This article was downloaded by: [University of North Carolina]

On: 29 September 2014, At: 12:54

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Health Education
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujhe18

The Resiliency Model

a b
Glenn E. Richardson , Brad L. Neiger , Susan Jensen & Karol L. Kumpfer
a
Department of Health Education , University of Utah , Salt Lake City , UT , 84112 , USA
b
Department of Health Education , University of Utah , USA
Published online: 08 Mar 2013.

To cite this article: Glenn E. Richardson , Brad L. Neiger , Susan Jensen & Karol L. Kumpfer (1990) The Resiliency Model,
Health Education, 21:6, 33-39

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00970050.1990.10614589

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 The Resiliency Model
Glenn E. Richardson, Brad L. Neiger, Susan Jensen
and Karol L. Kumpfer
Abstract
The health education and preven-
tion professions are in the midst of a
philosophical revolution attempting
to build upon negative directioned
Downloaded by [University of North Carolina] at 12:54 29 September 2014
risk reduction programs, which are
driven by the medical model, to com-
petency models. Noted psycholo-
gists and psychiatrists have suggest-
ed that competency and resiliency
characteristics are strengths that are
more protective than risk reduction
efforts. Many suggested traits have
been proposed for the resilient indi-
vidual. This article reviews those char-
acteristics but more importantly, de-
scribes the traits within the resiliency
model as a process applicable to
health education. This expanded view
of prevention includes perspectives
on the value of personal disruption
and adversity as avenues to promote
growth and increased protective fac-
tors. The process of psychological
reintegration is the ability to learn
Glenn E. Richardson is Director of
the Health Behavior Laboratory in
the Department of Health Education
at the University of Utah, Salt Lake
City, UT 841 12. Brad L. Neiger is a
doctoral candidate in the Depart-
ment of Health Education at the
University of Utah and Director of
Risk Reduction with the Bureau of
Health Promotion and Risk Reduc-
tion, Utah Department of Health.
Susan Jensen is a doctoral candi-
date in the Department of Health
Education at the University of Utah
and a health education teacher at
Bryant Junior High School in Salt
Lake City, UT. Karol L . Kumpfer is
Assistant Director of the Health Be-
havior Laboratory in the Depart-
ment of Health Education at the
University of Utah.
HEALTH EDUCATION, VOLUME 21. NO. 6 (ISSN 0097-0050)
new skills from the disruptive expe-
rience and put life’s perspective back
in a way that will increase abilities to
negotiate life events. The model also
identiJiesfour points during the dis-
ruptive process, where health educa-
torslprevention specialists can inter-
vene to protect, enhance, support,
and facilitate reintegration.
In the past, health professionals
have focused their research largely
on maladaptation and illness and the
associated predisposing risk factors
of these states. This risk factor focus
is partially due to the medical model
approach and influence on federal,
state, and foundation funding. In con-
trast, the wellness movement has
produced a positive perspective on
health which focuses on high levels
of health rather than risks and prob-
lems. The recent paradigm shift from
looking at problems to looking at
positive health has produced compe-
tency models in psychology and psy-
chiatry. The psychological concepts
of empowerment (Rappaport, 1987),
psychological hardiness (Kobasa,
Maddi, & Kahn, 1982), and self effi-
cacy (Bandura, 1977) embody prin-
ciples that focus on positive factors
in competent individuals. Moreover,
the concept of resilience has emerged
from the field of psychopathology
and child development to explain
how some individuals maintain healthy
lifestyles and become even more ca-
pable in spite of facing similar adver-
sities, stressors, or life changes that
result in maladaptation to the life
event among non-resilient people.
Resiliency as a research interest is
not completely new. This is docu-
mented by a 40-year study of resilient
children as adults by Felsman and
HEALTH EDUCATION-NOVEMBEWDECEMBER 1990
Vaillant (1987), as well as a 32-year
longitudinal study of high-risk and
resilient children by Werner (1989).
The qualities that define individual
resilience have been demonstrated in
individuals from different ethnic
groups, different socioeconomic stra-
ta, different cultural settings, and at
different life stages (Werner, 1989).
Theoretically, however, resiliency is
in its infancy. As to its applicability
to prevention programs that are de-
signed to enhance health behavior, it
is embryonic. Although some expla-
nations have been presented, very
little is really known about the total
nature of resiliency (Cohler, 1987).
The prospects that resiliency hold,
however, are encouraging, if not com-
pelling. Anthony (1987) suggested that
an increased study of the forces of
resiliency may provide far more sig-
nificant long-range benefits to our
society than the current application
of prevention models designed to
curtail the incidence of vulnerability.
The purpose of this paper is to
present a resiliency model which, for
the informed reader, provides insight
in two areas. First it will provide a
framework for prevention and create
the structure for piecemeal studies
and articles that currently exist in the
prevention literature. Secondly, it ex-
pands the scope and challenge of
prevention and health education pro-
grams.
Resiliency Defined
In this paper, we are striving to
understand resiliency as a process of
the interaction between individuals
and environmental circumstances that
promote resiliency in youth. This
process perspective is contrary to the
perspective that resiliency is a state-
33
 trait or characteristic within the in-
dividual. The authors define resilien-
cy from a preventive perspective
although the application also has ther-
apeutic implications.
Resiliency is the process of coping
with disruptive, stressful, or challeng-
ing life events in a way that provides
the individual with additional protec-
tive and coping skills than prior to the
disruption that results from the event.
When a person is faced with a chal-
lenge, a new experience, a major
stressor or life event, the resilient
person may .temporarily experience
change, sense some personal doubt,
and experience some disorganization
Downloaded by [University of North Carolina] at 12:54 29 September 2014
of hidher world view. In time how-
ever, he/she will use reintegrative
and coping skills that allow the indi-
vidual to learn, develop new skills,
and effectively deal with the life events.
Upon subsequent encounters with
similar life events, the individual is
better able to negotiate with the ex-
periences. This process perspective
is contrary to the perspective that
resiliency is a state-trait or charac-
teristic within the individual.
Perspectives on Resiliency
Resilience has been defined by Flach
(1989) as the psychological and bio-
logical strengths required to success-
fully master change. The change de-
scribed in this definition refers to a
range of experiences from small stres-
sors in life to major bifurcations-a
term that Flach borrows from the
field of physics to characterize mo-
ments of extreme change. Flach’s
“Law of Disruption and Reintegra-
tion” is a central theme in the resil-
iency model. He proposes that “fall-
ing apart” is a necessary prelude to
personal renewal following signifi-
cantly stressful events. He suggests
that the temporary state of confusion
and anguish is a singular opportunity
to resolve old wounds, discover new
ways to deal with life, and effectively
reorganize perspectives. Traits nec-
essary to successfully accomplish re-
integration include creativity, the abil-
ity to tolerate pain, personal insight,
independence of spirit, the ability to
restore self esteem, and freedom to
depend on others within limits.
34 HEALTH EDUCATION-NOVEMBEWDECEMBER 1990
Bandura speaks of self-efficacy as
requiring experience in mastering dif-
ficulties by a persevering effort.
Bandura (1989) states:
If people experience only easy success-
es, they come to expect quick results and
their sense of efficacy is easily undermined
by failure. Some setbacks and difficulties in
human pursuits serve a useful purpose in
teaching that success usually requires sus-
tained effort. After people become con-
vinced they have what it takes to succeed,
they persevere in the face of adversity and
quickly rebound from setbacks. By stick-
ing it out through tough times, they emerge
from adversity with a stronger sense of
efficacy.
The willingness even to attempt to
tackle challenges or stressors in life
requires some degree of resilient self-
efficacy. Youth who do not believe
they can succeed when an opportu-
nity or a challenge arises, do not ever
attempt to tackle the task according
to Bandura (1989).
Rutter (1985, 1987, 1989) views
resilience and vulnerability as oppo-
site poles of a continuum. Rutter has
cautioned that resilience cannot be
viewed as a fixed attribute of the
individual. Those people who suc-
cessfully deal with problems at one
point in time may react adversely
when circumstances change. Rutter
suggests that effective planning, pos-
itive self esteem, self efficacy and
response to key turning points in life
are essential components of resil-
ience.
Investigation of children who dem-
onstrate competence and effective
functioning within varied environ-
ments has resulted in several conclu-
sions made by Garmezy (1985,1987).
First that “street smart” (Garmezy
1986, p. 513) children or in other
words, those that can function in and
deal with changing circumstances and
environments, are closely aligned with
the concept of competence. Garmezy’s
perspective of competence can be
equated to the concept of resilience
as identified in this paper. One of the
most noteworthy of Garmezy’s con-
clusions has been his classification of
potential protective factors into one
of three categories: (1) dispositional
attributes of the individual (i.e. tem-
perament and personality); (2) family
cohesion and warmth; and (3) the
availability and utilization of external
support resources (Garmezy, 1987).
Another perspective is that resil-
ience is the ability to solve problems
and alter approaches using any and
all external or internal resources as
determinants of resilience (Anthony,
1987). Anthony stated that the devel-
opment of a creative capacity can be
regarded as a superior level of com-
petence in reintegrating one’s life
following disruptions.
Werner (1982, 1985, 1986, 1989)
identifies resilient traits specific to
particular life stages. Her longitudinal
data in fact, revealed that resiliency
changes at each developmental stage
in the life cycle. Her resilient subjects
were achievement oriented, indepen-
dent, and experienced life satisfac-
tion. These resilient individuals invest-
ed considerable time and energy in
caring for others and consistently de-
scribed personal competence and de-
termination as their most effective
resources in coping with stressful
events. This notion of determination
fits well with Bandura’s recent theo-
retical conception of resilient self-
efficacy described earlier.
Resiliency, in summary, implies
that the processes of coping with
mild to severe disruptions are oppor-
tunities for growth, development, and
skill building. The products of the
resiliency enhancing process are in-
creased protective skills as well as
skills that facilitate the coping pro-
cess. After repeated mild to severe
disruptive experiences, the resilient
individual does not fall as far follow-
ing disruption and recovers in a short-
er time.
The facilitation of client acquisi-
tion of resilient traits by health edu-
cators and prevention specialists has
not been addressed in the literature.
The resiliency model briefly de-
scribed below clarifies four points of
intervention for support persons. Each
point of intervention requires slightly
different purposes and facilitation
skills.
The Resiliency Model: Individual
Experiences
The resiliency model depicts a sin-
gle point in time in the life of an
individual (see Figure I ) . This point

Figurc I . ‘The Resiliency Model Without Facilitating
1 congruence.Spiritual homeostasis ex-
Stressom, Life
Events, Challenges
Interaction
Downloaded by [University of North Carolina] at 12:54 29 September 2014
W puzzle. When the pieces fit and are in
\ place, then there is a tendency to
Disruption 7 -
[ Disorganization ) +I
in time may be a matter of a few
minutes of disruption or it may rep-
resent years of struggle. The premise
of the model is that in order to be-
come more resilient, an individual
must pass through challenges, stres-
sors, and risks, become disorga-
nized, reorganize his or her life, learn
from the experiences, and surface
stronger with more coping skills and
protective factors. Key components
of the model include biopsychospir-
itual homeostasis, life events, biopsy-
chospiritual protective factors, inter-
action, disruption, disorganization,
reintegration, and, for facilitators,
envirosocial protective, enhancing,
supportive, and reintegrative pro-
cesses.
Biopsychospiritual Homeostasis
Biological homeostasis is a con-
cept that is understood by most peo-
~~
Resilient
Reintegration
/ / \ Reintegration
Reintegration ) include life experiences, stressors,
ple. When body temperature or other
physiological mechanisms vary from
a normally functioningstate, the body
activates homeostatic mechanisms to
return to the normal state. For ex-
ample, when body temperature is
elevated, perspiration is initiated to
promote cooling.
In the same light, psychological
homeostasis is a desirable condition
for most individuals. For example,
when an individual’s emotions are
out of balance (e.g. uncontrolled an-
ger), the person initiates mechanisms
to return the emotion (anger) into a
controlled state. The homeostatic
mechanism may be socially appropri-
ate (vigorous exercise) or inappropri-
ate (violence, property destruction),
but over time, the individual reverts
to the normal (unangered)homeostat-
ic state.
HEALTH EDUCATION-NOVEMBEWDECEMBER
Spiritual homeostasis is a state best
capsulated as value and behavioral
ists when a person chooses or adopts
a value or belief system that provides
guidelines for living and then abides
behaviorally by that system. Spiritu-
al disruption occurs when there is
incongruence between a value sys-
tem and a behavior. The resulting
spiritual disorganization is likely to
be guilt and associated feelings that
revert back to normal when values
and behaviors are again harmonious
and self-forgiveness occurs.
In essence, the individual in ho-
meostasis is most comfortable with
an intact world view much like a
fight to maintain that world view and
the addition or subtraction of any
additional pieces is resisted because
that necessitates change.
Life Events
The term “life events” is used to
challenges, bifurcations (Flach, 1989),
and risks (Rutter, 1987). The term life
events will include those normal bio-
psychosocial developmentalcrises as
identified by Erickson (l963), cogni-
tive development stages identified by
Piaget (19521, and moral develop-
ment experiences noted by Kohlberg
(1976).
In addition to normal developmen-
tal periods of life, life events also
include the barrage of positive and
negative influences in a person’s life
that may cause disruption or changes.
Such influences are envirosocial in
nature and include community, fam-
ily, churches, peers, gangs, living
conditions, and media. Positively,
challenges and opportunities not ex-
perienced before are part of the life
events. Other influencesor life events
may result in pressures to engage in
addictive behaviors (television, drugs,
sex, food) or situations that result in
threats to personal safety.
Biopsychospiritual Protective
Factors
Prevention programs have focused
on enhancing biopsychospiritual pro-
tective processes to help the individ-
1990 35
 Table 1. Psychospirituel Protective Roeffs and Skills
1. Pursuit of a cause or purpose in life (giving of self)
2. Good self esteem
3. Good decision making skills
4. Belief in a higher force
5. Internal locus of control
6. Self confidence
7. Good sense of humor
8. Personal strengths and skills
9. Valuebehavioral congruence (behaving in accordance with one’s beliefs)
10. Self mastery
I 1. Independence of spirit
12. Psychological hardiness (control, commitment, and challenge)
Downloaded by [University of North Carolina] at 12:54 29 September 2014
14. Empowerment
15. Ability to be a friend
16. Positive futuristic vision
17. Independence of spirigautonomous
ual successfully negotiate life events.
Biological coping factors involved in
protective processes include medical
condition, tolerance for pain, rejuve-
nation (healing) capabilities, fitness
levels, and states of fatigue. Many
coping traits are genetic and come
naturally to some individuals. Fit-
ness levels, medical condition, toler-
ance for pain, and state of fatigue/
rest, however, appear to be
controllable and protective. Those
biological coping conditions that are
controllable should be enhanced
through exercise, proper rest, good
nutrition, and avoidance of harmful
substances. A regular medical phys-
ical for early diagnosis of medical
problems and the practice of preven-
tive behaviors is desirable. Learning
pain control through meditation, im-
agery, or self hypnosis may also be
desirable to enhance protective pro-
cesses.
There are several psychospiritual
protective processes that might pro-
tect a person from disruption. They
are listed in Table 1. It is not likely
that all the listed skills are necessary
to protect oneself effectively from
life events, but some of them must be
functional to provide minimal or op-
erable protection.
Interaction
The key to protection from disrup-
tion is how the individual negotiates
36 HEALTH EDUCATION-NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 1990
with life events, challenges, or stres-
son. Coping strategies might include
avoiding, ignoring, defending, suc-
cumbing, imposing, or other defense
mechanisms. Which negotiatingmech-
anism is best for the individual de-
pends on the nature of the life event
and its disruptive effect. The individ-
ual will either negotiate easily or
have some difficulty which will lead
himher into the next vital stage of the
resiliency enhancing process, disrup
tion.
Disruption
Flach (1989) and Anthony (1987)
suggest that experiencing disruption
can be beneficial. Although the pain
of being out of biopsychospiritual
homeostasis is unpleasant and even
agonizing, the disruption is beneficial
to the resilient individual. Surviving
an experience leaves the person bet-
ter skilled and stronger. The unpleas-
antness of the disruptive state cre-
ates a situation that essentially forces
the resilient individual to look inward-
ly and adapt competently to life events
and develop new negotiating skills.
Disruption can be considered an
opportunity to grow and learn. An
analogy can be drawn in the process
of muscle building. After straining
and stressing the muscles in an exer-
cise session, the muscles are fatigued
and “tom down.” The individual is
weaker and exhausted. The body
responds in 36 to 48 hours to be just
a little stronger than before the exer-
cise experience through a rebuilding
process. Weight lifters, even though
they are exhausted after a workout,
feel good in knowing that they have
worked hard enough to achieve the
“tear down” and are anxious to feel
better over time. The psychospiritual
“tear down” can also be welcomed
because of the expected recovery
and enhancement. Even though there
is pain and agony, there is a hope and
anticipation of the enhancing experi-
ence. The psychospiritual enhancing
period is not as predictable as muscle
development from a time perspec-
tive, but recovery and growth are
inevitable for the resilient person.
Many people take on challenges or
stressors because they know of the
growth opportunities. The disruption
may not be of a depressing nature but
rather an excitement to master or
accomplish. The disruption still oc-
curs in that the experience is new and
pieces of previous experiences must
be taken to form a new perspective to
face the challenge at hand. Resultant
disorganization must occur to face
the challenge effectively.
Disorganization
Disorganizationis a temporary state
wherein the biopsychospiritual “piec-
es” of an individual’s life become
disrupted, such as with a new chal-
lenge and the person has to imple-
ment a plan to attack the challenge
without having previous related ex-
periences. A careful analysis of indi-
vidual experiences, strengths, and
pieces of an individual world view
should occur to develop an effective
attack.
In a serious sense, there may be a
complete falling apart of an individ-
ual’s world view, such as with the
loss of a significant other which ne-
cessitates grieving, then reintegra-
tion must occur by building a new
support system and establishing a
new social life. The pieces of life’s
puzzle that are most directly affected
by the new life event need to become
disorganized in order to create a
place in the world perspective for the
new piece or deleted piece of life’s
puzzle. In order to add a new dimen-

Table 2. Skills and Characteristics Associated With Resilient Reintegration
1. Build upon protective skills listed in Table 1 but reflecting reintegrating functions
2. Good social problem solving skills
3. Ability to delay gratification
4. Resilient self efficacy
5. Creative problem solving skills
6. Task oriented
7. Flexibility
8. Good reintegrating capacity (ability to bounce back from adversity)
9. Ability to do personal introspection and determine personal resources for coping
10. Self motivation
1 I. Strong capacity for learning
Downloaded by [University of North Carolina] at 12:54 29 September 2014
sion to one’s individual world per-
spective, a place for the new piece
must be provided.
People do not stay in a state of
disorganization for long. People feel
a need to reestablish a new state of
homeostasis in order to function. The
solution to their disruption may be
resilient or dysfunctional (such as
committing suicide or using psycho-
active substances) but it does come
to some resolution.
Reintegration
Reintegration is the process of re-
forming a world view. The process is
one of reorganizing affected biopsy-
chospiritual pieces into a new world
perspective. With stressors, people
try to recover by creatively putting
the pieces back together or by sys-
tematically problem solving and re-
building. The process of reintegra-
tion may take a few minutes or several
years depending on the severity of
the life event, the depth and degree of
envirosocialreintegrating forces, and
the reintegrating capacity of the in-
dividual. Why some people reinte-
grate effectively and others do not is
largely a function of individual skills
and traits as will be described. Ob-
viously, those that take on a chal-
lenge or stressor to enhance their
skills or position will likely respond
better than those that are taken by
surprise by a life event. Individuals
who have experienced a disruptive
life event that demands biopsychos-
piritual adaptation will adjust and
reestablish a level of homeostasis in
one of four ways: resilient reintegra-
~~
tion, homeostatic reintegration, mal-
adaptive reintegration, or dysfunc-
tional reintegration.
Resilient Reintegration reflects the
optimal level of adaptation. By going
through the reintegrative process, the
individual learns new skills, has more
self understanding, and a better com-
prehension of personal envirosocial
influences. The key to resilient adap-
tation is to benefit from all that a life
event has to offer. Through the expe-
rience, a resilient individual is able to
put hisher life back together in a way
that leaves himher with more pro-
tective factors and skills to effec-
tively reintegrate in the face of future
life events. The traits necessary for
resilient adaptation may include some
of the listed protective mechanisms
listed in Table 1 but also those listed
in Table 2. Resiliency skills build
upon the foundation of protective
factors. The learning that occurs from
the life experience generally draws
upon the individual’s creative or sys-
tematic problem solving abilities. The
life event, which forces an addition
or deletion of a component of the
world view, stimulates coping and
reintegrating responses, and leaves a
person more skilled. The learned skills
may be used for subsequent life events
of a similar nature.
Homeostatic Reintegration is the
fight by the individual to return to the
same level of functioning that was
evident prior to the life event. The
individual that returns to the same
level of homeostasis did not really
learn from the experience and will
likely have recurring problems of a
similar nature until he/she does learn
HEALTH EDUCATION-NOVEMBERiDECEMBER 1990
from the life event. These individuals
often reencounter the same or similar
problems and continue to mishandle
them.
Maladaptive Reintegration repre-
sents a situation where the impact of
the life event was so significant that
the individual reintegrates hisher
world view at a lower level of ho-
meostasis. The individual has fewer
protective skills than before the expe-
rience. Before the life event these
people may have had good self es-
teem, a sense of adventure and chal-
lenge, high expectations, and an in-
ternal locus of control, but in the face
of failure, they lose these traits and
become resigned to a lower state of
functioning. There is generally a min-
imal attempt at homeostatic reinte-
gration but ultimately the individual
resigns himherself to a lower state.
Dysfunctional Reintegration reflects
the need for some form of psycho-
therapy. The individual reintegrates
by using psychoactive substances,
withdrawing into psychopathic syn-
dromes, committing suicide, or by
other dysfunctional means. The in-
tervention by a psychotherapist be-
comes necessary.
The Resiliency Model: Facilitating
It should be clear that the role of
the health educator should be to help
facilitate, with parents and signifi-
cant others, the acquisition of pro-
tective and resilient reintegrativeskills.
Understanding the disruption and re-
integration process described above
clarifies the points where enviroso-
cia1 influences are shown in Figure 2.
Family, friends, prevention special-
ists, health educators, other support
persons as well as positive environ-
ments act as envirosocial resiliency
enhancing facilitators.
Envirosocial Protective Processes
Individuals and living conditions
potentially provide conditions where-
by the impact of life events is buff-
ered to some degree. A private room
in a home where some security and
familiar comforting things are locat-
ed often help to deal with life events.
Parents or guardians that influence
what type of friends and acquaintan-
ces their children associate with po-
37

Stressors, Life
Events, Challenges
Envirosoeial
Protective
Pracesscs
Downloaded by [University of North Carolina] at 12:54 29 September 2014
supportive
proccJJes
tentially reduce the negative impact
of life events. Delaying or preventing
the onset of exposure and use of
some substances and negative stim-
uli may be helpful as well.
The extreme to which this scenario
might be carried is, if the parents, for
example, are overprotective. If a per-
son makes a poor decision and is not
able to face the consequences of the
poor decision, the overprotectivepar-
ents deprive the person from becom-
ing resilient by assuming the conse-
quences themselves. For example,
some parents, upon hearing that a
child is misbehaving will confront
38 HEALTH EDUCATION-NOVEMBERDECEMBER 1990
( )
Resilient
Hcinlqralion
Reintcgratlng
and accuse a teacher rather than
allowing the student to be reprimand-
ed.
Enabling, in the case of substance
use and abuse, is a function of envi-
rosocial protective factors. When a
physician can be persuaded to pre-
scribe a drug, when a fellow student
covers up, and when parents turn
their heads and make excuses, they
enable the individual to continue the
unhealthy behaviors.
Envirosocial Enhancing Processes
Support people can provide oppor-
tunities to promote development of
appropriate protective mechanisms.
Rather than attempting to buffer the
impact of life events, the focus is to
help the individual develop skills to
negotiate effectively with the life
events without experiencing major
disruption. Teachers using self es-
teem enhancing strategies, giving stu-
dents an opportunity to be responsi-
ble for something (empowering),
teaching communication skills, and
providing instruction and experienc-
es in decision making are enviroso-
cial enhancers. Parents who provide
opportunities at home to be a respon-
sible, contributing, family member
are also envirosocial enhancers. Most
prevention programs currently focus
on providing enhancing opportuni-
ties for students.
Envirosocial Supportive Processes
When the individual negotiates a
life event unsuccessfully, the world
view is disrupted. The process of
falling part, as indicated earlier, is
healthy if the fall is not too far or too
dangerous. Envirosocial support pro-
cesses are the efforts of support peo-
ple to make sure the fall is not too
extreme. Police incarcerate people
before they hurt someone when driv-
ing under the influence of alcohol and
drugs. Principals expel students or
send them to juvenile detection if
behavior is extreme. Parents should
also provide support in the case of
serious depression and falling apart.
Expression of love, understanding,
and empathy or sympathy are critical
in the supporting role. The attempt is
to allow the fall to occur but to keep
it from being life threatening or per-
manently damaging. It is enviroso-
cial support that helps to catch and
hold the person long enough for him/
her to enter the reintegration stage.
Envirosocial Reintegrating
Processes
When the individual has reached
the point that he/she wants to put the
pieces of hisher life back together
and start over, the envirosocial rein-
tegration process is again enhanced
by support people who help the per-
 son to solve problems, identify cre-
ative solutions to problems, or act as
a “sounding board” for resolutions.
The facilitator should have the same
kinds of skills and characteristics as
those described in Table 2 to be
effective in their role. Envirosocial
support people should encourage re-
silient reintegration as opposed to
maladaptive or homeostatic reinte-
gration. Encouragement to use the
life event as a stepping stone, a chal-
lenge, and an attempt to become
better is appropriate.
Discussion
The model can be applied to very
Downloaded by [University of North Carolina] at 12:54 29 September 2014
small, almost unnoticeable events,
with very minor disruptions with al-
most instantaneous reintegrations to
very serious events. A single event
may be made up of a series of dis-
ruptive experiences or challenges.
The challenge of trying out for a play
may involve the first disruption of
getting the courage to sign up for
tryouts. The disruption of preparing
for the tryout, the tryout, the first
rehearsal, forming a social/support-
ive network with new people, adapt-
ing to the director, and the perfor-
mance constitute the series of
disruptions as part of a major chal-
lenge and life change. Resilient rein-
tegration or maladaptive reintegra-
tion could occur with each serial
disruption by giving up. The young
persons that stay with it in spite of
setbacks will surface more resilient
at the end.
The applicationsof the model should
be apparent. The skills that individ-
uals need to negotiate effectively
through life events are currently ev-
ident in prevention programs. Those
efforts should be continued and aug-
mented by including skills associated
with resilient adaptation to life events.
For example, in addition to decision
making (protective process), social
problem solving skills should be in-
cluded. In addition to esteem build-
ing, training to establish a personal
cause should be included. Tech-
niques to enhance creativity also
should be included in prevention pro-
grams.
A careful examination of the model
reveals organizational implications.
The model provides envirosocialroles
for law enforcement, parents, educa-
tional institutions,administrators,psy-
chotherapists, and community pro-
grams. The resiliency model should
be part of parent training programs to
avoid overprotection,to develop plan-
ning and problem solving skills in
their children, teach them how to
manage “falling apart,” and to facil-
itate resilient adaptation.
No longer should a health educator
view a client’s disruption as failure
but rather as an opportunity for the
individual to become more resilient
for future life events. Careful moni-
toring of the individual through a life
event, providing support when nec-
essary, offering reintegrative sugges-
tions while allowing resilient adapta-
tion becomes the new challenge for
the health educator, prevention spe-
cialist, and parent.
It is clear that more information
about resiliency will become evident
in the future as research begins to
identify the strongest resilient traits
and the effectivenessof resilient train-
ing packages are demonstrated. Cer-
tainly, the model provides a basis
upon which future research and in-
strument development can be based.
_ _ ~ chology and psychiatry (pp. 335-3551.
Anthony, E. J. (1987). Risk, vulnerability and
resilience: An overview. In E. J. Anthony
& B. Cohler (Eds.), The invulnerable
child (pp. 3 4 8 ) . New York: The Guilford
Press.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a
unifying theory of behavior change. Psy-
chological Review, 84, 191-215.
Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social
cognitive theory. American Psychologist,
44(9), 1175-1 184.
Cohler, B. J. (1987). Adversity, resiliency,
and the study of lives. In E. J. Anthony,
HEALTH EDUCATION-NOVEMBEWDECEMBER 1990
& B. Cohler (Eds.), The invulnerable
child(pp. 298-314). New York: The Guil-
ford Press.
Erikson, E. (1%3). Childhood and society
(2nd ed.). New York: Norton.
Felsman, J. K., & Vaillant, G. E. (1987). Re-
silient children as adults: A40-year study.
In E. J. Anthony & B. Cohler (Eds.), The
invulnerable child (pp. 298-314). New
York: The Guilford Press.
Flach, F. F. (1988). Resilience: Discovering
new strength at times of stress. New
York: Ballantine Books.
Garmezy, N. (1987). Stress, competence, and
development: Continuities in the study of
schizophrenic adults, children vulnerable
to psychopathology and the search for
stress-resistant children. American Jour-
nal of Orthopsychiatry, 57(2), 159-174.
Garmezy, N. (1985). Stressors of childhood.
InN. Garmezy&M. Rutter(Eds.). Stress,
coping, and development in children (pp.
73-84). New York: McGraw-Hill Book
Company.
Garmezy, N., & Masten, M. S. (1986). Stress,
competence, and resilience: Common fron-
tiers for therapist and psychopathologist.
Behavioral Therapy, 17, 500-521.
Kobasa, S . C., Maddi, S. R., & Kahn. S.
(1982). Hardiness and health: A prospec-
tive study. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 42, 168-177.
Kohlberg, L. (1976). Moral stages and moral-
ization: The cognitive/developmental ap-
proach. In T. Lickona (Ed.), Moral de-
velopmentandbehavior. New York: Holt,
Rinehart & Winston.
Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in
children. New York: International Uni-
versities Press.
Rappaport, J. (1987). Terms of empowerment!
exemplars of prevention: Towards a the-
ory for community psychology. American
Journal of Community Psychology, 15,
121-1 48.
Rutter, M. (1985). Resilience in the face of
adversity: Protective factors and resis-
tance to psychiatric disorder. British Jour-
nal of Psychiatry, 147, 598-61 1.
Rutter, M. (1987). Psychosocial resilience and
protective mechanisms. American Jour-
nal of Orthopsychiatry, 57(3). 316-331.
Rutter, M. (1989). Pathways from childhood to
adult life. Journal of Child Psychology
and Psychiatry, 30(1), 23-51.
Werner, E. E. (1985). Stress and protective
factors in children’s lives. In A. R. Nicol
(Ed.), Longitudinal studies in child psy-
New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Werner, E. E., & Smith, R. S . (1982). Vulner-
able but invincible: A longitudinal study
of resilient children and youth. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Werner, E. E. (1989). High risk children in
young adulthood: A longitudinal study
from birth to 32 years. American Journal
of Orthopsychiatry, 59, 71-81.
Werner, E. E. (1986). Resilient offspring of
alcoholics: A longitudinal study for birth
to age 18. Journal Studies on Alcohol, 47,
3440.
39