developmental research has been the identification of f actors that were present in the lives of those who both
survived and thrived in the face of adversity compared to those who did not ( Garmezy, Masten, & Tellegen,
1984; Luthar, 1991, 2003; Masten, 2001; Rutter, Harring ton, Quinton, & Pickles, 1994; Werner & Smith, 1982,
1992, 2001 ).
Examining the evolution of the construct and study of resilience, Masten and Wright (2009) described four
phases of research directed primarily by developmental researchers who approached the study of this construct
from different perspectives across time ( Masten, 2007 ; Wright & Masten, 2005). The first wave focused on
description, with considerable investment in defining and measuring resilience, and in the identification of differ-
ences between those who did well and poorly in the context of adversity or risk of various kinds. This research
revealed consistency in protective factors, such as qualities of people, relationships, and resources that predict
resilience, which were found to be robust in later research.
The second wave of research moved beyond descriptio ns of the factors or variables associated with resil-
ience to a greater focus on processes (i.e., the ‘how’ que stions) aimed at identifying and understanding those
that might lead to resilience. These studies led to new labels for these processes, such as ‘protective,’ ‘moderat-
ing,’ ‘compensatory,’ etc. Two of the most basic model s described compensatory an d moderating influences on
the development of resilience. In compensatory models, f actors that neutralize or cou nterbalance exposure to
risk or stress have direct, independent, and positive effects on the outcome of interest, regardless of risk level.
These compensatory factors have been termed assets ,resources ,a n d protective factors in the literature. Higher
intelligence or an outgoing personality might be considered assets or resources that are helpful regardless of
exposure to adversity. In protective or ‘moderating eff ect’ models, a theoretical factor or process has effects
that vary depending on the level of risk. A classic ‘protec tive factor’ shows stronger effects at higher levels of
risk. Access to a strong support system might be considere d protective in that its protective influence is more
noticeable in the face of adversity.
The third era of research began with efforts to test ideas about resilience processes through interventions
designed to promote resilience such as the promotion of positive parenting (Brooks and Goldstein, 2001). Brooks
and Goldstein translated basic principles of promoting a healthy mindset in children and disseminated this infor-
mation to professionals, teachers, and parents in a variety of venues including books and training workshops for
parents, teachers, and other caregivers. These programs and findings laid the groundwork for many of the
school-based mental health initiatives we see today.
The fourth wave of resilience research includes discu ssion of genes, neurobehavioral development, and sta-
tistics for a better understanding of the c omplex processes that led to resilience ( Masten, 2007 ). These studies
often focus at a more molecular level examining how proc esses may interact at the biological level. Some of
this work has led to the proposal of concepts such as diffe rential susceptibility and sensitivity to context, to
explore the possibility that some individuals are more sus ceptible or sensitive to the influence of positive or
negative contexts.
ADULT VIEWS OF RESILIENCY
Although the study of early childhood development is often viewed as the intellectual home of the construct,
‘resilience’ has also been described as an aspect of adult personality. Block (1989) conceived of ‘Ego-resiliency’ in
adults as a meta-level personality trait associated with the concept of ‘ego’ as a complex integrative mechanism.
Ego-resiliency is defined as the ability to adapt ones level of emotion control temporarily up or down as circum-
stances dictate ( Block, 2002; Block & Block, 1980 ). The related assumption is that this flexibility in controlling
emotion is a relatively enduring trait, which impacts a variety of other abilities including but not limited to sur-
vival in the face of adversity. Furthermore, Block and Kremen (1996) linked positive affect, self-confidence, and
overall psychological adjustment to resiliency.
Other theorists have identified traits in adults that overlap with the notion of ‘resiliency.’ One such construct
is that of ‘hardiness’ described by Kobasa and colleagues. Hardiness is characterized by three general assump-
tions about self and the world ( Kobasa, 1979, 1982 ; Maddi, 2002, 2005). These include (a) a sense of control over
one’s life (e.g., believing that life experiences are predictable and that one has some influence in outcomes
through one’s efforts); (b) commitment and seeing life activities as important (e.g., believing that you can find
meaning in, and learn from, whatever happens, whether events be negative or positive); and (c) viewing change291 ADULT VIEWS OF RESILIENCY
III. EMOTION REGULATION