The social ecology of resilience: Addressing contextual and cultural ambiguity of a nascent construct.

Abstract

More than two decades after E. E. Werner and R. S. Smith (1982), N. Garmezy (1983), and M. Rutter (1987) published their research on protective mechanisms and processes that are most likely to foster resilience, ambiguity continues regarding how to define and operationalize positive development under adversity. This article argues that, because resilience occurs even when risk factors are plentiful, greater emphasis needs to be placed on the role social and physical ecologies play in positive developmental outcomes when individuals encounter significant amounts of stress. Four principles are presented as the basis for an ecological interpretation of the resilience construct: decentrality, complexity, atypicality, and cultural relativity. These 4 principles, and the research upon which they are based, inform a definition of resilience that emphasizes the environmental antecedents of positive growth. This framework can guide future theory development, research, and the design of interventions that promote well-being among populations who experience environments that inhibit resilience-promoting processes.

The education of children in care: Agency and resilience

“…These preconditions comprise the social ecology of resilience (Ungar, 2011). First, they needed to be living somewhere which they felt was stable, secure and in which they felt they were genuinely cared for.…”

The Development of a Survey Instrument to Assess Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Students’ Resilience and Risk for Self-Harm

“…Some of the most vital aspects of behavior and experience are intangible and can only be measured indirectly. For example, the concept of resilience has not been well conceptualized for Indigenous peoples, even though cross-cultural work on resilience has shown a common set of social, physical, and cultural environments as well as personal qualities that predict successful coping in contexts of adversity (Zubrick et al, 2010;Ungar, 2011). Similarly, the upstream risk factors for self-harm can include a multitude of cumulative personal or distal factors across diverse cultures such as histories of trauma or grief from discrimination, removal of children, premature deaths of community members and their impact on cultural identity, sexual or physical abuse or neglect, physical and mental illness, interpersonal violence, history of self-harm, substance abuse, juvenile detention, and/or police custody (Zubrick et al, 2010).…”

Resilience processes in sexually abused adolescent girls: A scoping review of the literature

“…Put differently, resilience is not a single or static individual quality; instead resilience is a process that varies relative to the type of adversity, contextual variables and developmental phase. 35,37 The reference to 'dynamic' processes also points to the current ecological systems (also called 'social ecological' -see Ungar 38 ) understanding of resilience. A social ecological understanding of resilience frames the review that we report in this article.…”

“…This understanding sees individuals as embedded in dynamic ecological systems that enable positive adaptation. 30,38 Resilience is, thus, defined as the mutually constructive relationship between an individual and his/her ecological system. 38 This reciprocity tasks the individual's social environment to make resilienceenabling resources available, while the individual is simultaneously tasked with moving towards these resources and using them effectively.…”

“…30,38 Resilience is, thus, defined as the mutually constructive relationship between an individual and his/her ecological system. 38 This reciprocity tasks the individual's social environment to make resilienceenabling resources available, while the individual is simultaneously tasked with moving towards these resources and using them effectively. 39 Four decades of research has identified universally occurring protective mechanisms that appear to inform resilience.…”