as a challenge (e.g., believing that change, positive or negative, is an expected part of life and that stressful life
experiences are opportunities).
Victor Frankl (1959) highlighted the importance of sense of meaning in adult resilience, suggesting that it
can act as a buffer to negative affect in the face of adversity by allowing the individual to find prayer, support
in God, or understanding within the context of a religion or another belief system. The belief that one
still has choice in the face of adversity can provide strength as illustrated in Frankl’s book, Man’s Search for
Meaning (1959).
Findings from earlier phases of developmental research of resilience as well as constructs such as ‘ego-
resiliency’ seem to imply that resilient individuals are ex traordinary and that this quality is not accessible to
everyone. Later research, characteristic of phase two, suggested that resilience was largely a product of a com-
plex interaction of factors in which the individual’s env ironment played a significant part. Along with this shift
in emphasis came questioning of whether ‘resilience’ is ex traordinary. The emergence of resilience as ‘ordinary
magic’ by Masten identified the proce ss as characteristic of normal development and not applicable in adverse
circumstances only ( Masten, 2001; Masten & Powell, 2003 ).Masten (2001) suggested that fundamental systems,
already identified as characteristic of human functionin g, have great adaptive signifi cance across diverse stres-
sors and threatening situations. This shift in emphasis ha d significant implications. The ‘ordinary magic’ frame-
work suggested by Masten extends application of resilien ce theory to a broader range of individuals in varied
contexts.
CONCEPTUAL AND APPLICATION ISSUES
There has been considerable divergence in the literature with regard to the definition, criteria, or standards for
describing and consequently measuring resiliency; whether it is a trait, a learned process or an outcome variable;
whether it is enduring or situation specific; whether survival in the face of adversity is required and the nature
of the adversity required for resiliency to be demonstrated (e.g., what is a sufficient exposure risk factor?). Wald,
Taylor, Asmundson, Jang, and Stapleton (2006) pointed to a lack of consensus on the definition of resilience.
According to them, there are several existing definitions of resilience that share in common a number of features
all relating to human strengths, some type of disruption and growth, adaptive coping, and positive outcomes fol-
lowing exposure to adversity (e.g., Bonanno, 2004 ; Connor et al., 2003; Fredrickson, Tugade, Waugh, & Larkin,
2003; 2005; Masten et al., 1999; Richardson, 2002 ). There are also several distinctions made in attempt to define
this construct. For example, some investigators assume that resilience is located ‘within the person’ (e.g., Block &
Block, 1980; Davidson et al., 2005 ). Other investigators (e.g., Friborg, Hjemdal, Rosenvinge, & Martinussen, 2003;
Luthar, et al., 2000; Masten, 2001 ) propose that there are multiple sources and pathways to resiliency, including
social context (e.g., family, external support systems). Luthar et al. (2000) have provided clarification by distin-
guishing between ‘resilience’ as a dynamic developmental process or phenomenon that involves the interaction
of personal attributes with environmental circumstances, and ‘resiliency’ ( Block & Block, 1980 ) as a personality
characteristic of the individual.
The definition of resilience/resiliency has varied across research focus and population studies, (Prince-Embury &
Saklofske, 2013). Some critics have suggested that this lack of consensus in the definition of resilience makes the use
of the construct questionable ( Kaplan, 2005, 1999 ). However, if these criteria were strictly applied, then the same chal-
lenges could be directed to intelligence, personality, and most other psychological constructs. In contrast, we suggest
that ‘the baby should not be thrown out with the bathwater,’ but that the presence of an operational definition, con-
sistent assessment and utility of the construct should determine the usefulness of the construct as applied in specific
circumstances (Prince-Embury, 2013).
Definition and assessment problems notwithstanding, in the past few years, a plethora of self-help books and
interventions have been published that have not been systematically linked to sound core developmental
constructs and empirical support. These interventions are often not tested for effectiveness. Some interventions
that are found to be effective are explained on the basis that they increase resiliency while this implied mediating
process is not documented. Thus, there is a disconnection between the complex theory and body of research
on resiliency and the abundant self-help techniques and programs employing this term (Prince-Embury, 2013). It
is within this context that a thorough understanding of the resilience/resiliency construct(s) and measures is
needed.292 11. MEASURES OF RESILIENCY
III. EMOTION REGULATION