Journal of Adolescence

Journal of Adolescence 26 (2003) 111

Adolescent resilience: a concept analysis

Abstract There is need for greater clarity around the concept of resilience as it relates to the period of adolescence. Literature on resilience published between 1990 and 2000 and relevant to adolescents aged between 12- and 18-years of age was reviewed with the aim of examining the various uses of the term, and commenting on how specic ways of conceptualizing of resilience may help develop new research agendas in the eld. By bringing together ideas on resilience from a variety of research and clinical perspectives, the purpose of the review is to explicate core elements of resilience in more precise ways, in the hope that greater conceptual clarity will lead to a range of tailored interventions that benet young people. r 2002 The Association for Professionals in Services for Adolescents. Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction The term resilience has been variously used to describe a substance of elastic qualities (Harriman, 1958), the capacity for successful adaptation to a changing environment (Darwin, 1898; Cicchetti & Cohen, 1995), and the character of hardiness and invulnerability (e.g. Anthony, 1974; Kobasa, 1979; Rhodewalt & Zone, 1989; Maddi & Khoshaba, 1994; Florian, Mikulincer, & Taubman, 1995; Ramanaiah, Sharpe, & Byravan, 1999). More recently, resilience has been
*Corresponding author. Tel.: +61 3 9345 6250; fax: +61 3 9345 6502. E-mail address: olsson@cryptic.rch.unimelb.edu.au (C.A. Olsson). 0140-1971/02/$ 30.00 r 2002 The Association for Professionals in Services for Adolescents. Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 1 4 0 - 1 9 7 1 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 1 1 8 - 5

C.A. Olsson et al. / Journal of Adolescence 26 (2003) 111

conceptualized as a dynamic process involving an interaction between both risk and protective processes, internal and external to the individual, that act to modify the effects of an adverse life event (Rutter, 1985, 1999). Resilience does not so much imply an invulnerability to stress, but rather an ability to recover from negative events (Garmezy, 1991). Fonagy, Steele, Steele, Higgitt, and Target (1994), describe resilience as normal development under difcult conditions (p. 233). The review covers the mental health literature on resilience, relevant to the period of adolescence (12- and 18-years of age), and published between 1990 and 2000. Some seminal papers pre-dating 1990 have been included for discussion and appraisal. The reviewed papers come predominantly from the mental health literature where there is a notable paucity of research examining resilience within the context of adolescent development. Where studies have been conducted within adolescent populations, there is considerable cross study variation in the denitions of resilience used to guide research. Consequently, adolescent resilience has been investigated across different adversities, emphasizing different risk and protective factors, and looking at different outcomes. Cross study variation in denitions of resilience in the adolescent literature reects a deeper problem within the eld of resilience, that is, the lack of a unied theory of resilience capable of guiding more structured and empirically based approaches to developing the construct (Luthar, Cicchetti, & Becker, 2000). For understanding to progress, we argue that a more differentiated and testable theory of the resilience is needed. This review paper presents a way of thinking about resilience that is relevant to the period of adolescence. The literature on adolescent resilience can be conveniently thought of as having two informative foci (1) an investigation of psychosocial outcomes in populations of young people dened by a particular risk setting, and (2) an investigation of protective mechanisms important in the process of successful adaptation. Each focus provides a useful perspective on resilience during adolescence, emphasizing the different elements of the construct, and suggesting different approaches to measurement. Considerable confusion arises when the outcome of adaptation and the process of adaptation are used interchangeably to describe resilience. Resilience can be dened as an outcome characterized by particular patterns of functional behaviour despite risk. Alternatively, resilience can be dened as a dynamic process of adaptation to a risk setting that involves interaction between a range of risk and protective factors from the individual to the social. Any theoretical account of resilience that does not discriminate between process and outcome may be prone to needless complexity.

2. Resilience as an outcome Outcome focussed research typically emphasizes the maintenance of functionality; that is, patterns of competent behaviour or effective functioning in young people exposed to risk. There has been considerable cross study variation in the kinds of psychosocial outcomes that researchers have considered representative of resilience during adolescence. Researchers have commonly dened resilient outcomes in terms of good mental health, functional capacity, and social competence. Variation in the kinds of outcomes considered has lead to considerable confusion about the nature of the concept under discussion. This approach has been criticized for having as many denitions of adolescent resilience as there are studies (Blum, 1998), and few

C.A. Olsson et al. / Journal of Adolescence 26 (2003) 111

psychometrically validated measures (Wagnild & Young, 1993; Jew, Green, & Kroger, 1999; Constantine, Bernard, & Diaz, 1999; Goodman, 1999). However, there is a common theme that unites these seemingly disparate approaches and that is a ypattern of effective performance in the environment, evaluated from the perspective of salient developmental tasks in the context of late twentieth-century US society. (Masten et al., 1995, p. 1636). To this extent, a focus on the outcome of adaptation to adversity constitutes an important and useful way of operationalizing the construct of resilience. The use of emotional well-being as a marker of functionality is a particularly perplexing issue. It is tempting to dene adolescent resilience solely in terms of maintenance of emotional well-being in the face of adversity. However, it may be unrealistic to believe that young people can quickly resolve the emotional ramication of serious threat to personal values (e.g. illness, death of a loved one). Distressing emotion must in some way act as an index of adversity. Consistent with this idea, considerable data exist suggesting that young people functioning well under high stress often show higher levels of emotional distress compared to their low stress peers (Luthar, 1991, 1993; Luthar, Doernberger, & Zigler, 1993). Luthar (1991) has suggested a resilient individual may not necessarily be devoid of distressing emotion, but can show successful coping, regardless of the presence of such emotion. Likewise, Garmezy (1991) denes resilience as Functional adequacyy(the maintenance of competent functioning despite interfering emotionality)yas the benchmark of resilient behaviour under stress. (p. 463). Indeed, young people capable of maintaining competence despite signicant negative affect may be demonstrating the highest form of resilience. It is, however, safe to conclude that if a resilient outcome is dened in terms of overt competencies under stress, measures of psychological well being alone may provide a misleading impression of a young persons resilience.

3. Resilience as a process Process focussed research aims to understand the mechanisms or processes that act to modify the impact of a risk setting, and the developmental process by which young people successfully adapt. Understanding the process of adaptation necessitates assessment of both risk mechanisms that act to intensify an individuals reaction to adversity (make more vulnerable), and protective mechanisms that act to ameliorate an individuals response to adversity (make more resilient) (e.g. Rutter, 1987, 1999). Operating independently of risk and protective inuences, exposure to risk would lead directly to disorder (Rutter, 1996). Thus, risk and protective mechanisms can be thought of as exerting their inuence indirectly and through interaction with a risk setting. Resilience promoting factors have commonly been discussed within three broad areas: individual young people, their families and the societies in which they live (Garmezy, 1991; Werner, 1995). A more expanded framework of resilience might include protective processes (resources, competencies, talents and skills) that sit within the individual (individual-level factors), within the family and peer network (social-level factors), and within the whole school environment and the community (societal-level factors). Assessment of the adaptive capacity of an individual could then proceed in terms of a comprehensive assessment of resources at each level. Likewise, effective interventions could be aimed at developing the individuals internal

C.A. Olsson et al. / Journal of Adolescence 26 (2003) 111

resources and skills and equally importantly changing the social environment to further promote resilience. Considerable research effort has sought to elucidate key protective factors that sit within individuals, between individuals, and in the material/physical environment. Table 1 illustrates the breadth of psychosocial factors researchers have looked at in studies of resilience. The development of a measurement instrument capable of assessing a range of protective mechanisms within multiple domains provides one approach to operationalizing resilience as a dynamic process of adaptation to adversity. Assessing a range of resilience promoting processes would allow key research questions about human adaptation to adversity to be addressed (Allen, 1998). For example, does resilience (a) vary with developmental level, (b) vary across different domains (social, academic, relational), (c) vary in a curvilinear fashion (extreme ends being problematic)?

4. Resilience as a multi-factorial concept Thinking of resilience as a process necessitates consideration of interaction between a range of risk and protective processes of varying degrees of impact, and a risk situation at varying points in development. It is simplistic to believe that a clear single factor, such as parental divorce, is the causal element in a negative chain of events leading to compromised social or academic or relational competence. The risk process associated with parental divorce encompasses more than the act of physical separation. Patterns of family interaction that precede, concur and follow the physical separation of the parents are thought of as the extended process by which young people are placed at risk of poor outcomes. While the adverse life circumstance may be described as the event of divorce, multiple risk factors acting in synergy may far exceed the effect of one signicant life event (Luthar, 1993; Allen, 1998). Data from the Christchurch longitudinal study (Fergusson & Lynskey, 1996) demonstrate a linear relationship between the numbers of risk factors (e.g. poverty, parent conict, separation, poor parentchildren interaction) in a childs environment and the number of psychosocial problems at ages 1516 years. Increasing opportunity for interaction among risk factors increases as a function of increasing numbers of risk factors. Thus, the effect of multiple risk factors can be exponential. The same might be said of resilience. Just as risk factors have been posited to lay a foundation for a negative chain of events, protective factors may similarly ensue a positive chain reaction leading to favourable developmental outcomes (Egeland et al. 1993). For example, Werner and Smith (1992) have suggested that a positive temperament increases the likelihood of eliciting a positive response from others early in development. A positive temperament may well be a seminal resilience promoting factor, having developmental resonance across the life span. Providing opportunities for the development of positive chain reactions lie at the foundation of successful intervention.

5. Promoting resilience in young people: a resource-based approach The challenge for the eld is to develop scientically testable theories of resilience that can ultimately inform best practice interventions promoting positive developmental outcomes in

C.A. Olsson et al. / Journal of Adolescence 26 (2003) 111 Table 1 Individual-level, family level, and social environment-level resources Individual-level resources Constitutional resilience Protective mechanism
* *

Select authors Smith (1999) Allen (1998) Werner (1995) Brooks (1994) Garmezy (1991) Rutter (1987) Luthar (1991. 1993) Werner (1995) Dyer and McGuinness (1996) Allen (1998) Werner (1995) Eccles (1997) Maggs Frome, Eccles, and Baarber (1997) Wolff (1995) Brooks (1994) Rutter (1987) Werner (1995)

Positive temperament Robust neurobiology

Sociability

* * *

Responsiveness to others Pro-social attitudes Attachment to others

Intelligence

* *

Academic achievement Planning and decision making

Communication skills

* *

Developed language Advanced reading Tolerance for negative affect Self efcacy Self esteem Foundational sense of self Internal locus of control Sense of humour Hopefulness Strategies to deal with stress Enduring set of values Balanced perspective on experience Malleable and exible Fortitude, conviction, tenacity, and resolve Parental warmth, encouragement, assistance Cohesion and care within the family Close relationship with a caring adult Belief in the child Non-blaming Marital support Talent or hobby valued by others

Personal attributes

* * * * * * * * * * * *

Smith (1999) Allen (1998) Blum (1998) Dyer and McGuiness (1996) Werner (1995) Brooks (1994) Wolff (1995) Luthar (1991, 1993) Rutter (1985, 1987)

Family level resources Supportive families

* * * * * *

Smith (1999) Eccles (1997) Maggs et al. (1997) Wolff (1995) Werner (1995) Egeland, Carlson, and Sroufe (1993) Rutter (1987)

6 Table 1 (continued) Social environment-level resources Socio-economic status

C.A. Olsson et al. / Journal of Adolescence 26 (2003) 111

Protective mechanism
*

Select authors Maggs et al. (1997) Wolff (1995) Allen (1998) Werner (1995) Rutter (1987)

Material resourced

School experiences

* * *

Supportive peers Positive teacher inuences Success (academic or not)

Supportive communities

Believes the individuals stress Non-punitive Provisions and resources to assist Belief in the values of a society

Smith (1999) Werner (1995) Wolf (1995)

adolescence. From this review of the literature on adolescent resilience, it is apparent that most research activity has focussed on protective processes sitting at three levels, these being individuallevel protective processes, the family level processes and community-level protective processes. Within each level, researchers have been able to dene a range of more specic processes that would seem to ameliorate the effects of a risk setting, given the appropriate dose and timing of the protective process. From an intervention development reference, each protective resource at each level provides an intervention target for promoting resilience in young people. While the nature of intervention at each level may differ signicantly, the aim of each remains the same, that of providing young people with the resources needed to successfully adapt to an ever changing physical, psychological and social environment. Where young people are well resourced within themselves, within their family and social contexts, a capacity for constructive adaptation to adversity, that is, resilience can be enhanced. 5.1. Individual-level intervention This review highlights a range of individual-level resources thought to be important in adolescent resilience. Individual-level resources discussed in the literature include constitutional factors (e.g. positive temperament, robust neurobiology), intelligence (e.g. academic achievement, planning and decision making), sociability (e.g. responsiveness to others, positive attachment), communications skills (e.g. language and reading skills), and personality traits (e.g. self-esteem/ self-efcacy, tolerance of negative affect, enduring values, exibility, sense of humour) (see Table 1). The range of individual-level factors suggested is extensive, but not necessarily exhaustive. Intervention at the level of the individual might take a preventative focus, aiming to develop personal coping skills and resources before specic encounters with real life adversity. More commonly, however, coping skills and resources are built in response to crisis, often within the context of one-on-one treatment. While identifying what resources should be the target of effective intervention is important, determining how to impart these resources to young people is equally important. The view of

C.A. Olsson et al. / Journal of Adolescence 26 (2003) 111

many writers in the eld is that young people learn critical, adaptive skills not so much through instruction, but through experience. Protectionyresides, not in the evasion of risk, but in successful engagement with ityprotection stems from the adaptive changes that follow successful coping. (Rutter, 1987, p. 318). The idea of protecting young people by removing them from potentially difcult life circumstances, or not exposing them to the complexities and hardship of the world around, does not hold. A basic interpretation of the notion of exposure might favour a banal form of intervention, one that seeks to resource young people (at the individual, family, school or community level) with some judicious exposure to nastiness in order to steel them for later adversity. Promoting resilience through exposure is certainly more complex than it might rst appear. There is nothing about exposure to adversity that necessarily toughens one up. While over protection and shielding of a young person does little to develop resilience, at the other end of the spectrum, too much exposure, too soon, risks overwhelming the young person and compromising a developing resilience. Positing a direct relationship between the exposure to adversity and resilience misses critical concepts of the dose and timing of negative events. Furthermore, a direct relationship between adversity and resilience ignores the possible impact of buffering effects (protective mechanisms) and may paint an over simplied notion of the antecedents of resilience. Adversity at different points in the life span may elicit scarring or steeling effects depending on other situational events (Wolff, 1995). Dyer and McGuiness (1996) suggest a shifting balance between vulnerability and resilience with the balance in either direction being largely determined by how young people perceive their ability to manage and engage the risk setting. 5.2. Family level intervention Despite an emerging focus on the peer group, for many young people the family remains the primary social support. This review highlights a range of family dynamics that if developed and sustained, appear to be positively related to resilience during adolescence. The importance of positive parentchild attachment is a common theme in the literature (Table 1). Likewise, parental warmth, encouragement and assistance, cohesion and care within the family, or a close relationship with a caring adult are commonly associated with resilient young people. A belief in the child and a non-blaming parental style also emerge as key protective factors. No doubt additional family processes are implicated in adolescent resilience. Intervention at the level of the family may similarly take a preventative or crisis care focus. 5.3. Social environment intervention Intervention approached from the level of the social environment presents another important avenue to promote resilience in young people. In the literature two such environments are identied: the school environment and broader social environment. Adolescents (especially in the developed world) spend up to a third of their waking hours in school (Rutter et al. (1979)). This makes school an important setting or system to promote resilience in young people, not just at the level of individual resource development, or providing an environment in which to practise these skills, but in terms of a safe environment that can actively buffer against adversity (Glover, Burns, Butler, & Patton, 1998; Patton et al., 2000). School experiences that involve supportive peers,

C.A. Olsson et al. / Journal of Adolescence 26 (2003) 111

positive teacher inuences, and opportunities for success (academic or not) appear to be positively related to adolescent resilience (see Table 1). The broader social environment of neighbourhood, region and country may also play an important role in psycho-social development. The impact of the social environment can be from both physical and social perspective. As indicated in Table 1, socio-economic status remains a well-cited process posited to lead to both resilience and vulnerability. Socio-economic status is in turn related to social class, ethnicity and gender, making each the focus of social policy development centred on social justice and equality. However, equally well cited is the value structure of a social environment. These papers propose that afrming, non-punitive social structures, supportive communities, may play an important role in promoting resilience in young people (Table 1). These comments raise the issue of social capital, a prominent concept within social epidemiology and public health (Subrananian, Kawachi, & Kennedy, 2001). Little discussion of social capital was found within the mental health literature on adolescent resilience. Given the emerging interest in social epidemiology and the impact of the social environment on health and well-being in adults (North, Syme, Feeney, Shipley, & Marmot, 1996; Yen & Syme, 1999), this is an area of research that warrants further investigation with an adolescent focus.

6. Measuring resilience Having drawn a distinction between research focussed on outcome and research focussed on the process of adaptation, methods of how to measure resilience becomes more obvious. Considering resilience as a dynamic process, one approach to measurement is to develop psychometrically sound instruments capable of assessing the range of psychosocial resources, skills, capabilities and talents available to an individual to negotiate adversity. Resources may be assessed within the individuals, their family and peer networks, and their broader social environment. The Healthy Kids Resilience Questionnaire (Constantine et al., 1999) provides an example of a process-centred measurement device. Using this questionnaire, an indication of the diversity of resources available to young people can be gained. The implicit assumption of this approach is that the greater the range of resources an individual has, the more likely the individual will be capable of mounting an adaptive response to any life crisis. This hypothesis is yet to be tested, but the approach would allow the investigation of differential importance of resources types (e.g. positive parental relationship may be weighted above family income level). Another approach to measurement is to develop instruments capable of assessing overt competencies (e.g. social, relational, vocational). Within appropriate study designs, measures of competence can indicate whether successful adaptation has occurred or not. Having access to standardized measures of resilience will enable a number of research questions to be addressed. For example, how risk and protective processes operate with respect to specic stressors remains unclear. One possibility is that very different constellations of psychosocial processes may lie antecedent to the range of resilient outcomes considered in previous research. Luthar et al. (1993) have shown that while some high-risk children show competence in one domain, they often exhibit difculties in other life domains. Indeed, it may be more useful to accept specic denitions of resilience, such as social resilience, academic resilience or emotional resilience as these may yield more detailed insights into development. If this were found to be the

C.A. Olsson et al. / Journal of Adolescence 26 (2003) 111

case, the question shaping research into resilience might better be stated as What are the types of processes via which particular attributes might moderate the effects of risk, with reference to a specic aspect of competence (Luthar, 1993 p. 451)? Alternatively, beneath a seemingly diverse range of so-called resilient outcomes, a generic set of psychosocial mechanisms may be in operation. The development of a positive self-concept may be one such example. Having acquired a positive self-concept, individuals may be well set up to maintain competence (i.e. demonstrate a resilient outcome) under a range of seemingly different kinds of adversities. Equally, the self-concept may be well developed in one area but not in another, making for a resilient outcome in the former but not the latter. Effective intervention would rest in the cultivation of a few key attitudes and life approaches. The development of standardized measures of resilience would provide the potential to better explore the nature of resilience and the range of interventions designed to develop resilience.

7. Summary remarks Although the term resilience has gained great popularity, different research groups have viewed resilience within different risk settings, examined the impact of different protective processes, and dened resilient outcomes according to different criteria. This review has emphasized how resilience has been investigated both as an outcome of adaptation and as a process of adaptation. Investigations of resilient outcomes have focussed on the maintenance of functionality (e.g. vocation, relational or academic competence) despite risk to the contrary. Investigating the process of adaptation has necessitated assessment of a range of risk and protective mechanisms that act in concert and over time to mediate the effects of a risk setting. By identifying a common sub-structure involving assessment of the risk setting, the interaction of risk and protective process, and resultant adaptive outcomes, it may be possible to integrate the ndings of seemingly diverse studies. By identifying key dimensions of the concept of resilience, concordant measures can then be developed. Specically, measurement may focus on assessment of the range of protective processes antecedent to an adaptive response or the outcome of adaptation. The study of resilience is closely linked with intervention in that protective processes can inform the development of targeted intervention. While both risk reduction and resilience development approaches share the common goal of prevention of disorder, the emphasis of each approach is somewhat different. A resilience-based approach emphasizes the building of skills and capacities that facilitate successful negotiation of high-risk environments. A risk reduction approach on the other hand has emphasized removing or avoiding factors or processes implicated in the development of problematic outcomes (e.g. drug experimentation). For sustained effect, the judicious use of both methods of intervention is essential. Certainly, there is still much to learn from studies of resilience in young people.

References
Allen, J. R. (1998). Of resilience, vulnerability, and a woman who never lived. Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 7, 5371.

10

C.A. Olsson et al. / Journal of Adolescence 26 (2003) 111

Anthony, E. J. (1974). The syndrome of the psychologically invulnerable child. In E. J. Anthony, & C. Koupernik, (Eds.), The child in his family: children at psychiatric risk, New York: Wiley. Blum, R. W. (1998). Healthy youth development as a model for youth health promotion: A review. Journal of Adolescent Health, 22, 368375. Brooks, R. B. (1994). Children at risk: Fostering resilience and hope. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 64, 545553. Cicchetti, D., & Cohen, D. (1995). Developmental psychopathology, Vol. 2: Risk, disorder, and adaptation. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Constantine, N., Bernard, B., & Diaz, M. (1999). Measuring protective factors and resilience traits in youth: The health kids resilience assessment. Unpublished Work. Darwin, C. (1898). Preservation of favoured species by means of natural selection. London: John Murray. Dyer, J. G., & McGuinness, T. M. (1996). Resilience: Analysis of the concept. Archives of Psychiatric Nursing, 10, 276282. Eccles, J. (1997). The association of school transitions in early adolescent with developmental trajectories through high school. In J. Schulenberg, (Ed.), Health and risk developmental transitions during adolescence. New York: Cambridge University Press. Egeland, B. R., Carlson, E., & Sroufe, L. A. (1993). Resilience as process. Development and Psychopathology, 5, 517528. Fergusson, D. M., & Lynskey, M. T. (1996). Adolescent resiliency to family adversity. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 37, 281292. Florian, V., Mikulincer, M., & Taubman, O. (1995). Does hardiness contribute to mental health during a stressful real life situation? The roles of appraisal and coping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 687695. Fonagy, P., Steele, M., Steele, H., Higgitt, A., & Target, M. (1994). The Emanuel Miller Memorial Lecture 1992. The theory and practice of resilience. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 35, 231257. Garmezy, N. (1991). Resilience in childrens adaptation to negative life events and stressed environments. Pediatric Annals, 20, 459466. Glover, S., Burns, J., Butler, H., & Patton, G. (1998). Social environments and the emotional wellbeing of young people. Family Matters, 49, 1116. Goodman, R. (1999). The extended version of the Strengths and Difculties Questionnaire as a guide to child psychiatric caseness and consequent burden. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 40(5), 791799. Harriman, P. L. (1958). Handbook of psychological terms. Patterson, NJ: Littleeld, Adams, and Co. Jew, C. L., Green, K. E., & Kroger, J. (1999). Development and validation of a measure of resiliency. Measurement and Evaluation in Counselling and Development, 32, 7589. Kobasa, S. C. (1979). Stressful life events, personality, and health. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 111. Luthar, S. S. (1991). Vulnerability and resilience: A study of highrisk adolescents. Child Development, 62, 600616. Luthar, S. S. (1993). Annotation: Methodological and conceptual issues in research on childhood resilience. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 34, 441453. Luthar, S. S., Doernberger, C. H., & Zigler, E. (1993). Resilience is not a unidimensional construct: Insights from a prospective study of inner-city adolescents. Development and Psychopathology, 5, 703717. Luthar, S. S., Cicchetti, D., & Becker, B. (2000). The construct of resilience: A critical evaluation and guidelines for future work. Child Development, 71(3), 543562. Maddi, S. R., & Khoshaba, D. M. (1994). Hardiness and mental health. Journal of Personality Assessment, 63, 265274. Maggs, J., Frome, P., Eccles, J., & Barber, B. (1997). Psychosocial resources, adolescent risk behaviour and young adult adjustment: Is risk taking more dangerous for some than others? Journal of Adolescence, 20, 103119. Masten, A. S., Coatsworth, J. D., Neemann, J., Gest, S. D., Tellegen, A., & Garmezy, N. (1995). The structure and coherence of competence from childhood through adolescence. Child Development, 66, 16351659. North, F. M., Syme, S. L., Feeney, A., Shipley, M., & Marmot, M. (1996). Psychosocial work environment and sickness absence among British Civil Servants: The Whitehall ii Study. American Journal of Public Health, 86, 332340. Patton, G., Glover, S., Bond, L., Butler, H., Godfrey, C., & Di Pietro, G. (2000). The Gatehouse Project: A systematic approach to mental health promotion in secondary schools. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 34, 586593.

C.A. Olsson et al. / Journal of Adolescence 26 (2003) 111

11

Ramanaiah, N. V., Sharpe, J. P., & Byravan, A. (1999). Hardiness and major personality factors. Pyschological Reports, 84, 497500. Rhodewalt, F., & Zone, J. B. (1989). Appraisal of life change, depression, and illness in hardy and nonhardy women. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(1), 8188. Rutter, M. (1985). Resilience in the face of adversity: Protective factors and resistance to psychiatric disorder. British Journal of Psychiatry, 147, 598611. Rutter, M. (1987). Psychosocial resilience and protective mechanisms. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 57, 316331. Rutter, M. (1996). Stress research: Accomplishments and tasks ahead. In R. Haggerty, L. Sherrod, N. Garmezy & M. Rutter (Eds.), Stress, risk and resilience in children and adolescents: Processes, mechanisms and interventions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rutter, M. (1999). Resilience concepts and ndings: Implications for family therapy. Journal of Family Therapy, 21, 119144. Rutter, M., Maughan, B., Mortimore, P., Ouston, J. & Smith, A. (1979). Fifteen thousand hours: secondary schools and their effects on children. London: Open Books. Smith, G. (1999). Resilience concepts and ndings: Implications for family therapy. Journal of Family Therapy, 21, 154158. Subramanian, S. V., Kawachi, I., & Kennedy, B. P. (2001). Does the state you live in make a difference? Multilevel analysis of self-rated health in the U.S. Social Science & Medicine, 53, 919. Wagnild, G. M., & Young, H. M. (1993). Development and psychometric evaluation of the resilience scale. Journal of Nursing Measurement, 1(2), 165178. Werner, E. E., & Smith, R. S. (1992). Overcoming the odds: High risk children from birth to adulthood. New York: Cornell University Press. Werner, E. E. (1995). Resilience in development. Current Directions in Psychological Sciences, 4, 8185. Wolff, S. (1995). The concept of resilience. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 29, 565574. Yen, I. H., & Syme, S. L. (1999). The social environment and health: A discussion of the epidemiologic literature. Annual Review of Public Health, 20, 287308.