The Metatheory of Resilience and Resiliency

Glenn E. Richardson
University of Utah

Resiliency and resilience theory is presented as three waves of resiliency

inquiry. The identification of resilient qualities was the first wave charac-
terized through phenomenological identification of developmental assets
and protective factors. The second wave described resilience as a disrup-
tive and reintegrative process for accessing resilient qualities. The third
wave exemplified the postmodern and multidisciplinary view of resilience,
which is the force that drives a person to grow through adversity and
disruptions. Application of resilience using an educational and practical
framework provides a means for connecting with and nurturing a client’s
resilience. Practical paradigms of resiliency that empower client control
and choice are suggested. © 2002 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Clin Psychol
58: 307–321, 2002.

Keywords: resilience theory; resiliency theory; resiliency process; resilient

qualities; resiliency applications; resilience applications

A review of recent articles in the Journal of Clinical Psychology reveals that, for the most
part, interventions and inquiry focus on examining the nature and cure of varied disor-
ders. The postmodern or new science movement lends insights into alternative approaches
to therapy and education with new directions into helping. The paradigm shift from a
reductionistic, problem-oriented approach to nurturing strengths is a prevalent theme
across academic disciplines and the helping professions. Resiliency and resilience have
emerged as intriguing areas of inquiry that explore personal and interpersonal gifts and
strengths that can be accessed to grow through adversity.
For some, the metatheory of resilience and resiliency may catch the reader off guard
because it is not a problem-oriented theory. For others, the metatheory may be something
that provides a needed paradigm to incorporate postmodern thinking. Hopefully, it will
give some freedom for practitioners to explore “spiritual” origins of issues that consum-
ers are becoming so attuned to as evidenced by popular books and themes on talk shows.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to: Glenn E. Richardson, Department of Health
Promotion and Education, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84112.

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY, Vol. 58(3), 307–321 (2002)

© 2002 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. DOI: 10.1002/jclp.10020
308 Journal of Clinical Psychology, March 2002

Resilience and resiliency theory may help to promote healing at a deeper, softer, yet more
efficacious level.
Many resiliency-based research projects and training programs have been reported
for over a decade (Benard, 1997). An article elucidating the nature and applications of
resilience and resiliency theory is overdue. The purpose of this article is to describe the
postulates of resilience and resiliency theory that provide a framework upon which inter-
ventions and research can be grounded. The intent also is to suggest applications of
resiliency theory for research and interventions.

The Three Waves of Resiliency Inquiry

Resiliency inquiry did not emerge from academic grounding in theory, but rather through
the phenomenological identification of characteristics of survivors, mostly young people,
living in high-risk situations. Table 1 describes briefly the three waves of resiliency
inquiry. The first wave of resiliency inquiry was in response to the question, What char-
acteristics mark people who will thrive in the face of risk factors or adversity as opposed
to those who succumb to destructive behaviors? Most of the resiliency literature is a quest
to describe those internal and external resilient qualities that help people to cope with or
“bounce back” in the wake of high-risk situations or after setbacks. The list of resilient
qualities represented the outcome of the first wave of resilient inquiry.
The second wave of resiliency inquiry was a pursuit to discover the process of attain-
ing the identified resilient qualities. Resiliency then became defined as the process of
coping with adversity, change, or opportunity in a manner that results in the identifica-
tion, fortification, and enrichment of resilient qualities or protective factors. Resiliency
theory is based upon the resiliency model (Richardson, Neiger, Jensen, & Kumpfer, 1990)
described later in this article.

Table 1
Three Wave of Resiliency Inquiry

Description Outcome

First Wave: Phenomenological descriptions of List of qualities, assets, or protective

Resilient Qualities resilient qualities of individuals and
support systems that predict social and
personal success.
Second Wave: Resiliency is the process of coping
The Resiliency Process with stressors, adversity, change, or
opportunity in a manner that results in
the identification, fortification, and
enrichment of protective factors.
Third Wave: Postmodern multidisciplinary
Innate Resilience identification of motivational forces
within individuals and groups and the
creation of experiences that foster the
activation and utilization of the forces.
factors that help people grow through
adversity (i.e., self-esteem,
self-efficacy, support systems, etc.)
Describes the disruptive and
reintegrative process of acquiring the
desired resilient qualities described in
the first wave; A model that helps
clients and students to chose between
resilient reintegration, reintegration
back to the comfort zone, or
reintegration with loss.
Helps clients and students to discover
and apply the force that drives a
person toward self-actualization and to
resiliently reintegrate from disruptions.
 Metatheory of Resilience and Resiliency 309

The third wave of resiliency inquiry resulted in the concept of resilience. It became
clear that in the process of reintegrating from disruptions in life, some form of motiva-
tional energy was required. Resilience theory will be described in this article as the
motivational force within everyone that drives them to pursue wisdom, self-actualization,
and altruism and to be in harmony with a spiritual source of strength. Both resilience and
resiliency are metatheories providing an umbrella for most psychological and educational
theories. A more thorough look at each of the waves of resiliency inquiry follows.

Resilient Qualities: A Phenomenological View

From a historical view, the first wave of resiliency inquiry focused on the paradigm shift
from looking at the risk factors that led to psychosocial problems to the identification of
strengths of an individual (Benson, 1997). The character, trait, or situational premise of
resiliency is that people possess selective strengths or assets to help them survive adver-
sity. Whether resilient qualities are learned or are part of one’s genetic nature is a com-
mon debate among helping professionals, but clarified in resilience theory. These resilient
characteristics have been referred to as protective factors or developmental assets.
The foundational study cited in most of the resiliency literature was a venture accom-
plished by Emmy Werner (1982) and her colleague, R. Smith (Werner & Smith, 1992),
who reported the longitudinal findings of a community after studying their children for
30 years. She began the study in 1955, looking at a multiracial population of children
designated to be at high risk due to four major categories of environmental factors. Approx-
imately 200 of the total 700 children were at risk because of perinatal stress, poverty,
daily instability, and serious parental mental health problems. Werner found that 72 of the
200 children were doing very well despite the risk factors. Werner categorized the resil-
ient qualities that helped these young people to be competent in the face of high-risk
environments. Werner’s phenomenology included personal characteristics such as being
female, robust, socially responsible, adaptable, tolerant, achievement oriented, a good
communicator, and having good self-esteem. She also noted that a caregiving environ-
ment both inside and outside the family helped young people thrive in the face of adversity.
British psychiatrist Michael Rutter (1979, 1985) conducted a series of epidemiolog-
ical studies on inner-city London youth and on the rural island of Wight. He found that
one quarter of the children were resilient even though they may have experienced many
risk factors. Some of the resilient qualities that Rutter identified were easy temperament,
being female, a positive school climate, self-mastery, self-efficacy, planning skills, and a
warm, close, personal relationship with an adult.
Norman Garmezy (1991) and colleagues (Garmezy, Masten, & Tellegen, 1984) con-
ducted the Minnesota Risk Research Project, which investigated intentional and
informational-processing dysfunction in children of schizophrenic parents from 1971 to
1982. He found that most children did not become maladaptive adults, but grew up to be
warm and competent people. Garmezy’s confident criteria were effectiveness (work, play,
and love), high expectancies, positive outlook, self-esteem, internal locus of control,
self-discipline, good problem-solving skills, critical thinking skills, and humor. Garmezy’s
triad of resiliency included the personality disposition, a supportive family environment,
and an external support system.
Under the direction of Peter Benson (1997), the Search Institute conducted surveys
of more than 350,000 6th- to 12th-grade students in some 600 communities between the
years 1990 and 1995. They first identified 30 developmental assets that youth have to
function optimally in life. After continued studies, 40 developmental assets were identi-
fied. Youth assets are grouped as external, receiving support (family, adults, neighbor-
310 Journal of Clinical Psychology, March 2002

hoods, and schools), feeling a sense of empowerment (valuing), knowing boundaries and
expectations, and finding a constructive use of time. Internal youth assets included edu-
cational commitment (achievement motivation), positive values (caring, honesty, respon-
sibility, and integrity), social competencies, and a positive identity (self-esteem, sense of
purpose, and internal control).
After an exhaustive review of the literature, Bernard (1997) stated, “when tracked
into adulthood, research worldwide has documented the amazing finding that at least
50% and usually closer to 70% of these ‘high-risk’ children grow up to be not only
successful by societal indicators but confident, competent, and caring” (p. 2).
More recently, resilient qualities have been identified in the field of positive psychol-
ogy (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). Articles have emerged that described the
strengths, characteristics, and virtues indicative of states of mental health, vitality, and
resilience. A special issue of the American Psychologist described optimal characteristics
and states or what is termed in this article, resilient qualities. The resilient qualities
described with rich detail included happiness (Buss, 2000), subjective well-being (Diener,
2000), optimism (Peterson, 2000), faith (Myers, 2000), self-determination (Ryan & Deci,
2000; Schwartz, 2000), wisdom (Baltes & Staudinger, 2000), excellence (Lubinski &
Benbow, 2000), and creativity (Simonton, 2000). More recently, the Journal of Social
and Clinical Psychology had a special issue that focused on strengths, virtues, and pos-
itive characteristics (McCullough & Snyder, 2000). The resilient qualities described
included morality and self-control (Baumeister & Exline, 2000), gratitude (Emmons &
Crumpler, 2000), forgiveness (McCullough, 2000), dreams (Snyder & McCullough, 2000),
hope (Snyder, 2000), and humility (Tangney, 2000).
The invaluable contributions of the first wave of resiliency inquiry helped identify
resilient qualities that help people recover from adversity. The list of traits, states, char-
acteristics, conditions, and virtues in the literature is exhaustive, and the resulting para-
digm shift from the identification of risk factors to the nurturing of personal strengths has
been significant. With the identification of assets, some teachers reacted by trying to
teach the resilient qualities in a vacuum. Self-esteem or self-efficacy educational pack-
ages emerged that were coupled with an endorsement for supportive environments with-
out an overriding theory of how people actually improve their self-esteem or any of the
other resilient qualities.

Resiliency Theory: The Process

The second wave of resiliency inquiry was an attempt to answer the question, How are
the resilient qualities acquired? Flach (1988, 1997) suggested that resilient qualities are
attained through a law of disruption and reintegration. A more detailed process of access-
ing resilient qualities as a function of conscious or unconscious choice was proposed by
Richardson et al. (1990). For educational purposes and counseling clients, resiliency is
presented as a simple linear model that depicts a person (or group) passing through the
stages of biopsychospiritual homeostasis, interactions with life prompts, disruption, readi-
ness for reintegration and the choice to reintegrate resiliently, back to homeostasis, or
with loss. The resiliency model (Figure 1) is a means whereby people, through planned
disruptions or reacting to life events, have the opportunity to choose consciously or
unconsciously the outcomes of disruptions. Resilient reintegration refers to the reintegra-
tive or coping process that results in growth, knowledge, self-understanding, and increased
strength of resilient qualities.
The description of resiliency begins with any point in time when a person has adapted
to her/his situation in life. The term “biopsychospiritual homeostasis” is used to describe
 Metatheory of Resilience and Resiliency 311

Figure 1. The Resiliency Model.

this adapted state of mind, body, and spirit. The issues of adaptation, wholeness, and
interdependence of mental, physical, and spiritual dimensions of living can become as
complex as the reader cares to make, but for clients, an understanding of the model
accords choice and control. Biopsychospiritual homeostasis is a point in time when one
has adapted physically, mentally, and spiritually to a set of circumstances whether good
or bad. Clients call this a comfort zone, which may be a misnomer in that adaptation may
be anything but comfortable.
Biopsychospiritual homeostasis is routinely bombarded with internal and external
life prompts, stressors, adversity, opportunities, and other forms of change. The sources
may originate externally with resultant perceptions of seriousness or internally from
thoughts and feelings. The stimuli can be new bits of information, new experiences, or
recurring thoughts or feelings. Perceived seriousness of prompts depends upon resilient
qualities and previous resilient reintegrations.
To cope with life prompts, humans cultivate, through previous disruptions, resilient
qualities so that most events become routine and less likely to be disruptive. People learn
to drive, make a living, make a meal, and take care of personal needs without significant
disruptions. Chronic stressors befall people when they do not develop resilient qualities
or have not grown through the disruptions in their life. New life prompts also may cause
disruptions.
The interaction between the life prompts and protective factors determines whether
disruptions will occur. Resilient qualities are shown on the model as up arrows effec-
tively dealing with the life prompt and maintaining homeostasis. Clients tend to cling to
their “comfort zones.” Unprotected life prompts are thoughts, feelings, and experiences
that have not been experienced before or perhaps experienced without resulted growth or
the development of resilient qualities to deal with the specific disruptor. Disruptions
mean that an individual’s intact world paradigm is changed and may result in perceived
negative or positive outcomes. It means that a new piece of life’s puzzle is there to
potentially add to an individual’s view of the world. To add to the piece of the puzzle, the
pieces of one’s paradigms that are affected by the new piece fall apart, thereby allowing
the new piece to be incorporated into the world view. Being offered a new job or suddenly
being courted by a romantic interest are disruptive because they represent change—even
though they are anticipated changes to one’s world view. Reactive disruptions also may
312 Journal of Clinical Psychology, March 2002

include undesirable prompts such as losing a job, arguing, or a minor accident. Planned
disruptions are individual-calculated actions such as getting married, going to school, or
changing jobs. Almost all, if not all, disruptions have an potential for growth.
Disruptions result in primary emotions that potentially lead to introspection. Hurt,
loss, guilt, fear, perplexity, confusion, and bewilderment are some common primary emo-
tions that surface in the immediate wake of disruption. This is the “poor me” stage of the
resiliency process and an opportunity for helpers to listen and sympathize. For antici-
pated change, the emotions may revolve around the self-doubt or questioning of ability to
learn new skills associated with the change.
With the passing of time and adaptation, the question, What am I going to do? con-
sciously or subconsciously emerges, which begins the reintegration process. A person can
reintegrate resiliently, attempt to return to biopsychospiritual homeostasis, reintegrate
with loss, or dysfunctionally reintegrate.
Resilient reintegration is to experience some insight or growth through disruptions.
The process is an introspective experience in identifying, accessing, and nurturing resil-
ient qualities. Resilient reintegrations result in the identification or strengthening of resil-
ient qualities. In the resiliency model, it is visualized for clients as additional protective
arrows dealing with life stressors.
People cling to their “comfort zones” and may turn down opportunities for growth to
avoid disruptions. The essence of reintegration back to homeostasis is to heal and “just
get past” a disruption. Reintegration back to biopsychospiritual homeostasis in some
cases may not be an option in situations such as some permanent physical loss, moving,
or death of a loved one.
Recovering with loss means that people give up some motivation, hope, or drive
because of the demands from life prompts. Dysfunctional reintegration occurs when peo-
ple resort to substances, destructive behaviors, or other means to deal with the life prompts.
Most people who reintegrate dysfunctionally have blind spots in their introspective skills
and require therapy to fill the holes. Space does not allow for elaboration on all facets of
the resiliency model, but some key consumer elucidations are:

1. The simplistic linear model only reflects one event as it pertains to a particular
role, relationship, or experience. There are multiple disruptive and reintegrative
ongoing growth opportunities that may be happening simultaneously.
2. The resiliency process may take place in a matter of seconds, for minor new
pieces of information, to years to adapt to traumatic events.
3. Without resilient reintegration in the wake of disruptions, life prompts will con-
tinue to disrupt because people have not acquired resilient qualities.
4. The resiliency process applies to individuals, couples, families, schools, commu-
nities, and other groups.
5. Resilient reintegration may be postponed. For example, some people may expe-
rience a disruption such as abuse as a child and reintegrate with loss (angry and
distrusting) and years later be disrupted by therapy and resiliently reintegrate
using adult coping skills.
6. Disruption is required to access the components of innate resilience because biop-
sychospiritual homeostasis makes no demands for improvement and growth.
7. The value in therapy and education is that clients can visually recognize that they
have choices to grow, recover, or lose in the face of disruptions.
 Metatheory of Resilience and Resiliency 313

Life progression is a function of repeated resilient reintegrations that result from

planned and reactive disruptions. Life stagnation is a function of clinging to homeostasis
and getting past experiences rather than growing from them. Life digression is chronic
reintegration with loss.
One postulate of resiliency theory is that individuals are genetically predisposed with
greater potentials that are generally manifest through the conscious mind. The means to
access those potentials is through the disruptive resiliency process. Validation using struc-
tural equations modeling of resilient qualities in the resiliency model has been performed
on women (Dunn, 1994), adult children of alcoholics (Walker, 1996), and university
students (Neiger, 1991). Dunn’s study is particularly fascinating in that the mental and
physical predictors of resilient reintegration paled compared to “spiritual” measures. Spir-
itual measures included purpose of life, locus of control, religiousness/belief in a higher
power, creativity, humor, and affect.
The resiliency movement has augmented the meaning of the term resilience and
resilient reintegration to mean growth or adaptation through disruption rather than to just
recover or bounce back. Most readers will see that resiliency is a metatheory that encom-
passes many theories, from Piaget to Kohlberg.

Third Wave: Resilience Theory

Resilient reintegration requires increased energy to grow, and the source of the energy,
according to resiliency theory, is a spiritual source or innate resilience. It is with some
hesitancy that a discussion of the third wave be presented here because it opens the doors
to a vast diversity of opinion, skepticism, and perspective. Ken Wilber (1996a, 1996b,
1998), who writes across the disciplines of philosophy, physics, anthropology, psychol-
ogy, sociology, and theology, masterfully describes the views of life from a multidimen-
sional hierarchy entitled “the great chain of being.” The great chain of being is viewed as
a core of matter (physics) with successive circular and interdependent layers described as
life (biology), mind (psychology), soul (theology), and spirit (mysticism). Resilience
metatheory embraces the varied academic paradigms, but poses a semantical challenge
despite common foundational principles. The primary common paradigm is that humans,
as well as other living things, have energy or resilience.
A succinct statement of resilience theory is that there is a force within everyone that
drives them to seek self-actualization, altruism, wisdom, and harmony with a spiritual
source of strength. This force is resilience, and it has a variety of names depending upon
the discipline. Supportive of resilience as a force, Werner and Smith (1992) referred to
resilience as an innate “self-righting mechanism” (p. 202), and Lifton (1994) identified
resilience as the human capacity of all individuals to transform and change—no matter
their risks. As the academic world marches into a postmodern era, or as some call “the
new science,” it is intriguing to see the merging of thoughts and ideas. Postmodernism
has multiple meanings for disciplines, but this movement most notably transcends the
barriers that have caused academic disciplines to work in isolation. The resiliency move-
ment is representative of how an interdisciplinary exchange and inquiry can help under-
stand where and how we can access the motivation and drive to grow through adversity.
The questions that led to the third wave of resiliency inquiry were, What and where
is the energy source or motivation to reintegrate resiliently? Pondering the answers to
these third wave questions has led the inquirers to realize that the third wave is really the
oldest wave, and the answers to these questions may have centuries-old foundations.
Supporting postulates of resilience theory are described next. The controlling or
driving force toward self-actualization is described in varied disciplines resulting in seman-
314 Journal of Clinical Psychology, March 2002

tical and panoramic variations. Persuasive disciplines that lend insights into the nature of
resilience include psychoneuroimmunology, philosophy, physics, psychology, Eastern
medicine, and neuroscience, among others.

Postulate 1: A Source for Actuating Resilience Comes from One’s Ecosystem

The View from Physics. From post-Newtonian thinking emerged quantum physics,
which theorizes sources of resilience. Einstein proposed his macro theory of relativity
wherein he suggested that, at the subatomic level of life, matter and energy are equivalent
as evident in his famous formula E 5 MC 2 . These energy units come from the sun, the
oscillations from the earth, plant life, light, music, animals, humans, and other forms of
living and nonliving things. Neils Bohr (1987) spoke of the free exchange of energy
between life forms at the subatomic level of life by articulating “the incessant exchange
of matter which is inseparably connected with life . . . implies the impossibility of regard-
ing an organism as a well-defined system of material particles. . . .”
The quanta of energy do not seem to be continuous, but come in small discrete units
and behave both like particles and waves. Quanta seem to have an intelligence of their
own because their movement and effect are random as per Heisenberg’s (1958) Uncer-
tainty Relation. Quanta fill the immensity of the atmosphere as well as within each habi-
tant of the world. Einstein observed that “matter and energy are equivalent to and
interchangeable with each other” and “there are no absolute particles but that all matter is
fluid and plastic” (Pelletier, 1992). The interdependent systems within the body suggest
that bone, blood, tissue, thoughts, and feelings at the subatomic level are equivalent and
interchangeable with each other.
At the personal experiential level, individuals who may be experiencing some phys-
ical distress such as headaches, fatigue, or minor aches and pains may suddenly experi-
ence the elimination of the discomfort upon exposure to an external source of energy or
perceived energy. The energizing that comes from a surprise visit of a loved one, stepping
into a beautiful natural setting, receipt of an unexpected large amount of money, or receiv-
ing exciting news may have powerful healing effects and eliminate the minor physical
ailments.
The more that physicists seem to learn, the more they allude to a driving force that
controls the universe. In this article, it is called resilience. Einstein observed that spirit is
manifest in the laws of the universe. Hawking (1998) also asserted, “To confine our
attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit . . . even if there is only
one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes
fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?” (p. 174). From phys-
ics, we learn that it is quanta that is the energy required for resilient reintegration.

The View from Eastern Medicine. Western medicine is fascinated by Eastern medi-
cine’s methods of healing. Lao-tzu (1990), in 500 bc, used the word “Tao” to describe the
movement, path, or way of universal energy. Taoism suggests that all things connect with
a flow of energy termed chi. Only when peace is created within oneself can a person
move in tandem with the energies that circulate within and around that person. To move
along with the patterns of flow allows a peaceful coexistence with both oneself and the
environment. Movement against the flow causes internal as well as external disturbances.

Influence of the Belief in God or Creative Force. Resilience is about discovering

motivational centers in clients, and from a client’s paradigm; most believe that their
strength comes from their God or a creative force. With the spiritual renaissance occur-
 Metatheory of Resilience and Resiliency 315

ring with much of society as evidenced in the self-help sections of book stores or on the
“Oprah Winfrey television shows of the world,” it behooves helpers to use the postulates
of resilience to ground spiritual beliefs. Most theological beliefs reflect a faith in the
power and influence of a person’s God or creative force. Having such a faith in those
forces fortifies the immune system of the body in addition to increasing self-efficacy and
other resilient qualities. Ken Wilber (1996a) succinctly stated, “The vast majority of the
great philosophers of the west have maintained that there does indeed exist some sort of
Absolute, from the good to God to Geist.”
In summary, the first resilience postulate is that ecological sources provide or trigger
resilience in people. The energy or force that drives a person from survival to self-
actualization may be called quanta, chi, spirit, God, or resilience.

Postulate 2: Resilience Is a Capacity in Every Soul

Before justifying the presence of resilience within everyone, the term “soul” in this pos-
tulate requires some clarification. The term “psyche” as a prefix in psychology has evolved
into meaning “mind” but its Greek origins mean “soul.” Psychology perhaps should
mean, “the study of the soul.” Maslow (1971) predicted a “Fourth Force” in psychology
which is the field of transpersonal psychology. The first force in psychology was psycho-
analysis, the second behaviorism, and the third force was humanism. Transpersonal psy-
chology implies meaning and understanding beyond the ego. The integrated, whole, and
interdependent functions of body, mind, and spirit (resilience) in each person and their
ecosystem help to clarify the term soul (Moore, 1994). In resilience theory, soul refers to
the whole integrated being of an individual with one’s transpersonal nature or human
spirit as the primary guiding force of the system. Noble laureate Roger Sperry explains:
Consciousness is an emergent property of a whole system that cannot be predicted by its
parts . . . mental and spiritual forces be reinstated at the top of the brain’s causal control
hierarchy . . . and is given primacy in determining what we are and what we do (Pelletier,
1992, p. xxvii).

Western mechanistic reasoning would visualize the function of the human system as
a person feeling spiritual prompts that bubble up from one’s resilient nature, with the
mind recognizing, interpreting, and putting meaning to the prompts. Actions or behaviors
result as a synergistic experience of the entire soul—body, mind, and human spirit.
To help understand the mechanics of the process for accessing energy sources (chi,
quanta, resilience) from one’s ecological system, insights into the reception have been
recently described. Candace Pert (1997) discovered opiate receptor sites for the cells of
the body. These receptor sites are sensitive to information transfer molecules called
ligands—in particular, the information messengers called neuropeptides. Ligands is a
term used for any natural or artificially made substance that binds selectively to its own
specific receptor on the surface of a cell. As quanta (oscillations or particles) bombard
the human organism, senses collect and interpret these vibrations, and consciously and
unconsciously humans form or modify neuropeptides. These chameleonlike neuropep-
tides, as well as the receptor cites, are morphologically active as they wiggle, shake,
and change colors depending upon the meaning and impact of the originating internal or
external oscillating source. Neuropeptides diffuse throughout the body looking for cells
with receptor cites that are keyholed to receive the selective peptide. Upon mounting
the cell, the peptide sends information deep within the cell to change its nature and
function. The neuropeptides are the messengers of a system-wide information system.
316 Journal of Clinical Psychology, March 2002

They can energize, depress, speed up, or slow down the system. The entire soul expe-
riences the message of the “spiritual” source of strength. Messenger neuropeptides are
formed through feelings, music, light, the earth, and all living things, and as some would
argue, nonliving things. Pert (1997) summarized the process: If the cell is the engine
that drives all life, then the receptors are the buttons on the control panel of that engine,
and a specific peptide (or other kind of ligand) is the finger that pushes that button
and gets things started. The discovery of the neuropeptides has greatly enhanced the
understanding of the function of feelings, thoughts, and the physical condition (Foss,
1999).
Quantum mechanics and the new physics support the neuropeptide function. When
thoughts and feelings occur, energy is transmitted throughout the entire body, mind, and
spirit. This becomes the basis of systems theory, which describes the interdependence of
all systems of human existence both personally and as a community.

Psychoneuroimmunology

The application of the phenomenon can be seen in medicine. Human essence is the ratio-
nale that explains the variation in healing time among people with common ailments.
When Ader, Felton, and Cohen (1991) discovered a nervous connection between the
brain and the immune system, the field of psychoneuroimmunology was born. Sub-
sequent studies have shown that people who are optimistic, hopeful, engaged in a cause,
and do not have time to be ill have high immune levels. Reflecting upon Pert’s functional
description of neuropeptides, optimism and hopefulness are translated into oscillations
that fortify human cells. Those that perceive themselves as helpless, hopeless, and depressed
have a weaker immune system as evidenced by counting the number of macrophages,
lymphocytes, helper T cells, natural killer cell activity, immunoglobulin A, antibodies,
and interferon. Negative emotional states send out different types of neuropeptides and
weaken the cells.
As patients become hopeful when entering clinical trials of new medicines, the pla-
cebo effect “cures” a great number of patients if their faith in the drug is substantial
(Ader, 2000; Brody & Brody, 2000; Wickramasekera, 2000). It also is fascinating to see
how people with multiple personality disorder and also chronic diseases such as arthritis,
diabetes, or other autoimmune disorders switch personalities and the symptoms of these
disorders become minimized in the new personality and return with the original person-
ality (Seaward, 1999, p. 49). The introduction of vibrational medicine (Gerber, 2000) and
numerous other complementary and alternative healing therapies (Pelletier, 2000) that
give people hope, faith, and optimism result in better well-being.
The never-ending journey into the vast array of complementary medicines, healings,
therapies, and philosophies embodies volumes of literature. The exploration into other
disciplines will find postmodern insights into resilience, but incorporating unique seman-
tics and variations on the concept. Both ancient and modern philosophers speak to the
guiding and motivating forces in life. Socrates spoke of the “daimon” or inner guide.
Wilber (1998) spoke of the marriage of sense and soul. Kornfield (1993 ) spoke of “the
path with heart.” In biology, the marvel of instinct is credited to some survival nature
within the animal kingdom. The readership will be familiar with authors in psychology
who have spoken of resilience using different semantics including Jung, Moore, Rogers,
Maslow, Selegman, Bandura, Csikszentmihalyi, and numerous others.
It is clear that society, as well as the academic revolution of the spirit or soul, sup-
ports the postulate that there is a healing, driving, and motivating force within every soul.
 Metatheory of Resilience and Resiliency 317

Resilience metatheory embraces semantic variance and validates the unique academic
paradigms whether that force is called chi, collective unconscious, energy, oscillations,
motivational force, neuropeptides, spirit, human essence, or resilience.

Practical Applications
Embracing resilience and resiliency theory prompts helping professionals to search for
individual strengths in clients and then to nurture them. Resilience-based therapy is to
wade through the outside protective layers of intellectualism, denial, shadows, and anger
to discover a client’s innate resilience or human spirit. To fulfill the explorative mission
into a client’s innate resilience, the therapist him/herself should be striving to understand
and feel resilience.
Suggestions for the application of resilience and resiliency are founded upon educa-
tional interventions with the expectation that therapists may adapt their therapeutic
approaches with a similar paradigm. The Resilient Youth Curriculum Guides (Richard-
son, 1998), Corporate Personal Resilience Instructor’s Guide (Richardson, 1999a), and
the Resilient Relationships Instructor’s Guide (1999b) provide the basis for the resilience
and resiliency interventions described later.

Applications from Resilience Education

The educational experience of identifying and exploring resilience allows students to

contemplate who they are and how their body, mind, and spirit function in relation to
transpersonal sources of strength. Resilience as a driving force is experienced simplisti-
cally yet with profound impact as one’s childlike, moral, intuitive, and noble natures. The
simplifying and grouping of resilience driving forces allows students to grasp and relate
to the concepts without having to be overwhelmed with numerous first-wave resilient
qualities.
Teachers assume that much of the energy-producing capabilities within individuals
is within their childlike nature. This is the self-nurturing love of self. Although buried in
some people, the self-love drive is to live, feel safe, feel loved, and be nurtured. One’s
childlike nature craves adventure, is curious, and wants to play. It is with this childlike
nature, particularly one’s playfulness and humor, that professionals can initially connect
with most people. People will have more zest for life if they are childlike at work, home,
and when performing life’s responsibilities with adventure, playfulness, humor, and love.
A client’s childlike nature wants to feel love from a therapist and by so doing will love
and give back. A therapist will need to be genuine with exchanges within the childlike
nature to touch the client’s core.
Resilience theory also advocates that individuals have an innate moral framework or
a natural love of others. Although somewhat contradictory to most developmental theo-
rists, resilience suggests that intuitively people can discern if something is right or wrong.
It does not take long for social morals and stages of moral development to assume pri-
macy for morals, and it may take years for people to reestablish contact with their innate
moral framework. Most people resonate to concepts such as honesty, integrity, and the
“golden rule.” Since resilience is a motivating force, then freedom and energy flourish
when living within one’s moral framework. When someone is living outside his or her
moral code, then the resulting guilt saps much of that energy.
Determining one’s moral framework, in addition to establishing direction and asso-
ciations in life, is a function of intuition. This is viewed by many students as a love of
318 Journal of Clinical Psychology, March 2002

their spiritual source of strength. There is little question that one of the most powerful
human tools that will be developed, refined, and trusted in resilience interventions in the
new millennium will be intuitive skills. To guide or teach a person how to be childlike
(open and teachable) and moral (not suffering from guilt)in order to be receptive to
intuitive prompts that will come may be the premiere achievement in education and
counseling in the next few decades.
The source of intuition will come from one’s spiritual source of strength. Whether
that source comes from prompts from the collective unconscious mind, from the quanta
in the universe, or from a person’s God, it is a powerful part of living. Educators and
therapists that are intuitive will say the right thing at the right time and, in the process,
may occasionally contradict their training. Exploration into a client’s resilience is to
assume that everyone has intuitive capabilities. It is helpful to explain the mechanisms
for intuition that have been proposed earlier in this article as vibrations that come from
spiritual sources of strength. Clients feel control when they know that they have the
neuropeptides and receptors in their body to be enriched from those sources. There are
many experiential methods for clients to experience this resilience phenomenon (Rich-
ardson, 1999a).
The fulfillment of the yearnings of one’s resilience comes in the form of what resil-
ience educators call nobility. Needs for self-esteem, self-worth, freedom, order, and pur-
pose in life reflect nobility. Nobility reflects a need to give back to society as well, so part
of resilience is the need to be altruistic. Resilience theory asserts that everyone has an
innate dream. Everyone has a special blend of physical, mental, and spiritual genetics that
affords a unique opportunity to contribute to the world. Clients have many experiences
that their intuitive natures prompt them to do, and ultimately people find a situation in
which they can fulfill their childlike, moral, intuitive, and noble natures. Positive change
in life may occur through altruism and service as it functions as an educational or ther-
apeutic tool. Quality and appreciative service brings fulfillment. A critical component of
the Resilient Youth Curriculum (Richardson, 1998) is for students to teach resiliency to
younger age populations. Designating a young person to be a role model, “big brother or
sister,” helper, or teacher of resilience is often transforming.
Figure 2 is a visual representation of the different dimensions of the heart that is used
as an educational tool to help people understand their nature. Therapists can use the tool
to explore strengths, gifts, and talents of the clientele they serve.

Figure 2. Teaching tool for resilience.

 Metatheory of Resilience and Resiliency 319

Applications from Resiliency

Trusting the resiliency process as an avenue for growth in one’s life empowers a client
with more control in his or her life. Explaining the resiliency process model provides
some of the following grounding paradigms and benefits.

1. Clients have the choice of personal growth in the wake of their disruptions.
2. Immediate outcomes of disruptions that are characterized by hurt, loss, guilt, or
fear bring an awareness and opportunity to connect with one’s resilience. True
resilient reintegration may be the strengthening with one’s union with her/his
spiritual source of strength.
3. Enriching planned disruptions may be the solution to stagnation. Clients will be
able to see that after taking “leaps of faith” into disruptions, there is the opportu-
nity for resilient reintegration.
4. Clients can become more process oriented by looking for the “silver lining” as
they work through disruptions and reintegrations.
5. Finding meaning and purpose in disruptions help value experiences.

Conclusion
The metatheory of resilience and resiliency embodies numerous theories in the many
academic disciplines. Resiliency and resilience integrates and encompasses most of the
theories of life. The resiliency process is a life-enriching model that suggests that stress-
ors and change provide growth and increased resilient qualities or protective factors. The
disruptive and reintegrative process describes the “up-and-down” life for most people.
Resilience theory that crosses academic and professional boundaries suggests that for
reintegration and growth to occur, there is a requirement of energy. Resilience or energy
comes from within the human spirit or collective unconscious of the individual and also
from external social, ecological, and spiritual sources of strength. Resiliency and resil-
ience can be seen as simple and practical applications to everyday living. Skills such as
meditation, Tai Chi, prayer, yoga, Aikido, and other alternative therapies also can be used
to access resilience. Resiliency and resilience can provide hope and with practice, increase
self-efficacy, for people to have more control and order in their lives and rely less on
medications and outside support. Resiliency and resilience are transcending interventions.

References
Ader, R. (2000). The placebo effect: If it’s all in your head, does that mean you only think you feel
better? Advances in Mind Body Medicine, 16, 7–11.
Ader, R., Felten, D.L., & Cohen, N. (Eds.). (1991). Psychoneuroimmunology (2nd ed.). San Diego:
Academic Press.
Baltes, P.B., & Staudinger, U.M. (2000). Wisdom: A metaheuristic (pragmatic) to orchestrate mind
and virtue toward excellence. American Psychologist, 55, 122–136.
Baumeister, R.F., & Exline, J.J. (2000). Self-control, morality, and human strength. Journal of
Social and Clinical Psychology, 19, 29– 42.
Benard, B. (1997). Turning it around for all youth: From risk to resilience. Launceston, Tasmania;
Resiliency Associates and Global Learning Communities.
Benson, P.L. (1997). All kids are our kids. Minneapolis: Search Institute.
Bohr, N. (1987 reprint). Essays 1933 to 1957 on atomic physics and human knowledge (The
philosophical writings of Niels Bohr: Vol. II). New York: Ox Bow Press.
320 Journal of Clinical Psychology, March 2002

Brody, H., & Brody, D. (2000). Three perspectives on the placebo response: Expectancy, condi-
tioning, and meaning. Advances in Mind Body Medicine, 16, 216–232.
Buss, D.M. (2000). The evolution of happiness. American Psychologist, 55, 15–23.
Diener, E. (2000). Subjective well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 34– 43.
Dunn, D. (1994). Resilient reintegration of married women with dependent children: Employed
and unemployed. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Utah.
Emmons, R.A., & Crumpler, C.A. (2000). Gratitude as a human strength. Appraising the evidence.
Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 19, 56– 69.
Flach, F. (1988). Resilience: Discovering a new strength at times of stress. New York: Ballantine.
Flach, F.F. (1997). Resilience: How to bounce back when the going gets tough. New York: Hather-
leigh Press.
Foss, L. (1999). The necessary subjectivity of body–mind medicine: Candace Pert’s Molecules of
Emotion. Advances in Mind Body Medicine, 15, 122–134.
Garmezy, N. (1991). Resiliency and vulnerability to adverse developmental outcomes associated
with poverty. American Behavioral Scientist, 34, 416– 430.
Garmezy, N., Masten, A.S., & Tellegen, A. (1984). The study of stress and competence in children:
A building block for developmental psychopathology. Child Development, 55, 97–111.
Gerber, R. (2000). Vibrational medicine for the 21st century: The complete guide to energy healing
and spiritual transformation. New York: Eagle Brook.
Hawking, S. (1998). A brief history of time. New York: Bantam Doubleday Dell.
Heisenberg, W. (1958). The physicists’s conception of nature. New York: Hutchinson Press.
Kornfield, J. (1993). A path with heart. New York: Bantam Books.
Lao-tzu. (1990). Tao Te Ching (J.C.H. Wu, Trans.). Boston: Shambhala.
Lifton, R. (1994). The Protean self: Human resilience in an age of fragmentation. New York: Basic
Books.
Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C.P. (2000). States of excellence. American Psychologist, 55, 137–150.
Maslow, A. (1971). The farther reaches of human nature. New York: Viking Press.
McCullough, M.E. (2000). Forgiveness as a human strength: Theory, measurement, and links to
well-being. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 19, 43–55.
McCullough, M.E., & Snyder, C.R. (2000). Classical sources of human strength: Revisiting an old
home and building a new one. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 19, 1–10.
Moore, T. (1994). Care of the soul. New York: Harper Perennial.
Myers, D.G. (2000). The funds, friends, and faith of happy people. American Psychologist, 55,
56– 67.
Neiger, B. (1991). Resilient reintegration: Use of structural equations modeling. Unpublished doc-
toral dissertation, University of Utah.
Pelletier, K.R. (1992). Mind as healer, mind as slayer. New York: Dell.
Pelletier, K.R. (2000). The best alternative medicine: What works? What does not? New York:
Simon & Schuster.
Pert, C. (1997). Molecules of emotion. New York: Scribner’s.
Peterson, C. (2000). The future of optimism. American Psychologist, 55, 44–55.
Richardson, G. (1998). High School Resilient Youth Curriculum Guide. Salt Lake City: The Human
Experience Institute.
Richardson, G.E. (1999a). Corporate Personal Resilience Student Workbook. Salt Lake City: The
Human Experience Institute.
Richardson, G.E. (1999b). Resilient Relationships Student Workbook. Salt Lake City: The Human
Experience Institute.
Richardson, G.E., Neiger, B., Jensen, S., & Kumpfer, K. (1990). The resiliency model. Health
Education, 21, 33–39.
 Metatheory of Resilience and Resiliency 321

Rutter, M. (1979). Protective factors in children’s responses to stress and disadvantages. In M.W.
Kent & J.E. Rolf (Eds.), Primary prevention of psychopathology, Vol. 3. Social competence in
children (pp. 49–74). Hanover, NH: University Press of New England.
Rutter, M. (1985). Resilience in the face of adversity: Protective factors and resistance to psychi-
atric disorder. British Journal of Psychiatry, 147, 598– 611.
Ryan, R.M., & Deci, E.L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic moti-
vation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68–78.
Schwartz, B. (2000). Self-determination. American Psychologist, 55, 79–88.
Seaward, B.L. (1999). Managing stress: Principles and strategies for health and well-being. Boston:
Jones and Bartlett.
Seligman, M.E.P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology. American Psychologist,
55, 5–14.
Simonton, D.K. (2000). Creativity. American Psychologist, 55, 151–158.
Snyder, C.R. (2000). The past and possible futures of hope. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychol-
ogy, 19, 11–28.
Snyder, C.R., & McCullough, M.E. (2000). A positive psychology field of dreams: “If you build it,
they will come . . . .” Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 19, 151–160.
Tangney, J.P. (2000). Humility: Theoretical perspectives, empirical finding and directions for future
research. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 19, 70–82.
Walker, R.J. (1996). Resilient reintegration of adult children of perceived alcoholic parents. Unpub-
lished doctoral dissertation, University of Utah.
Werner, E.E. (1982). Vulnerable but invincible: A longitudinal study of resilient children and youth.
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Werner, E., & Smith, R. (1992). Overcoming the odds: High risk children from birth to adulthood.
Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Wickramasekera, I. (2000). How to produce not only powerful but, more importantly, reliable
placebo healing and analgesia. Advances in Mind Body Medicine, 16, 211–216.
Wilber, K. (1996a). A brief history of everything. Boston: Shambhala.
Wilber, K. (1996b). Eye to eye: The quest for the new paradigm (3rd ed.). Boston: Shambhala.
Wilber, K. (1998). The marriage of sense and soul: Integrating science and religion. New York:
Random House.