SECTION II Literature Review
5.2. Models of resilience
Various models to conceptualise resilience have been advocated. These models partially reflect the evolution of theoretical development, and each carries intrinsic value and applicability in terms of enhancing the understanding of the concept in terms of their usefulness in guiding intervention programmes:
• The opposite of risk model (Rutter, 1987) was the first model of resilience. The early resiliency studies simply assumed that risk and resilience represent opposite ends of a single dimension. At times, these assumptions hold empirical weight. For example, having a poor parent-child relationship is a risk factor, and having a good parent-child relationship contributes to resilience (Baylis, 2002; DeFrain, 1999; Luthar & Cicchetti, 2000; Masten et al., 1990; Rutter, 1985). However, there were sufficient exceptions to this simple model to require the development of different ways of understanding the concept. So it seems that although in certain respects resilience is the opposite of risk, this does not provide a sufficiently comprehensive model.
• The universal strengths model was developed during the work of the International Resilience Project (Grotberg, 1995). This model maintains that resilience is an ordinary magic (Masten, 2002): an ubiquitous human capacity that enables a person, group or community to deal with adversity by preventing, facing, minimising, overcoming, and perhaps even being strengthened or transformed, by adversity. We are all naturally endowed with the ability to cope with adversities, but this capacity needs nurturing and support within the context of a facilitative environment to enable resilience to win over vulnerability and risk. In many respects, the universal strengths model is consistent with Bronfenbrenner's focus on contextual systems that can either support or diminish optimal functioning (1986b).
This model has decided appeal. However, it also lacks some empirical validity. Firstly, it seems that 33% to 50% of children do not have the capacity to bounce back after adversity (Masten, 2001). Secondly, there are individual variations in the degree of resilience in different children, at different points in time and in different contexts (Howard & Dryden,
1999; Rutter, 1994). Nevertheless, the shift of focus away from individual deficits onto individual strengths, competencies and capacities was a critical step in understanding the concept of resilience within the context of the individual, family and larger social environment (Brooks, 1994; Gore & Eckenrode, 1994; Masten, 2002; Silberberg, 2001;
Ungar, 2003; Walsh, 1998).
One of the most significant contributions in this regard comes from Grotberg (1999) who challenges the use of the term protective factors and calls for a paradigm shift away from the earlier, medically-based, deficit-focussed models of resilience. Through the application of the medical model to the social environment, researchers had focussed on deficits and problems that required diagnosis and treatment. The paradigm shift to strengths based models shifted the focus onto building individual, family and community strengths. Grotberg also challenged the notion that people could be 'vulnerable but invincible,' as she believes that people do not remain unscathed by adversity. She contends that resilient people are not protected against, but are better prepared for, difficulties and hardship (ibid.). They address adversity more successfully than non-resilient people: a resilient person grieves the death of a loved one; a rape survivor chooses to go on the long slow road to recovery; the terminally ill address their fears and worries (ibid, p. 6). These were important contributions towards theory building. However, a universal strengths based model does not fully take into account the individual and time variables nor the empirical evidence. It is, however, extremely useful in focussing attention on competencies and contextual variables that can promote or reduce resilience.
A third model of resilience focusses on the principle that certain children, families and communities have protective capacities or processes that enable them to cope better with the trials and tribulations of life. Protective processes encompass a breadth of experiences and mechanisms that enable positive adaptation despite adversity (Baylis, 2002; Luthar &
Cicchetti, 2000; Masten, 2002). Protective processes, like risk factors, include dispositional and intrapsychic variables, as well as external processes within the family, school or community environment (Baylis, 2002; Benard & Marshall, 1997; Olson & DeFrain, 2000).
Empirical validity for this model is confirmed in that certain universal protective processes
appear to transcend ethnic, social class, geographical and historical boundaries (Howard &
Dryden, 1999; Ungar, 2003; Rolf et al., 1990). It seems that protective processes have the power to moderate, mediate or generate adaptive response to risk situations (Rutter, 1987).
Identifying those processes that build and boost resilience in at-risk children logically leads to these being incorporated into intervention programmes as specific objectives or focus areas. Likewise, they can enhance attempts to build resilience in all children as they would logically form the basis for educational, life skills and parenting courses and programmes (APA, 2003; Henson, 2004; Silberberg, 2001).
Interdisciplinary research has confirmed the role of three inter-related and interdependent domains of protective processes or influences: (i) internal personal strengths that function as individual assets and resources that include personality and temperamental variables (Benard & Marshall, 1997;
Richter et al., 1994); (ii) interpersonal skills that promote the development of internal personal strengths and social skills (Grotberg, 1995; Mailman, 2002) and are useful in eliciting social support; and (iii) the emotional climate, supports and resources within the family and the broader community context (Brooks, 1994; Gore & Eckenrode, 1994; Henson, 2004; Smith & Carlson, 1997). In fact, there is a growing world literature that reflects much consistency in those features that make a difference in the lives of children whose development is threatened by adversity (Masten, 2000). Table 5.1 lists the most frequently reported protective processes (Cowen, 2000;
Luthar & Cicchetti, 2000; Masten, 2002; Masten, 2000; Masten & Coatsworth, 1998).
The theoretical position that will be adopted in this dissertation represents an amalgam of the above three models since it is believed that each is useful in guiding intervention. Masten (2002) argues that total risk prevention is ideal but not feasible; risk-activated protective factors are analogous to the crisis intervention models that do little for long term adaptation. This leaves one in the position of trying to straddle different models by targeting the sources of risks, building assets at the individual, family and community level, and at the same time attempting to restore, engage or mobilise the power of human adaptational systems for children (Masten, 2002, p. 13). An integrative systemic model of resilience and risk, corresponding with Bronfenbrenner's (1986a) systems theory (see Chapter 4), and consistent with the categorisation of protective processes that is presented in Table 5.1, is conceptualised (see Figure 5.1) as being a model that incorporates the principles of systems theory, as well as those associated with the concepts of risk and resilience. It takes into account the dynamic, interactive relationship and multi-directional flow of influence between each of the components. The interactive plasticity acknowledges that it is difficult to decide where to
place specific variables, since factors that boost resilience usually emanate from multiple sources.
For example, good intellectual ability is accepted to be primarily genetic in origin, however environmental influences play an important role in how intelligence is developed, displayed and how actively one uses it as a means of successfully adapting to one's environment.
Table 5.1: The most frequently reported protective processes:
Intrapsychic strengths
* Good intellectual skills
* Sense of being lovable
* Self efficacy and self esteem
* Autonomy and sense of control over one's own life
* Achievement oriented
* Appealing or easy temperament
* Talents valued by self and society
* A sense of meaning in life
* An ability to experience and express a wide range of emotions
* Faith and religious affiliations
Interpersonal skills
* Trusting relationships
* Secure attachments
* Sense of humour
* Problem-solving skills
* Creative, innovative, resourceful
* Social competence
* Self regulation
* Ability to focus and maintain attention
* Empathy and altruism
* Recognition of achievement
Environmental or External supports
* Caring supportive parents
* Connections to caring and competent adults
* Parental encouragement, praise &
active involvement
* Positive role models
* Emotional support outside of the family
* Socio-economic advantages
* Stable school
* Community resources
* Access to health facilities
* Routine and rituals
This model of resilience incorporates the different kinds of processes (resilience is not a discreet quality) that have been internationally recognised as integral to understanding and utilising the concept of resilience. The child is at the centre of this model, and each of the layers of influence stem from, and between, the child who is an active participant in their own growth and adaptation:
• Certain children have intrapsychic resources either because they were born with them, or because they have developed through the interaction of genetic and environmental factors.
The genetic, dispositional, temperamental and personality variables function as internal personal strengths or qualities that provide an advantage in terms of boosting the ability to cope and overcome difficulties. These resources function before, during and after the adversity.
• Interpersonal resources enhance the quality of microsystemic interactions, make interpersonal transactions satisfying and create opportunities for positively reinforcing social learning that facilitates interdependence (as opposed to either dependance or independence) (Covey, 1994). There are two important components of this category: (i) the ability to access social support; and (ii) action-oriented coping skills to enhance adaptive coping.
• The environment or context in which children may be exposed to facilitative (associated with resilience) or destructive (leading to increased vulnerability) experiences, in terms of the provision or lack of supports, resources and structure at the micro-, exo-, and macrosystemic levels (Bronfenbrenner, 1986a).
Figure 5.1: An integrative systemic model of resilience and risk:
Environmental resources and risks
in which the child does not play an active role
Environmental resources and risks
in which the child can play an active role
Interpersonal resources and risks
Intrapsychic resources or risks (Genetic, Dispositional, temperamental
and personality variables)
Microsystemic interactions
Exosystcmie interactions
Mesosystemic and Macrosystemic interactions