lit review resilience theory
TRANSCRIPT
Resilience Theory a Review of Literature:
Considering Unification and Application of Emerging Psychological Trait Theories
Anthony Solina
University of the Pacific
2
Framework and Definitions
This review of literature examines and relates multiple psychological trait theories within
the theoretical framework of “resilience theory,” through reviewing research and program
applications. Psychological (as opposed to biological) resilience, for the purposes of this paper, is
defined as an individual's ability to succeed despite stress and adversity. A “bouncing back”
effect is observed to a state of normal functioning, or simply shows no negative effects (Masten,
1994). While resilience should be understood as a process, and not an individual trait (Rutter,
2008) the resilience theory framework identifies two types of factors, protective and risk, that
either help or hinder success, especially in stressful situations (Masten, 1990; Rutter, 1988;
Anthony, 1974, Gamezy 1974, 1976, 1991). Finally, the question of whether recent findings in
psychological trait theory, such as grit (Duckworth, 2007, 2009) and mindset (Dweck, 2008), are
actually new descriptors for resiliency protective factors.
Rather than identify gaps in the vast literature on resilience research this review focuses
on attempts to apply resilience theory. This is not a comprehensive examination of psychological
resilience. The scope is limited to four constructs: resiliency, self-efficacy, mindset and grit.
Specific focus is on the protective factors of resilience as in applied research of trait teach-ability
and efforts to teach traits as an intervention. Internal factors, as opposed to external factors, are
considered more heavily. I review attempts to promote internal protective factors in vulnerable
populations with this paper. As a practitioner, finding which protective factor can be encouraged
in the school setting is personally relevant.
3
Introduction
The concept of resiliency has been applied to multiple disciplines: engineering,
economics, biology, climate studies, and anthropology (Martin-Breen & Anderies, 2011) this
study focuses on applied psychology. Grit and mindset have garnered popular interest and public
attention recently for their potential applications to improving student outcomes (Hanford, 2012).
Specific interventions that utilize mindset and grit are explored. Thus, if grit and mindset are
applied as interventions for youth at risk (as individual protective factors) the application may
fall within resilience theory.
The aspiration to unlock student potential for future success is alluring, especially in
school reform circles working to close the achievement gap and working against traditional
tracking systems using intelligence, economic status, grades or test scores to unlock latent talent.
Included are historical, psychological and research underpinning of resilience, grit and mindset.
The conclusion will pose three questions for consideration: 1.Whether grit and mindset are
actually two separate protective factors under resilience theory; 2. Can schools promote student
resilience through deliberate interventions; and 3. If grit and mindset are not considered
protective factors will resiliency theory remain relevant?
Resilience Theory: A Historical Perspective
The Problem-Focused Model
Medical, social and behavioral sciences historically followed a problem-focused
approach to studying human development. Diagnose the problem then attempt to alleviate the
pathology. In behavioral science, this was the case almost exclusively until the 1950s. The
“pathology” model examines problems, disease, illness, abnormalities, incompleteness, deviance,
etc. The early emphasis landed on identifying the risk factors of various disorders like
4
alcoholism, schizophrenia and other mental illnesses, criminality, delinquency, etc. (Benard,
1991). Pathological studies do a onetime assessment of adults with these existing identified
problems, a research design perpetuates the problem perspective and identifies inevitable
negative outcomes (Howard, 1999). Also, these studies ultimately provide limited value towards
prevention (Benard, 1992). Concerned with promoting positive, healthy behaviors and
facilitating social competence in children and youth; preventative psychologist took an alternate
course. Garmezy (1974) stated using a pathology model of research, “provided us with a false
sense of security in erecting prevention models that are founded more on values than facts” (in
Werner and Smith, 1982). Finding causality using the pathology model proves problematic for
investigators studying risks for the development of “problem behaviors.” Problem or pathology
model researchers could not determine whether people diagnosed as schizophrenic, criminal, or
alcoholic were observing the causes or consequences of schizophrenia or alcoholism (Breen,
2011). For example, in an alcoholic, are poor problem-solving skills a cause or a result of
drinking?
Identifying Resilience
In the late 1950s, on through the 1970s, researchers refocused, studying individuals
assumed to be “at risk” for developing psychological disorders, namely growing up under
conditions of great stress and adversity such as: neonatal stress, poverty, neglect, abuse, physical
handicaps, war, and parental schizophrenia, depression, alcoholism, and criminality (Garmezy,
1974; Garmezy & Rutter, 1983; Anthony, 1987; Werner & Smith, 1988). Risk based research,
therefore, used a prospective research design, which was developmental and longitudinal,
assessing children at various stages of their development to better understand the nature of the
risk factors in the development of a disorder. As the children studied in these various
5
longitudinal projects grew into adolescence and adulthood, a surprisingly consistent finding
emerged while a certain percentage of these high-risk children developed various problems (a
percentage higher than in the normal population); a greater percentage of the children became
healthy, competent young adults. For example, Manfred Bleuler found that only 9 percent of
children of schizophrenic parents became schizophrenic, while 75 percent developed into healthy
adults. He found “remarkable evidence of strength, courage, and health in the midst of disaster
and adversity” (in Watt, 1984). Similarly, Michael Rutter’s research on children growing up in
poverty found “that half of the children living under conditions of disadvantage do not repeat
that pattern in their own adult lives” (Garmezy, 1991).
Prevention through Protective Factors
In the 1980s, researchers with Risk Reduction Consortium (a collaborative,
interdisciplinary, international group) reported similar findings. The longitudinal study unveiled
children later described as: invulnerable, stress-resistant, hardy, ego-resilient, invincible, and, the
most popular term, resilient, despite severe adversity. The study’s findings span nations and
demographics. Werner, in her study of the children of Kauai, found similar findings where in the
longitudinal study participants were followed into adulthood had “righted” themselves (Werner
1992). Similarly, child development views the human personality as a “self-righting mechanism”
that readily adapts to the environment (Bronfenbrenner, 1974). Research interest now moves
beyond the identification of risk factors for the development of a problem behavior to an
examination of the “protective” factors. In the field of prevention, both research and practice,
progressed in 1980s: from short-term, one-shot, individualized interventions in schools to a
growing awareness of and beginning application of comprehensive, long-term interventions
expanding beyond the school to include the community (Garmezy, 1991). According to
6
Garmezy, “traits, conditions, situation, and episodes, that appear to alter-or even reverse-
predictions of [negative outcome] and enable individuals to circumvent life stressors” (Garmezy,
1991). The importance of this research to the prevention field shows if we can determine the
individual and environmental factors of social competence and wellness, we can better plan
interventions focused on creating and enhancing the attributes that serve as the key to healthy
development. In earlier work Garmezy and Rutter noted, “Ultimately, the potential for
prevention surely lies in increasing our knowledge and understanding of reasons why some
children are not damaged by deprivation” (Garmezy and Rutter, 1983). These are the precepts of
resiliency theory.
Applications of Resilience Theory
Protective Factors
In the mid-1980s researchers start to espouse “preventionists” strategies and programs
based on research identifying the causes of risk factors for problems such as: alcohol, drug
abuse, teen pregnancy, gangs, and dropouts (Hawkins, Lishner, and Catalona, 1985). However,
the identification of risks does not provide a sense of what is needed to reduce those risks. By the
late 80s, “preventionists” first reference protective factors for building resiliency in youth, and
utilizing what research says about environmental factors that facilitate healthy development of
youth (Benard, 1987). The 1990s began with the identification of the need for the
implementation of prevention strategies that strengthen protective factors from families, schools,
and communities. As Gibbs and Bennett (1990) describe the process, we must “turn the situation
around…by translating negative risk factors into positive action strategies” which are, in essence,
protective factors. Self-efficacy, mindset and grit may also be cultivated as protective factors.
7
Over the past four decades the trend has shifted from social emotional and environmental
strategies for building resilience to intrinsic, individualistically identified traits of self-
determination. For the purposes of this review the focus will narrow toward recent intervention
programs have the most direct connection to the school setting; individual protective factors of
the child in the areas of self-actualization, determination, self-concept, and academic habits of
mind. This is not to say environmental protective factors are any less impactful than factors of
the individual, rather it there exists more exhaustive research centered in the risk and protective
factors external of the child and the emerging research recently has turned towards the intrinsic
traits that provide protection for the individual that were previously unidentified under the
resilience theory. Resilience is dynamic based on environment, age, interests, and influences
(Neenan, 2011; Werner & Smith, 1992) not a static resilience can change. Werner and Smith
explain,
“Our findings and those by other American and European investigators with a life-span
perspective suggest that these [protective] buffers make a more profound impact on the
life course of children who grow up under adverse conditions than do specific risk factors
or stressful life events. They appear to transcend ethnic, social class, geographical, and
historical boundaries. Most of all, they offer us a more optimistic outlook than the
perspective that can be gleaned from the literature on the negative consequences of
perinatal trauma, caregiving deficits, and chronic poverty. They provide us with a
corrective lens—an awareness of the self-righting tendencies that move children
toward normal adult development under all but the most persistent adverse
circumstance” (Werner & Smith, 1992, p. 202).
8
Significant work has occurred in the viability deliberately teaching protective factors. Kennedy
(2010). determined that literacy scores increased measurable through developing students’ self-
efficacy through development of their affective as well as cognitive intelligence Similarly, in an
Iowa State study researchers found that through the teaching of stories related to resiliency traits
students of high vulnerability entering into college cited the stories as protective factors for
enduring the struggles of first generation college goers (Meyer, 2008). The curriculum
implemented in the study pushed post-secondary students to understand, internalize, and “try on”
resiliency through Resiliency Development Education (RDE). The qualitative data gathered
supported research discussions that resilience is teachable (Benard, 1993, 2004; Masen, 2001;
Werner & Smith, 1982; Wolin & Wolin, 1993).
Researchers have commonly categorized protective factors according those falling within
the domains of individual personality attributes or dispositions, family characteristics, and
environmental influences (i.e., peers, school, and community); this review will narrow the
discussion to focus on the role the school plays in contributing to protective factors of the
individual. If resiliency is teachable then what current research in individual protective factors
exists, and are these factors operationalized into successful, deliberate intervention programs?
Grit
Fifteen years after Werner and Smith’s work Angela Duckworth’s research on grit found
individuals that demonstrate higher indicators of the personality traits of perseverance and
passion were more likely than their peers to reach success in stressful settings. In West Point
cadets, National Spelling Bee finalists, and Ivy League undergraduates grit serves as a greater
predictor of success than IQ or the Big Give Conscientiousness (Duckworth, 2007). Though this
study neglects use of the term resilience, the study defines grit as “perseverance and passion for
9
long-term goals.” Duckworth explains, “grit entails working strenuously towards challenges,
maintaining effort and interest over years despite failure, adversity and plateaus in progress”
(Duckworth, 2007 p. 1087). The scale for grit was further refined in 2009 to improved reliability
and predictability with fewer questions still focused on stamina of persistence in the area of
interest and effort and compared which of these two factors were more predictive (Duckworth
2009). In a study funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Duckworth and other
researchers will try to understand what predicts college persistence among graduates of several
urban charter school networks (Hanford, 2012). As these charter networks serve mostly students
from low-income and minority families. Because college completion is a challenging experience
for first generation minority students it is likely grit will be a significant factor. In considering
resiliency in relation to grit the question arises whether grit is teachable as a protective factor in
the same way other protective factors have been fostered in the school setting. If indicators from
Dweck’s mindset and the research on promoting other psychological traits through teaching
awareness of such traits then there could be a likelihood that an awareness of grit traits may
promote “grittier” students.
Mindset
Carol Dweck’s research regarding mindset, found intelligence is malleable and concerted
effort results in development of brain connections that allow the learner to overcome difficult
problems (Dweck, 2002). She discussed how students’ theories about intelligence affect their
achievement and motivation. Two views of intelligence: 1. Fixed mindset – intelligence is
something given, a characteristic, and unchangeable. 2. Growth mindset - intelligence is
malleable, can be changed, and increased. Students who believe that intelligence is fixed and
unchangeable tend to believe that failure or even the need to work hard indicates low
10
intelligence. When these students encounter concepts they do not understand immediately,
without effort, they tend to believe that they are incapable of understanding, and they react with
diminished effort.
Blackwell, Trzesniewski and Dweck (2007) expanded Dweck’s original work by
studying students’ theories of intelligence as predictors of achievement across the transition
through junior high school. They found that students who viewed intelligence as malleable—
capable of incremental change—also tended to hold stronger learning goals. Further, their data
showed that students with incremental views of intelligence were less likely to experience the
downward coursework grade trajectories that are typical as students move through their junior
high years. Teaching growth mindset to learners in a fixed mindset increased effort and
perseverance to solve difficult problems to reach a solution.
Dweck set out to examine if the growth mindset could be taught and if it could be taught
would it enhance their motivation and grades (Dweck, 2008). If mindset, grit or any of the other
traits indicating increased protective factors are found not to be teachable then they would serve
only as predictors and essentially useless as intervention applications for helping improve student
outcomes similar to the intent of the Intelligence Quotient. If believed to be unchangeable then it
is unusable as a tool. Dweck and her team developed “Brainology” a set of modules designed to
emphasize the growth mindset, malleable intelligence and the value of effort by teaching
students about how the brain grows connections through hard work (Dweck, 2008). The program
was piloted in 20 New York City schools. The study reported that all student participants were
able to articulate which ways they changed their thinking about their brains and work habits.
Teachers reported changes in their students noting they had become more active and eager
learners (Dweck 2008). She concludes by stating, “no one succeeds in a big way without
11
enormous amounts of dedication and effort” (Dweck 2008, p 7). An evaluation of the long-term
effects of the program has yet to be studied. Were the effects on student grades and motivation
fleeting or transformative? If the goal is lifelong change then larger longitudinal studies should
be conducted.
Both Duckworth and Dweck refer in one way or another to ideas of effort and
determination yet they nor others have extensively explored the relationship between their
findings and the long established resilience theory. Anthony (1987) refers to a “strong sense of
independence” ; Garmezy, Werner and Smith discuss an “internal locus of control” and “sense of
power” (1974 and 1991; 1982); Rutter and Garmezy to “self-esteem” and “self-efficacy” (1984;
1983); and others to “self-discipline” and “impulse control.” Essentially, the protective factor
resiliency researchers are describing: a sense of one’s own identity, an ability to act
independently, to exert some control over one’s environment over time seem amiable to newer
psychosocial theories. I extend that these theories are all actually interrelated and possibly
synonymous with the principles of grit, mindset and self-efficacy. Thus, if these psychological
traits could be enhanced in youth considered in danger of risk factors then grit and mindset are in
effect an aspect of resiliency theory. Stars in figure 1 highlight descriptors of the resiliency
framework that correlate to the concepts embodied by self-efficacy, grit and mindset and even
more closely relate to the intervention programs that attempt to operationalize the research into
practice discussed later in this review.
12
Figure 1 denotes protective factors internal to the student
Figure 1 adapted from Benard in Operation Military Kids. Benard and Henderson (1992) expend
equal time identifying protective factors internal and external of the child where much of the
early research focused almost exclusively on environmental factors external of the child.
Proportionate to the larger body of current research on resiliency equal attention is given to the
family, school and community components of resiliency theory (Benard & Henderson, 1992).
Figure 2 demonstrates the balance of individual characteristics of resilient children versus the
environmental characteristics that provide protective factors. External factors in the school
setting and internal student factors are the most apt to be influenced by school leaders. As a
13
school site principal I identify interventions promoting school environmental protective factors
and individual protective factors. I will report correlations between the program’s research base
and resiliency theory.
Figure 2: Individual and environmental characteristics of resiliency [protective factors]
(Richardson et al., 1991; Werner & Smith, 1992; Higgins, 1994; Wolin & Wolin, 1993).
Individual Characteristics Environmental Characteristics
1. Gives of self in service to others and/or a cause
2. Uses life skills, including good decision-
making, assertiveness, impulse control, and
problem solving*
3. Sociability/ability to be a friend/ability to form
positive relationships*
4. Sense of humor
5. Internal focus of control*
6. Perceptiveness
7. Autonomy/independence*
8. Positive view of personal future*
9. Flexibility*
10. Capacity for and connection to learning*
11. Self-motivation/initiative*
12. Is “good at something”/personal competence
13. Feelings of self-worth and self-confidence*
14. Personal faith in something greater; Spirituality
1. Promotes close bonds
2. Values and encourages education*
3. Uses high warmth/low criticism style of interaction
4. Sets and enforces clear boundaries (rules, norms, and
laws)*
5. Encourages supportive relationships with many caring
others
6. Promotes sharing of responsibilities, service to others,
“required helpfulness”
7. Provides access to resources for meeting basic needs
of housing, employment, health care, and recreation
8. Expresses high, and realistic, expectations for
Success*
9. Encourages goal-setting and mastery*
10. Encourages pro-social development of
Values (such as altruism) and life skills (such as
cooperation)*
11. Provides leadership, decision-making, and
Other opportunities for meaningful participation*
12. Appreciates the unique talents of each individual
14
* Denotes characteristics found in programs considered in this review.
Programs, Initiatives and Interventions Building Resilience
This section of the review will present several different programs that attempt to promote
student success through the attainment of resiliency through predictive factors, self-efficacy, grit,
mindset, or a combination of these. It is important to note that some of the studies cited as
resources about the programs were funded by the program or were studies commissioned by the
program funders. These sources were used primarily for background on the program, details of
the implementation and the range of implementation. This review also drew from the background
research listed in the program’s research references. Reading the program descriptions I refer
back to the previous topics of the interrelatedness between resilience, self-efficacy, grit and
mindset as many of these programs employ different hybrid combinations of each as they
attempt to operationalize the research they cite as validation.
Search Institute
The not-for-profit organization America’s Promise in partnership with Search Institute
developed The Survey of Student Resources and Assets (Bensen, 1993). The goal of this
partnership is to identify the resources and assets, both internal and external serving as protective
factors (though the institute terms them assets) for higher degrees of school success, health, and
positive development. America’s Promise developed five fundamental resources and 40
developmental assets that arm students with protective factors toward overcoming adversity
(Bensen 1990).
The 40 Developmental Assets included in the survey have come under question for being
too far reaching or promoting specific cultural ideals, e.g. the program claims 6th - 12th grade
students with of 31 of the 40 assets are deemed a high predictor of future wellness and successful
15
adulthood (Howard, 1999). This has been a point of criticism as being an arbitrary cut point with
fewer than 20% of students in the large Minnesota study reaching this mark. Another point of
contention is the specificity of some assets such as: one hour of homework each day, three or
more hours of reading for pleasure each week, and one or more hours per week in religious
activity. In an apparent attempt to quantify the assets, the institute has also faced criticism for
some assets appearing culturally biased (Howard, 1999, p.314). Howard et al. worry that, as
presented, the Developmental Asset Survey may “represent the values and aspirations of one
particular social group…” and thus may be “naively promoting the ‘American Dream’.” Gamezy
is quoted along with Benard cautioning against oversimplification of resiliency theory into
another quick-fix strategy (Howard, 1999, p315).
The broad samples of students surveyed (tens of thousands) in the development and the
large implementations a twenty years span may be the 40 Developmental Assets Survey’s best
defense. Many of the assets do closely align with the community, family and school protective
factors of belonging, self-actualization, and positive influences: though, in the survey and
supporting research resilience it is not directly referenced. Finally, according to their website
(http://www.search-institute.org/community) the use of the Developmental Assets Survey is
extensive with over 600 communities across 45 states promoting success through healthy social-
emotional well-being. Similarly, the next program and supporting research explicitly addresses
resiliency theory and attempts to incorporate resiliency research in the lessons taught towards
furtherance of protective factors. Operation: Military Kids integrates the 40 Developmental
Assets into their program but draws together a wide array of other resources (Benard, 1992).
Operation: Military Kids Ready, Set, Go!
16
Autonomy
– Strong sense of independence
– Internal locus of control
– Sense of personal power,
self-esteem, and self-efficacy
– Self-discipline
– Impulse control
– Ability to separate self
from environment
Sense of Purpose
– Healthy expectancies
– Goal-directedness
– Success/achievement
orientation
– Persistence
– Hopefulness
– Hardiness
– Sense of anticipation for compelling future
Recent application of resiliency theory has emerged in dealing with major traumatic
events such as war and natural disasters. In the aftermath of September 11th, resilience found a
new public focus with the intent of providing information to support recovery from the trauma of
terrorism (e.g., American Psychological Association Task Force on Promoting Resilience in
Response to Terrorism; Alpert et al., 2004; Dudley-Grant, Comas-Diaz, Todd-Bazemore, &
Hueston, 2004). Similarly, Bernard (1992) applied resilience to children of military families with
the risk factors associated with moving frequently, living in fear of war and of having loved ones
work in eminent danger. Her work with the Western Center for Drug-Free Schools and
Communities synthesizes several applications of resilience theory into one program. In
Operation: Military Kids Ready, Set, Go! Training Manual, Bernard, in collaboration with Nan
Henderson, present lesson plans with the objective of teaching resiliency. The lessons are drawn
from Resiliency in Action Inc. research combined with published research of other resiliency
thinkers (Werner & Smith, Wolin & Wolin, Gibbs, Rutter & Garmezy, Search Institute,
17
Developmental Research Programs Inc. Figure 3 is a sample from a lesson in Operation: Military
Kids demonstrating descriptions promoting autonomy and a sense of purpose.
Figure 3 Adapted from Ready, Set, Go! Training Manual.
Bolded words from Figure 3 highlight traits similar to the more recent studies of mindset and
grit. It is especially noteworthy to compare Bernard’s citing resiliency theory to describe:
hardiness, sense of purpose, persistence, goal-directed, and self-discipline to Duckworth’s
combined traits of: perseverance and passion. While not exact, many of these words would be
categorized as synonymous. Thus begs the question, is grit simply another team for the
combination of two protective factors of internal resiliency causing a multiplying effect?
Academic Youth Development (AYD)
Recently a number of programs have emerged with the aim of building protective factors
for youth. The University of Texas at Austin in partnership with The Charles Dana Center
developed Academic Youth Development (AYD) to promote a growth mindset and grittiness
amongst students entering into the college gate keeper course Algebra 1. According to the
Charles A. Dana Center and Carnegie Fondation partnership the AYD program seeks to “build
mastery experiences mediated by motivational processes, situated in a social environment, and
sustained by grit, resilience, and self-discipline” (Fong & Asera, 2009, p. 2) . They claim their
framework incorporates psychological research and theories from the 1970s to 2009 including
Bandura’s self-efficacy, alongside grit, resilience and self-discipline informing AYD program
philosophy. Here again, in the operational phase of this program (intending to build student
success through self-actualization) their research explicitly combines key points of grit, mindset
and resilience. Fong & Asera (2009) place grit, resilience and self-discipline in the same heading
relating the work of Duckworth to Masten. AYD has grown rapidly from two schools and 60
18
students to 126 schools and over 4,000 students across 8 states in 2009 (Fong & Asera, 2009).
These students are explicitly taught about the brain science of intelligence malleability in concert
with applying strategies toward math problem-solving.
Responsive Classroom
The Responsive Classroom (RC) approach developed through the Northeast Foundation for
Children, Inc., focuses on building the overall capacity of teachers and thus places a high
demand on fundamental teacher change (Wanless, 2012). Through print materials and 30 hours
of professional development, the RC approach asks teachers to align their beliefs, practices, and
language about children to reflect a teaching philosophy based in developmental psychology.
RC believes by training teachers to implement the program teachers will grow in emotional
support and classroom organization, students will become more motivated and engaged and thus
students will achieve at a higher level (Rimm-Kaufman et al. 2012)
In existence over 20 years this program has been widely used in schools in a variety of
school settings. The RC approach shares features that align closely with psychological resiliency
theory. Protective factors such as social interaction, independence, and safe, productive learning
environments are encouraged through daily meetings (Rimm-Kaufman 2006). The Responsive
Classroom principles give rise to several specific teaching practices that parallel resiliency
theory, including:
Using an approach to devising and reinforcing rules that is developmentally and
individually relevant to the child and teaches responsibility and self-control;
Organizing classrooms Forming school/home partnerships in which teachers invite
parents to share their knowledge of their child, keep them informed about what’s
happening in school, and welcome their presence in the classroom;
19
Introducing classroom materials through Guided Discovery, a format that encourages
children’s excitement about learning and teaches care of materials;
Using Academic Choice, an instructional approach that motivates children and
encourages autonomy by letting them select from among several teacher offered ways to
meet learning goals; children learn a three stage process of planning, working, and
reflecting; and
During the first six weeks of school, taking specific steps to create a climate of warmth
and safety, teach school routines and behavioral expectations for each of them, introduce
school and classroom learning materials and teach students how to use and care for them,
and establish expectations for how children will learn together in the days ahead.
(Northeast Foundation for Children 2006)
Started as a grass roots program in Wisconsin the Responsive Classroom approach has a
surprising number of research studies supporting the work of RC and the proliferation of the
program has steadily grown over the past twenty years.
Self-efficacy and the Efficacy Institute
The roots of resiliency theory and self-efficacy theory took hold simultaneously as
potential preventative responses to the problem-based model in the late 1970s. Self-efficacy can
best be summarized as the ability to self-advocate completing tasks and pursuing goals (Ormrod,
2006). According to Bandura (1977) self-efficacy and motivation originates from four sources:
mastery experiences, vicarious experiences, verbal (social) persuasion, and physiological and
emotional states. Cognitive processes that appraise and attribute information to inform beliefs of
self-efficacy then mediate these four modalities. In a more recent, study Bandura et al. (2001)
determined that self-efficacy beliefs shape a child’s aspirations and ultimately career choices.
20
The mission of the Efficacy Institute is to build self-efficacy in students to ultimately guide them
to successful futures. Their strategy predicates the belief that given the right tools and supports
all students will reach proficiency. “The primary work of caring adults - in schools, families, and
community institutions – [is] to develop the intellectual capacity of every child.” This quote from
the institute’s website rings strongly of influence of resiliency. Focus on building belief
consensus with the adult stakeholders around the goal of proficiency first, then target promotion
of students to be self-aware of their performance to promote acceptance to feedback as a tool for
growth.
Founder and President Dr. Jeff Howard (Ph.D. Social Psychology) employs a theory of
action that students will become motivated when they realize they have control of their own
performance. The Efficacy Institute employs a program called SDIS (Self-Directed Improvement
System) to provide students with a feedback loop for improvement (Feinberg, 2004). The
influence of mindset theory is evident in the institute’s student mantra “think I can, work hard,
get smart”. In Cara Feinberg’s (2004) portrait of Dr. Howard and the Efficacy Institute, she
chronicles how high expectations and mindset are included in the Efficacy Institute’s work yet
no discussion links the work to resiliency. The conflation of efficacy, high expectations,
community buy in, and long-term goal setting are all separate components of resiliency let alone
the combination of all the traits together.
Question of Resiliency
The development of psychological resiliency is closely related to a quest for healthy
human development. As a complexly dynamic process where both individual and environmental
influences interact this review has tried to remain focused on individual factors because they
would appear the most lasting and most teachable by the school site practitioner. Many programs
21
appear to have put resiliency into practice though not all use the exact term. Based on the work
above the following questions remain to be researched and could be addressed further.
1. Can we predict a students’ success by calculating the protective factors a child possesses
subtracted by the number of risk factors?
While true the balance between risk factors -stressful life events, and protective factors
determines the success or failure (Werner and Smith, 1982). Such factors cannot be quantified
simply on the number of risk and protective factors to determine if positives outweigh negatives,
such an equation is absurd (i.e. protective factors – risk factors = success). Human influences and
environments are complex interactions where the severity, frequency, duration, as well as the
timing in life at which stressors occurs dramatically effect impact. Yet, there has been substantial
research demonstrating the predictive capabilities of grit and mindset in anticipating student
success above other measures. “As long as [this] balance between stressful life events and
protective factors is favorable, successful adaptation is possible” (Werner, 1990). This statement
is the foundation of the preventative application of resilience. Conversely, when risk factors
outweigh the protective factors, any, even the most resilient can be derailed. Rutter (1979)
asserts no one is “invulnerable”, every person has a “threshold” beyond which he or she can
“succumb”. “Intervention may be conceived as an attempt to shift the balance from vulnerability
to resilience, either by decreasing exposure to risk factors and stressful life events, or by
increasing the number of available protective factors…in the lives of vulnerable children”
(Werner, 1990). This is the urban reform educators’ goal, to favorably tip the scales of
opportunity for their students. Programs encouraging grit, mindset and resilience seek to do just
that. What combinations of these theories are favorable? A deeper dive of intervention programs
using resilience theory practices could be done to measure generalized outcomes, or a meta-
22
analysis of the programs literature and research could be conducted to further explore areas of
overlap.
2. Can the school setting promote lasting student resilience through deliberate
interventions?
In the school setting, moving the needle from vulnerability to resilience is a function of the
supports provided on campus: academic, social, and emotional. “Individuals who have succeeded
in spite of adverse conditions have because of the support in the form of one family member, one
teacher, one school, one community person that encouraged their success and welcomed their
participation” (Benard, 1992, p.26).
There is a persistent danger in education of oversimplifying the findings into an easy to
package curriculum. The programs reviewed in this paper tended to be more grass roots in their
beginnings, deeply rooted in research, and aligned with resiliency theory. More evaluation is
necessary to evaluate the lifelong lasting benefits of explicit individual protective factor teaching
before proclaiming their success, especially in the more recent grit and mindset. Longitudinal
and/or qualitative studies of students who have participated in interventions promoting grit and
mindset would help build on the quantitative data collected by Duckworth and Dweck.
3. Where does resiliency go from here?
Resilience theory is over 40 years old now and has changed iterations multiple times. Yet,
seems to show a hardiness of its own even today as new findings and applications unfold.
Emerging research is examining if there is a connection between DNA and resiliency (Bazelon,
2006) potentially taking the theory into another new direction. “Tipping the scales toward
resiliency through individual, serendipitous relationships or events is certainly important, the
increasing number of children and families that are experiencing growing numbers of risks due
23
to economic pressures necessitate that as preventionists take an operational system perspective
and intervene with planned environmental strategies to build protection factors into the lives of
all children”(Benard, 1992). Relying merely on serendipity given the urgency of the time in
education simply is not sufficient. Programs were reviewed that attempt to operationalize and
intervene as Benard suggests yet with such widely different definitions behind the same terms
true comparisons become problematic. With grit and mindset, psychosocial research potentially
identified two new protective traits, or they may simply renamed long held protective factors
from the 70s and repackaged them for the millennial generation.
REFERENCES
Anthony, E.J. (1974) The syndrome of the psychological invulnerable child. In The Child in His
Family, Vol. 3: Children at Psychiatric Risk, ed. by E. J. Anthony. New York: John
Wiley and Sons, 1974, 529-544.
Bazelon, E. (2006). A question of resilience. The New York Times, 1-8.
Benard, B. Protective factor research: what we can learn from resilient children. Illinois
Prevention Forum 7(3), March 1987.
Benard, B., & Western Center for Drug-Free Schools and, C. s. (1991). Fostering Resiliency in
Kids: Protective Factors in the Family, School, and Community.
Benson, P. L. (1993). The Troubled Journey: A Portrait of 6th-12th Grade Youth.
Benson, P. L. (1990). Profiles of Student Life: Attitude and Behaviors. Search Institute,
Minneapolis, MN.
Blackwell, L. S., Trzesniewski, K. H., & Dweck, C. S. (2007). Implicit theories of intelligence
24
predict achievement across an adolescent transition: A longitudinal study and an
intervention. Child Development, 78(1), 246-263. Center, C. A. D. Psychosocial Theories
to Inform a New Generation of Student Support
Structures for Learning Mathematics.
C. A. D. Center. Psychosocial Theories to Inform a New Generation of Student Support
Structures for Learning Mathematics.
Duckworth, A. L., Peterson, C., Matthews, M. D., & Kelly, D. R. (2007). Grit: perseverance and
passion for long-term goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology; Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 92(6), 1087.
Duckworth, A. L., & Quinn, P. D. (2009). Development and validation of the Short Grit
Scale (GRIT–S). Journal of Personality Assessment, 91(2), 166-174.
Dweck, C. S. (2008). Brainology: Transforming students' motivation to learn. Independent
school, 67(2), 110-119.
Edmonds, Ron. Characteristics of effective schools. In The School Achievement of Minority
Children: New Perspectives. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1986, 93–104.
Feinberg, C. (2004). The possible dream: A nation of proficient school children. Retrieved
December, 15, 2008.
Garmezy, N. (1974) The study of competence in children at risk for severe psychopathology. In
The Child in His Family, Vol. 3: Children at Psychiatric Risk, ed. by R.J. Anthony, 1974,
77–98.
Garmezy, N. (1976). Vulnerable and invulnerable children: theory, research, and intervention /
Norman Garmezy. Washington : Journal Supplement Abstract Service of the American
Psychological Association.
25
Garmezy, N. (1991) Resiliency and vulnerability to adverse developmental outcomes associated
with poverty. American Behavioral Scientist, 34(4), March/ April 1991, 416–430.
Hanford, E. (2012, October). How Important is Grit in Student Achievement? Retrieved from
http://blogs.kqed.org/mindshift/2012/10/ho-important-is-grit-in-student-achievement/
Higgens, Catherine. Youth Motivation: At-Risk Youth Talk to Program Planners. Philadelphia:
Public/Private Ventures, Summer, 1988.
Howard, S., Dryden, J., & Johnson, B. (1999). Childhood resilience: Review and critique of
literature. Oxford Review of education, 25(3), 307-323.
Luthar, S. S., Cicchetti, D., & Becker, B. (2003). The construct of resilience: A critical
evaluation and guidelines for future work. Child development, 71(3), 543-562.
Martin-Breen, P., Anderies, J. (2011) Resilience: A Literature Review. The Rockefeller
Foundation, New York.
Masten, 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.
Masten, A. S., Best, K. M., & Garmezy, N. (1990). Resilience and development: Contributions
from the study of children who overcome adversity. Development and psychopathology,
2(4), 425-444.
Moskovitz, S. Love Despite Hate: Child Survivors of the Holocaust and Their Adult Lives. New
York: Schocken, 1983.
Noddings, Nel. Schools face crisis in caring. Education Week, December 7, 1988.
Ormrod, J. E. (2006). Educational psychology: Developing learners (5th ed.). Upper Saddle
River, N.J.: Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall.
26
Richardson, Jean et al. Substance use among 8th-grade students who take care of themselves.
Pediatrics 84(3), September 1998, 556-566.
Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., Fan, X., Chiu, Y. J., & You, W. (2007). The contribution of the
Responsive Classroom Approach on children's academic achievement: Results from a
three year longitudinal study. Journal of School Psychology, 45(4), 401-421.
Rimm-Kaufman, S. E. (2006). Social and Academic Learning Study on the Contribution of the
Responsive Classroom® Approach. Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia, Curry
School of Education and Center for Advanced Study of Teaching and Learning. Retrieved
July, 9, 2007.
Rutter, M. (1988) Protective factors in children’s responses to stress and disadvantage. In
Primary Prevention of Psychopathology, Vol. 3: Social Competence in Children, ed. by
M. W. Kent and J. E.
Rutter, M. (1984) Resilient children. Psychology Today, March 1984, 57–65.
Rutter, M. (2008). Developing concepts in developmental psychopathology. In J.J. Hudziak
(ed.), Developmental psychopathology and wellness: Genetic and environmental
influences (pp.3-22). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Publishing.
Rutter, Michael et al. Fifteen Thousand Hours. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1979.
Sameroff, Arnold et al. The early development of children born to mentally ill women. In
Children At Risk for Schizophrenia: A Longitudinal Perspective, ed. by Norman Watt et
al., 1984, 482–514.
Scales, P. C. (2000). Building students' developmental assets to promote health and school
27
success. The Clearing House, 74(2), 84-88.
Wanless, S. B., Patton, C. L., Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., & Deutsch, N. L. (2012). Setting-Level
Influences on Implementation of the Responsive Classroom Approach. Prevention
Science, 1-12.
Werner, Emmy and Ruth Smith. Vulnerable But Invincible: A Longitudinal Study of Resilient
Children and Youth. New York: Adams, Bannister, and Cox, 1989 (1st edition 1982).
Werner, Emmy. High-risk Children in young adulthood: a longitudinal study from birth to 32
years. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 59, 1989, 72–81.
Williams, N., Developing Resilience: A Cognitive-Behavioural Approach. (2012). Occupational
Medicine, 62(5), 391.
Work, William et al. Stress resilient children in an urban setting. Journal of Primary Prevention
11(1), 1990, 3–17.
Ziegler, Suzanne, Noreen Hardwick, and Glenys McCreath. Academically successful inner-city
children: what they can tell us about effective education. Paper presented at Society for
Applied Anthropology Annual Conference, Santa Fe, NM, April 5-9, 1989.