Perhaps the most parsimonious definition of resilience is “bouncing back.” The following comments on resilience from Masten, Cutuli, Herbers, and Reed (2009) illustrate this positive process. Specifically, resilience refers to
a class of phenomena characterized by patterns of positive adaptation in the context of significant adversity or risk. Resilience is an inferential concept, in that two major judgments must be rendered to diagnose
resilience. First, there is a judgment that individuals are at least “doing OK”
with respect to a set of expectations for behavior. Second, there must be significant exposure to risk or adversity that has posed a serious threat to good outcomes. Thus, the study of resilience phenomena requires that investigators define (a) the criteria or method for identifying positive adaptation or development, and (b) the past or current presence of
conditions that threaten to disrupt positive adaptation or harm development.
(p. 118)
This broad definition is widely accepted; scholars agree that risk or adversity must be present for a person to be considered resilient. Despite this consensus, however, there is considerable debate regarding the universality of protective factors (Harvey & Delfabbro, 2004) and the extent to which children are doing
“OK” according to the criteria of good adaptation (Luthar, Cicchetti, & Becker, 2000; Masten, 1999; Wang & Gordon, 1994). Thus, although a long list of protective factors has been identified (see the discussion later in this chapter), there are notable differences in the extent to which these factors “protect” (i.e., how well these factors yield positive outcomes), along with variability in how and when people call upon particular resources when facing risks and
disadvantages (Harvey & Delfabbro, 2004). Indeed, given the state of resilience research, scholars can suggest what might work, but they cannot describe a formula for the operation of resilience.
Researchers often disagree on the answer to the question, “Bounced back to what?” When determining a resilient child’s level of post-threat functioning, observers are looking for a return to normal functioning (i.e., attainment of developmental milestones) and/or for evidence of excellence (functioning that is above and beyond that expected of a child of a similar age). Most investigators, however, “have set the bar at the level of the normal range, no doubt because their goal is to understand how individuals maintain or regain normative levels of functioning and avoid significant problems in spite of adversity—a goal shared by many parents and societies” (Masten et al., 2009, p. 119). Certainly, the most celebrated cases of resilience often are depictions of individuals overcoming overwhelming odds to become stronger. (For example, Mattie Stepanek, a child poet and advocate, seemingly became more prolific as the neuromuscular disease he battled became more difficult to manage.)
One major consideration that may be ignored in the conceptualization of resilience outcomes is culture (Rigsby, 1994; see Chapter 4 for a related
discussion). “Bounced back to what?” must be answered within the context of the values of the culture and the expectations of the community for its youth.
Cultural forces dictate whether researchers examine positive educational
outcomes, healthy within-family functioning, or psychological well-being—or perhaps all three. Due to unexamined personal bias, sometimes researchers may not be asking the types of questions that help to obtain an accurate picture of some groups, particularly when dealing with participants from racial and ethnic backgrounds who have been historically pathologized. Clauss-Ehlers (2008) suggests that often researchers are unintentionally biased in the types of topics they examine; e.g., looking at reasons for poor school achievement in Latino youth with the goal of being able to change this negative outcome. Though this approach may yield some helpful information, Clauss-Ehlers applauds
researchers such as Cabrera and Padilla (2004), who instead studied Latino adolescents with high academic achievement and centered their work around the question of what types of resilience factors promoted this school success.
Unconscious or conscious stereotypes about certain groups can lead us away from asking questions that allow for members of traditionally marginalized groups to show their true strengths.
Second, it may be that having “positive feelings about the self, one’s culture, and one’s ethnic group promote resiliency and are linked to positive behaviors”
(Belgrave, Chase-Vaughn, Gray, Addison, & Cherry, 2000, p. 143). In a study investigating resilience in American Indian adolescents, researchers found that enculturation (i.e., strong ties to their American Indian heritage) was
significantly linked to resilience (Stumblingbear-Riddle & Romans, 2012). Thus, encouraging children to develop positive connections with cultural communities may increase resiliency toward negative factors in life, which may include
reactions to discrimination, racism, and prejudice. Teachers, parents, and counselors can assist with this outcome by working to decrease negative (and increase positive) associations and bias toward various cultural groups within their personal belief systems and within their organizations as a whole.
Regarding “good adaptation,” resilience researchers agree that external adaptation (meeting the social, educational, cultural, and occupational
expectations of society) is necessary in order to determine who is resilient. The network of researchers is split, however, on whether a determination of internal adaptation (positive psychological well-being) is necessary as well. This debate creates confusion because some people see bouncing back as inexorably linked to emotional and intrapsychic adaptation.