CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 147Disaster Management and ResilienceResilience and Mental HealthPosttraumatic Stress Disorder Research

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 26 of the 26 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Three psychological principles of resilience in natural disasters

Reich, John W.·2006·Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal
DOI 10.1108/09653560610712739
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this conceptual paper is to present a discussion of some of the core components of human resilience occurring in the face of natural or human‐made disasters. Resilience is often observed, but optimum responding is more than biological survival. Resilience implies the ability to bounce back and even to grow in the face of threats to survival. It is important to incorporate these key psychological principles into disaster planning. Design/methodology/approach Research from the social sciences suggests three core principles of resilience, the “3 Cs:” control, coherence, and connectedness. Research evidence supporting the importance of the three Cs to resilient responding is presented, followed by some elementary prescriptions for how they might be implemented. Findings An approach to disaster planning and management can meld these principles into already‐existing intervention techniques, creating a more comprehensive and a more integrated response, potentially resulting in improved intervention effectiveness. Originality/value Provides a psychological perspective on natural and human‐created disasters. Governmental and private sector responses to these tragedies have received a great deal of media attention, but there has been little systematic attention paid to the basic nature of human responding in such situations. Although it has been noted that humans are often resilient in such conditions, there has been virtually nothing written about what “resilien…

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1108/09653560610712739

Cites

26 of 26 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 26 references

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Glass, D.C. and Singer, J.E. (1972), Urban Stress, Academic Press, New York, NY.
  2. Suedfeld, P. (1980), Restricted Stimulation: Research and Clinical Application, Wiley, New York, NY.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Reich, J. W.
Affiliations
Arizona State University (US)
Corresponding author
Reich, John W.
Venue
Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal
Publisher
Emerald
Published
2006-10-01
Volume
15
Issue
5
Pages
793-798
ISSN
0965-3562 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1108/09653560610712739
OpenAlex
W2145761475
Cited by
146
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 10
FWCI
11.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.emerald.com/insight/site-policies (tdm)
Locations
Disaster Prevention and Management An International Journal (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Disaster Management and Resilience
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Resilience and Mental Health
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Research
Keywords
resilience, natural disasters, man-made disasters, psychological principles, control, coherence, connectedness, disaster planning, disaster response, psychological intervention, disaster recovery

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.

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