles to major life events. Indeed Bonanno risk factors that led to psychosocial problems to the identi-
and Mancini (2008) noted that most individuals experience fication of strengths of an individual’’ (Richardson, 2002,
at least one potentially traumatic event (PTE) in their p. 309). Increasingly, researchers focused on identifying
lifetime. The term ‘‘potentially’’ is important because it the characteristics of individuals, particularly young people,
draws attention to the differences in how people react to life who thrived while living in difficult circumstances, such as
events and whether trauma occurs as a result. To illustrate, poverty and parental mental illness (Garmezy, 1991; Rutter,
some individuals become overwhelmed by everyday has- 1990; Werner & Smith, 1992). Examples of such qualities
sles (DeLongis, Coyne, Dakof, Folkman, & Lazarus, were: an easy temperament, good self-esteem, planning
1982) whereas others react positively to the most testing skills, and a supportive environment inside and outside
of experiences (Bonanno, 2004). It is the study of psycho- the family. Thus, the thrust of early research examining
logical resilience that seeks to understand why some indi- resilience was the search for factors that protect an individ-
viduals are able to withstand – or even thrive on – the ual from the stressors they encounter, and distinguish
pressure they experience in their lives. between those who adapt to the circumstances and those

European Psychologist 2013; Vol. 18(1):12–23 Ó 2013 Hogrefe Publishing

DOI: 10.1027/1016-9040/a000124
 D. Fletcher & M. Sarkar: A Review of Psychological Resilience 13

Table 1. Definitions of resilience

‘‘Protective factors which modify, ameliorate or alter a person’s response to some environmental hazard that predisposes to a
maladaptive outcome’’ (Rutter, 1987, p. 316).
‘‘The process of, capacity for, or outcome of successful adaptation despite challenging or threatening circumstances’’ (Masten, Best,
& Garmezy, 1990, p. 426).
‘‘A dynamic process encompassing positive adaptation within the context of significant adversity’’ (Luthar et al., 2000, p. 543).
‘‘A class of phenomena characterized by good outcomes in spite of serious threats to adaptation or development’’ (Masten, 2001,
p. 228).
‘‘The personal qualities that enables one to thrive in the face of adversity’’ (Connor & Davidson, 2003, p. 76).
‘‘The ability of adults in otherwise normal circumstances who are exposed to an isolated and potentially highly disruptive event such
as the death of a close relation or a violent or life-threatening situation to maintain relatively stable, healthy levels of psychological
and physical functioning, as well as the capacity for generative experiences and positive emotions’’ (Bonanno, 2004, pp. 20–21).
‘‘Complex repertoire of behavioural tendencies’’ (Agaibi & Wilson, 2005, p. 197).
‘‘The capacity of individuals to cope successfully with significant change, adversity or risk’’ (Lee & Cranford, 2008, p. 213).
‘‘An individual’s stability or quick recovery (or even growth) under significant adverse conditions’’ (Leipold & Greve, 2009, p. 41).

who yield to the demands. Since the early 1990s, the focus examines how resilience has been conceptualized and
of resilience research has shifted away from identifying explores how it is distinct from a number of related terms.
protective factors to understanding the process through The final section reviews the theories of resilience and crit-
which individuals overcome the adversities they experience ically examines one theory in particular that is commonly
(Luthar, Cicchetti, & Becker, 2000). cited in the resilience literature.
Over the past two decades psychologists’ understanding
of human functioning in demanding situations has devel-
oped rapidly, with resilience being examined across a range
of contexts, including business organizations (see, e.g., Definitions
Riolli & Savicki, 2003), education (see, e.g., Gu & Day,
2007), military (see, e.g., Palmer, 2008), sport performance Definitions provide a description of the nature, scope, or
(see, e.g., Galli & Vealey, 2008), and communities (see, meaning of a phenomenon. The word resilience originates
e.g., Brennan, 2008). However, one of the main difficulties from the Latin verb resilire, or ‘‘to leap back,’’ and is
in conducting research on resilience is that wide discrepan- defined in the Oxford Dictionary of English as being ‘‘able
cies exist in the way that resilience is defined and concep- to withstand or recover quickly from difficult conditions’’
tualized. For instance, the construct of resilience has (Soanes & Stevenson, 2006, p. 1498). The term’s roots
variously been defined as a trait, process, or outcome. This lie in science and mathematics; for example, in physics,
definitional debate is important to highlight because con- resilience is considered to be the ‘‘ability of a strained body,
cepts provide researchers with theoretical boundaries that by virtue of high yield strength and low elastic modulus, to
help determine the nature, direction, and veracity of recover its size and form following deformation’’ (Geller
research inquiry. Indeed, Davydov, Stewart, Ritchie, and et al., 2003, p. 458). Lazarus (1993) cited the example of
Chaudieu (2010) recently observed that conceptual discrep- elasticity in metals, with a resilient metal bending and
ancies hinder the evaluation and comparison of resilience bouncing back (instead of breaking) when stressed.
research findings, preclude meta-analysis, and make it dif- When used in relation to humans, numerous definitions
ficult to operationalize the construct for measurement pur- of resilience have been proposed in the psychology research
poses. Hence, they concluded that ‘‘clarification . . . in this literature. The specific nature of a definition is often influ-
area must proceed firstly by conceptual unification’’ enced by the historical and sociocultural context within
(p. 479). The purpose of this paper is, therefore, to review which the research was conducted, the researchers’ concep-
and critique the variety of definitions, concepts, and theo- tual proclivities, and the population sampled. Examples of
ries of psychological resilience. It is hoped that synthesiz- some of the most commonly cited definitions of resilience
ing what is known in this area will help elucidate the are presented in Table 1. Despite the construct being oper-
nature of this complex phenomenon and guide future ationalized in a variety of ways, most definitions are based
research development. To this end, the narrative is divided around two core concepts: adversity and positive adapta-
into three main sections. The first considers the different tion. Since the introduction of these concepts to the resil-
ways resilience has been defined and discusses the need ience literature by Luthar and colleagues (Luthar, 2006;
for lucidity in defining two pivotal concepts related to resil- Luthar & Cicchetti, 2000; Luthar et al., 2000), they have
ience: adversity and positive adaptation. The second section attracted considerable attention and discussion among

Ó 2013 Hogrefe Publishing European Psychologist 2013; Vol. 18(1):12–23

14 D. Fletcher & M. Sarkar: A Review of Psychological Resilience

scholars (see, e.g., Masten, 2001; Rutter, 2006). Most resources (e.g., observed problem-solving and support-
researchers concur that, for resilience to be demonstrated, seeking behaviors) to navigate marital-related stressors
both adversity and positive adaptation must be evident. (Neff & Broady, 2011). Moreover, when adversity is
However, inconsistencies in the specific delineation of defined as an event that predicts maladjustment it precludes
these concepts have led to confusion about their meaning, the inclusion of many ongoing daily stressors under the rub-
and to some researchers questioning the scientific value ric of resilience, despite a growing body of evidence to the
of resilience itself (Bodin & Winman, 2004). It is, there- contrary (Davis et al., 2009a; Neff & Broady, 2011).
fore, important to address these definitional concerns in Turning to the second core concept, positive adaptation
order to provide an understanding of why different has been defined as ‘‘behaviorally manifested social com-
approaches have prevailed, of the results that have petence, or success at meeting stage-salient developmental
emerged, and, as knowledge has accumulated, of the rela- tasks’’ (Luthar & Cicchetti, 2000, p. 858) or ‘‘symptoms
tive strengths and weaknesses of theoretical explanations. related to internal well-being’’ (Masten & Obradović,
Regarding the term adversity, Luthar and Cicchetti 2006, p. 15). In order to demonstrate positive adaptation,
(2000) stated that adversity ‘‘typically encompasses nega- Luthar and colleagues (Luthar, 2006; Luthar et al., 2000)
tive life circumstances that are known to be statistically have asserted that the indicators used to represent this con-
associated with adjustment difficulties’’ (p. 858). This cept must be appropriate to the adversity examined in terms
approach employs a threshold-dependent definition of of the domain assessed and the stringency of criteria used.
adversity which is closely aligned with the notion of risk, To illustrate, for schoolchildren an indicator might be aca-
whereas other researchers have taken a less stringent demic achievement, whereas for military personnel a more
approach, defining adversity as any hardship and suffering appropriate indicator would be the absence of psychiatric
linked to difficulty, misfortune, or trauma (e.g., Jackson, symptoms. Regarding the stringency of criteria, the nature
Firtko, & Edenborough, 2007). Moreover, in their role as of the adversity should determine whether an individual
guest editors of a special edition of the Journal of Person- needs to demonstrate excellent or average levels of compe-
ality on ‘‘Resilience in Common Life,’’ Davis, Luecken, tence. More specifically, for an individual exposed to a seri-
and Lemery-Chalfant (2009b) recently observed that ‘‘for ous life adversity (e.g., PTEs such as direct exposure to
most of us, the adversities we encounter do not constitute terrorist attacks) it is appropriate to define competence in
major disasters but rather are more modest disruptions that terms of the absence of psychiatric diagnoses rather than
are embedded in our everyday lives’’ (p. 1638). They, evidence of excellent functioning.
together with the other scholars who present their work in An important, yet often overlooked, issue when examin-
the special edition, make a strong collective case for exam- ing positive adaptation is the sociocultural context in which
ining the processes underlying positive adaptation in the an individual operates (Clauss-Ehlers, 2008; Mahoney &
face of ongoing daily stressors and highly taxing, yet still Bergman, 2002; Waller, 2001). Ungar and colleagues
common, events (see also Sameroff & Rosenblum, 2006). (Ungar 2008; Ungar & Liebenberg, 2011) argued that resil-
Most recently, Davydov et al. (2010) speculated that resil- ience research has predominantly defined positive adapta-
ience mechanisms may differ in relation to contextual tion from a Western psychological discourse with an
severity, ranging from resilience against regular everyday emphasis on individual and relational capacities, such as
hassles like work stress (i.e., mild adversity) to resilience academic success and healthy relationships. According to
against occasional extensive stress such as bereavement Ungar and colleagues, these outcomes lack sensitivity to
(i.e., strong adversity). Thus, as Luthar et al. (2000) empha- cultural factors that contextualize how resilience is defined
sized, it is important that researchers clearly outline their by different populations and manifested in different prac-
definition of adversity and provide a reasoned justification tices. Rather than assuming neutrality or objectivity in the
for its use. use of competence indicators across settings (i.e., an etic
Perhaps a more fundamental issue in this area of resil- perspective), they propose that understanding positive adap-
ience research is the (negative) value-laden connotations tation from within the cultural frame from which compe-
associated with the term ‘‘adversity’’ and, indeed, the tence emerges (i.e., an emic perspective) is a more
majority of work conducted in this area (cf. Agaibi & ecologically sensitive approach (see also Waller, 2001).
Wilson, 2005; Vanderbilt-Adriance & Shaw, 2008). As This perspective is supported by Mahoney and Bergman
noted above, existing definitions of adversity associate neg- (2002) who stated that the specific sociocultural conditions
ative circumstances with negative consequences or, using in which an individual functions must be considered when
risk-related terminology, they focus on established, statisti- examining competence, and that ‘‘failing to do so may lead
cally significant predictors of maladjustment. However, we to a view of positive adaptation as a static phenomenon
suggest that ostensibly positive life events – that are not with relevance to only a minority of persons in select cir-
typically associated with a higher probability of undesirable cumstances’’ (p. 212).
outcomes – can also be relevant in defining resilience. For In sum, Luthar’s seminal work has been highly influen-
example, a job promotion, which is unlikely to be labeled tial in advancing psychologists’ understanding of what
as an adversity, will nonetheless necessitate resilience char- resilience is. The key messages to emerge from the litera-
acteristics in positively adapting to the novel demands ture are that: most definitions are based around the two core
inherent to the role. Similarly, newlywed couples entering concepts of adversity and positive adaptation, resilience is
a marriage, which again is unlikely to be classified as a risk required in response to different adversities ranging from
event, are required to display a range of relationship ongoing daily hassles to major life events, and positive

European Psychologist 2013; Vol. 18(1):12–23 Ó 2013 Hogrefe Publishing

 D. Fletcher & M. Sarkar: A Review of Psychological Resilience 15

adaptation must be conceptually appropriate to the adver- and promotive factors arguing that, whereas the former
sity examined in terms of the domain assessed and the strin- implies shielding or insulation from the potential negative
gency of criteria used. Notwithstanding these points, due to effects of an event, there are psychological-related phenom-
resilience being manifested across a variety of contexts, ena that impute an independent salutary value by yielding
scholars need to be sensitive to the sociocultural factors that benefits such as frequent success experiences (Sameroff,
contextualize how it is defined by different populations. Gutman, & Peck, 2003). Further, to essentially combine
The next section discusses how psychological resilience such factors under the general rubric of psychological resil-
has been conceptualized with a view to providing an inte- ience is conceptually grievous because it suggests that resil-
grated concept and a new definition of resilience. ience is a quality that one either has or does not have (cf.
Luthar et al., 2000). Rather, we argue that protective and
promotive factors should be considered in relation to their
specific function and that an appreciation of the nature
and array of these factors is critical to understanding and
Concepts developing psychological resilience.
While psychological resilience has been conceptualized
Alongside the debate about how resilience should be as a personality trait, it has also been conceived as a process
defined, there has also been considerable discussion about that changes over time. For example, Luthar et al. (2000)
the conceptualization of resilience. Whereas definitions referred to it as a ‘‘dynamic process encompassing positive
describe the meaning of a term, a concept is an abstract adaptation within the context of significant adversity’’
notion that is derived from a combination of personal intu- (p. 543). The process conceptualization of resilience recog-
ition and consistent evidence. From the perspective of psy- nizes that the effects of the protective and promotive factors
chological resilience, researchers have recently conducted will vary contextually (from situation to situation) and tem-
concept-based analyses to elucidate the antecedents, conse- porally (throughout a situation and across an individual’s
quences, and essential attributes of resilience (Earvolino- lifespan). Thus, although an individual may react positively
Ramirez, 2007; Windle, 2011). As discussed in the previous to adversity at one point in his or her life, it does not mean
section, the main antecedent of resilience is deemed to be that the person will react in the same way to stressors at
adversity and the main consequence is considered to be other points in his or her life (cf. Davydov et al., 2010;
positive adaptation. An important debate to emerge from Rutter, 2006; Vanderbilt-Adriance & Shaw, 2008).
the literature concerns the conceptualization of resilience As Rutter (1981) observed: ‘‘if circumstances change, resil-
as either a trait or a process (see, for a review, Windle, ience alters’’ (p. 317).
2011). When resilience has been conceived as a trait, it Those who advocate resilience as a process dispute the
has been suggested that it represents a constellation of char- notion of resilience as a static state of existence (Mahoney
acteristics that enable individuals to adapt to the circum- & Bergman, 2002; Ungar, 2008; Waller, 2001). For exam-
stances they encounter (Connor & Davidson, 2003). This ple, in a study of resilience among high-level athletes, Galli
notion was first alluded to by Block and Block (1980) and Vealey (2008) concluded that an important aspect of
who used the term ‘‘ego resilience’’ to describe a set of resilience is the process of agitation, whereby individuals
traits reflecting general resourcefulness, strength of charac- use a range of coping strategies to deal with a combination
ter, and flexibility of functioning in response to varying of unpleasant emotions, and mental struggles. Importantly,
environmental demands. Individuals with high levels of the athletes reported that positive adaptation occurred grad-
ego resilience were characterized by high levels of energy, ually, often requiring numerous shifts of thought. These
a sense of optimism, curiosity, and the ability to detach and findings support the notion that resilience is a capacity that
conceptualize problems (Block & Block, 1980). As briefly develops over time in the context of person-environment
mentioned earlier, these characteristics have been referred interactions (Egeland, Carlson, & Sroufe, 1993).
to as protective factors, which Rutter (1985) defined as The interaction between people and their environments
‘‘influences that modify, ameliorate, or alter a person’s is an important consideration when conceptualizing resil-
response to some environmental hazard that predisposes ience (Waller, 2001). Relevant here is contemporary stress
to a maladaptive outcome’’ (p. 600). Since the publication and emotion theory, which emphasizes the relational mean-
of his work, numerous protective factors have been identi- ing that individuals construe from their transactions with
fied in the resilience research literature, including hardiness the environment (cf. Lazarus, 1998, 1999). A recent theo-
(Bonanno, 2004), positive emotions (Tugade & retical model that offers a new insight into the role of resil-
Fredrickson, 2004), extraversion (Campbell-Sills, Cohan, ience in the stress process is the meta-model of stress,
& Stein, 2006), self-efficacy (Gu & Day, 2007), spirituality emotions, and performance (Fletcher & Fletcher, 2005;
(Bogar & Hulse-Killacky, 2006, self-esteem (Kidd & Fletcher, Hanton, & Mellalieu, 2006; Fletcher & Scott,
Shahar, 2008), and positive affect (Zautra, Johnson, & 2010). Briefly, the basic premise of the model is that stress-
Davis, 2005). The identification of these protective factors ors arise from the environment an individual operates in,
supports Rutter’s (1987) view that psychological resilience are mediated by the processes of perception, appraisal
is the ‘‘positive role of individual differences in people’s and coping, and, as a consequence, result in positive or neg-
response to stress and adversity’’ (p. 316). ative responses, feeling states, and outcomes. This ongoing
From a conceptual perspective, it is important to note process is moderated by various personal and situational
that researchers have distinguished between protective characteristics, including positive affect (Schaubroeck,

Ó 2013 Hogrefe Publishing European Psychologist 2013; Vol. 18(1):12–23

16 D. Fletcher & M. Sarkar: A Review of Psychological Resilience

Ganster, & Fox, 1992), self-esteem (Ganster & Schau- the person’s resources’’ (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984, p. 141).
broeck, 1995), and self-efficacy (Schaubroeck & Merritt, Thus, resilience influences how an event is appraised,
1997). In the context of the present discussion it is interest- whereas coping refers to the strategies employed following
ing to note that these variables appear conceptually analo- the appraisal of a stressful encounter.
gous to a number of the aforementioned protective and Another key distinction between resilience and coping
promotive factors. Importantly, according to the meta- relates to the consequences associated with aspects of the
model, these resilience-related variables influence the stress stress process (Skinner & Zimmer-Gembeck, 2007; Van
process at multiple stages, namely an individual’s appraisal Vliet, 2008). Resilience augurs a positive response to a
of stressors, his or her meta-cognitions in response to felt potentially stressful situation (e.g., the experience of posi-
emotions, and his or her selection of coping strategies. tive emotions) whereas the nature of reactionary coping
From a stress-coping perspective, numerous studies strategies may be positive (e.g., encouraging self-dialog)
have highlighted the importance of coping when dealing or negative (e.g., substance abuse). While individuals who
with adversity (e.g., Clauss-Ehlers, 2008; Leipold & Greve, demonstrate resilience are likely to also exhibit effective
2009; Sinclair & Wallston, 2004; Tugade & Fredrickson, coping strategies (Major et al., 1998), it is important at this
2004). For example, Bogar and Hulse-Killacky (2006) juncture to distinguish between coping ‘‘behaviors’’ and
found that female adult survivors of childhood sexual abuse ‘‘styles.’’ Whereas specific behaviors are more likely to
used a variety of coping strategies, such as writing and self mediate linkages between individuals’ responses and out-
talk, to help them recover from their experiences. While comes (Folkman & Moskowitz, 2004), dispositional styles
coping and recovery are often discussed in relation to resil- may function as a resilient protective factor that moderate
ience, and sometimes used interchangeably with the term, components of the stress process (Campbell-Sills et al.,
the remainder of this section provides an overview of these 2006). Hence, resilience is characterized by its influence
constructs and argues that they should be conceived as con- on one’s appraisal prior to emotional and coping responses
ceptually distinct from psychological resilience. and by its positive, protective impact, whereas coping is
Despite the Oxford Dictionary of English relating resil- characterized by its response to a stressful encounter and
ience with recovery, academic scholars differentiate by its varying effectiveness in resolving outstanding issues.
between these constructs (see, for a review, Bonanno, To illustrate, individuals operating in a demanding perfor-
2004). Recovery is characterized by a temporary period mance environment on a daily basis would be deemed to
of psychopathology followed by gradual restoration to exhibit resilience if they evaluated stressors as an opportu-
healthy levels of functioning, whereas resilience refers to nity for development and, consequently, received peer rec-
the ability of individuals to maintain normal levels of func- ognition for their work. In contrast, if individuals operating
tioning. To illustrate, bereaved persons who demonstrate in a similar environment did not react as positively and
the recovery pattern may exhibit symptoms of depression their work suffered and, subsequently, sought social support
and experience difficulties completing their normal tasks from their colleagues, this would be an example of coping.
at work, but they persevere and eventually begin to return In summary, the key messages to emerge from the liter-
to their preloss level of functioning over a period of 1 or ature are that: resilience consists of various factors that pro-
2 years (cf. Mancini & Bonanno, 2009). In contrast, indi- mote personal assets and protect individuals from the
viduals who exhibit resilience seem to be able to proceed negative appraisal of stressors; recovery and coping should
with their lives with minimal or no apparent disruptions be conceived as conceptually distinct from resilience; and
in their daily functioning. resilience influences the stress process at multiple stages,
Since it is commonly believed that resilience results namely an individual’s appraisal of stressors, his or her
from the operation of basic human adaptational systems meta-cognitions in response to felt emotions, and his or
(Masten, 2001), the construct has often been closely aligned her selection of coping strategies. Based on these consistent
to coping. For example, Richardson (2002) proposed that themes, an integrated concept of resilience is presented here
resilience is ‘‘the process of coping with stressors, adver- as the interactive influence of psychological characteristics
sity, change or opportunity in a manner that results in the within the context of the stress process (cf. Fletcher &
identification, fortification, and enrichment of resilient Sarkar, 2012). Furthermore, psychological resilience is
qualities or protective factors’’ (p. 308). Although resilience defined as the role of mental processes and behavior in pro-
and coping are often used interchangeably, there is a grow- moting personal assets and protecting an individual from the
ing body of evidence to suggest that these are conceptually potential negative effect of stressors. The next section
distinct constructs (Campbell-Sills, Cohan, & Stein, 2006; briefly reviews the various theories of resilience that have
Major, Richards, Cozzarelli, Cooper, & Zubek, 1998; been proposed and critically discusses the most commonly
Van Vliet, 2008). For example, Major et al. (1998) found cited theory in the literature.
that women who had more resilient personality resources
to draw on (i.e., self-esteem, perceived control, and opti-
mism) were less likely to appraise their upcoming abortions
as stressful. However, for those women lacking in resilient Theory
qualities, their appraisals initiated and directed the coping
strategies they used to deal with the event, with coping Building on general ideas inferred from different instances
being conceived as the efforts made ‘‘to manage specific or occurrences (i.e., concepts), theories explain or predict
external demands that are appraised as taxing or exceeding complex processes that illustrate casual relationships among

European Psychologist 2013; Vol. 18(1):12–23 Ó 2013 Hogrefe Publishing

 D. Fletcher & M. Sarkar: A Review of Psychological Resilience 17

concepts (Klein & Zedeck, 2004). During the past three dec- One of the main contributions of Richardson (2002) and
ades, over a dozen theories of resilience have been proposed colleagues (1990) is the presentation of their resiliency
by various researchers (see Table 2). Although different the- model. In the model, the resilience process begins with a
ories have emerged, it is possible to identify a number of state of biopsychospiritual homeostasis, or a comfort zone,
common features across the approaches taken. The majority where a person is in balance physically, mentally, and spir-
of theories incorporate the notion that resilience is a itually. Disruption from this homeostatic state occurs if an
dynamic process that changes over time. Furthermore, most individual has insufficient resources (i.e., protective factors)
researchers acknowledge that, within the process itself, the to buffer him or her against stressors, adversities, or life
interaction of a wide range of factors determines whether events. In time, an individual who has experienced disrup-
an individual demonstrates resilience. However, in terms tion will adjust and begin the reintegration process. This
of specific explanatory potential, the emphasis placed on process leads to one of four outcomes: resilient reintegra-
different factors often varies. For example, the conceptual tion (where disruption leads to the attainment of additional
model of medical student well-being (Dunn, Iglewicz, & protective factors and a new, higher level of homeostasis);
Moutier, 2008) highlights personality and temperament fac- homeostatic reintegration (where disruption leads to people
tors as being fundamental to resilience, whereas the concep- remaining in their comfort zones, in an effort to ‘‘just get
tual model for community and youth resiliency (Brennan, past’’ the disruption); reintegration with loss (where disrup-
2008) emphasizes the importance of social support. In addi- tion leads to the loss of protective factors and a new, lower
tion, although resilience is considered to be the most desir- level of homeostasis); and dysfunctional reintegration
able outcome in the majority of theories, some researchers (where disruption leads to people resorting to destructive
include other (positive) outcome indicators in their theories, behaviors such as substance abuse).
such as optimal coping (Agaibi & Wilson, 2005), job satis- Although there has been some support for the model in
faction (Paton et al., 2008), and productivity (Riolli & Sav- relation to health promotion (Dunn, 1994; Neiger, 1991;
icki, 2003). Hence, theoretical explanations of resilience Walker, 1996) and sport performance (Galli & Vealey,
often encapsulate other related psychosocial constructs 2008), the model is not without its drawbacks. First, it is a lin-
and overlap with other areas of scientific inquiry. ear model that considers just one event as it relates to an indi-
With the majority of resilience theories being specific to vidual’s experience. With people likely to experience
particular populations (e.g., adolescents, families, police multiple stimuli simultaneously, the model does not take into
officers), there is an understandable call for a generic theory account the effect this has on the disruption and reintegration
that can be applied across different groups of people and processes (Richardson, 2002). Secondly, although Richard-
potentially stressful situations (see, e.g., Richardson, son acknowledges that disruption results in primary emotions
2002). One such theory, which is commonly cited in the (such as fear, anger, and sadness), the model does not explain
resilience literature (see, e.g., Agaibi & Wilson, 2005; how meta-cognition and -emotion affect the reintegration
Campbell-Sills et al., 2006; Connor & Davidson, 2003; process (cf. Efkildes, 2008; Jager & Bartsch, 2006). The cog-
Denz-Penhey & Murdoch, 2008; Galli & Vealey, 2008; nitive appraisal of emotions is an important aspect of the
Gu & Day, 2007; Sinclair & Watson, 2004; White, Driver, stress process, with Fletcher et al. (2006) suggesting that
& Warren, 2008), is the metatheory of resilience and resil- those who demonstrate resilience appraise emotions as facil-
iency (Richardson, 2002; Richardson, Neiger, Jensen, & itative to one’s functioning. Thirdly, and perhaps most
Kumpfer, 1990). This particular theory (and its accompany- importantly, the model has a bias toward coping-oriented
ing model) is discussed here because it can potentially be processes. This was highlighted by Connor and Davidson
applied to different types of stressors, adversities and life (2003) who discussed the model and subsequently concluded
events, and at various levels of analysis (such as individual, that ‘‘resilience may thus . . . be viewed as a measure of suc-
familial, and community). Furthermore, to the best of our cessful stress-coping ability’’ (p. 77). As noted in the previous
knowledge, it is the only metatheory of resilience that section of this paper, there is a growing body of evidence to
includes a range of theoretical ideas from physics, psychol- suggest that resilience and coping should be considered con-
ogy, and medicine (White et al., 2008). ceptually distinct constructs (Campbell-Sills et al., 2006;
As part of the development of his theory, Richardson Major et al., 1998; Van Vliet, 2008). Thus, this is a significant
(2002) suggested that the history of resilience research conceptual drawback of the model that diverts researchers’
can be categorized into three subareas, which he described attention from examining the true nature of resilience.
as ‘‘waves.’’ The first wave of research was a pursuit by In summary, this section has reviewed the various theo-
scholars to identify the qualities (i.e., protective factors) ries of resilience and has critically examined Richardson
of individuals who react positively to difficult conditions (2002) and colleagues’ (1990) metatheory of resilience
in their lives. The second wave of research examined resil- and resiliency. Although Richardson and colleagues stimu-
ience in the context of coping with stressors, adversity, late an interdisciplinary exchange of the multiple meanings
change, or opportunity. The third wave of research explored of resilience, the theory and accompanying model are con-
the identification of motivational forces within individuals ceptually flawed and their explanatory potential has yet to
and groups that drive them toward self-actualization in their be rigorously examined. Taking into account the aforemen-
lives. However, it has been argued that ‘‘the suggestion by tioned limitations of the theory, new theories of resilience
Richardson that resilience may be the driving force that grounded in, and supported by, original data are required
controls the universe may be a little overstated’’ (Windle, for progress to be made in our understanding of resilience
2011, p. 165). (see, e.g., Fletcher & Sarkar, 2012).

Ó 2013 Hogrefe Publishing European Psychologist 2013; Vol. 18(1):12–23

 Table 2. Summary of resilience theories
18

Author/s (year) Theory/model Description

Patterson (1988) Family adjustment and adaptation Describes the process of families balancing demands and
response model capabilities as they interact with family meanings. The outcome is
either family adjustment or adaptation.
Richardson et al. (1990) and The resiliency model Posits the presence of biopsychospiritual homeostasis within an
Richardson (2002) individual which is influenced by adversity, life events, and
protective factors. Following disruption of homeostasis there is
a reintegration process leading to one of four outcomes: resilient
reintegration, reintegration back to homeostasis, reintegration with
loss, or dysfunctional reintegration.
Polk (1997) Nursing model of resilience Resilience conceived as the result of a synergistic relationship

European Psychologist 2013; Vol. 18(1):12–23

between four patterns: dispositional, relational, situational, and
philosophical.
Riolli and Savicki (2003) Model of organizational resilience in Integrates organizational and individual levels of response.
the information systems field Sources of stress protection include dispositions and skills
(individual level) and organizational structures and processes
(organizational level). Outcomes of these processes are resilience,
productivity, retention, and burnout.
Haase (2004) Adolescent resilience model Based on the interaction of concepts that are categorized as one
of three factors: protective (e.g., family protective, social
protective), risk (e.g., individual risk, illness-related risk),
and outcome (e.g., resilience, quality of life).
Agaibi and Wilson (2005) Generic model of resilience in An integrative, person-environment model, emphasizing the
response to psychological trauma interaction between five interrelated variables: personality, affect
modulation, ego defenses, coping style and mobilization, and
utilization of protective factors.
Gillespie, Chaboyer, Wallis, A revised resilience model in Five variables that explain (60% of the variation in) resilience
and Grimbeek (2007) operating room nurses are hope, self-efficacy, control, coping, and competence.
Brennan (2008) Conceptual model for Communities and youth are often faced with a variety of
D. Fletcher & M. Sarkar: A Review of Psychological Resilience

community and youth resiliency vulnerabilities. These create an environment requiring social
support and community agency. Community agency is the principal
condition that enhances resiliency and advances well-being.
Denz-Penhey and A grounded theory of personal Personal resiliency as the main theme in the stories of people
Murdoch (2008) resiliency who had survived unexpectedly from a serious disease. Resiliency
consists of five dimensions: connectedness to one’s social
environment, one’s family, one’s physical environment, one’s
experiential inner wisdom, and one’s strong psychological self.
(Continued on next page)

Ó 2013 Hogrefe Publishing

 Table 2. (Continued)

Author/s (year) Theory/model Description

Dunn et al. (2008) The ‘‘coping reservoir’’: A conceptual A range of inputs, both positive (‘‘filling the reservoir’’) and negative (‘‘draining
model of medical student well-being the reservoir’’) combined with personality and temperament factors (‘‘the internal
structure of the reservoir’’), can lead to positive (e.g., resilience) and negative
(e.g., burnout) outcomes.

Ó 2013 Hogrefe Publishing

Galli and Vealey (2008) Conceptual model of sport resilience Adversity, sociocultural influences, and personal resources were factors discussed
by athletes as being at the center of the resilience process (agitation), which
consequently lead to positive outcomes (e.g., learning and perspective).
Palmer (2008) A theory of risk and resilience The effects of military risk and resilience factors on child outcome are
factors in military families proposed to follow an indirect pathway involving parental stress and
psychopathology, with parent-child interactions considered to be vital for
military children.
Paton et al. (2008) The stress shield model of resilience The model of police officer resiliency integrates a range of person, team, and
organizational factors that lead to empowerment, which, in turn, lead to a
number of outcomes (e.g., adaptive capacity, growth, and job satisfaction).
Van Vliet (2008) A grounded theory of shame and Rebuilding of the self as the main category that signifies the process of
resilience in adulthood recovering from a shame event. Self-reconstruction occurs through five
main processes: connecting, refocusing, accepting, understanding, and resisting.
Leipold and Greve (2009) An integrative model of coping, Resilience is proposed to result from coping processes (e.g., assimilation and
resilience, and development accommodation), which are influenced by personal and situational conditions.
Resilience is considered to be an important part of the conceptual bridge
between coping and development.
Mancini and Hypothesized model of resilience Individual differences (personality, a priori beliefs, identity complexity, positive
Bonanno (2009) emotions, and comfort from positive memories) are proposed to have direct and
indirect effects on coping with loss. Appraisal processes and social support play a
critical role as shared mechanisms of resilience.
Fletcher and Sarkar (2012) A grounded theory of psychological Numerous psychological factors (relating to a positive personality, motivation,
resilience and optimal sport performance confidence, focus, and perceived social support) protect the world’s best athletes
from the potential negative effect of stressors by influencing their challenge
D. Fletcher & M. Sarkar: A Review of Psychological Resilience

appraisal and meta-cognitions. These processes promote facilitative responses

that precede optimal sport performance.
19

European Psychologist 2013; Vol. 18(1):12–23

20 D. Fletcher & M. Sarkar: A Review of Psychological Resilience

Conclusion Acknowledgments

Research examining psychological resilience has gathered This work was funded in part by Lane4 Management Ltd
momentum over the past two decades. In response to the (Grant No. J12644). A summary of this work was presented
differences in how resilience has been defined, conceptual- at the European Congress of Sport Psychology, Madeira,
ized, and theorized, the need for clarity and specificity has Portugal, July 12–17, 2011.
been recognized (see, e.g., Davydov et al., 2010). More-
over, researchers in this area have an ethical obligation to
periodically revisit and refine definitions of resilience so References
that they more accurately portray the experiences of those
whose lives they investigate. Agaibi, C. E., & Wilson, J. P. (2005). Trauma, PTSD, and
In terms of impacting on people’s lives, scholarly resilience: A review of the literature. Trauma, Violence and
inquiry into psychological resilience has a number of Abuse, 6, 195–216. doi: 10.1177/1524838005277438
important implications for policy initiatives, professional Block, J. H., & Block, J. (1980). The role of ego-control and ego
practice, and research endeavors. Where possible, it is cru- resiliency in the organization of behavior. In W. A. Collins
(Ed.), Minnesota symposium on child psychology (pp. 39–
cial that individuals’ immediate environment is carefully 101). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
managed to optimize the adversities they encounter in their Bodin, P., & Winman, B. (2004). Resilience and other stability
lives. Traditionally, there has been a tendency to assume concepts in ecology: Notes on their origin, validity and
that negative life circumstances impede positive adaptation. usefulness. ESS Bulletin, 2, 33–43. Retrieved from http://
However, Seery, Holman, and Silver (2010) recently found www.bom.hik.se/ess/theESSBulletin.htm
that people with a history of some lifetime adversity Bogar, C. B., & Hulse-Killacky, D. (2006). Resiliency determi-
nants and resiliency processes among female adult survivors
reported better mental health and well-being outcomes than of childhood sexual abuse. Journal of Counseling and
people with no history of adversity (see also Neff & Development, 84, 318–327. Retrieved from http://
Broady, 2011; Seery, 2011). Indeed, drawing from theories acta.metapress.com
of stress inoculation (Meichenbaum, 1985), it has been sug- Bonanno, G. A. (2004). Loss, trauma and human resilience:
gested that exposure to adversity in moderation can mobi- Have we underestimated the human capacity to thrive after
lize previously untapped resources, help engage social extremely aversive events?. American Psychologist, 59,
20–28. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.59.1.20
support networks, and create a sense of mastery for future Bonnano, G. A., & Mancini, A. D. (2008). The human capacity
adversities. to thrive in the face of potential trauma. Pediatrics, 121,
In view of these findings, governments should provide 369–375. doi: 10.1542/peds.2007-1648.
community-based opportunities that give individuals access Brennan, M. A. (2008). Conceptualizing resiliency: An interac-
to both environmental and personal resources that develop tional perspective for community and youth development.
their resilience in meaningful ways (cf. Ungar, 2008). Child Care in Practice, 14, 55–64. doi: 10.1080/
Examples of policy-related initiatives include public educa- 13575270701733732
Campbell-Sills, L., Cohan, S. L., & Stein, M. B. (2006).
tion campaigns, mentorship programs for youth, and social Relationship of resilience to personality, coping, and
groups for the elderly. As part of a community outreach psychiatric symptoms in young adults. Behaviour Research
program, psychologists should seek to develop the protec- and Therapy, 44, 585–599. doi: 10.1016/j.brat.2005.05.001
tive and promotive factors that individuals can use proac- Clauss-Ehlers, C. S. (2008). Sociocultural factors, resilience and
tively to build resilience. Evidence-based workshops on coping: Support for a culturally sensitive measure of
appraisal and meta-reflective strategies should be delivered resilience. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology,
29, 197–212. doi: 10.1016/j.appdev.2008.02.004
to form a central part of this resilience training. Such tech- Connor, K. M., & Davidson, J. R. T. (2003). Development of a
niques may include minimizing catastrophic thinking, chal- new resilience scale: The Connor-Davidson resilience scale
lenging counterproductive beliefs, energy management, (CD-RISC). Depression and Anxiety, 18, 76–82. doi:
problem solving, cultivating gratitude, and strengthening 10.1002/da.10113
relationships (see, e.g., Reivich, Seligman, & McBride, Davis, M. C., Luecken, L., & Lemery-Chalfant, K. (Eds.).
2011). Indeed, as the American Psychological Association’s (2009a). Resilience in common life [Special issue]. Journal
of Personality, 77.
(APA) resilience education initiative has demonstrated, Davis, M. C., Luecken, L., & Lemery-Chalfant, K. (2009b).
psychologists are in a unique position to educate the lay Resilience in common life: Introduction to the special issue.
public on developing resilience: Journal of Personality, 77, 1637–1644. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-
6494.2009.00595.x
For psychologists, using resilience as a bridge to their Davydov, D. M., Stewart, R., Ritchie, K., & Chaudieu, I.
(2010). Resilience and mental health. Clinical Psychology
community has proven valuable . . . . Not only does Review, 30, 479–495. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2010.03.003
information about building resilience allow psycholo- DeLongis, A., Coyne, J. C., Dakof, G., Folkman, S., & Lazarus,
gists to help their communities, it also helps commu- R. S. (1982). Relationship of daily hassles, uplifts, and
nities understand the value of psychology. In fact, major life events to health status. Health Psychology, 1,
where there has been community outreach, people 119–136. doi: 10.1037/0278-6133.1.2.119
Denz-Penhey, H., & Murdoch, J. C. (2008). Personal resiliency:
have even gone beyond understanding the value of Serious diagnosis and prognosis with unexpected quality
psychology to experiencing the value of psychology outcomes. Qualitative Health Research, 18, 391–404. doi:
for themselves. (Newman, 2005, pp. 228–229) 10.1177/1049732307313431

European Psychologist 2013; Vol. 18(1):12–23 Ó 2013 Hogrefe Publishing

 D. Fletcher & M. Sarkar: A Review of Psychological Resilience 21

Dunn, D. (1994). Resilient reintegration of married women with Jager, C., & Bartsch, A. (2006). Meta-emotions. Grazer
dependent children: Employed and unemployed (Unpub- Philosophische Studien, 73, 179–204.
lished doctoral dissertation), University of Utah, UT. Kidd, S., & Shahar, G. (2008). Resilience in homeless youth:
Dunn, L. B., Iglewicz, A., & Moutier, C. (2008). A conceptual The key role of self-esteem. American Journal of Ortho-
model of medical student well-being: Promoting resilience psychiatry, 78, 163–172. doi: 10.1037/0002-9432.78.2.163
and preventing burnout. Academic Psychiatry, 32, 44–53. Klein, K. J., & Zedeck, S. (2004). Theory in applied psychol-
doi: 10.1176/appi.ap.32.1.44 ogy: Lessons (re)learned. Journal of Applied Psychology,
Earvolino-Ramirez, M. (2007). Resilience: A concept analysis. 89, 931–933. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.89.6.931
In Nursing Forum (pp. 73–82). doi: 10.1111/j.1744–6198. Lazarus, R. S. (1993). From psychological stress to emotions: A
2007.00070.x history of changing outlooks. Annual Review of Psychology,
Efkildes, A. (2008). Metacognition: Defining its facets and 44, 1–21. doi: 10.1146/annurev.ps.44. 020193.000245
levels of functioning in relation to self-regulation and co- Lazarus, R. S. (1998). Fifty years of the research and theory of
regulation. European Psychologist, 13, 277–287. doi: R. S. Lazarus: An analysis of the historical and perennial
10.1027/1016-9040.13.4.277 issues. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Egeland, B., Carlson, E., & Sroufe, L. A. (1993). Resilience as Lazarus, R. S. (1999). Stress and emotion: A new synthesis.
process. Development and Psychopathology, 5, 517–528. London, UK: Free Association.
doi: 10.1017/S0954579400006131 Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and
Fletcher, D., & Fletcher, J. (2005). A meta-model of stress, coping. New York, NY: Springer.
emotions and performance: Conceptual foundations, theo- Lee, H. H., & Cranford, J. A. (2008). Does resilience moderate
retical framework, and research directions [Abstract]. Jour- the associations between parental problem drinking and
nal of Sports Sciences, 23, 157–158. doi: 10.1080/ adolescents’ internalizing and externalizing behaviours? A
02640410512331334413 study of Korean Adolescents. Drug and Alcohol Depen-
Fletcher, D., Hanton, S., & Mellalieu, S. D. (2006). An dence, 96, 213–221. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep. 2008.03.007
organizational stress review: Conceptual and theoretical Leipold, B., & Greve, W. (2009). Resilience: A conceptual
issues in competitive sport. In S. Hanton & S. D. Mellalieu bridge between coping and development. European Psy-
(Eds.), Literature reviews in sport psychology (pp. 321– chologist, 14, 40–50. doi: 10.1027/1016-9040.14.1.40
374). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science. Luthar, S. S. (2006). Resilience in development: A synthesis of
Fletcher, D., & Sarkar, M. (2012). A grounded theory of research across five decades. In D. Cicchetti & D. Cohen
psychological resilience in Olympic champions. Psychology (Eds.), Developmental psychopathology: Risk, disorder, and
of Sport and Exercise, 13, 669–678. doi: 10.1016/ adaptation (pp. 739–795). New York, NY: Wiley.
j.psychsport.2012.04.007 Luthar, S. S., & Cicchetti, D. (2000). The construct of
Fletcher, D., & Scott, M. (2010). Psychological stress in sports resilience: Implications for interventions and social policies.
coaches: A review of concepts, theory and research. Development and Psychopathology, 12, 857–885. doi:
Journal of Sports Sciences, 28, 127–137. doi: 10.1080/ 10.1017/S0954579400004156
02640410903406208 Luthar, S. S., Cicchetti, D., & Becker, B. (2000). The construct
Folkman, S., & Moskowitz, J. T. (2004). Coping: Pitfalls and of resilience: A critical evaluation and guidelines for future
promise. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 745–774. doi: work. Child Development, 71, 543–562. doi: 10.1111/1467-
10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.141456 8624.00164
Galli, N., & Vealey, R. S. (2008). ‘‘Bouncing back’’ from Mahoney, J. L., & Bergman, L. R. (2002). Conceptual and
adversity: Athletes’ experiences of resilience. The Sport methodological considerations in a developmental approach
Psychologist, 22, 316–335. Retrieved from http://jour- to the study of positive adaptation. Applied Developmental
nals.humankinetics.com/tsp Psychology, 23, 195–217. doi: 10.1016/S0193-3973(02)
Ganster, D. C., & Schaubroeck, J. (1995). The moderating 00104-1
effects of self-esteem on the work stress-employee health Major, B., Richards, C., Cozzarelli, C., Cooper, M. L., & Zubek,
relationship. In R. Crandall & P. Perrewe (Eds.), Occupa- J. (1998). Personal resilience, cognitive appraisals and
tional stress: A handbook (pp. 167–177). Washington, DC: coping: An integrative model of adjustment to abortion.
Taylor and Francis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 735–752.
Garmezy, N. (1991). Resiliency and vulnerability to adverse doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.74.3.735
developmental outcomes associated with poverty. American Mancini, A. D., & Bonanno, G. A. (2009). Predictors and
Behavioural Scientist, 34, 416–430. doi: 10.1177/ parameters of resilience to loss: Toward an individual
0002764291034004003 differences model. Journal of Personality, 77, 1805–1832.
Geller, E., Weil, J., Blumel, D., Rappaport, A., Wagner, C., & doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2009.00601.x
Taylor, R. (2003). McGraw-Hill dictionary of engineering Masten, A. S. (2001). Ordinary magic: Resilience processes in
(2nd edn.). London, UK: McGraw-Hill. development. American Psychologist, 56, 227–238. doi:
Gillespie, B. M., Chaboyer, M., Wallis, M., & Grimbeek, P. 10.1037/0003-066X.56.3.227
(2007). Resilience in the operating room: Developing and Masten, A. S., Best, K. M., & Garmezy, M. (1990). Resilience
testing of a resilience model. Journal of Advanced Nursing, and development: Contributions from the study of children
59, 427–438. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04340.x who overcome adversity. Development and Psychopathol-
Gu, Q., & Day, C. (2007). Teachers’ resilience: A necessary ogy, 2, 425–444. doi: 10.1017/S0954579400005812
condition for effectiveness. Teaching and Teacher Educa- Masten, A. S., & Obradović, J. (2006). Competence and
tion, 23, 1302–1316. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2006.06.006 resilience in development. Annals of the New York Academy
Haase, J. E. (2004). The adolescent resilience model as a guide of Sciences, 1094, 13–27. doi: 10.1196/annals.1376.003
to interventions. Journal of Pediatric Oncology Nursing, 21, Meichenbaum, D. (1985). Stress inoculation training. New
289–299. doi: 10.1177/1043454204267922 York, NY: Pergamon.
Jackson, D., Firtko, A., & Edenborough, M. (2007). Personal Neff, L. A., & Broady, E. F. (2011). Stress resilience in early
resilience as a strategy for surviving and thriving in the face marriage: Can practice make perfect? Journal of Personality
of workplace adversity: A literature review. Journal of and Social Psychology, 101, 1050–1067. doi: 10.1037/
Advanced Nursing, 60, 1–9. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648. a0023809
2007.04412.x

Ó 2013 Hogrefe Publishing European Psychologist 2013; Vol. 18(1):12–23

22 D. Fletcher & M. Sarkar: A Review of Psychological Resilience

Neiger, B. (1991). Resilient reintegration: Use of structural Seery, M. D., Holman, A. E., & Silver, R. S. (2010). Whatever
equations modeling (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), does not kill us: Cumulative lifetime adversity, vulnerability
University of Utah, UT. and resilience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
Newman, R. (2005). APA’s resilience initiative. Professional ogy, 99, 1025–1041. doi: 10.1037/a0021344
Psychology: Research and Practice, 36, 227–229. doi: Sinclair, V. G., & Wallston, K. A. (2004). The development and
10.1037/0735-7028.36.3.227 psychometric evaluation of the brief resilient coping scale.
Palmer, C. (2008). A theory of risk and resilience factors in Assessment, 11, 94–101. doi: 10.1177/1073191103258144
military families. Military Psychology, 20, 205–217. doi: Skinner, E. A., & Zimmer-Gembeck, M. J. (2007). The devel-
10.1080/08995600802118858 opment of coping. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 119–
Paton, D., Johnston, P., Clarke, J., Violanti, J. M., Burke, K. J., 144. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085705
& Keenan, D. (2008). Stress shield: A model of police Soanes, C., & Stevenson, A. (2006). Oxford dictionary of
resiliency. International Journal of Emergency Mental English (2nd edn.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Health, 10, 95–108. Tugade, M. M., & Fredrickson, B. L. (2004). Resilient individ-
Patterson, J. (1988). Families experiencing stress: The family uals use positive emotions to bounce back from negative
adjustment and adaptation response model. Family Systems emotional experiences. Journal of Personality and Social
Medicine, 5, 202–237. doi: 10.1037/h0089739 Psychology, 86, 320–333. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.86.2.320
Polk, L. V. (1997). Toward a middle-range theory of resilience. Ungar, M. (2008). Resilience across cultures. British Journal of
Advances in Nursing Science, 19, 1–13. Social Work, 38, 218–235. doi: 10.1093/bjsw/bcl343
Reivich, K. J., Seligman, M. E. P., & McBride, S. (2011). Ungar, M., & Liebenberg, L. (2011). Assessing resilience across
Master resilience training in the U.S. Army. American cultures using mixed methods: Construction of the Child and
Psychologist, 66, 25–34. doi: 10.1037/a0021897 Youth Resilience Measure. Journal of Mixed Methods
Richardson, G. E. (2002). The metatheory of resilience and Research, 5, 126–149. doi: 10.1177/1558689811400607
resiliency. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 58, 307–321. doi: Van Vliet, K. J. (2008). Shame and resilience in adulthood: A
10.1002/jclp. 10020 grounded theory study. Journal of Counseling Psychology,
Richardson, G. E., Neiger, B. L., Jensen, S., & Kumpfer, K. L. 55, 233–245. doi: 10.1037/0022-0167.55.2.233
(1990). The resiliency model. Health Education, 21, 33–39. Vanderbilt-Adriance, E., & Shaw, D. S. (2008). Conceptualizing
Riolli, L., & Savicki, V. (2003). Information system organiza- and re-evaluating resilience across levels of risk, time, and
tional resilience. Omega: The International Journal of domains of competence. Clinical Child and Family Psychol-
Management Science, 31, 227–233. doi: 10.1016/S0305- ogy Review, 11, 30–58. doi: 10.1007/s10567-008-0031-2
0483(03)00023-9 Waller, M. A. (2001). Resilience in ecosystemic context:
Rutter, M. (1981). Stress, coping and development: Some issues Evolution of the concept. American Journal of Orthopsy-
and some questions. Journal of Child Psychology and chiatry, 71, 290–297. doi: 10.1037/0002-9432.71.3.290
Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 22, 323–356. doi: Walker, R. J. (1996). Resilient reintegration of adult children of
10.1111/j.1469-7610.1981.tb00560.x perceived alcoholic parents (Unpublished doctoral disserta-
Rutter, M. (1985). Resilience in the face of adversity: Protective tion), University of Utah, UT.
factors and resistance to psychiatric disorder. British Journal Werner, E., & Smith, R. (1992). Overcoming the odds: High risk
of Psychiatry, 147, 598–611. doi: 10.1192/bjp. 147.6.598 children from birth to adulthood. Ithaca, NY: Cornell
Rutter, M. (1987). Psychosocial resilience and protective University Press.
mechanisms. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 57, White, B., Driver, S., & Warren, A-M. (2008). Considering
316–331. doi: 10.1111/j.1939-0025.1987.tb03541.x resilience in the rehabilitation of people with traumatic
Rutter, M. (1990). Competence under stress: Risk and protective disabilities. Rehabilitation Psychology, 53, 9–17. doi:
factors. In J. Rolf, A. S. Masten, D. Cicchetti, K. H. 10.1037/0090-5550.53.1.9
Nuechterlin, & S. Weintraub (Eds.), Risk and protective Windle, G. (2011). What is resilience? A review and concept
factors in the development of psychopathology (pp. 181– analysis. Reviews in Clinical Gerontology, 21, 152–169. doi:
214). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/S0959259810000420
Rutter, M. (2006). Implications of resilience concepts for Zautra, A. J., Johnson, L. M., & Davis, M. C. (2005). Positive
scientific understanding. Annals of the New York Academy affect as a source of resilience for women in chronic pain.
of Sciences, 1094, 1–12. doi: 10.1196/annals.1376.002 Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73, 212–220.
Sameroff, A., Gutman, L. M., & Peck, S. C. (2003). Adaptation
among youth facing multiple risks: Prospective research Received April 22, 2011
findings. In S. S. Luthar (Ed.), Resilience and vulnerability: Accepted April 27, 2012
Adaptation in the context of childhood adversities (pp. 364–
392). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Sameroff, A. J., & Rosenblum, K. L. (2006). Psychosocial
constraints on the development of resilience. Annals of the About the authors
New York Academy of Sciences, 1094, 116–124. doi:
10.1196/annals.1376.010 David Fletcher is a senior lecturer in
Schaubroeck, J., Ganster, D., & Fox, M. (1992). Dispositional Performance Psychology and Manage-
affect and work-related stress. Journal of Applied Psychol- ment in the School of Sport, Exercise and
ogy, 77, 322–335. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.77.3.322 Health Sciences at Loughborough Uni-
Schaubroeck, J., & Merritt, D. (1997). Divergent effects of job versity, Loughborough, UK. His research
control on coping with work stressors: The key role of self- focuses on the psychology of sporting
efficacy. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 738–754. excellence in the areas of stress and
doi: 10.2307/257061 emotion, organizational functioning and
Seery, M. D. (2011). Resilience: A silver lining to experiencing effectiveness, performance leadership and
adverse life events. Current Directions in Psychological management, psychological and team
Science, 20, 390–394. resilience, and psychosocial interventions.

European Psychologist 2013; Vol. 18(1):12–23 Ó 2013 Hogrefe Publishing

 D. Fletcher & M. Sarkar: A Review of Psychological Resilience 23

Mustafa Sarkar is a research student in David Fletcher

Performance Psychology in the School of
Sport, Exercise and Health Sciences at School of Sport, Exercise and Health Sciences
Loughborough University, Loughbor- Loughborough University
ough, UK. His research focuses on the Epinal Way
psychology of sporting excellence in the Loughborough LE11 3TU
areas of resilience in high achievers and UK
its assessment in sport performers. Tel. +44 1509 223271
Fax +44 1509 226301
E-mail [email protected]

Ó 2013 Hogrefe Publishing European Psychologist 2013; Vol. 18(1):12–23

View publication stats