Resiliency Theory

Youth researchers often focus on cataloging risks and fixing problems. This is, of course, understandable because vulnerable youth require attention and we most certainly want to address the deleterious factors that may contribute to poor outcomes for youth. In this theme issue of Health Education Zimmerman Masten, et al., 2007; Rutter, 1987; Werner Luthar, 2006). These models guide data analytic strategies and can inform the design of intervention by defining strategies to enhance promotive factors. The compensatory and protective models of resiliency are the two most commonly studied in the research literature (Fergus Garmezy et al., 1984; Masten, et al., 2007). A third model has limited empirical support, but also provides an explanation for how youth may overcome the adverse consequences of risks. In the compensatory model, promotive factors neutralize risk exposure in a counteractive fashion. Thus, compensatory factors have an opposite effect on a developmental outcome (e.g., healthy eating, violence) than risks. This is a direct and independent effect from risks. Thus, compensatory factors contribute additively to the prediction of outcomes and are simply entered in a regression analysis after risks are accounted for in the equation. Parental support, for example, was found to compensate for risks associated with fighting and being around violent adults (Zimmerman, et al., 1998). In this study, parent support predicted less violent behavior among their adolescent children and this effect was independent and in the opposite direction of the risks. The protective factor model suggests that promotive assets or resources modify the relationship between a risk another promotive factor and outcomes. Two possible protective models are risk-protective and protective-protective. Risk-protective models indicate that promotive factors operate to moderate or reduce the association between risks and negative outcomes. Protective-protective models operate to enhance the effects of either promotive factor alone for predicting an outcome. Protective models are tested using interaction effects in regression or multi-group analysis in structural equation modeling. Hurd and Zimmerman (2010) provide an example of a risk-protective model in their study of adolescent mothers. They found that natural mentors helped protect adolescent mothers from the negative effects of stress on their mental health. A study of self-esteem and cultural identity among Native American youth provides an example of a protective-protective model (Zimmerman et al., 1995). They found that self-esteem increased the negative association between cultural identity and alcohol use in an interaction effect in a regression analysis. Rutter (1987) also introduced the challenge model of resiliency. This model operates as inoculation whereby exposure to modest levels of risk actually help youth overcome subsequent exposures that make them vulnerable to negative outcomes. It is vital, however, that the initial risk exposure must be challenging enough to help youth develop the coping mechanisms to overcome its effects, but not too taxing as to overwhelm any effort to cope. Interpersonal conflict that is resolved amicably, for example, can help youth learn how to overcome social tensions to avoid a violent response in some later more heated social disagreement that may involve others (e.g., a gang fight). Resiliency theory provides a useful framework for considering how promotive factors may operate for encouraging positive youth development. It is not an adolescent trait that can be measured by a self-report questionnaire (Fergus Stoddard et al., 2012). Researchers often study positive factors in youths’ lives and evaluate interventions designed to enhance promotive factors for health adolescent development, as many of the papers in this theme issue illustrate. Application of resiliency theory, however, provides a conceptual framework and a unifying theme that can guide researchers and practitioners interested in studying and enhancing assets and resources. A unifying theme like resiliency theory is useful for public health education because it helps to develop a common language and analytic approach that cuts across the specific issue or domain being studied to build knowledge and inform practice using a strength-based paradigm. Research that applies a resilience framework will have common characteristics that can be replicated across populations and contexts, and contribute more broadly to our understanding of the processes by which youth overcome adversity and develop into healthy adults despite risk exposure.