24 | Inkblot: The Undergraduate Journal of Psychology • Vol.

1 • September 2012

Resilience in children: A review of literature

Abstract
Even in the most difficult circumstances, there are some children who not only survive, but actually thrive. The
label commonly used to refer to such children is resilient. This review of literature will examine what it is about
these children that enable them to bounce right back from adversity, and what makes them immune to the fac-
tors that negatively affect others. More specifically, this review will examine protective factors that contribute to
resilience. The literature has documented individual characteristics with an emphasis on traits, such as high intelli-
gence and easy temperament as one set of such protective factors. Another set of protective factors includes family
characteristics such as positive, involved, and supportive parenting, as well as external support from persons and
institutions outside the child and the family, such as a positive school experience and involvement in extracur-
riculars. A cautionary note will also be made about the importance of avoiding the categorization of children as
being either resilient or nonresilient. The consensus that prevails in the current research is that resilience is most
accurately understood as a process rather than as a stable character trait. Finally, a chief defect in the literature on
resilience will be addressed – namely, a methodological shortcoming in which the perspective of children has been
completely disregarded.

We all respond to trauma in different ways, and with step when he chose to focus on those who overcame
greater severity and frequency of traumatic events, such obstacles rather than on the children who suc-
our capacity to cope usually declines (Condly, 2006). cumbed to the adverse effects. Following his lead, in
Children, lacking the means to independently fend for the next decade or so, there emerged a great deal of
themselves, are especially susceptible to the devastat- research on the concept of resilience. The questions
ing effects of life’s stressors (Condly, 2006). The rise in that began to be asked were: What is it about these
child poverty, drug use, violence, and abuse has creat- children that enable them to bounce right back, while
ed environments that some researchers have referred others become depressed or self destructive? What
to as toxic to the development of children (Garbarino, makes them immune to the factors that negatively
1995). Even in the most difficult circumstances, how- affect others? The focus of research became centered
ever, there are some children who not only survive, on resilient children, because by studying them, it is
but actually thrive. This group of children that goes believed that we can obtain a better understanding of
against convention and prosper in the face of life’s how to frame interventions for children in need (Cic-
challenges has been labelled as resilient (Garmezy, chetti & Garmezy, 1993).
1996; Masten et al, 1995). Masten et al. (1990) define Previous discussions, focused on resilience,
resilience not as a stable trait but rather as an ongoing usually include risky and protective factors. Newman
process of, having the ability for, or outcome of suc- (2004, as cited in The Bridge Child Care Develop-
cessful adaptation in spite of difficult circumstances. ment, 2007) proposed the following definitions: risk:
Modern research on resilience can be traced back to any factor or combination of factors that increases the
Garmezy (1971), who studied children classified as ‘at chance of an undesirable outcome affecting a person.
risk’ of psychiatric disorders, delinquency and other Protective factors: the circumstances that moderate
negative life outcomes. Garmezy took a revolutionary the effects of risk. Protective factors can be broken
 Inkblot: The Undergraduate Journal of Psychology • Vol. 1 • September 2012 | 25

down into internal protective factors, which are the perament (Cicchetti, 1998; Luthar, 1993; Rutter, 1993;
individual characteristics of the child, and external Wolff, 1995). Having a high intelligence contributes to
protective factors, which are sources of support in the resilience by allowing children to understand what is
child’s environment. Werner and Smith (1993) distin- happening to them, to assess their environments, and
guished risk factors, which are conditions that remain to choose the most effective means of coping (Block
stable, from stressors, which are short-term condi- & Kremen, 1996). It is hypothesized that above aver-
tions that change over time. Examples of risk factors age intelligence leads to increased rewards in school,
include poverty and low parental education (Cove, such as high grades and praise from teachers, and in
Eiseman, & Popkin, 2005). Stressors range from turn, these rewards increase the student’s attachment
events such as the birth of siblings or a change in resi- to the school community. Being positively attached
dence or school, to much more negative events like to one’s school community then decreases likelihood
parental divorce or the death of a loved one (Cove et of delinquent and antisocial behaviour (Kandel et al.,
al., 2005). Most risk factors are stressors, but stressors 1988).
are not necessarily risk factors. Furthermore, some The other individual characteristic commonly
stressful events can be interpreted as ambiguous or cited in the literature is an easygoing temperament. In
even positive, whereas risk factors are always negative studies of temperament, infants characterized as “dif-
(Cove et al., 2005). ficult” or “slow to warm up” were more likely to have
No single risk is sufficient to debilitate a child’s a harder time coping with stress than “easy” children
development; rather, there is a cumulative effect of (Smith & Carlson, 1997). Having an easy tempera-
risks (Garbarino et al., 1992). Research on resiliency ment also has a similar effect to high intelligence in
suggests that being exposed to many risk factors in- that it establishes resilience by enabling children to
creases the likelihood of negative outcomes (Werner elicit more positive responses from others (Werner,
and Smith 1993, Garmezy 1993). Moreover, Werner 1993). A study by the HOPE VI panel, examining
and Smith (1989) stated that as disadvantage and cu- disadvantaged youth coming from poor neighbour-
mulative stress increased, a greater number of pro- hoods with high rates of crime and drug trafficking,
tective factors in the children and their care-giving found that resilient children showed high levels of
environment were necessary for successful develop- confidence pertaining to their academic abilities and
ment. Just as risks are cumulative, protective factors relationships with family, teachers, and peers (Cove et
too have the same cumulative effect. The more pro- al., 2005). For example, resilient children often made
tective factors present in a child’s life, the more likely statements such as “teachers like me,” and in their de-
they are to show resilience. What exactly constitutes scriptions of school, many alluded to it as being fun
these protective factors? or easy. Milgram and Palti (1993) theorize that high
Garmezy (1991) proposed three factors which intelligence and easy temperament work together to
he believed played an important role in resilience. make children more attractive to others, thus laying
The first factor is individual characteristics with an the foundation for the superior social skills that resil-
emphasis on traits, such as intelligence and tempera- ient children are known to have.
ment. The second pertains to the family and the extent When a child thrives in spite of adverse cir-
of support they provide to the child. The third is the cumstances in their external environment, it is logical
external support from persons and institutions out- to turn to the family for an explanation. Gribble et
side the child and the family. Looking first at individ- al. (1993) found that parents of resilient children had
ual characteristics, resilient children have been found more positive parenting attitudes and were actively
to possess above average intelligence and an easy tem- involved in their children’s lives. Furstenberg (1999)
26 | Inkblot: The Undergraduate Journal of Psychology • Vol. 1 • September 2012

found that children living in high risk can neverthe- ticipated in after school activities almost every day
less succeed if their families are supportive (as cited were about 70% more likely to be resilient than other
in Cove et al., 2005). In the study of disadvantaged children. Whereas the influence of the family lessens
children previously mentioned, the role of parents in as children get older, external supports such as after-
building resilience in children was found to be a sa- school activities have the opposite effect, becoming
lient one. It was found that both parental education increasingly important as children age (Werner &
and commitment to the child’s education contributed Smith, 2001).
to resilience. Correlational evidence from this study Focusing on the individual characteristics of
showed that children of parents who had high school the resilient child may lead one to perceive resilience
diplomas were 70% more likely to be resilient (Cove as an innate quality. Masten et al. (1995) stress the im-
et al., 2005). Furthermore, children in families where portance of avoiding the categorization of children as
the head of household was actively engaged in the being either resilient or nonresilient. Children who
child’s education were also twice as likely to be re- show resilient behavior in one area, e.g. behaviour at
silient as other children. Parents of resilient children school, are not necessarily resilient in another, e.g.
often mentioned visits with teachers and monitoring level of depression (Luthar et al., 1993). Resilience is
their child’s grades (Cove et al., 2005). No researcher most accurately understood as a process rather than
denies the importance of either individual or family as a stable character trait (Luthar et al., 2003). It is not
characteristics as factors in resiliency. There may be something that children either possess or do not pos-
disagreement in how much an individual’s character- sess. The same child can be highly resilient or low in
istics, based on genotype, contributes, and how much resilience at different points in his or her life, depend-
one’s family and environment contribute. Recent re- ing on the interaction between individual and envi-
search provides evidence that the role of the family in ronmental factors. In sum, resilience is the result of
fostering resilience is strongest early in the child’s life interactive processes among the protective factors ex-
and declines in importance as he or she ages (Condly, isting within the child, family and community (Yates
2006). & Masten, 2003).
External support is another factor contribut- Finally, a chief defect in the literature on re-
ing to resilience that has been supported by a great silience needs to be addressed. The majority of stud-
deal of evidence. If the family fails to provide the ies assess stressors in children using methods mod-
child with a nurturing environment, the gap may be eled after adult stress inventories, and these methods
filled by a positive school experience. Rutter et al. completely disregard the child’s perspective. One
(1979) showed that children in ineffective homes are method that was used extensively in the early litera-
more likely to be resilient if they attend schools that ture involved presenting parents or other caregivers
have caring and involved teachers. A study by Werner of children with a checklist of major life events, e.g.
and Smith (1988) also found that the most commonly changing schools, or the loss of a job by a parent. Par-
cited nonfamily role model by resilient children were ents would check off the events that their child had
their favourite teachers. Another source of external experienced during a specified time period, and then
support for children is afterschool activities which stress scores would be calculated by adding up the to-
can limit exposure to environmental risk factors, tal number of check marks. Children with high scores
such as violence and drug activity. In addition, ex- on these stress inventories were considered to be at
tracurricular activities may improve children’s social high risk. As mentioned earlier, however, stressors do
skills (Hair, 2001). In the study of underprivileged not necessarily entail risk factors, and some stressful
children, those whose parents reported that they par- events can be interpreted as positive events. Further-
 Inkblot: The Undergraduate Journal of Psychology • Vol. 1 • September 2012 | 27

more, it is not wise to assume that adults can accu- education. Urban Education, 41(3), 211-236.
rately identify what is stressful for children, especially Cove, E., Eiseman, M., Popkin, S. (2005). Resilient
when the field of developmental psychology provides children: Literature review and evidence from
us with a wealth of evidence that children interpret the HOPE VI panel study. The Ford Founda-
their worlds differently than adults (Goodwin & Da- tion Community and Resource Development.
vidson, 1991). Thus, it is quite possible that children Garbarino, J., Dubrow, N., Kostelny, K., & Pardo, C.
use different criteria than adults to define and assess (1992). Children in danger: Coping with the
risk. consequences of community violence. San
In conclusion, much of the work on resilience Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
in children has been focused on identifying the fac- Garbarino, J. (1995). Raising children in a socially
tors known to foster resilience. The protective factors toxic environment. San Francisco: Jossey-
that have been documented in the literature include Bass.
individual traits, family characteristics, as well as ex- Garmezy, N. (1971). Vulnerability research and the
ternal support. Another significant contribution of issue of primary prevention. American
the literature on child resilience is the finding that re- Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 41(1), 101-116.
silience is a process as opposed to a stable trait. How- Garmezy, N. (1991). Resilience in children’s adapta-
ever, despite these advances, a methodological short- tion to negative life events and stressed
coming remains, such that the perspective of children environments. Pediatric Annals, 20(9), 459-
has been completely disregarded. Further research 466.
should emphasize taking into account the individual Garmezy, N. (1996). Reflections and commentary on
interpretations of the child. Such improvements are risk, resilience, and development. In R. J.
necessary if the results from these studies on resil- Haggerty, L. R. Sherrod, N. Garmezy, & M.
ience are to be the basis of future interventions. Rutter (Eds.), Stress, risk, and resilience in
children and adolescents: Processes, mecha-
nisms, and interventions (pp. 1-18).
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
References Gribble, P. A., Cowen, E. L., Wyman, P. A., Wyman,
P. A., Work, W. C., Wannon, M., et al. (1993).
Block, J., & Kremen, A. M. (1996). IQ and ego- Parent and child views of parent-child
resiliency: Conceptual and empirical relationship qualities and resilient outcomes
connections and separateness. Journal of among urban children. Journal of Child Psy-
Personality & Social Psychology, 70(2), 349- chology and Psychiatry, 34(4), 507-519.
361. Kandel, E., Mednick, S. A., Kirkegaard-Sorensen, L.,
Bridge Child Care Development, N. T. (2007). Hutchings, B., Knop, J., Rosenberg, R., et al.
Literature review: Resilience in children and (1988). IQ as a protective factor for subjects
young people. The Children’s Charity, 1, 1-16. at high risk for antisocial behavior. Journal of
Cicchetti, D., & Garmezy, N. (1993). Prospects and Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56(2),
promises in the study of resilience. 224-226.
Development and Psychopathology, 5(4), Luthar, S. S. (1993). Annotation: Methodological and
497-502 conceptual issues in research on childhood
Condly, S. (2006). Resilience in children: A review of resilience. Journal of Child Psychology and
literature with implications for Psychiatry, 34(4), 441-453.
28 | Inkblot: The Undergraduate Journal of Psychology • Vol. 1 • September 2012

Luthar, S. S., Doernberger, C. H., & Zigler, E. (1993). Smith, C., & Carlson, B. (1997). Stress, coping, and
Resilience is not a unidimensional resilience in children and youth. The Social
construct: Insights from a prospective study Service Review, 71(2), 231-256. Retrieved
of inner-city adolescents. Development and April 9, 2011, from http://www.jstor.org/
Psychopathology, 5(4), 703-717. stable/30013020.
Masten, A. S., Coatsworth, J. D., Neemann, J., Gest, Werner, E. E., & Smith, R. S. (1992). Overcoming the
S.D., Tellegen, A., & Garmezy, N. (1995). The odds: High risk children from birth to adul-
structure and coherence of competence from thood. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
childhood through adolescence. Child Devel- Werner, E. E. (1993). Risk, resilience, and recovery:
opment, 66(6), 1635-1659. Perspectives from the Kauai longitudinal
Milgram, N. A., & Palti, G. (1993). Psychosocial study. Development and Psychopathology,
characteristics of resilient children. Journal of 5(4), 502-515.
Research in Personality, 27(3), 207-221. Wolff, S. (1995). The concept of resilience. Australian
& New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 29(4),
565-574.