The DOI matches its Crossref record, with a small difference in title or year; 91 of the 91 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 60 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Psychological Resilience: A Review and Critique of Definitions, Concepts, and Theory
Open accessAbstract
The purpose of this paper is to review and critique the variety of definitions, concepts, and theories of psychological resilience. To this end, the narrative is divided into three main sections. The first considers how resilience has been defined in the psychology research literature. Despite the construct being operationalized in a variety of ways, most definitions are based around two core concepts: adversity and positive adaptation. A substantial body of evidence suggests that resilience is required in response to different adversities, ranging from ongoing daily hassles to major life events, and that positive adaptation must be conceptually appropriate to the adversity examined in terms of the domains assessed and the stringency of criteria used. The second section examines the conceptualization of resilience as either a trait or a process, and explores how it is distinct from a number of related terms. Resilience is conceptualized as the interactive influence of psychological characteristics within the context of the stress process. The final section reviews the theories of resilience and critically examines one theory in particular that is commonly cited in the resilience literature. Future theories in this area should take into account the multiple demands individuals encounter, the meta-cognitive and -emotive processes that affect the resilience-stress relationship, and the conceptual distinction between resilience and coping. The review concludes with implications for policy, practice, and research including the need to carefully manage individuals’ immediate environment, and to develop the protective and promotive factors that individuals can proactively use to build resilience.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This paper reviews and critiques definitions, concepts, and theories of psychological resilience, arguing that most definitions center on adversity and positive adaptation. It proposes an integrated concept of resilience as the interactive influence of psychological characteristics within the stress process and distinguishes resilience from recovery and coping.
Key findings
- Most definitions of resilience are based around two core concepts: adversity and positive adaptation; resilience is required in response to adversities ranging from ongoing daily hassles to major life events, and positive adaptation must be conceptually appropriate to the adversity examined in terms of the domains assessed and the stringency of criteria used.
- Resilience has been conceptualized as either a trait or a process; the authors argue it is the interactive influence of psychological characteristics within the context of the stress process, with protective and promotive factors varying contextually and temporally.
- Resilience is conceptually distinct from recovery and coping: recovery involves a temporary period of psychopathology followed by gradual restoration, whereas resilience refers to maintaining normal levels of functioning; resilience influences how an event is appraised, whereas coping refers to strategies employed following appraisal.
- Over a dozen theories of resilience have been proposed in the past three decades; the commonly cited Richardson et al. metatheory is critiqued as linear, focused on one event, not explaining meta-cognition and -emotion, and biased toward coping, with its model leading to four reintegration outcomes.
Methods
- Narrative review and critique divided into three main sections: definitions of resilience, conceptualization of resilience, and theories of resilience.
- No empirical sample or primary data are reported; the paper draws on the psychology research literature and includes tables summarizing definitions of resilience and resilience theories.
- Main analysis is conceptual and theoretical synthesis and critique, including a critical examination of Richardson and colleagues’ metatheory of resilience and resiliency.
Limitations
- The paper states that definitional discrepancies hinder evaluation and comparison of resilience research findings, preclude meta-analysis, and make it difficult to operationalize the construct for measurement purposes.
- The paper states that Richardson’s model is linear, considers just one event, does not explain how meta-cognition and -emotion affect reintegration, and has a bias toward coping-orientated processes.
- Evident from the text: as a narrative review, no systematic search strategy or inclusion criteria are reported, and no primary data are presented to test the proposed integrated concept.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
40 Not checked yet · 23 Own interpretation · 2 No basis given
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“positive adaptation must be conceptually appropriate to the adversity examined in terms of the domains assessed and the stringency of criteria used.”
- Also stated in: § Abstract · plain
“positive adaptation must be conceptually appropriate to the adversity examined in terms of the domain assessed and the stringency of criteria used.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Luthar, 2006
- Not checked yetcites Luthar et al., 2000b
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Abstract · plain
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, one of the main difficulties in conducting research on resilience is that wide discrepancies exist in the way that resilience is defined and conceptualized.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Despite the construct being operationalized in a variety of ways, most definitions are based around two core concepts: adversity and positive adaptation.”
- Also stated in: § Abstract · plain
“The key messages to emerge from the literature are that: most definitions are based around the two core concepts of adversity and positive adaptation”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Luthar, 2006
- Not checked yetcites Luthar & Cicchetti, 2000
- Not checked yetcites Luthar et al., 2000b
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Abstract · plain
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Moreover, when adversity is defined as an event that predicts maladjustment it precludes the inclusion of many ongoing daily stressors under the rubric of resilience, despite a growing body of evidence to the contrary (Davis et al., 2009a; Neff & Broady, 2011).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Davis et al., 2009a
- Not checked yetcites Neff & Broady, 2011
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“A substantial body of evidence suggests that resilience is required in response to different adversities, ranging from ongoing daily hassles to major life events”
- Also stated in: § Abstract · plain
“resilience is required in response to different adversities ranging from ongoing daily hassles to major life events”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Davis et al., 2009a
- Not checked yetcites Sameroff & Rosenblum, 2006
- Not checked yetcites Davydov et al., 2010
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Abstract · plain
In the paper
“As Rutter (1981) observed: 'if circumstances change, resilience alters' (p. 317).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Rutter (1981)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Whilst different theories have emerged, it is possible to identify a number of common features across the approaches taken.”
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“there is a growing body of evidence to suggest that resilience and coping should be considered conceptually distinct constructs (Campbell-Sills et al., 2006; Major et al., 1998; Van Vliet, 2008).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Campbell-Sills, Cohan, & Stein, 2006
- Not checked yetcites Major, Richards, Cozzarelli, Cooper, & Zubek, 1998
- Not checked yetcites Van Vliet, 2008
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Thus, while an individual may react positively to adversity at one point in his or her life, it does not mean that the person will react in the same way to stressors at other points in his or her life (cf. Davydov et al., 2010; Rutter, 2006; Vanderbilt-Adriance & Shaw, 2008).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Davydov et al., 2010
- Not checked yetcites Rutter, 2006
- Not checked yetcites Vanderbilt-Adriance & Shaw, 2008
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“However, for those women lacking in resilient qualities, their appraisals initiated and directed the coping strategies they used to deal with the event”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Major et al., 1998
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“resilience influences the stress process at multiple stages, namely an individual's appraisal of stressors, his or her meta-cognitions in response to felt emotions, and his or her selection of coping strategies.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Despite the Oxford Dictionary of English relating resilience with recovery, academic scholars differentiate between these constructs (see, for a review, Bonanno, 2004).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Bonanno, 2004
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The cognitive appraisal of emotions is an important aspect of the stress process, with Fletcher et al. (2006) suggesting that those who demonstrate resilience appraise emotions as facilitative to one's functioning.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Fletcher et al., 2006
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Secondly, while Richardson acknowledges that disruption results in primary emotions (such as fear, anger and sadness), the model does not explain how meta-cognition and -emotion affect the reintegration process (cf. Efklides, 2008; Jager & Bartsch, 2006).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Efklides, 2008
- Not checked yetcites Jager & Bartsch, 2006
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Furthermore, to the best of our knowledge, it is the only metatheory of resilience that includes a range of theoretical ideas from physics, psychology and medicine (White et al., 2008).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites White et al., 2008
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“However, Seery, Holman, and Silver (2010) recently found that people with a history of some lifetime adversity reported better mental health and well-being outcomes than people with no history of adversity (see also Neff & Broady, 2011; Seery, 2011).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Seery, Holman, and Silver, 2010
- Not checked yetcites Neff & Broady, 2011
- Not checked yetcites Seery, 2011
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, the model has a bias toward coping-orientated processes.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“One such theory, which is commonly cited in the resilience literature”
- Also stated in: § Concepts · plain
“is the metatheory of resilience and resiliency (Richardson, Neiger, Jensen, & Kumpfer, 1990; Richardson, 2002).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Richardson, Neiger, Jensen, & Kumpfer, 1990
- Not checked yetcites Richardson, 2002
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Concepts · plain
- Probably not a substantial claim. 38
- It may state two separate claims as one. 14
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Resilience is conceptualized as the interactive influence of psychological characteristics within the context of the stress process.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Rather than assuming neutrality or objectivity in the use of competence indicators across settings (i.e., an etic perspective), they propose that understanding positive adaptation from within the cultural frame from which competence emerges (i.e., an emic perspective) is a more ecologically sensitive approach (see also Waller, 2001).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Waller, 2001
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
In the paper
“This perspective is supported by Mahoney and Bergman (2002) who stated that the specific sociocultural conditions in which an individual functions must be considered when examining competence”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Mahoney and Bergman (2002)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“and that 'failing to do so may lead to a view of positive adaptation as a static phenomenon with relevance to only a minority of persons in select circumstances' (p. 212).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Mahoney and Bergman (2002)
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Indeed, Davydov, Stewart, Ritchie and Chaudieu (2010) recently observed that conceptual discrepancies hinder the evaluation and comparison of resilience research findings, preclude meta-analysis, and make it difficult to operationalize the construct for measurement purposes.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Davydov, Stewart, Ritchie and Chaudieu (2010)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For instance, the construct of resilience has variously been defined as a trait, process or outcome.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“An important debate to emerge from the literature concerns the conceptualization of resilience as either a trait or a process (see, for a review, Windle, 2011).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Windle, 2011
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“However, inconsistencies in the specific delineation of these concepts have led to confusion about their meaning, and to some researchers questioning the scientific value of resilience itself (Bodin & Winman, 2004).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Bodin & Winman, 2004
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As discussed in the previous section, the main antecedent of resilience is deemed to be adversity and the main consequence is considered to be positive adaptation.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Ungar and colleagues (Ungar 2008; Ungar & Lienbenberg, 2011) argued that resilience research has predominantly defined positive adaptation from a Western psychological discourse with an emphasis on individual and relational capacities, such as academic success and healthy relationships.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Ungar 2008
- Not checked yetcites Ungar & Lienbenberg, 2011
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“More specifically, for an individual exposed to a serious life adversity (e.g., PTEs such as direct exposure to terrorist attacks) it is appropriate to define competence in terms of the absence of psychiatric diagnoses rather than evidence of excellent functioning.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“According to Ungar and colleagues, these outcomes lack sensitivity to cultural factors that contextualize how resilience is defined by different populations and manifested in different practices.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Ungar 2008
- Not checked yetcites Ungar & Lienbenberg, 2011
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Further, to essentially combine such factors under the general rubric of psychological resilience is conceptually grievous since it suggests that resilience is a quality that one either has or does not have (cf. Luthar et al., 2000b).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Luthar et al., 2000b
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“For example, the conceptual model of medical student well-being (Dunn, Iglewicz & Moutier, 2008) highlights personality and temperament factors as being fundamental to resilience, whereas the conceptual model for community and youth resiliency (Brennan, 2008) emphasizes the importance of social support.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Dunn, Iglewicz & Moutier, 2008
- Not checked yetcites Brennan, 2008
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The interaction between people and their environments is an important consideration when conceptualizing resilience (Waller, 2001).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Waller, 2001
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Since it is commonly believed that resilience results from the operation of basic human adaptational systems (Masten, 2001), the construct has often been closely aligned to coping.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Masten, 2001
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Whilst individuals who demonstrate resilience are likely to also exhibit effective coping strategies and 'styles'.”
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Recovery is characterized by a temporary period of psychopathology followed by gradual restoration to healthy levels of functioning, whereas resilience refers to the ability of individuals to maintain normal levels of functioning.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Bonanno, 2004
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
In the paper
“For example, Richardson (2002) proposed that resilience is 'the process of coping with stressors, adversity, change or opportunity in a manner that results in the identification, fortification, and enrichment of resilient qualities or protective factors' (p. 308).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Richardson (2002)
plaindirect- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, in terms of specific explanatory potential, the emphasis placed on different factors often varies.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, resilience influences how an event is appraised, whereas coping refers to the strategies employed following the appraisal of a stressful encounter.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Hence, resilience is characterized by its influence on one's appraisal prior to emotional and coping responses and by its positive, protective impact, whereas coping is characterized by its response to a stressful encounter and by its varying effectiveness in resolving outstanding issues.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“resilience consists of various factors that promote personal assets and protect individuals from the negative appraisal of stressors”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In contrast, individuals who exhibit resilience seem to be able to proceed with their lives with minimal or no apparent disruptions in their daily functioning.”
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Rather, we argue that protective and promotive factors should be considered in relation to their specific function”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
In the paper
“Recovery is characterized by a temporary period of psychopathology followed by gradual restoration to healthy levels of functioning, whereas resilience refers to the ability of individuals to maintain normal levels of functioning.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Bonanno, 2004
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“During the past three decades, over a dozen theories of resilience have been proposed by various researchers (see Table II).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Table II
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Since it is commonly believed that resilience results from the operation of basic human adaptational systems (Masten, 2001), the construct has often been closely aligned to coping.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Masten, 2001
hedgeddirect- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“For example, Major et al. (1998) found that women who had more resilient personality resources to draw on (i.e., self esteem, perceived control, and optimism) were less likely to appraise their upcoming abortions as stressful.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Major et al., 1998
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“These findings support the notion that resilience is a capacity that develops over time in the context of person-environment interactions (Egeland, Carlson, & Sroufe, 1993).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Egeland, Carlson, & Sroufe, 1993
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The majority of theories incorporate the notion that resilience is a dynamic process that changes over time.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the context of the present discussion it is interesting to note that these variables appear conceptually analogous to a number of the aforementioned protective and promotive factors.”
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Another key distinction between resilience and coping relates to the consequences associated with aspects of the stress process (Skinner & Zimmer-Gembeck, 2007; Van Vliet, 2008).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Skinner & Zimmer-Gembeck, 2007
- Not checked yetcites Van Vliet, 2008
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The process conceptualization of resilience recognizes that the effects of the protective and promotive factors will vary contextually (from situation to situation) and temporally (throughout a situation and across an individual's lifespan).”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and that an appreciation of the nature and array of these factors is critical to understanding and developing psychological resilience.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While coping and recovery are often discussed in relation to resilience, and sometimes used interchangeably with the term, the remainder of this section provides an overview of these constructs and argues that they should be conceived as conceptually distinct from psychological resilience.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Resilience augurs a positive response to a potentially stressful situation (e.g., the experience of positive emotions) whereas the nature of reactionary coping strategies may be positive (e.g., encouraging self-dialogue) or negative (e.g., substance abuse).”
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Hence, theoretical explanations of resilience often encapsulate other related psychosocial constructs and overlap with other areas of scientific inquiry.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although Richardson and colleagues stimulate an interdisciplinary exchange of the multiple meanings of resilience, the theory and accompanying model are conceptually flawed and their explanatory potential have yet to be rigorously examined.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“with Fletcher et al. (2006) suggesting that those who demonstrate resilience appraise emotions as facilitative to one's functioning.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Fletcher et al., 2006
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This particular theory (and its accompanying model) is discussed here since it can potentially be applied to different types of stressors, adversities and life events and at various levels of analysis (such as individual, familial and community).”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“This was highlighted by Connor and Davidson (2003) who discussed the model and subsequently concluded that 'resilience may thus… be viewed as a measure of successful stress-coping ability' (p. 77).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Connor and Davidson, 2003
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In addition, while resilience is considered to be the most desirable outcome in the majority of theories, some researchers include other (positive) outcome indicators in their theories, such as optimal coping (Agaibi & Wilson, 2005), job satisfaction (Paton et al., 2008), and productivity (Riolli & Savicki, 2003).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Agaibi & Wilson, 2005
- Not checked yetcites Paton et al., 2008
- Not checked yetcites Riolli & Savicki, 2003
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Firstly, it is a linear model which considers just one event as it relates to an individual's experience.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In response to the differences in how resilience has been defined, conceptualized and theorized, the need for clarity and specificity has been recognized (see, e.g., Davydov et al., 2010).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Davydov et al., 2010
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“With the majority of resilience theories being specific to particular populations (e.g., adolescents, families, police officers), there is an understandable call for a generic theory that can be applied across different groups of people and potentially stressful situations (see, e.g., Richardson, 2002).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Richardson, 2002
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Indeed, drawing from theories of stress inoculation (Meichenbaum, 1985), it has been suggested that exposure to adversity in moderation can mobilize previously untapped resources, help engage social support networks, and create a sense of mastery for future adversities.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Meichenbaum, 1985
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper relies on this without support.
Concepts provide researchers with theoretical boundaries that help determine the nature, direction and veracity of research inquiry.
“This definitional debate is important to highlight since concepts provide researchers with theoretical boundaries that help determine the nature, direction and veracity of research inquiry.”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Two theoretical perspectives differentiate resilience as either a relatively stable trait or a dynamic process (Fletcher and Sarkar, 2013; Pangallo et al., 2015).”
From Media for Coping During COVID-19 Social Distancing: Stress, Anxiety, and Psychological Well-Being (2020) · cites this paper as Fletcher and Sarkar, 2013
In the citing paper
“The theoretical concept of resilience refers to positive adaptation after adversity (Fletcher and Sarkar, 2013; Kalisch et al., 2017).”
From Media for Coping During COVID-19 Social Distancing: Stress, Anxiety, and Psychological Well-Being (2020) · cites this paper as Fletcher and Sarkar, 2013
In the citing paper
“Furthermore, adversity may refer both to severe and traumatic life events but also to more common and less disruptive stressors such as daily hassles (Fletcher and Sarkar, 2013; Chmitorz et al., 2020).”
From Media for Coping During COVID-19 Social Distancing: Stress, Anxiety, and Psychological Well-Being (2020) · cites this paper as Fletcher and Sarkar, 2013
In the citing paper
“One key resiliency factor is the presence and cultivation of positive emotions and affect (Fletcher and Sarkar, 2013; Pangallo et al., 2015).”
From Media for Coping During COVID-19 Social Distancing: Stress, Anxiety, and Psychological Well-Being (2020) · cites this paper as Fletcher and Sarkar, 2013
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Concepts
“As Rutter (1981) observed: 'if circumstances change, resilience alters' (p. 317).”
§ Concepts
“Rutter, M. (1981). Stress, coping and development: Some issues and some questions. Journal | | of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 22, 323-356.”
Citations
Cites
Eysenck, H. J. (1985) · Behaviour Research and Therapy · doi:10.1016/0005-7967(85)90087-7 · Cited by 32,038
“Stress: appraisal and coping,”
Folkman, S. (2013) · Encyclopedia of Behavioral Medicine · doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-1005-9_215 · Cited by 27,833
Development of a new resilience scale: The Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC)
Connor, K. M., & Davidson, J. R. T. (2003) · Depression and Anxiety · doi:10.1002/da.10113 · Cited by 11,793
The Construct of Resilience: A Critical Evaluation and Guidelines for Future Work
Luthar, S. S., Cicchetti, D., & Becker, B. (2000) · Child Development · doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00164 · Cited by 9,381
Ordinary magic: Resilience processes in development.
Masten, A. S. (2001) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.56.3.227 · Cited by 8,497
Bonanno, G. A. (2004) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.59.1.20 · Cited by 6,851
Psychosocial resilience and protective mechanisms.
Rutter, M. (1987) · American Journal of Orthopsychiatry · doi:10.1111/j.1939-0025.1987.tb03541.x · Cited by 5,831
Resilient Individuals Use Positive Emotions to Bounce Back From Negative Emotional Experiences.
Tugade, M. M., & Fredrickson, B. L. (2004) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.86.2.320 · Cited by 3,947
Resilience in the Face of Adversity
Rutter, M. L. (1985) · The British Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1192/bjp.147.6.598 · Cited by 3,689
Resilience and development: Contributions from the study of children who overcome adversity
Masten, A. S., Best, K. M., & Garmezy, N. (1990) · Development and Psychopathology · doi:10.1017/s0954579400005812 · Cited by 3,662
Research works printed but not linked: 7
- Block J. H., 1980, Minnesota symposium on child psychology, 39
- Bodin P., 2004, ESS Bulletin, 2, 33
- 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2009.00595.x · DOI
- Dunn, D. (1994). Resilient reintegration of married women with dependent children: Employed and unemployed . (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), University of Utah, UT.
- Neiger, B. (1991). Resilient reintegration: Use of structural equations modeling (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), University of Utah, UT.
- Paton D., 2008, International Journal of Emergency Mental Health, 10, 95
- Walker, R. J. (1996). Resilient reintegration of adult children of perceived alcoholic parents (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), University of Utah, UT.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Organizational Resilience: A Valuable Construct for Management Research?
Hillmann, J., & Guenther, E. (2020) · International Journal of Management Reviews · doi:10.1111/ijmr.12239 · Cited by 1,321
A meta-analysis of the trait resilience and mental health
Hu, T., Zhang, D., & Wang, J. (2015) · Personality and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/j.paid.2014.11.039 · Cited by 1,131
Resilience and mental health: how multisystemic processes contribute to positive outcomes
Ungar, M., & Theron, L. (2020) · The Lancet Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/s2215-0366(19)30434-1 · Cited by 986
A grounded theory of psychological resilience in Olympic champions
Fletcher, D., & Sarkar, M. (2012) · Psychology of sport and exercise · doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2012.04.007 · Cited by 991
Self-citationResilience training in the workplace from 2003 to 2014: A systematic review
Robertson, I. T., Cooper, C. L., Sarkar, M., & Curran, T. (2015) · Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology · doi:10.1111/joop.12120 · Cited by 729
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Fletcher, D., & Sarkar, M.
- Affiliations
- Loughborough University (GB)
- Middlesex University London (GB)
- Venue
- European Psychologist
- Publisher
- Hogrefe Publishing Group
- Published
- 2013-01
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 12-23
- ISSN
- 1016-9040 (ISSN-L)
- 1878-531X
- OpenAlex
- W1985334364
- Cited by
- 2,547
- References
- 91
- Citations by year
- 2026: 289 · 2025: 332 · 2024: 266 · 2023: 315 · 2022: 292 · 2021: 250 · 2020: 209 · 2019: 143 · 2018: 143 · 2017: 95 · 2016: 93 · 2015: 63 · 2014: 45 · 2013: 9
- FWCI
- 77.89
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- dspace.lboro.ac.uk
- Licence
- cc-by-nc-nd
- Locations
- European Psychologist (publishedVersion)
- Nottingham Trent University's Institutional Repository (Nottingham Trent Repository) (acceptedVersion)
- Loughborough University Institutional Repository (Loughborough University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Research Repository (University of Gloucestershire) (submittedVersion)
- Loughborough University Research Repository (Loughborough University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Resilience and Mental Health
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Optimism, Hope, and Well-being
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Student Stress and Coping
- Keywords
- psychological resilience, adversity, positive adaptation, stress process, resilience theory, coping, protective factors, promoting factors, daily hassles, life events, resilience definitions
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-09, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-09 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
