i just upload it

American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 71(3), July 2001 © 2001 American Orthopsychiatric Association, Inc.

Resilience in Ecosystemic Context: Evolution of the Concept

Margaret A. Waller, Ph.D.

The evolution of the resilience literature across diverse social science disciplines over the

past two decades is reviewed and a synthesis of recentfindings is offered, suggesting that

resilience is a multidetermined and ever-changing product of interacting forces within a

given ecosystemic context. Emerging constructions of the concept are examined, and a

refined working definition is proposed. Implications for research and practice are offered.

The world breaks everyone and afterward many are strong at the broken places.

-Ernest Hemingway, A Farewell to Arms

hile it is essential to understand what makes people break, it is equally impor-

V v tant to understand what contributes to positive adaptational outcomes in the face of ad- versity; that is, what makes us "strong at the broken places." A growing body of evidence in resilience research challenges the conventional wisdom that growing up in oppressive conditions inevitably damages individuals and thwarts development (Bar- nard, 1994; Dugan & Coles, 1989; Walsh, 1998; Werner & Smith, 1992; Wolin & Wolin, 1993). In fact, it appears that some individuals who are chal- lenged by adversity emerge stronger, with capaci- ties that they may not have developed otherwise (Higgins, 1994). Some contemporary resilience re- searchers have even suggested that resilience does not occur in spite of adversity, but because of it (Walsh, 1998).

This paper will review the resilience literature as it has evolved across diverse social science disci- plines over the past two decades, and synthesize recent research suggesting that resilience is a mul- tidetermined and ever-changing product of inter- acting forces within a given ecosystemic context. It

will review varying constructions of the concept, refine the definition of resilience, and elaborate implications for research and practice.

The Ecosystemic Perspective The ecosystemic perspective is "a way of think-

ing and organizing knowledge that emphasizes the interrelatedness and interdependency" between in- dividuals and social systems (e.g., families, groups, organizations, communities, societies) (Queralt, 1996, p. 17). The researcher's focus expands from what takes place within systems to include what goes on between them. From this point of view, development is a "continuous process of adapta- tion and accommodation between individuals and their environments" (Queralt, 1996, p. 17), that is, human development does not happen in a vacuum but, rather, is the product of continuous transac- tions between individuals and the physical, social, class, and cultural environments in which they grow (Germain & Gitterman, 1987).

EVOLUTION OF THE RESILIENCE CONCEPT Resilience research, having originated in the dis-

ciplines of psychiatry and developmental psychol- ogy, has tended to focus on within-person factors, rather than considering the ecosystemic context of

A revised version of a paper submitted to the Journal in September 2000. The author is at the School of Social Work, College of Public Programs, Arizona State Universih, Tempe.

290

Margaret A. Waller

adaptation. While the ecosystemic perspective is a longstanding theme in the social work literature (Richmond, 1917; Towle, 1945; Twente, 1965), it is relatively new to resilience research. For example, Jessor (1993) described the ecosystemic perspec- tive as an "emerging paradigm" in adolescent re- search. Calling for an interdisciplinary effort to ex- plore the "articulation of psychological processes with those of...the nonpsychological environment" (p. 118), Jessor advocated cross-fertilization among the social science disciplines.

The study of resilience emerged from the study of risk. In examining the lives of "at-risk" chil- dren, pioneering investigators recognized that some youngsters thrive in the midst of adversity and become healthy adults (Anthony, 1987; Garmezy, 1994; Matsen, Best, & Garmezy, 1990; Murphy & Moriarty, 1976; Rutter, 1979; Werner & Smith, 1982). Over the past two decades, a re- curring theme in resilience research is that most individuals who face adversity have more positive outcomes than one might predict based on the risk factors in their lives (Barnard, 1994; Bleuler, 1978; Garbarino, Dubrow, Kostelny, & Pardo, 1992; Gar- mezy, 1971, 1994; Hauser, Vieyra, Jacobson, & Wertlieb, 1985; Luthar & Zigler, 1991; Matsen, 1994; Rutter, 1979; Vaillant, 1993). In fact, Wolin and Wolin (1995) reported that about two-thirds of "at-risk" children survive risk experiences without major developmental disruptions.

Resilience was initially conceptualized as the re- sult of personality traits or coping styles that seemed to make some children continue to pro- gress along a positive developmental trajectory even when confronted with considerable adversity. These children were variously termed "hardy," "invulnerable," "superkids," or "stress resistant" (Anthony, 1987; Bolig & Weddle, 1998). This em- phasis on individual invulnerability is problematic in several ways. First, the idea of individual invul- nerability is "antithetical to the human condition" (Felsman & Vaillant, 1987, p. 304). No one is either resilient or vulnerable all of the time. Second, fo- cusing exclusively on within-person factors ob- scures the ecosystemic context of resilience (Bron- fenbrenner, 1986; Jessor, 1993; Walsh, 1998).

The implication is that "resilient persons grew themselves up...they either had the 'right stuff' all along...or acquired it by pulling themselves up by their bootstraps" (Walsh, 1998, p. 6). Dannefer (1984) referred to this as the "ontogenetic fallacy in developmental psychology...[that is] the con-

291

ception of human development as a process of [individual] maturational unfolding" (p. 103) rather than an outcome of the reciprocal interac- tion between the individual and the environment (Bronfenbrenner, 1977).

A third problem with the idea of intrinsic "hardiness" is that it spawns a contemptuous view of individuals, families, and communities as "deficient, weak, and blameworthy when they can't surmount their problems on their own" (Walsh, 1998, p. 6). Ryan (1971) labeled this ten- dency to pathologize suffering as "blaming the victim," and pointed out how it has been used to portray the social problems of ethnic minorities as their own fault, rather than recognizing society's responsibility in the formation and maintenance of social problems. An example is the social work lit- erature related to Indigenous People,* which his- torically has been almost exclusively problem- focused (Waller, Risley-Curtiss, Murphy, Medill, & Moore, 1998).

Walsh (1998) proposed that the American main- stream's intolerance for suffering is a product of the American ethos of the "rugged individual," (Bellah, Madsen, Sullivan, Swidler, & Tipton, 1985), the legacy of European-American immigrants who adapted by "cutting their losses" and boldly forg- ing ahead. She suggested that this tendency is evi- denced in "popular movements for so-called 'survivors' or 'adult children of dysfunctional families' [that] have spared almost no family from accusations of failure" (p. 15). Similarly, Saleebey (1997) maintained that European Americans "have turned victimhood into a thriving and rapidly ex- panding business. Many of us, prodded by a vari- ety of gurus, swamis, ministers, and therapists are in hot pursuit of our wounded inner children and find ourselves dripping with the residue of the poi- sons of our family background"(p. 4).

Fourth, as Freire (1973) has pointed out, the contemporary European-American reification of independence, dominance, and mastery fosters "paternalism and subjugation of the knowledge and wisdom of the oppressed" (p. 79). It also in- validates world views that prioritize the well-being of the collectivity over independence and individ- ual advancement. For example, within traditional Dine culture ("Dine," roughly translated as "The

*The terms Indigenous People or First Nations People describe North American tribes more accurately than "Native Ameri- cans" or "American Indians," both of which are misnomers, as has been elaborated by Yellow Bird (1999).

292

People," is preferred to "Navajo," one of the many names imposed upon the Dine by outsiders [Locke, 1992]), respect for Ice'e, or kinship and fulfilling one's obligation to the community, is essential to the maintenance of hozho, or individual and com- munity harmony. Interdependence and coopera- tion are givens, and individual standing in the community is largely related to the extent to which a person is helpful to others. To be Dine is to fulfill one's responsibilities to one's relations. This is why one of this culture's harshest forms of retribu- tion is telling a wrongdoer: "You act as if you have no relatives" (Austin, 1993).

RISK AND PROTECTIVE FACTORS An important contribution of prevention re-

search during the 1980s was the identification of risk factors (Fraser, 1997), thought to be associated with later psychosocial problems (e.g., alcoholism, drug abuse, teen pregnancy, delinquency, school dropouts) (Jessor, 1993). Risk factors are influ- ences, occurring at any systemic level (i.e., indi- vidual, family, community, society), that threaten positive adaptational outcomes. By contrast, pro- tective factors are thought to facilitate positive out- comes by operating as buffers between individuals and the risk factors impinging on their well-being. Recent research suggests that the right combina- tion of protective influences can outweigh the neg-

Resilience in Ecosystemic Context

ative impact of exposure to multiple risk factors (Werner & Smith, 1992). The protective factors most often identified in the research are listed in TABLE 1, and have been elaborated on elsewhere (Benard, 1991; Felix-Ortiz & Newcomb, 1995; Fras- er, 1997; Matsen & Coatsworth 1998,; Miller, 1999,; Miller & MacIntosh, 1999).

Defining Resilience One of the primary challenges for resilience re-

searchers has been achieving consensus on defini- tion (Richman & Bowen, 1997). Resilience, simply stated, is positive adaptation in response to adver- sity. Adversity is typically indexed by two cate- gories of risk factors: ) challenging life circum- stances (racism, parental drug use, etc.) and 2) trauma (experiencing family or community vio- lence, death of a parent, etc.) (Matsen & Coats- worth, 1998).

Resilience is not the absence of vulnerability. As stress researchers have determined, many stressful conditions are inescapable and enduring, as are their consequences, be they biophysical, psycho- logical, familial, or societal (Katz, 1997; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Moreover, resilience is not an inherent characteristic of individual personality. Given the bidirectionality of the relationship be- tween person and environment, individuals in- fluence adverse life situations as well as being

Table 1

PROTECTIVE FACTORS ACROSS ECOSYSTEMIC LEVELS

INDIVIDUAL FACTORS FAMILY FACTORS Effective curricula/teaching/counseling Active, easy, outgoing temperament Competent parent(s) Focus on instilling self-esteem, personal Reflectiveness Model competent behavior responsibility, goal setting, clear cornm- Positive responsiveness to others Provide access to knowledge munication, problem-solving Appealing to adults Resilience Collaboration between family & school Sense of humor Self-efficacy Free lunches High intelligence Authoritative parenting style Mentoring initiatives Problem-solving skills Interpersonal warmth Rites of passage programs Emotional regulation Noncritical Sense of community Verbal/communication skills Value children's accomplishments Community well-being, stability, cohe- Realistic appraisal of the environment High but realistic expectations of child siveness Self-efficacy Educational attainment Availability of prosocial role models, Self-worth Reading to children norms, values Hopefulness Involved in schools Supportive friends, neighbors Recognized talents/accomplishments Connections to other competent adults Employment opportunities Trust in people as resources Family cohesion Opportunities for belonging & meaningful Social skills Socioeconomic advantages involvement in prosocial school, sports, Competence in normative roles Religious faith/affiliation/participation religious, community activities Empathy Marital harmony Well-delineated community Self-confidence Children have family/household duties Strong, positive ethnic identity CULTURE/ETHNIC IDENTITY Faith/religious affiliation COMMUNITY FACTORS Strong, positive ethnic identity Religious participation Adequate resources for child care, nutri- Resistance to oppression/ethnic activism Educational aspirations/school commit- tion, health care Identification w/traditional beliefs/values

ment Good schools Participation in traditional practices Sense of direction or purpose Clear rules Racial/ethnic socialization

Margaret A. Waller

influenced by them (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). Addi- tionally, resilience is not static. At different points in time, a particular individual may respond very differently to the same or similar stressors. Like- wise, a given individual may be resilient in re- sponse to one adverse life event, yet vulnerable in relation to another.

Pervasiveness, Durability, and "Pile-Up" Risk and protective factors tend to be pervasive

(Matsen et al., 1999; Rutter & Rutter, 1993); a per- son confronting adversity in one context is likely to be confronting adversity in other areas as well. For example, a child growing up in a high-crime area is likely to attend a school with inadequate resources and to be contending with additional hardships. Alternatively, a child growing up in a safe community is likely to attend a school with many resources, and to have other advantages as well.

It also appears that exposure to multiple risk fac- tors poses significantly greater threat to positive adaptational outcome than exposure to only one such factor. Further, the presence of multiple stres- sors seems to exacerbate the impact of a given in- dividual stressor (Rutter, 1979). Smokowski (1998) posited that "links between different risk variables often occur, forming risk chains. Poverty, for ex- ample, commonly coincides with parental unem- ployment, single-parent households, high parental stress, lower educational attainment, and a com- plex array of other risk factors" (p. 338). Similarly, links between protective variables can form pro- tective chains. Disadvantages and advantages also tend to be enduring (Rutter, 1993, Rutter & Rutter, 1993). For example, an infant who is challenged by a given constellation of hardships (e.g. poverty, violence in the family) is likely to be confronted by these same hardships during early, middle, and high school years. This holds true for protective factors, as well.

The negative impact of risk factors also seems to be cumulative. For example, in a study of risk fac- tors within families (i.e., marital discord, poverty, overcrowding, paternal criminality, maternal psy- chiatric disorder, and foster placement), Rutter (1979) observed that children who were exposed to only one of these risks fared as well as children who were not exposed to any, whereas children who were exposed to four of these risks were ten times more likely to develop psychiatric disorders. Barocas, Seifer, and Sameroff (1985) also found

293

that exposure to multiple risk factors significantly affected children's social and intellectual develop- ment.

While a "pile up" of risk factors is associated with negative outcomes, it appears that the right combination of protective influences can outweigh the negative impact of exposure to multiple risks-and can lead to positive outcomes (Werner & Smith, 1992). For example, having parents who are effective advocates, having special talents, and attending a school with adequate resources and flexibility can offset the risk associated with a child's learning disability (Katz, 1997). In fact, it appears that if reasonably good resources are pre- sent, outcomes are generally good, even in the context of severe stressors (Matsen et al., 1999).

The Ripple Effect A synthesis of findings in resilience research

also seems to suggest that a given risk/protective factor can have a "ripple effect," leading to further risk or protection. Terr (1990) found that healthy children exposed to repeated traumatizing experi- ences may stop seeing themselves as healthy, and may begin to perceive themselves as "bad" chil- dren who are deserving of the abuse they are expe- riencing. Terr posited that these children may, over time, give up on themselves and come to feel "fu- tureless." A potential consequence is a sense of hopelessness, helplessness, and despair, which Garbarino (1994) referred to as "terminal think- ing," and which can lead to further negative ap- praisals and behavior. Alternatively, a protective influence, such as an encouraging mentor, can en- gender optimism that may, in turn, further protect by predisposing the individual to optimistic ap- praisals and constructive behavior. This may result in greater competence, and thus spawn further gains in optimism, confidence, self-efficacy, and so on.

Threat or Challenge? It should be noted that risk and protective factors

are not dichotomous categories. For instance, a risk factor can become protective when a person responds to adversity by developing new compe- tencies and perspectives that lead to more effective coping in the future. Moreover, the same circum- stances might constitute risk in one situation and protection in another. For example, divorce may put one person at risk, while protecting another (e.g., in the latter case, a person with adequate

294

supports who is leaving an abusive relationship). Alternatively, a given individual may experience divorce as both threat and challenge. Similarly, so- cial support from peers can be a protective factor, but might also be a risk factor if the supportive peer group pressures the individual to participate in self-destructive behavior.

RESILIENCE IN ECOSYSTEMIC PERSPECTIVE There is growing recognition that resilience is

multidimensional and multidetermined, and can best be understood as the product of transactions within and between multiple systemic levels over time (Walsh, 1998). The relationship between hu- man beings and adversity is neither linear nor uni- directional. Risk and protective factors may be bi- ological, psychological, social, spiritual, environ- mental, or any combination of these (Ashford, Le- Croy, & Lortie, 2000). They may occur within the individual (e.g., neurobiological disorders, cogni- tive skills), within the family (e.g., parental alco- holism, role flexibility), within the community (e.g., dangerous neighborhoods, self-help groups), or within larger social and environmental systems (e.g., poverty, racism, affirmative action legislation).

The ecological balance of interacting systems in our lives is dynamic (Germain, 1991). It is con- stantly changing as individuals and larger social systems are bolstered by good fortune and chal- lenged by adversity. Similarly, protective factors and risk factors within a given ecosystem are dy- namic; they are not fixed attributes (Rutter, 1987). Rather, their effect is evident only in the context of their interaction, the larger context in which this interaction occurs, and the meaning of a particular factor to a given individual. For example, while gender influences the effect of stress on adjust- ment, the effect of gender varies with age. While most studies find that boys are more vulnerable than girls to stressful life events such as divorce in early and middle childhood, in adolescence the re- verse is true (Smith & Carlson, 1997). Adolescent girls report more adverse life events than boys, ap- praise these events as being more stressful, and re- act to them more negatively (Compas & Bond, 1989).

Both threatening and protective influences can originate from internal or external sources or from a combination of the two. For example, an adoles- cent's healthy development can be compromised by poor self-esteem and early sexual activity, yet buffered by educational aspirations and the pres-

Resilience in Ecosystemic Context

ence of a caring adult. Although the bulk of re- silience research has focused on individual re- sponses to adversity, the concept is now being ap- plied to larger social systems such as families (Walsh, 1998), organizations (Kurzman & Akabas, 1993), and communities (Saleebey, 1997). It is be- coming apparent that human systems of any size can, and do, develop in the process of meeting challenges (Fraser, 1997).

Implications for Research and Practice A holistic, ecosystemic perspective is central to

the strengths perspective. From an ecosystemic perspective, individual, family, and community change is not only possible, but inevitable and continuous. The ecosystemic perspective suggests that protective influences can be introduced into an individual's life through any relationship in any part of the ecosystem (personal attributes, family strengths, a high-quality recreation program, social policies promoting education, etc.). Moreover, this positive influence can reverberate throughout the child's ecosystem, further enhancing the possibil- ity of favorable adaptational outcomes.

For many individuals, families, and communi- ties, understanding resilience requires analysis of the impact of oppression. Jessor (1993) noted that research on psychosocial development that ignores conditions of concentrated and chronic adversity (e.g., racism, poverty, limited access to resources) limits our understanding of development in gen- eral and of resilience in particular: Race and ethnicity are linked to major differentials in socially organized access to opportunity...and are inescapably impli- cated in adolescent self-definitions. [However,] until recently, adolescent behavioral science has been confined largely to White middle-class adolescents [and] has unfortunately al- lowed issues of race and ethnicity and racial discrimination... and the interaction of poverty with race and ethnicity... to lie fallow. (p.119)

While the impact of oppression on human devel- opment has long been recognized in the discipline of social work, it has only recently come to light in the disciplines from which resilience research gen- erally emerges.

A related problem affecting research and prac- tice is the failure to consider resilience and vulner- ability in the context of culture and class. For ex- ample, life circumstances that are normative in nondominant sociocultural contexts may be mis- takenly considered by middle-class, European- American researchers to be pathogenic risk fac- tors. Viewing the person/risk factor relationship as

Margaret A. Waller separate from the cultural context can have the unfortunate consequence of leading mainstream researchers to pathologize whole populations. Cat- terall (1998) termed this phenomenon "risk by as- sociation," that is, "the tendency in academic and professional discourse to equate risk with member- ship in any of a number of disadvantaged societal groups" (p. 303, emphasis added). He cautioned:

While researche rs... would hardly agree that all members of the risk groups they target are truly "at risk," there is atenderrcy in the framing of their analyses to equate risk with group mem- bership. Much education research and policy scholarship rein- forces this view. When average achievement and attainment measures are displayed by income level, race, ethnic origin, or language skills, the effect can be to label whole groups of stu- dents "at risk" rather than identify for attention those who are experiencing actual difficulties in performance or social inte- gration .... Another effect of group labeling is that through stereotyping, expectations for entire groups may be suppressed, with unfortunate educational consequences @p. 304-305)).

Global, unitary formulations are particularly problematic when findings based on middle-class, European-American samples are inappropriately generalized to other populations. For instance, poverty, numerous siblings, and having parents with minimal education are frequently cited risk factors thought to impede development. Research- ers have suggested that these factors make parents less available to their children, thereby disrupting the caregiving process (Rak & Lewis, 1996). How- ever, in many communities, among the Din6 for example, poverty, large families, and having par- ents with minimal education constitute the life cir- cumstances of the vast majority of children. Are we to assume, then, that the caregiving process in Din6 families is "disrupted," and that Din4 parents do not provide adequate structure and love for their children? Although it is clearly inappropriate to generalize such findings across cultural con- texts, this remains a common error in mainstream social science.

Catterall (1998) also pointed out that global characterizations of groups or classes of people (e.g., "the culture of poverty," "the underclass") ob- fuscate differences within groups and overlook in- dividuals who do not conform to stereotypes. Ac- cordingly, "risk by associationy' negatively affects social science research by creating "a web of pes- simistic expectations of and predictions" about in- dividuals and their environments (Saleebey, 1997, pp. H). Moreover, such generalizations may alien- ate clients from professional helpers and, as Freire (1973) cautioned, may also alienate clients from

themselves, their cultures, or faith in their own po- tential. Such characterizations can be a pernicious form of idealogical racism, more devastating in its effect because it is presented as "scientific knowl- edge" by social scientists and health care profes- sionals. For this reason, socia1 science researchers need to attend to strengths, potentials, supports, and resources (personal, social, and institutional) to offset the "excessive and often unequivocal pre- occupation with risk that tends to homogenize and caricature those who are poor"(Jessor, 1993, p. 121).

As researchers and practitioners have become increasingly aware of the complexity of human re- silience, studies have evolved from cross-sectional examinations of single risk factors to prospective designs examining multiple and cumulative risk and protective factors (Hawkins, Catalano, & As- sociates, 1992; Matsen et al., 1999). Matsen et al. underscored the present need for longitudinal, multivariate analyses that will more closely reflect multidimensional aspects of adaptation over time, as well as the cumulative nature of risk factors.

Naturalistic, participatory, ethnographic ap- proaches are particularly well suited to the study of human resilience. While the knowledge base of re- silience research can be greatly enriched by empir- ical observational methods, narrative approaches that tap into subjective experience may reveal pro- tective factors not apparent even to participant- observer researchers. As nmative therapists have demonstrated White & Epston, 1989), stories (of individuals, couples, families, communities, tribes, etc.) are like rich archaeological digs. Personal narratives may illuminate protective factors (active or latent) in parts of a respondent's ecosystem that might not be readily apparent to researchers. For example, a child's stress may be buffered by the continuing ripple effect of a nurturing, supportive teacher years after the child was actually in that teacher's class.

Subjective, narrative accounts are also useful because of the dynamic nature of both risk and protective factors, and because a given individual moves back and forth along the resilience-vul- nerability continuum. Accordingly, the most up- to-date resilience-vulnerability picture is likely to be the respondent's own "take" on his or her situa- tion at a given point in time. Furthermore, ethno- graphic, nmative approaches to studying re- silience are consistent with current knowledge in both coping and social support research. Subjec-

296

tive perspectives of individual respondents, that is, appraisal of stressful life events and perception of social support are recognized as important media- tors of psychological distress and predictors of adaptational outcome (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). For this reason, contemporary researchers view subjective perceptions as the best proxy for the overall constructs of stress and social support. Similarly, subjective accounts are critical to our understanding of resilience.

CONCLUSION The study of resilience is evolving from static,

individualistic conceptualizations, to an apprecia- tion of the complex relational and contextual as- pects of positive adaptation in the face of adversity (Rutter, 1987). The current challenge for resiliency researchers is to discover the conditions under which anyone might rebound or regenerate (Ben- ard, 1991; Garmezy, 1994). While everyone has the potential to be resilient, this potential can be activated by introducing interventions that reduce or alter adverse relationships (Rutter, 1987) and establish or strengthen protective ones (Werner & Smith, 1982). An essential first step in this process is taking a respectful and collaborative approach to recognizing-and building on--existing individ- ual, family, community, cultural, and spiritual re- sources (Waller & Patterson, in press).

References Anthony, E.J. (1987). Risk, vulnerability, and resilience: An

overview. In E.J. Anthony & B. Cohler (Eds.), The invul- nerable child (pp. 3-48). New York: Guilford Press.

Ashford, J.B., LeCroy, C.W., & Lortie, K.L. (2000). Human behavior in the social environment: A multidimensional perspective. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Austin, R. (1993). Freedom, responsibility and duty: ADR and the Navajo Peacemaker Court. The Judges' Journal, 32, 8-11;47-48.

Barnard, C. (1994). Resiliency: A shift in our perception? American Journal of Family Therapy, 22, 135-144.

Barocas, R., Seifer, R., & Sameroff, A.J. (1985). Defining en- vironmental risk: Multiple dimensions of psychological vulnerability. American Journal of Community Psychology, 13, 433-447.

Bellah, R., Madsen, R., Sullivan, W., Swidler, A., & Tip- ton, S. (1985). Habits of the heart: Individualism and com- mitment in American life. Berkeley: University of Cali- fornia Press.

Benard, B. (1991). Fostering resiliency in kids: Protectivefac- tors in the family, school, and community. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.

Bleuler, M. (1978). Different forms of childhood stress and patterns of adult psychiatric outcome. In N.S. Watt, E.J. An- thony, L.C. Wynne, & J.E. Rolf(Eds.), Children at risk for schizophrenia: A longitudinal perspective. (pp. 537-542). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Resilience in Ecosystemic Context

Bolig, R., & Weddle, K.D. (1998). Resiliency and hospitaliza- tion of children. Children's Health Care, 16, 255-260.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human development. American Psychologist, 32, 513- 531.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human develop- ment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986). Ecology of family as a context for human development. Developmental Psychology, 22, 732- 742.

Catterall, J. (1998). Risk and resilience in student transitions to high school. American Journal of Education, 106, 302-333.

Compas, B.E., & Bond, L.A. (Eds.). (1989). Primary preven- tion and promotion in the schools. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Dannefer, D. (1984). Adult development and social theory: A paradigmatic reprisal. American Sociological Review, 49, 100-116.

Dugan, T., & Coles, R. (Eds.). (1989). The child in our times: Studies in the development of resiliency. New York: Brun- ner/Mazel.

Felix-Ortiz, M., & Newcomb, M.D. (1995). Cultural identity and drug use among Latino and Latina adolescents. In G.J. Botvin, S. Schinke, & M.A. Orlandi (Eds.), Drug abuse pre- vention with multiethnic youth (pp. 147-165). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Felsman, J.K., & Vaillant, G. (1987). Resilient children as adults: A 40-year study. In E.J. Anthony & B. Cohler (Eds.), The invulnerable child. New York: Guilford Press.

Fraser, M. (Ed.). (1997). Risk and resilience in childhood: An ecologicalperspective. Washington, DC: NASW Press.

Freire, P. (1973). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Seabury.

Garbarino, J. (1994). Raising children in a socially toxic envi- ronment. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Garbarino, J., Dubrow, N., Kostelny, K., & Pardo, C. (1992). Children in danger: Coping with the consequences of com- munity violence. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Garmezy, N. (1971). Vulnerability research and the issue of primary prevention. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 41, 101-116.

Garmezy, N. (1991). Resiliency and vulnerability to adverse developmental outcomes associated with poverty. American Behavioral Scientist, 34, 416-430.

Garmezy, N. (1994). Reflections and commentary on risk, re- silience, and development. In H.R. Haggerty, L.R. Sherrod, N. Garmezy, & M. Rutter (Eds.), Stress, risk and resilience in children and adolescents: Process, mechanisms, and in- terventions (pp. 1-18). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univer- sity Press.

Germain, C.B. (1991). Human behavior in the social environ- ment: An ecological view. New York: Columbia University Press.

Germain, C.B., & Gitterman, A. (1987). Ecological perspec- tive. In A. Minahan (Ed.), Encyclopedia of social work (18th ed., pp. 488-499). Silver Springs, MD: National As- sociation of Social Workers.

Hauser, S.T., Vieyra, M.A., Jacobson, A.M., & Wertlieb, D. (1985). Vulnerability and resilience in adolescence: Views from the family. Journal of Adolescence, 5, 81-100.

Hawkins, J.D., Catalano, R.F., & Associates. (1992). Commu- nity that cares: Action for drug abuse prevention. San Fran- cisco: Jossey-Bass.

Higgins, G.O. (1994). Resilient adults: Overcoming a cruel past. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Jessor, R. (1993). Successful adolescent development among youth in high-risk settings. American Psychologist, 48, 117-126.

Katz, M. (1997). On playing a poor hand well: Insights from

Margaret A. Waller the lives of those who have overcome childhood risks and adversities. New York: Norton.

Kurzman, P.A., & Akabas, S.H. (Eds.). (1993). Work and well- being: The occupational social work advantage. Washing- ton, DC: NASW Press.

Lazarus, R.S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer.

Locke, R.F. (1992). The book of the Navajo. Los Angeles: Mankind Publishing Co.

Luthar, S.S., & Zigler, E. (1991). Vulnerability and compe- tence: A review of research on resilience in childhood. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 61, 6-22.

Matsen, A.S. (1994). Resilience in individual development: Successful adaptation despite risk and adversity. In M. Wang & E. Gordon (Eds.), Risk and resilience in inner city America: Challenges and prospects (pp. 3-25). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Matsen, A.S., Best, K., & Garmezy, N. (1990). Resilience and development: Contributions from the study of children who overcame adversity. Development and Psychopathology, 2, 425-444.

Matsen, A.S., & Coatsworth, J.D. (1998). The development of competence in favorable and unfavorable environments: Lessons from research on successful children. American Psychologist, 53, 205-220.

Matsen, A., Hubbard, J., Gest, S., Tellegen, A., Garmezy, N., & Ramirez, M. (1999). Competence in the context of adver- sity: Pathways to resilience and maladaptation from child- hood to late adolescence. Development and Psychopathol- ogy, 11, 143-169.

Miller, D. (1999). Racial socialization and racial identity: Can they promote resiliency for African American adolescents. Adolescence, 34, 493-501.

Miller, D., & Macintosh, R. (1999). Promoting resilience in urban African American adolescents: Racial socialization and identity as protective factors. Social Work Research, 23, 159-169.

Murphy, L., & Moriarty, A.E. (1976). Vulnerability, coping, and growth: From infancy to adolescence. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Queralt, M. (1996). The social environment and human behav- ior: A diversity perspective. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Rak, C.F., & Lewis, E.P. (1996). Promoting resilience in at- risk children. Journal of Counseling and Development, 74, 368-373.

Richman, J.M., & Bowen, G.L. (1997). School failure an eco- logical-interactional-developmental perspective. In M.W. Fraser (Ed.), Risk and resilience in childhood: An ecologi- cal perspective (pp. 95-116). Washington, DC: NASW Press.

Richmond, M.E. (1917). Social diagnosis. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Rutter, M. (1979). Protective factors in children's responses to

297

stress and disadvantage. In M.W. Kent & J.E. Rolf (Eds.), Primary prevention of psychopathology: Vol. 3. Social competence in children (pp. 49-74). Hanover, NH: Univer- sity Press of New England.

Rutter, M.E. (1987). Psychosocial resilience and protective mechanisms. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 57, 316-331.

Rutter, M.E. (1993). Resilience, some conceptual considera- tions. Journal of Adolescent Health, 14, 626-631.

Rutter, M., & Rutter, M. (1993). Developing minds: Challenge and continuity across the lifespan. New York: Basic Books.

Ryan, W. (1971). Blaming the victim. New York: Vintage Books.

Saleebey, D. (1997). The strengths perspective in social work practice. (2nd ed.). New York: Longman.

Smith, C., & Carlson, B.E. (1997). Stress, coping, and re- silience in children and youth. Social Service Review, 71, 231-256.

Smokowski, P.R. (1998). Prevention and intervention strate- gies for promoting resilience in disadvantaged children. So- cial Service Review, 72, 337-364.

Terr, L. (1990). Too scared to cry. New York: Basic Books. Towle, C. (1945). A social work approach to courses in growth

and behavior. Social Service Review, 34, 402-414. Twente, E.E. (1965). Aging, strength, and creativity. Social

Work, 10, 105-110. Vaillant, G. (1993). The wisdom of the ego: Sources of re-

silience in adult life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Waller, M., & Patterson, S. (in press). Natural helping and re- silience in a Dine (Navajo) community. Families in Society.

Waller, M., Risley-Curtiss, C., Murphy, S., Medill, A., & Moore, G. (1998). Harnessing the positive power of lan- guage: American Indian women, a case example. Journal of Poverty, 2, 63-81.

Walsh, F. (1998). Strengtheningfamily resilience. New York: Guilford Press.

Werner, E., & Smith, R. (1982). Vulnerable but invincible: A study of resilient children. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Werner, E., & Smith, R. (1992). Overcoming the odds. Ithaca, NY: Comell University Press.

White, M., & Epston, D. (1989). Literate means to therapeutic ends. Adelaide, Australia: Dulwich Publications.

Wolin, S.J., & Wolin, S. (1993). The resilient self. How sur- vivors of troubled families rise above adversity. New York: Villard Books.

Wolin, S., & Wolin, S. (1995). Resilience among youth grow- ing up in substance-abusing families. Pediatric Clinics of North America, 42, 415-429.

Yellow Bird, M. (1999). Indian, American Indian, and Native Americans: Counterfeit identities. Winds of Change: Ameri- can Indian Education and Opportunity, 14(1), 86.

For reprints: Margaret Waller, Ph.D., School of Social Work, College of Public Programs, Arizona State University, P.O. Box 871802, Tempe AZ 85286-1802 [E-mail: [email protected]]