1-s2.0-S0140197102001185-main

8/2/2019 1-s2.0-S0140197102001185-main

1/11

www.elsevier.com/locate/jado

Journal of

Adolescence

Journal of Adolescence 26 (2003) 111

Adolescent resilience: a concept analysis

Craig A. Olssona,*, Lyndal Bonda, Jane M. Burnsb,Dianne A. Vella-Brodrickc, Susan M. Sawyerd

aCentre for Adolescent Health, Royal Childrens Hospital, Murdoch Childrens Research Institute,

Parkville 3052, Victoria, Australiab

The Youth and Public Health Agenda, National Depression Institute (Beyond Blue), P.O. Box 6100, Hawthorn West3122, Victoria, Australia

cDepartment of Psychology, School of Psychology, Psychiatry and Psychological Medicine, Monash University,

P.O. Box 197, Caulfield East 3145, Victoria, AustraliadCentre for Adolescent Health, Parkville, University of Melbourne, Melbourne 3052, Victoria, Australia

Received 22 October 2001; received in revised form 25 March 2002; accepted 22 July 2002

Abstract

There is need for greater clarity around the concept of resilience as it relates to the period of adolescence.

Literature on resilience published between 1990 and 2000 and relevant to adolescents aged between 12- and18-years of age was reviewed with the aim of examining the various uses of the term, and commenting on

how specific ways of conceptualizing of resilience may help develop new research agendas in the field. By

bringing together ideas on resilience from a variety of research and clinical perspectives, the purpose of the

review is to explicate core elements of resilience in more precise ways, in the hope that greater conceptual

clarity will lead to a range of tailored interventions that benefit young people.

r 2002 The Association for Professionals in Services for Adolescents. Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.

All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

The term resilience has been variously used to describe a substance of elastic qualities

(Harriman, 1958), the capacity for successful adaptation to a changing environment (Darwin,

1898; Cicchetti & Cohen, 1995), and the character of hardiness and invulnerability (e.g. Anthony,

1974; Kobasa, 1979; Rhodewalt & Zone, 1989; Maddi & Khoshaba, 1994; Florian, Mikulincer, &

Taubman, 1995; Ramanaiah, Sharpe, & Byravan, 1999). More recently, resilience has been

*Corresponding author. Tel.: +61 3 9345 6250; fax: +61 3 9345 6502.

E-mail address: [email protected] (C.A. Olsson).

0140-1971/02/$ 30.00 r 2002 The Association for Professionals in Services for Adolescents. Published by Elsevier

Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

PII: S 0 1 4 0 - 1 9 7 1 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 1 1 8 - 5

8/2/2019 1-s2.0-S0140197102001185-main

2/11

conceptualized as a dynamic process involving an interaction between both risk and protective

processes, internal and external to the individual, that act to modify the effects of an adverse life

event (Rutter, 1985, 1999). Resilience does not so much imply an invulnerability to stress, but

rather an ability to recover from negative events (Garmezy, 1991). Fonagy, Steele, Steele, Higgitt,and Target (1994), describe resilience as normal development under difficult conditions

(p. 233).

The review covers the mental health literature on resilience, relevant to the period of

adolescence (12- and 18-years of age), and published between 1990 and 2000. Some seminal papers

pre-dating 1990 have been included for discussion and appraisal. The reviewed papers come

predominantly from the mental health literature where there is a notable paucity of research

examining resilience within the context of adolescent development. Where studies have been

conducted within adolescent populations, there is considerable cross study variation in the

definitions of resilience used to guide research. Consequently, adolescent resilience has been

investigated across different adversities, emphasizing different risk and protective factors, andlooking at different outcomes. Cross study variation in definitions of resilience in the adolescent

literature reflects a deeper problem within the field of resilience, that is, the lack of a unified theory

of resilience capable of guiding more structured and empirically based approaches to developing

the construct (Luthar, Cicchetti, & Becker, 2000). For understanding to progress, we argue that a

more differentiated and testable theory of the resilience is needed.

This review paper presents a way of thinking about resilience that is relevant to the period of

adolescence. The literature on adolescent resilience can be conveniently thought of as having two

informative foci (1) an investigation of psychosocial outcomes in populations of young people

defined by a particular risk setting, and (2) an investigation of protective mechanisms important in

the process of successful adaptation. Each focus provides a useful perspective on resilience during

adolescence, emphasizing the different elements of the construct, and suggesting differentapproaches to measurement. Considerable confusion arises when the outcome of adaptation and

the process of adaptation are used interchangeably to describe resilience. Resilience can be defined

as an outcome characterized by particular patterns of functional behaviour despite risk.

Alternatively, resilience can be defined as a dynamic process of adaptation to a risk setting that

involves interaction between a range of risk and protective factors from the individual to the

social. Any theoretical account of resilience that does not discriminate between process and

outcome may be prone to needless complexity.

2. Resilience as an outcome

Outcome focussed research typically emphasizes the maintenance of functionality; that is,

patterns of competent behaviour or effective functioning in young people exposed to risk. There

has been considerable cross study variation in the kinds of psychosocial outcomes that researchers

have considered representative of resilience during adolescence. Researchers have commonly

defined resilient outcomes in terms of good mental health, functional capacity, and social

competence. Variation in the kinds of outcomes considered has lead to considerable confusion

about the nature of the concept under discussion. This approach has been criticized for having as

many definitions of adolescent resilience as there are studies (Blum, 1998), and few

C.A. Olsson et al. / Journal of Adolescence 26 (2003) 1112

8/2/2019 1-s2.0-S0140197102001185-main

3/11

psychometrically validated measures (Wagnild & Young, 1993; Jew, Green, & Kroger, 1999;

Constantine, Bernard, & Diaz, 1999; Goodman, 1999). However, there is a common theme that

unites these seemingly disparate approaches and that is a ypattern of effective performance in

the environment, evaluated from the perspective of salient developmental tasks in the context oflate twentieth-century US society. (Masten et al., 1995, p. 1636). To this extent, a focus on the

outcome of adaptation to adversity constitutes an important and useful way of operationalizing

the construct of resilience.

The use of emotional well-being as a marker of functionality is a particularly perplexing issue. It

is tempting to define adolescent resilience solely in terms of maintenance of emotional well-being

in the face of adversity. However, it may be unrealistic to believe that young people can quickly

resolve the emotional ramification of serious threat to personal values (e.g. illness, death of a

loved one). Distressing emotion must in some way act as an index of adversity. Consistent with

this idea, considerable data exist suggesting that young people functioning well under high stress

often show higher levels of emotional distress compared to their low stress peers (Luthar, 1991,1993; Luthar, Doernberger, & Zigler, 1993).

Luthar (1991) has suggested a resilient individual may not necessarily be devoid of distressing

emotion, but can show successful coping, regardless of the presence of such emotion. Likewise,

Garmezy (1991) defines resilience as Functional adequacyy(the maintenance of competent

functioning despite interfering emotionality)yas the benchmark of resilient behaviour under

stress. (p. 463). Indeed, young people capable of maintaining competence despite significant

negative affect may be demonstrating the highest form of resilience. It is, however, safe to

conclude that if a resilient outcome is defined in terms of overt competencies under stress,

measures of psychological well being alone may provide a misleading impression of a young

persons resilience.

3. Resilience as a process

Process focussed research aims to understand the mechanisms or processes that act to modify

the impact of a risk setting, and the developmental process by which young people successfully

adapt. Understanding the process of adaptation necessitates assessment of both risk mechanisms

that act to intensify an individuals reaction to adversity (make more vulnerable), and protective

mechanisms that act to ameliorate an individuals response to adversity (make more resilient) (e.g.

Rutter, 1987, 1999). Operating independently of risk and protective influences, exposure to risk

would lead directly to disorder (Rutter, 1996). Thus, risk and protective mechanisms can bethought of as exerting their influence indirectly and through interaction with a risk setting.

Resilience promoting factors have commonly been discussed within three broad areas:

individual young people, their families and the societies in which they live (Garmezy, 1991;

Werner, 1995). A more expanded framework of resilience might include protective processes

(resources, competencies, talents and skills) that sit within the individual (individual-level factors),

within the family and peer network (social-level factors), and within the whole school

environment and the community (societal-level factors). Assessment of the adaptive capacity of

an individual could then proceed in terms of a comprehensive assessment of resources at each

level. Likewise, effective interventions could be aimed at developing the individuals internal

C.A. Olsson et al. / Journal of Adolescence 26 (2003) 111 3

8/2/2019 1-s2.0-S0140197102001185-main

4/11

resources and skills and equally importantly changing the social environment to further promote

resilience. Considerable research effort has sought to elucidate key protective factors that sit

within individuals, between individuals, and in the material/physical environment. Table 1

illustrates the breadth of psychosocial factors researchers have looked at in studies of resilience.The development of a measurement instrument capable of assessing a range of protective

mechanisms within multiple domains provides one approach to operationalizing resilience as a

dynamic process of adaptation to adversity. Assessing a range of resilience promoting processes

would allow key research questions about human adaptation to adversity to be addressed (Allen,

1998). For example, does resilience (a) vary with developmental level, (b) vary across different

domains (social, academic, relational), (c) vary in a curvilinear fashion (extreme ends being

problematic)?

4. Resilience as a multi-factorial concept

Thinking of resilience as a process necessitates consideration of interaction between a range of

risk and protective processes of varying degrees of impact, and a risk situation at varying points in

development. It is simplistic to believe that a clear single factor, such as parental divorce, is the

causal element in a negative chain of events leading to compromised social or academic or

relational competence. The risk process associated with parental divorce encompasses more than

the act of physical separation. Patterns of family interaction that precede, concur and follow the

physical separation of the parents are thought of as the extended process by which young people

are placed at risk of poor outcomes. While the adverse life circumstance may be described as the

event of divorce, multiple risk factors acting in synergy may far exceed the effect of one significant

life event (Luthar, 1993; Allen, 1998).Data from the Christchurch longitudinal study (Fergusson & Lynskey, 1996) demonstrate a

linear relationship between the numbers of risk factors (e.g. poverty, parent conflict, separation,

poor parentchildren interaction) in a childs environment and the number of psychosocial

problems at ages 1516 years. Increasing opportunity for interaction among risk factors increases

as a function of increasing numbers of risk factors. Thus, the effect of multiple risk factors can be

exponential. The same might be said of resilience. Just as risk factors have been posited to lay a

foundation for a negative chain of events, protective factors may similarly ensue a positive chain

reaction leading to favourable developmental outcomes (Egeland et al. 1993). For example,

Werner and Smith (1992) have suggested that a positive temperament increases the likelihood of

eliciting a positive response from others early in development. A positive temperament may wellbe a seminal resilience promoting factor, having developmental resonance across the life span.

Providing opportunities for the development of positive chain reactions lie at the foundation of

successful intervention.

5. Promoting resilience in young people: a resource-based approach

The challenge for the field is to develop scientifically testable theories of resilience that can

ultimately inform best practice interventions promoting positive developmental outcomes in


8/2/2019 1-s2.0-S0140197102001185-main

5/11

Table 1

Individual-level, family level, and social environment-level resources

Individual-level

resources

Protective mechanism Select authors

Constitutional resilience * Positive temperament* Robust neurobiology

Smith (1999)

Allen (1998)

Werner (1995)

Brooks (1994)

Garmezy (1991)

Rutter (1987)

Sociability * Responsiveness to others* Pro-social attitudes* Attachment to others

Luthar (1991. 1993)

Werner (1995)

Dyer and McGuinness (1996)

Allen (1998)

Intelligence * Academic achievement* Planning and decision making

Werner (1995)

Eccles (1997)

Maggs Frome, Eccles, and Baarber

(1997)

Wolff (1995)

Brooks (1994)

Rutter (1987)

Communication skills * Developed language* Advanced reading

Werner (1995)

Personal attributes * Tolerance for negative affect* Self efficacy* Self esteem* Foundational sense of self* Internal locus of control* Sense of humour* Hopefulness* Strategies to deal with stress* Enduring set of values* Balanced perspective on experience* Malleable and flexible* Fortitude, conviction, tenacity, and

resolve

Smith (1999)Allen (1998)

Blum (1998)

Dyer and McGuiness (1996)

Werner (1995)

Brooks (1994)

Wolff (1995)

Luthar (1991, 1993)

Rutter (1985, 1987)

Family level resources

Supportive families

* Parental warmth, encouragement,

assistance* Cohesion and care within the family* Close relationship with a caring adult* Belief in the child* Non-blaming* Marital support* Talent or hobby valued by others

Smith (1999)

Eccles (1997)

Maggs et al. (1997)

Wolff (1995)

Werner (1995)

Egeland, Carlson, and Sroufe (1993)

Rutter (1987)


8/2/2019 1-s2.0-S0140197102001185-main

6/11

adolescence. From this review of the literature on adolescent resilience, it is apparent that most

research activity has focussed on protective processes sitting at three levels, these being individual-

level protective processes, the family level processes and community-level protective processes.

Within each level, researchers have been able to define a range of more specific processes that

would seem to ameliorate the effects of a risk setting, given the appropriate dose and timing of the

protective process. From an intervention development reference, each protective resource at each

level provides an intervention target for promoting resilience in young people. While the nature of

intervention at each level may differ significantly, the aim of each remains the same, that of

providing young people with the resources needed to successfully adapt to an ever changingphysical, psychological and social environment. Where young people are well resourced within

themselves, within their family and social contexts, a capacity for constructive adaptation to

adversity, that is, resilience can be enhanced.

5.1. Individual-level intervention

This review highlights a range of individual-level resources thought to be important in

adolescent resilience. Individual-level resources discussed in the literature include constitutional

factors (e.g. positive temperament, robust neurobiology), intelligence (e.g. academic achievement,

planning and decision making), sociability (e.g. responsiveness to others, positive attachment),communications skills (e.g. language and reading skills), and personality traits (e.g. self-esteem/

self-efficacy, tolerance of negative affect, enduring values, flexibility, sense of humour) (see

Table 1). The range of individual-level factors suggested is extensive, but not necessarily

exhaustive. Intervention at the level of the individual might take a preventative focus, aiming to

develop personal coping skills and resources before specific encounters with real life adversity.

More commonly, however, coping skills and resources are built in response to crisis, often within

the context of one-on-one treatment.

While identifying what resources should be the target of effective intervention is important,

determining how to impart these resources to young people is equally important. The view of

Social environment-level

resources

Protective mechanism Select authors

Socio-economic status * Material resourced Maggs et al. (1997)

Wolff (1995)

Allen (1998)

School experiences * Supportive peers* Positive teacher influences* Success (academic or not)

Werner (1995)

Rutter (1987)

Supportive communities Believes the individuals stress

Non-punitive

Provisions and resources to assist

Belief in the values of a society

Smith (1999)

Werner (1995)

Wolf (1995)

Table 1 (continued)


8/2/2019 1-s2.0-S0140197102001185-main

7/11

many writers in the field is that young people learn critical, adaptive skills not so much through

instruction, but through experience. Protectionyresides, not in the evasion of risk, but in

successful engagement with ityprotection stems from the adaptive changes that follow successful

coping. (Rutter, 1987, p. 318). The idea of protecting young people by removing them frompotentially difficult life circumstances, or not exposing them to the complexities and hardship of

the world around, does not hold.

A basic interpretation of the notion of exposure might favour a banal form of intervention, one

that seeks to resource young people (at the individual, family, school or community level) with

some judicious exposure to nastiness in order to steel them for later adversity. Promoting

resilience through exposure is certainly more complex than it might first appear. There is nothing

about exposure to adversity that necessarily toughens one up. While over protection and shielding

of a young person does little to develop resilience, at the other end of the spectrum, too much

exposure, too soon, risks overwhelming the young person and compromising a developing

resilience. Positing a direct relationship between the exposure to adversity and resilience missescritical concepts of the dose and timing of negative events. Furthermore, a direct relationship

between adversity and resilience ignores the possible impact of buffering effects (protective

mechanisms) and may paint an over simplified notion of the antecedents of resilience. Adversity at

different points in the life span may elicit scarring or steeling effects depending on other

situational events (Wolff, 1995). Dyer and McGuiness (1996) suggest a shifting balance between

vulnerability and resilience with the balance in either direction being largely determined by how

young people perceive their ability to manage and engage the risk setting.

5.2. Family level intervention

Despite an emerging focus on the peer group, for many young people the family remains theprimary social support. This review highlights a range of family dynamics that if developed and

sustained, appear to be positively related to resilience during adolescence. The importance of

positive parentchild attachment is a common theme in the literature (Table 1). Likewise, parental

warmth, encouragement and assistance, cohesion and care within the family, or a close

relationship with a caring adult are commonly associated with resilient young people. A belief in

the child and a non-blaming parental style also emerge as key protective factors. No doubt

additional family processes are implicated in adolescent resilience. Intervention at the level of the

family may similarly take a preventative or crisis care focus.

5.3. Social environment intervention

Intervention approached from the level of the social environment presents another important

avenue to promote resilience in young people. In the literature two such environments are

identified: the school environment and broader social environment. Adolescents (especially in the

developed world) spend up to a third of their waking hours in school (Rutter et al. (1979)). This

makes school an important setting or system to promote resilience in young people, not just at the

level of individual resource development, or providing an environment in which to practise these

skills, but in terms of a safe environment that can actively buffer against adversity (Glover, Burns,

Butler, & Patton, 1998; Patton et al., 2000). School experiences that involve supportive peers,


8/2/2019 1-s2.0-S0140197102001185-main

8/11

positive teacher influences, and opportunities for success (academic or not) appear to be positively

related to adolescent resilience (see Table 1).

The broader social environment of neighbourhood, region and country may also play an

important role in psycho-social development. The impact of the social environment can be fromboth physical and social perspective. As indicated in Table 1, socio-economic status remains a

well-cited process posited to lead to both resilience and vulnerability. Socio-economic status is in

turn related to social class, ethnicity and gender, making each the focus of social policy

development centred on social justice and equality. However, equally well cited is the value

structure of a social environment. These papers propose that affirming, non-punitive social

structures, supportive communities, may play an important role in promoting resilience in young

people (Table 1). These comments raise the issue of social capital, a prominent concept within

social epidemiology and public health (Subrananian, Kawachi, & Kennedy, 2001). Little

discussion of social capital was found within the mental health literature on adolescent resilience.

Given the emerging interest in social epidemiology and the impact of the social environment onhealth and well-being in adults (North, Syme, Feeney, Shipley, & Marmot, 1996; Yen & Syme,

1999), this is an area of research that warrants further investigation with an adolescent focus.

6. Measuring resilience

Having drawn a distinction between research focussed on outcome and research focussed on the

process of adaptation, methods of how to measure resilience becomes more obvious. Considering

resilience as a dynamic process, one approach to measurement is to develop psychometrically

sound instruments capable of assessing the range of psychosocial resources, skills, capabilities and

talents available to an individual to negotiate adversity. Resources may be assessed within theindividuals, their family and peer networks, and their broader social environment. The Healthy

Kids Resilience Questionnaire (Constantine et al., 1999) provides an example of a process-centred

measurement device. Using this questionnaire, an indication of the diversity of resources available

to young people can be gained. The implicit assumption of this approach is that the greater the

range of resources an individual has, the more likely the individual will be capable of mounting an

adaptive response to any life crisis. This hypothesis is yet to be tested, but the approach would

allow the investigation of differential importance of resources types (e.g. positive parental

relationship may be weighted above family income level). Another approach to measurement is to

develop instruments capable of assessing overt competencies (e.g. social, relational, vocational).

Within appropriate study designs, measures of competence can indicate whether successfuladaptation has occurred or not.

Having access to standardized measures of resilience will enable a number of research questions

to be addressed. For example, how risk and protective processes operate with respect to specific

stressors remains unclear. One possibility is that very different constellations of psychosocial

processes may lie antecedent to the range of resilient outcomes considered in previous research.

Luthar et al. (1993) have shown that while some high-risk children show competence in one

domain, they often exhibit difficulties in other life domains. Indeed, it may be more useful to

accept specific definitions of resilience, such as social resilience, academic resilience or emotional

resilience as these may yield more detailed insights into development. If this were found to be the


8/2/2019 1-s2.0-S0140197102001185-main

9/11

case, the question shaping research into resilience might better be stated as What are the types of

processes via which particular attributes might moderate the effects of risk, with reference to a

specific aspect of competence (Luthar, 1993 p. 451)?

Alternatively, beneath a seemingly diverse range of so-called resilient outcomes, a generic set ofpsychosocial mechanisms may be in operation. The development of a positive self-concept may be

one such example. Having acquired a positive self-concept, individuals may be well set up to

maintain competence (i.e. demonstrate a resilient outcome) under a range of seemingly different

kinds of adversities. Equally, the self-concept may be well developed in one area but not in

another, making for a resilient outcome in the former but not the latter. Effective intervention

would rest in the cultivation of a few key attitudes and life approaches. The development of

standardized measures of resilience would provide the potential to better explore the nature of

resilience and the range of interventions designed to develop resilience.

7. Summary remarks

Although the term resilience has gained great popularity, different research groups have viewed

resilience within different risk settings, examined the impact of different protective processes, and

defined resilient outcomes according to different criteria. This review has emphasized how

resilience has been investigated both as an outcome of adaptation and as a process of adaptation.

Investigations of resilient outcomes have focussed on the maintenance of functionality (e.g.

vocation, relational or academic competence) despite risk to the contrary. Investigating the

process of adaptation has necessitated assessment of a range of risk and protective mechanisms

that act in concert and over time to mediate the effects of a risk setting.

By identifying a common sub-structure involving assessment of the risk setting, the interaction of

risk and protective process, and resultant adaptive outcomes, it may be possible to integrate the

findings of seemingly diverse studies. By identifying key dimensions of the concept of resilience,

concordant measures can then be developed. Specifically, measurement may focus on assessment of

the range of protective processes antecedent to an adaptive response or the outcome of adaptation.

The study of resilience is closely linked with intervention in that protective processes can inform

the development of targeted intervention. While both risk reduction and resilience development

approaches share the common goal of prevention of disorder, the emphasis of each approach is

somewhat different. A resilience-based approach emphasizes the building of skills and capacities

that facilitate successful negotiation of high-risk environments. A risk reduction approach on the

other hand has emphasized removing or avoiding factors or processes implicated in thedevelopment of problematic outcomes (e.g. drug experimentation). For sustained effect, the

judicious use of both methods of intervention is essential. Certainly, there is still much to learn

from studies of resilience in young people.

References

Allen, J. R. (1998). Of resilience, vulnerability, and a woman who never lived. Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics

of North America, 7, 5371.


8/2/2019 1-s2.0-S0140197102001185-main

10/11

Anthony, E. J. (1974). The syndrome of the psychologically invulnerable child. In E. J. Anthony, & C. Koupernik,

(Eds.), The child in his family: children at psychiatric risk, New York: Wiley.

Blum, R. W. (1998). Healthy youth development as a model for youth health promotion: A review. Journal of

Adolescent Health, 22, 368375.Brooks, R. B. (1994). Children at risk: Fostering resilience and hope. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 64, 545553.

Cicchetti, D., & Cohen, D. (1995). Developmental psychopathology, Vol. 2: Risk, disorder, and adaptation. New York:

John Wiley and Sons.

Constantine, N., Bernard, B., & Diaz, M. (1999). Measuring protective factors and resilience traits in youth: The health

kids resilience assessment. Unpublished Work.

Darwin, C. (1898). Preservation of favoured species by means of natural selection. London: John Murray.

Dyer, J. G., & McGuinness, T. M. (1996). Resilience: Analysis of the concept. Archives of Psychiatric Nursing, 10,

276282.

Eccles, J. (1997). The association of school transitions in early adolescent with developmental trajectories through high

school. In J. Schulenberg, (Ed.), Health and risk developmental transitions during adolescence. New York: Cambridge

University Press.

Egeland, B. R., Carlson, E., & Sroufe, L. A. (1993). Resilience as process. Development and Psychopathology, 5,517528.

Fergusson, D. M., & Lynskey, M. T. (1996). Adolescent resiliency to family adversity. Journal of Child Psychology and

Psychiatry, 37, 281292.

Florian, V., Mikulincer, M., & Taubman, O. (1995). Does hardiness contribute to mental health during a stressful real

life situation? The roles of appraisal and coping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 687695.

Fonagy, P., Steele, M., Steele, H., Higgitt, A., & Target, M. (1994). The Emanuel Miller Memorial Lecture 1992. The

theory and practice of resilience. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 35, 231257.

Garmezy, N. (1991). Resilience in childrens adaptation to negative life events and stressed environments. Pediatric

Annals, 20, 459466.

Glover, S., Burns, J., Butler, H., & Patton, G. (1998). Social environments and the emotional wellbeing of young

people. Family Matters, 49, 1116.

Goodman, R. (1999). The extended version of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire as a guide to child

psychiatric caseness and consequent burden. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 40(5), 791799.

Harriman, P. L. (1958). Handbook of psychological terms. Patterson, NJ: Littlefield, Adams, and Co.

Jew, C. L., Green, K. E., & Kroger, J. (1999). Development and validation of a measure of resiliency. Measurement and

Evaluation in Counselling and Development, 32, 7589.

Kobasa, S. C. (1979). Stressful life events, personality, and health. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37,

111.

Luthar, S. S. (1991). Vulnerability and resilience: A study of highrisk adolescents. Child Development, 62, 600616.

Luthar, S. S. (1993). Annotation: Methodological and conceptual issues in research on childhood resilience. Journal of

Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 34, 441453.

Luthar, S. S., Doernberger, C. H., & Zigler, E. (1993). Resilience is not a unidimensional construct: Insights from a

prospective study of inner-city adolescents. Development and Psychopathology, 5, 703717.

Luthar, S. S., Cicchetti, D., & Becker, B. (2000). The construct of resilience: A critical evaluation and guidelines for

future work. Child Development, 71(3), 543562.Maddi, S. R., & Khoshaba, D. M. (1994). Hardiness and mental health. Journal of Personality Assessment, 63, 265274.

Maggs, J., Frome, P., Eccles, J., & Barber, B. (1997). Psychosocial resources, adolescent risk behaviour and young adult

adjustment: Is risk taking more dangerous for some than others? Journal of Adolescence, 20, 103119.

Masten, A. S., Coatsworth, J. D., Neemann, J., Gest, S. D., Tellegen, A., & Garmezy, N. (1995). The structure and

coherence of competence from childhood through adolescence. Child Development, 66, 16351659.

North, F. M., Syme, S. L., Feeney, A., Shipley, M., & Marmot, M. (1996). Psychosocial work environment and sickness

absence among British Civil Servants: The Whitehall ii Study. American Journal of Public Health, 86, 332340.

Patton, G., Glover, S., Bond, L., Butler, H., Godfrey, C., & Di Pietro, G. (2000). The Gatehouse Project: A systematic

approach to mental health promotion in secondary schools. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 34,

586593.


8/2/2019 1-s2.0-S0140197102001185-main

11/11

Ramanaiah, N. V., Sharpe, J. P., & Byravan, A. (1999). Hardiness and major personality factors. Pyschological

Reports, 84, 497500.

Rhodewalt, F., & Zone, J. B. (1989). Appraisal of life change, depression, and illness in hardy and nonhardy women.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(1), 8188.Rutter, M. (1985). Resilience in the face of adversity: Protective factors and resistance to psychiatric disorder. British

Journal of Psychiatry, 147, 598611.

Rutter, M. (1987). Psychosocial resilience and protective mechanisms. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 57,

316331.

Rutter, M. (1996). Stress research: Accomplishments and tasks ahead. In R. Haggerty, L. Sherrod, N. Garmezy & M.

Rutter (Eds.), Stress, risk and resilience in children and adolescents: Processes, mechanisms and interventions.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rutter, M. (1999). Resilience concepts and findings: Implications for family therapy. Journal of Family Therapy, 21,

119144.

Rutter, M., Maughan, B., Mortimore, P., Ouston, J. & Smith, A. (1979). Fifteen thousand hours: secondary schools

and their effects on children. London: Open Books.

Smith, G. (1999). Resilience concepts and findings: Implications for family therapy. Journal of Family Therapy, 21,

154158.

Subramanian, S. V., Kawachi, I., & Kennedy, B. P. (2001). Does the state you live in make a difference? Multilevel

analysis of self-rated health in the U.S. Social Science & Medicine, 53, 919.

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

Nursing Measurement, 1(2), 165178.

Werner, E. E., & Smith, R. S. (1992). Overcoming the odds: High risk children from birth to adulthood. New York:

Cornell University Press.

Werner, E. E. (1995). Resilience in development. Current Directions in Psychological Sciences, 4, 8185.

Wolff, S. (1995). The concept of resilience. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 29, 565574.

Yen, I. H., & Syme, S. L. (1999). The social environment and health: A discussion of the epidemiologic literature.

Annual Review of Public Health, 20, 287308.


1-s2.0-S0140197102001185-main

Documents

Transcript of 1-s2.0-S0140197102001185-main