Alston Yan

Social work theory · Volume C: Ecological & Contextual

Resilience theory

Resilience theory explains why some people do well despite exposure to serious adversity. Resilience is generally defined as a dynamic process of positive adaptation in the context of significant adversity.

1. What it is

Resilience theory explains why some people do well despite exposure to serious adversity. Resilience is generally defined as a dynamic process of positive adaptation in the context of significant adversity (Luthar et al., 2000). Two conditions must be present: a significant threat to development or wellbeing, and an outcome that is better than expected given that threat. The theory shifted research attention from deficits to the processes that protect and sustain people (Masten, 2001). In this family, resilience is treated in its contextual and explanatory sense, as a product of interactions between people and their environments. Its use in strengths-based practice and its links to agency are discussed in E3.

Protective factors and processes. Protective factors are characteristics of the person, family or environment that reduce the likelihood of negative outcomes under adversity. Rutter (1987) argued that research should focus on protective processes or mechanisms, meaning how factors operate, since the same factor can be protective in one context and not in another. He identified four mechanisms: reducing the impact of risk, reducing negative chain reactions, establishing self-esteem and self-efficacy, and opening up opportunities (Rutter, 1987).

Adaptation under adversity. Resilience is inferred from adaptation, judged by competence in age-appropriate developmental tasks or by the absence of disorder (Masten, 2001). Adaptation can involve resistance (maintaining functioning), recovery (returning to functioning after disruption) or growth. Bonanno (2004) showed that after loss and trauma, a resilient trajectory of stable functioning is common among adults.

Michael Rutter. Rutter’s research on children’s responses to family adversity and institutional care helped establish the field. He emphasised that resilience is a dynamic concept: it varies across time and circumstances, it is not a fixed trait, and exposure to manageable stress can have a steeling effect that protects against later stress (Rutter, 1985, 2012).

Ann Masten and “ordinary magic”. Masten (2001) argued that resilience is common and arises from the normal operation of basic human adaptive systems. These include attachment relationships with competent caregivers, cognitive and self-regulation skills, mastery motivation, and the supports provided by families, schools, communities and cultures. Resilience is “ordinary magic” because it depends on everyday resources (Masten, 2001, 2014). The implication is that protecting and restoring these systems is the main route to promoting resilience.

Michael Ungar and social-ecological resilience. Ungar (2008, 2011) argued that resilience depends more on the environment than on the individual. He defined it as both the capacity of individuals to find their way to the resources that sustain wellbeing and the capacity of their families, communities and cultures to provide those resources in culturally meaningful ways. Resilience therefore involves negotiation for resources that make sense in a particular culture. His cross-cultural research identified tensions that young people resolve in different ways, including access to material resources, relationships, identity, power and control, cultural adherence, social justice and cohesion (Ungar, 2008).

Werner’s Kauai study. Werner and Smith followed all 698 children born on the Hawaiian island of Kauai in 1955 from before birth into adulthood. About one-third were classified as high risk because of perinatal stress, poverty, parental mental illness or family discord. One-third of these high-risk children developed into competent young adults (Werner & Smith, 1982, 1992). Protective factors included an easy temperament, a close bond with at least one caregiver, support from extended family and mentors, and opportunities at turning points such as education, military service or marriage (Werner, 1989).

2. Historical development

Period Development
1955–1990s Werner and Smith’s Kauai longitudinal study; Vulnerable but Invincible (1982) and Overcoming the Odds (1992)
1970s Garmezy, Rutter and colleagues study children of parents with mental illness and children in adversity
1985–1987 Rutter shifts focus from protective factors to protective mechanisms
1990s Project Competence (Garmezy, Masten) studies competence under adversity
2000–2001 Luthar, Cicchetti and Becker clarify the construct; Masten’s “ordinary magic”
2004 Bonanno identifies resilience as a common response to loss and trauma in adults
2008–2011 Ungar’s social-ecological and cross-cultural definition
2010s–2020s Multisystem resilience across families, communities and disasters; critiques of resilience policy

Resilience research grew out of developmental psychopathology. Researchers studying children at risk of disorder noticed that many children exposed to the same risks developed well (Garmezy, 1991). These observations turned attention from risk to protection and gave rise to a distinct field. Early work emphasised personal qualities and spoke of “invulnerable” children, a term later rejected because it implied a fixed trait. Masten (2007) describes successive waves of research moving from description of protective factors to processes, interventions and multilevel systems.

Social work adopted resilience in the 1990s and 2000s, especially in child welfare, out-of-home care and youth work. Gilligan (2004) argued that resilience offered a practical framework for strengthening the everyday relationships, school experiences and interests of children in care. The concept fitted the ecological perspective and strengths-based practice. Ungar, a social worker, extended it by placing culture and environment at the centre of the definition (Ungar, 2011).

3. Practical guidance

Resilience theory helps practitioners identify and strengthen protective processes around people facing adversity.

4. Critical evaluation

Strengths. Resilience theory directs attention to strengths and possibilities and is supported by extensive longitudinal research. Masten’s and Ungar’s work shows that resilience is common and depends on resources that services and communities can strengthen. The theory provides hope, informs prevention and supports practice in child welfare, disaster recovery and health.

Limitations. The construct has been criticised for inconsistent definitions and measures, and for circular reasoning when resilience is inferred from outcomes and then used to explain them (Luthar et al., 2000). Early trait-based versions risked implying that people who struggle lack personal qualities. Garrett (2016) argued that resilience has been absorbed into neoliberal policy, where it encourages individuals and communities to adapt to inequality and austerity. Definitions of a “good outcome” can also reflect dominant cultural norms (Ungar, 2008).

Overall importance. Resilience theory is one of the most influential frameworks in contemporary social work and human services. Understood as a social-ecological process, it explains how environments, relationships and cultures support adaptation and where intervention can strengthen them. It works alongside risk and protective factor frameworks (C7) and strengths-based approaches (E3), and it is most useful when combined with attention to structural disadvantage.

5. References

See the animated explainerWork with Alston