How To Build Resilience 

 

 

​Resilience is perceived as a dynamic equilibrium state within which psychological, physical, spiritual elements and protective factors have reached a balance. The resilience process is attained by having a biopsychospiritual homeostasis, that is, a comfort zone when one is balanced and adapted mentally, physically, and spiritually to a group of events (Richardson, 2002). Resilience helps us to develop physical and mental well-being and cultivates self-efficacy; fosters emotional strength to process and address adversity, trauma, and hardships

​

The term ‘Resilience’ etymologically, has been derived from a Latin word ‘resiliens’ which refers to elasticity of an object. Ann Masten (2001, p. 228) defines resilience as “a class of phenomenon characterized by good outcomes in spite of serious threats to adaptation or development”, Ryff and Singer (2003, p. 20), define resilience as “maintenance, recovery, or improvement in mental or physical health following challenge.”

​

Richardson (2002) suggested that history of resilience research can be categorized into three phases, which he referred to as ‘waves’. The first wave of resiliency inquiry discovered the phenomenological qualities of resilience among individuals, and identified qualities like self-efficacy, self-esteem, support systems etc, that predict the personal and social success. The second wave viewed resilience as a process of coping in face of adversities, stressors in a manner that results in identification, enriching and reinforcing protective factors. The third waves of resilience inquiry lead to discovery and identification of motivational forces operating within individuals and groups. This force drives the person towards self-actualization, altruism, and creation of experiences that would foster resilience, hence reintegrating from disruptions (Richardson, 2002).

​

Masten (2001) noted two important factors for the occurrence of resilience. Firstly, the individual must face a significant risk or threat that has the potential to evoke unfavourable consequences and pose a threat to well-being. Researchers have identified various factors that may threaten the normal development. Studies have indicated that people with an abusive childhood, who have parents suffering from a mental illness, or raised in poverty with meager support are at a greater risk of distress compared to the children raised by healthy parents (Master, 2001; Masten & Reed, 2002; Ryff & Singer, 2003).  Secondly, the individual must adapt and the resilience must precipitate favourable outcome. The occurrence of resilience has been closely associated with and largely depends on the agencies or protective systems than the nature of adversities the individual has. An individual with limited protective resources may suffer even in the face of low adversities. In contrast, an individual who has an abundance of protective resources may be able to cope with the challenges and adversities effectively.

​

One of the most prominent research studies in the sphere of Resilience was conducted by the pioneer Dr. Emmy Werner, popularly known as the “mother of resiliency.” Werner, along with Smith (1982) conducted a longitudinal study with 700 participants born in the island of Kauai, Hawaii with a 50-years time-interval. The data was collected from children and their caregivers since birth. One-third of these children were considered at high risk for social and academic obstacles because of their lack of supportive environment (e.g., lack of family support, parental alcoholism, poverty, and domestic violence).

​

Out of the children at-risk, one-third of them were invulnerable to the undermining risk factors. These characteristics were accounted by – i) They had a several agencies for support in their environment, and ii) they were born with outgoing dispositions. The latter two-third of the children in the high-risk groups faced significant challenges and distress in their childhood or adolescence. However, most participants by the age of thirties reported that they had ‘bounced forward’ from the adversities they had faced earlier. These findings also corroborated with psychological tests and community reports that were assessed. After a few years, more than 80% of the participants in the high-risk group had bounced forward. In retrospect, the participants who demonstrated resilience attributed it to the support of one caring adult, e.g., a family member, teacher, neighbor, mentor (Werner & Smith, 1982).

​

Resilient responses in the face of adversities are common across life span. Risk factors like divorce, traumatic childhood, job loss, chronic illness, loss of a loved one, and physical declines with aging are common experienced by people in all walks of life. Taking into account the normality of the construct, Ann Masten (2001) has referred to this phenomenon as “ordinary magic.” Masten’s concept highlights that many people engage in resilient responses when faced with significant challenges, it is not rare but a common occurrence. She has also propounded that resilience surfaces from everyday features of people’s lives. It does not require superhuman abilities or extraordinariness.

​

Richardson and colleagues (2002) designed a linear model that understands an individual’s resilience in terms of a biopsychospiritual homeostasis. Resilience is perceived as a dynamic equilibrium state in which psychological, physical, spiritual elements and protective factors have reached a balance. In the model, the resilience process is attained by having a biopsychospiritual homeostasis, that is, a comfort zone when one is balanced and adapted mentally, physically, and spiritually to a set of events (Richardson, 2002).

​

This homeostasis or balance may be routinely disrupted and bombarded when the individual has insufficient resources to cope (i.e., protective factors) to buffer against stressors during adversities. The interplay between protective factors and life prompts determine the disruption and intensity of it.  This imbalance may originate internally from person’s thoughts and feelings, and externally from the environment (Richardson, 2002).

​

In order to cope with the disruption, individuals adjust and begin their reintegration process, and cultivate resilient qualities to bounce back to homeostasis. This process leads to one of the four outcomes (Connor & Davidson, 2003):

​

1. The disruption leads to an opportunity for growth, and additional protective factors with increased resilience, hence adapting to disruption leads to higher level of homeostasis (resilient reintegration).

2. Bouncing back to the baseline homeostasis, with the aim of just getting past or beyond the disruption (homeostatic reintegration).

3. The disruption caused leads to loss of protective factors, thus recovering from the loss and establishing a lower level of homeostasis (reintegration with loss).

4. A dysfunctional state where people restore to destructive or maladaptive strategies (self-destructive behaviour, such as, substance abuse) to cope with stressors (dysfunctional reintegration).

 

Researchers have long studied what determines resilience in varied age groups when exposed to numerous stressors and challenges in today’s world. Personality and trait researchers have attempted to explore and profile the characteristics of “resilient personality”. Research studies have deduced down to facets such as hardiness (Kobasa, Maddi, & Kahn, 1982), self-enhancement (Taylor & Brown, 1988), psychological toughness (Zillig, Hemenover, & Dienstbier, 2002), ego-resilience (Zeb, Naqvi, & Zonash, 2013), and optimism (Carver & Scheier, 2002) have been implicated and associated with resiliency. However, it is vital to note that the abovementioned traits and abilities are a fragment of most people’s psychological makeup, consistent with Masten’s notion of resilience as an ordinary magic. The foundations of resilience include social resources, and psychological resources such as flexible self-concept, self-direction and competence.

​