RESULTS--Bio Psychosocial Model

            Ungar, Ghazinour and Richter’s (2013) study of resilience from an ecological model of human development is based on the work of Bronfenbrenner’s 1979 seminal work, The Ecology of Human Development, noting people cannot be separated or understood apart from themselves in relation to others and their environment, that development is tied to our reciprocal interaction with these systems of influence. According to Berk (2006), “Later adaptations of these ideas by Bronfenbrenner…resulted in a bio-psycho-social systems theory that offered the most comprehensive…account of contextual influences on children’s development”(as cited in Ungar, Ghazinour & Richter, 2013, p.348).  They note “multiple reciprocating systems, and the quality of those systems that account for most of children’s developmental success under negative stress (their resilience)”(p.349).  From this perspective, whether or not abused children adapt after experiencing trauma is often dependent on an interconnected system of influences including ones biological determinants mediated by their social ecology.  Their study specifically focuses on one “particular subset of processes associated with human development, those that enhance the experience of well-being among individuals who face significant adversity” (p.348).

Resilience Research

According to Richardson (2002) resilience research was born from observation, not born out of academic curiosity (as cited in Marriott, Hamilton-Giachritsis, and Harrop, 2014). The authors emphasize the credibility of twenty and thirty year longitudinal research studies following at risk children through adulthood and found striking positive outcomes despite predictions of instability later in life due to low SES and their parents’ stress, serious mental health problems and family conflict.  The Hawaiian study (Werner & Smith, 1992) saw one third of participants exhibit positive self-esteem, tolerance, social responsibility and adaptability with effective communication skills, and they posit care giver support in and out of the family as key to their well-being (as cited in Marriott, Hamilton-Giachritsis, & Harrop, p.18).

Although some scientists argue that “resilience is a complex, somewhat nebulous concept to which researchers have attached various meanings and definitions” they can agree that when “defined as it is by a researcher, and studied developmentally, resilience is malleable and responsive to the social environment” (Herrenkohl, 2013, p.190).  Likewise, Goldstein and Brooks (2005) argue “considerable debate remains about the definition and assessment of this concept…in fact very difficult to operationalize” (as cited in Marriott, Hamilton-Giachritsis, and Harrop, 2014, p.18) Traditionally, resilience can be defined as set of characteristics or traits that enable one to positively function in in the face of adversity. Challenging traditional definitions, Ungar (2013) argues that contextually, resilience can be defined through four factors—“navigation, negotiation, resources (opportunity) and meaning” rather than just one’s innate ability to thrive under duress, and the author emphasizes Bronfenbrenner’s interactionist view that it is “the capacity of both individuals and their environments to interact in ways that optimize developmental processes” (p.256).  This and other studies offer insight into risk factors and protective factors creating a context for development, but the outcomes are dependent on a number of factors.