Journal of

Adolescence
Journal of Adolescence 26 (2003) 1–11
www.elsevier.com/locate/jado

Adolescent resilience: a concept analysis

Craig A. Olssona,*, Lyndal Bonda, Jane M. Burnsb,
Dianne A. Vella-Brodrickc, Susan M. Sawyerd
a
Centre for Adolescent Health, Royal Children’s Hospital, Murdoch Childrens Research Institute,
Parkville 3052, Victoria, Australia
b
The Youth and Public Health Agenda, National Depression Institute (Beyond Blue), P.O. Box 6100, Hawthorn West
3122, Victoria, Australia
c
Department of Psychology, School of Psychology, Psychiatry and Psychological Medicine, Monash University,
P.O. Box 197, Caulfield East 3145, Victoria, Australia
d
Centre for Adolescent Health, Parkville, University of Melbourne, Melbourne 3052, Victoria, Australia
Received 22 October 2001; received in revised form 25 March 2002; accepted 22 July 2002

Abstract

There is need for greater clarity around the concept of resilience as it relates to the period of adolescence.
Literature on resilience published between 1990 and 2000 and relevant to adolescents aged between 12- and
18-years of age was reviewed with the aim of examining the various uses of the term, and commenting on
how specific ways of conceptualizing of resilience may help develop new research agendas in the field. By
bringing together ideas on resilience from a variety of research and clinical perspectives, the purpose of the
review is to explicate core elements of resilience in more precise ways, in the hope that greater conceptual
clarity will lead to a range of tailored interventions that benefit young people.
r 2002 The Association for Professionals in Services for Adolescents. Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.
All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

The term resilience has been variously used to describe a substance of elastic qualities
(Harriman, 1958), the capacity for successful adaptation to a changing environment (Darwin,
1898; Cicchetti & Cohen, 1995), and the character of hardiness and invulnerability (e.g. Anthony,
1974; Kobasa, 1979; Rhodewalt & Zone, 1989; Maddi & Khoshaba, 1994; Florian, Mikulincer, &
Taubman, 1995; Ramanaiah, Sharpe, & Byravan, 1999). More recently, resilience has been

*Corresponding author. Tel.: +61 3 9345 6250; fax: +61 3 9345 6502.
E-mail address: olsson@cryptic.rch.unimelb.edu.au (C.A. Olsson).

0140-1971/02/$ 30.00 r 2002 The Association for Professionals in Services for Adolescents. Published by Elsevier
Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 1 4 0 - 1 9 7 1 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 1 1 8 - 5
2 C.A. Olsson et al. / Journal of Adolescence 26 (2003) 1–11

conceptualized as a dynamic process involving an interaction between both risk and protective
processes, internal and external to the individual, that act to modify the effects of an adverse life
event (Rutter, 1985, 1999). Resilience does not so much imply an invulnerability to stress, but
rather an ability to recover from negative events (Garmezy, 1991). Fonagy, Steele, Steele, Higgitt,
and Target (1994), describe resilience as ‘‘normal development under difficult conditions’’
(p. 233).
The review covers the mental health literature on resilience, relevant to the period of
adolescence (12- and 18-years of age), and published between 1990 and 2000. Some seminal papers
pre-dating 1990 have been included for discussion and appraisal. The reviewed papers come
predominantly from the mental health literature where there is a notable paucity of research
examining resilience within the context of adolescent development. Where studies have been
conducted within adolescent populations, there is considerable cross study variation in the
definitions of resilience used to guide research. Consequently, adolescent resilience has been
investigated across different adversities, emphasizing different risk and protective factors, and
looking at different outcomes. Cross study variation in definitions of resilience in the adolescent
literature reflects a deeper problem within the field of resilience, that is, the lack of a unified theory
of resilience capable of guiding more structured and empirically based approaches to developing
the construct (Luthar, Cicchetti, & Becker, 2000). For understanding to progress, we argue that a
more differentiated and testable theory of the resilience is needed.
This review paper presents a way of thinking about resilience that is relevant to the period of
adolescence. The literature on adolescent resilience can be conveniently thought of as having two
informative foci (1) an investigation of psychosocial outcomes in populations of young people
defined by a particular risk setting, and (2) an investigation of protective mechanisms important in
the process of successful adaptation. Each focus provides a useful perspective on resilience during
adolescence, emphasizing the different elements of the construct, and suggesting different
approaches to measurement. Considerable confusion arises when the outcome of adaptation and
the process of adaptation are used interchangeably to describe resilience. Resilience can be defined
as an outcome characterized by particular patterns of functional behaviour despite risk.
Alternatively, resilience can be defined as a dynamic process of adaptation to a risk setting that
involves interaction between a range of risk and protective factors from the individual to the
social. Any theoretical account of resilience that does not discriminate between process and
outcome may be prone to needless complexity.

2. Resilience as an outcome

Outcome focussed research typically emphasizes the maintenance of functionality; that is,
patterns of competent behaviour or effective functioning in young people exposed to risk. There
has been considerable cross study variation in the kinds of psychosocial outcomes that researchers
have considered representative of resilience during adolescence. Researchers have commonly
defined resilient outcomes in terms of good mental health, functional capacity, and social
competence. Variation in the kinds of outcomes considered has lead to considerable confusion
about the nature of the concept under discussion. This approach has been criticized for having as
many definitions of adolescent resilience as there are studies (Blum, 1998), and few
 C.A. Olsson et al. / Journal of Adolescence 26 (2003) 1–11 3

psychometrically validated measures (Wagnild & Young, 1993; Jew, Green, & Kroger, 1999;
Constantine, Bernard, & Diaz, 1999; Goodman, 1999). However, there is a common theme that
unites these seemingly disparate approaches and that is a ‘‘ypattern of effective performance in
the environment, evaluated from the perspective of salient developmental tasks in the context of
late twentieth-century US society.’’ (Masten et al., 1995, p. 1636). To this extent, a focus on the
outcome of adaptation to adversity constitutes an important and useful way of operationalizing
the construct of resilience.
The use of emotional well-being as a marker of functionality is a particularly perplexing issue. It
is tempting to define adolescent resilience solely in terms of maintenance of emotional well-being
in the face of adversity. However, it may be unrealistic to believe that young people can quickly
resolve the emotional ramification of serious threat to personal values (e.g. illness, death of a
loved one). Distressing emotion must in some way act as an index of adversity. Consistent with
this idea, considerable data exist suggesting that young people functioning well under high stress
often show higher levels of emotional distress compared to their low stress peers (Luthar, 1991,
1993; Luthar, Doernberger, & Zigler, 1993).
Luthar (1991) has suggested a resilient individual may not necessarily be devoid of distressing
emotion, but can show successful coping, regardless of the presence of such emotion. Likewise,
Garmezy (1991) defines resilience as ‘‘Functional adequacyy(the maintenance of competent
functioning despite interfering emotionality)yas the benchmark of resilient behaviour under
stress.’’ (p. 463). Indeed, young people capable of maintaining competence despite significant
negative affect may be demonstrating the highest form of resilience. It is, however, safe to
conclude that if a resilient outcome is defined in terms of overt competencies under stress,
measures of psychological well being alone may provide a misleading impression of a young
person’s resilience.

3. Resilience as a process

Process focussed research aims to understand the mechanisms or processes that act to modify
the impact of a risk setting, and the developmental process by which young people successfully
adapt. Understanding the process of adaptation necessitates assessment of both risk mechanisms
that act to intensify an individual’s reaction to adversity (make more vulnerable), and protective
mechanisms that act to ameliorate an individual’s response to adversity (make more resilient) (e.g.
Rutter, 1987, 1999). Operating independently of risk and protective influences, exposure to risk
would lead directly to disorder (Rutter, 1996). Thus, risk and protective mechanisms can be
thought of as exerting their influence indirectly and through interaction with a risk setting.
Resilience promoting factors have commonly been discussed within three broad areas:
individual young people, their families and the societies in which they live (Garmezy, 1991;
Werner, 1995). A more expanded framework of resilience might include protective processes
(resources, competencies, talents and skills) that sit within the individual (individual-level factors),
within the family and peer network (social-level factors), and within the whole school
environment and the community (societal-level factors). Assessment of the adaptive capacity of
an individual could then proceed in terms of a comprehensive assessment of resources at each
level. Likewise, effective interventions could be aimed at developing the individual’s internal
4 C.A. Olsson et al. / Journal of Adolescence 26 (2003) 1–11

resources and skills and equally importantly changing the social environment to further promote
resilience. Considerable research effort has sought to elucidate key protective factors that sit
within individuals, between individuals, and in the material/physical environment. Table 1
illustrates the breadth of psychosocial factors researchers have looked at in studies of resilience.
The development of a measurement instrument capable of assessing a range of protective
mechanisms within multiple domains provides one approach to operationalizing resilience as a
dynamic process of adaptation to adversity. Assessing a range of resilience promoting processes
would allow key research questions about human adaptation to adversity to be addressed (Allen,
1998). For example, does resilience (a) vary with developmental level, (b) vary across different
domains (social, academic, relational), (c) vary in a curvilinear fashion (extreme ends being
problematic)?

4. Resilience as a multi-factorial concept

Thinking of resilience as a process necessitates consideration of interaction between a range of

risk and protective processes of varying degrees of impact, and a risk situation at varying points in
development. It is simplistic to believe that a clear single factor, such as parental divorce, is the
causal element in a negative chain of events leading to compromised social or academic or
relational competence. The risk process associated with parental divorce encompasses more than
the act of physical separation. Patterns of family interaction that precede, concur and follow the
physical separation of the parents are thought of as the extended process by which young people
are placed at risk of poor outcomes. While the adverse life circumstance may be described as the
event of divorce, multiple risk factors acting in synergy may far exceed the effect of one significant
life event (Luthar, 1993; Allen, 1998).
Data from the Christchurch longitudinal study (Fergusson & Lynskey, 1996) demonstrate a
linear relationship between the numbers of risk factors (e.g. poverty, parent conflict, separation,
poor parent–children interaction) in a child’s environment and the number of psychosocial
problems at ages 15–16 years. Increasing opportunity for interaction among risk factors increases
as a function of increasing numbers of risk factors. Thus, the effect of multiple risk factors can be
exponential. The same might be said of resilience. Just as risk factors have been posited to lay a
foundation for a negative chain of events, protective factors may similarly ensue a positive chain
reaction leading to favourable developmental outcomes (Egeland et al. 1993). For example,
Werner and Smith (1992) have suggested that a positive temperament increases the likelihood of
eliciting a positive response from others early in development. A positive temperament may well
be a seminal resilience promoting factor, having developmental resonance across the life span.
Providing opportunities for the development of positive chain reactions lie at the foundation of
successful intervention.

5. Promoting resilience in young people: a resource-based approach

The challenge for the field is to develop scientifically testable theories of resilience that can
ultimately inform best practice interventions promoting positive developmental outcomes in
 C.A. Olsson et al. / Journal of Adolescence 26 (2003) 1–11 5

Table 1
Individual-level, family level, and social environment-level resources
Individual-level Protective mechanism Select authors
resources
Constitutional resilience * Positive temperament Smith (1999)
* Robust neurobiology Allen (1998)
Werner (1995)
Brooks (1994)
Garmezy (1991)
Rutter (1987)

Sociability * Responsiveness to others Luthar (1991. 1993)

* Pro-social attitudes Werner (1995)
* Attachment to others Dyer and McGuinness (1996)
Allen (1998)

Intelligence * Academic achievement Werner (1995)

* Planning and decision making Eccles (1997)
Maggs Frome, Eccles, and Baarber
(1997)
Wolff (1995)
Brooks (1994)
Rutter (1987)

Communication skills * Developed language Werner (1995)

* Advanced reading

Personal attributes * Tolerance for negative affect Smith (1999)

* Self efficacy Allen (1998)
* Self esteem Blum (1998)
* Foundational sense of self Dyer and McGuiness (1996)
* Internal locus of control Werner (1995)
* Sense of humour Brooks (1994)
* Hopefulness Wolff (1995)
* Strategies to deal with stress Luthar (1991, 1993)
* Enduring set of values Rutter (1985, 1987)
* Balanced perspective on experience
* Malleable and flexible
* Fortitude, conviction, tenacity, and
resolve

Family level resources * Parental warmth, encouragement, Smith (1999)

Supportive families assistance Eccles (1997)
* Cohesion and care within the family Maggs et al. (1997)
* Close relationship with a caring adult Wolff (1995)
* Belief in the child Werner (1995)
* Non-blaming Egeland, Carlson, and Sroufe (1993)
* Marital support Rutter (1987)
* Talent or hobby valued by others
6 C.A. Olsson et al. / Journal of Adolescence 26 (2003) 1–11

Table 1 (continued)
Social environment-level
resources
Socio-economic status
Protective mechanism Select authors
* Material resourced Maggs et al. (1997)
Wolff (1995)
Allen (1998)

School experiences * Supportive peers Werner (1995)

* Positive teacher influences Rutter (1987)
* Success (academic or not)

Supportive communities Believes the individual’s stress Smith (1999)

Non-punitive Werner (1995)
Provisions and resources to assist Wolf (1995)
Belief in the values of a society

adolescence. From this review of the literature on adolescent resilience, it is apparent that most
research activity has focussed on protective processes sitting at three levels, these being individual-
level protective processes, the family level processes and community-level protective processes.
Within each level, researchers have been able to define a range of more specific processes that
would seem to ameliorate the effects of a risk setting, given the appropriate dose and timing of the
protective process. From an intervention development reference, each protective resource at each
level provides an intervention target for promoting resilience in young people. While the nature of
intervention at each level may differ significantly, the aim of each remains the same, that of
providing young people with the resources needed to successfully adapt to an ever changing
physical, psychological and social environment. Where young people are well resourced within
themselves, within their family and social contexts, a capacity for constructive adaptation to
adversity, that is, resilience can be enhanced.

5.1. Individual-level intervention

This review highlights a range of individual-level resources thought to be important in

adolescent resilience. Individual-level resources discussed in the literature include constitutional
factors (e.g. positive temperament, robust neurobiology), intelligence (e.g. academic achievement,
planning and decision making), sociability (e.g. responsiveness to others, positive attachment),
communications skills (e.g. language and reading skills), and personality traits (e.g. self-esteem/
self-efficacy, tolerance of negative affect, enduring values, flexibility, sense of humour) (see
Table 1). The range of individual-level factors suggested is extensive, but not necessarily
exhaustive. Intervention at the level of the individual might take a preventative focus, aiming to
develop personal coping skills and resources before specific encounters with real life adversity.
More commonly, however, coping skills and resources are built in response to crisis, often within
the context of one-on-one treatment.
While identifying what resources should be the target of effective intervention is important,
determining how to impart these resources to young people is equally important. The view of
 C.A. Olsson et al. / Journal of Adolescence 26 (2003) 1–11 7

many writers in the field is that young people learn critical, adaptive skills not so much through
instruction, but through experience. ‘‘Protectionyresides, not in the evasion of risk, but in
successful engagement with ityprotection stems from the adaptive changes that follow successful
coping.’’ (Rutter, 1987, p. 318). The idea of protecting young people by removing them from
potentially difficult life circumstances, or not exposing them to the complexities and hardship of
the world around, does not hold.
A basic interpretation of the notion of exposure might favour a banal form of intervention, one
that seeks to resource young people (at the individual, family, school or community level) with
some judicious exposure to nastiness in order to ‘steel’ them for later adversity. Promoting
resilience through exposure is certainly more complex than it might first appear. There is nothing
about exposure to adversity that necessarily toughens one up. While over protection and shielding
of a young person does little to develop resilience, at the other end of the spectrum, too much
exposure, too soon, risks overwhelming the young person and compromising a developing
resilience. Positing a direct relationship between the exposure to adversity and resilience misses
critical concepts of the ‘‘dose’’ and timing of negative events. Furthermore, a direct relationship
between adversity and resilience ignores the possible impact of buffering effects (protective
mechanisms) and may paint an over simplified notion of the antecedents of resilience. Adversity at
different points in the life span may elicit scarring or steeling effects depending on other
situational events (Wolff, 1995). Dyer and McGuiness (1996) suggest a shifting balance between
vulnerability and resilience with the balance in either direction being largely determined by how
young people perceive their ability to manage and engage the risk setting.

5.2. Family level intervention

Despite an emerging focus on the peer group, for many young people the family remains the
primary social support. This review highlights a range of family dynamics that if developed and
sustained, appear to be positively related to resilience during adolescence. The importance of
positive parent–child attachment is a common theme in the literature (Table 1). Likewise, parental
warmth, encouragement and assistance, cohesion and care within the family, or a close
relationship with a caring adult are commonly associated with resilient young people. A belief in
the child and a non-blaming parental style also emerge as key protective factors. No doubt
additional family processes are implicated in adolescent resilience. Intervention at the level of the
family may similarly take a preventative or crisis care focus.

5.3. Social environment intervention

Intervention approached from the level of the social environment presents another important
avenue to promote resilience in young people. In the literature two such environments are
identified: the school environment and broader social environment. Adolescents (especially in the
developed world) spend up to a third of their waking hours in school (Rutter et al. (1979)). This
makes school an important setting or system to promote resilience in young people, not just at the
level of individual resource development, or providing an environment in which to practise these
skills, but in terms of a safe environment that can actively buffer against adversity (Glover, Burns,
Butler, & Patton, 1998; Patton et al., 2000). School experiences that involve supportive peers,
8 C.A. Olsson et al. / Journal of Adolescence 26 (2003) 1–11

positive teacher influences, and opportunities for success (academic or not) appear to be positively
related to adolescent resilience (see Table 1).
The broader social environment of neighbourhood, region and country may also play an
important role in psycho-social development. The impact of the social environment can be from
both physical and social perspective. As indicated in Table 1, socio-economic status remains a
well-cited process posited to lead to both resilience and vulnerability. Socio-economic status is in
turn related to social class, ethnicity and gender, making each the focus of social policy
development centred on social justice and equality. However, equally well cited is the value
structure of a social environment. These papers propose that affirming, non-punitive social
structures, supportive communities, may play an important role in promoting resilience in young
people (Table 1). These comments raise the issue of social capital, a prominent concept within
social epidemiology and public health (Subrananian, Kawachi, & Kennedy, 2001). Little
discussion of social capital was found within the mental health literature on adolescent resilience.
Given the emerging interest in social epidemiology and the impact of the social environment on
health and well-being in adults (North, Syme, Feeney, Shipley, & Marmot, 1996; Yen & Syme,
1999), this is an area of research that warrants further investigation with an adolescent focus.

6. Measuring resilience

Having drawn a distinction between research focussed on outcome and research focussed on the
process of adaptation, methods of how to measure resilience becomes more obvious. Considering
resilience as a dynamic process, one approach to measurement is to develop psychometrically
sound instruments capable of assessing the range of psychosocial resources, skills, capabilities and
talents available to an individual to negotiate adversity. Resources may be assessed within the
individuals, their family and peer networks, and their broader social environment. The Healthy
Kids Resilience Questionnaire (Constantine et al., 1999) provides an example of a process-centred
measurement device. Using this questionnaire, an indication of the diversity of resources available
to young people can be gained. The implicit assumption of this approach is that the greater the
range of resources an individual has, the more likely the individual will be capable of mounting an
adaptive response to any life crisis. This hypothesis is yet to be tested, but the approach would
allow the investigation of differential importance of resources types (e.g. positive parental
relationship may be weighted above family income level). Another approach to measurement is to
develop instruments capable of assessing overt competencies (e.g. social, relational, vocational).
Within appropriate study designs, measures of competence can indicate whether successful
adaptation has occurred or not.
Having access to standardized measures of resilience will enable a number of research questions
to be addressed. For example, how risk and protective processes operate with respect to specific
stressors remains unclear. One possibility is that very different constellations of psychosocial
processes may lie antecedent to the range of resilient outcomes considered in previous research.
Luthar et al. (1993) have shown that while some high-risk children show competence in one
domain, they often exhibit difficulties in other life domains. Indeed, it may be more useful to
accept specific definitions of resilience, such as social resilience, academic resilience or emotional
resilience as these may yield more detailed insights into development. If this were found to be the
 C.A. Olsson et al. / Journal of Adolescence 26 (2003) 1–11 9

case, the question shaping research into resilience might better be stated as ‘‘What are the types of
processes via which particular attributes might moderate the effects of risk, with reference to a
specific aspect of competence’’ (Luthar, 1993 p. 451)?
Alternatively, beneath a seemingly diverse range of so-called resilient outcomes, a generic set of
psychosocial mechanisms may be in operation. The development of a positive self-concept may be
one such example. Having acquired a positive self-concept, individuals may be well set up to
maintain competence (i.e. demonstrate a resilient outcome) under a range of seemingly different
kinds of adversities. Equally, the self-concept may be well developed in one area but not in
another, making for a resilient outcome in the former but not the latter. Effective intervention
would rest in the cultivation of a few key attitudes and life approaches. The development of
standardized measures of resilience would provide the potential to better explore the nature of
resilience and the range of interventions designed to develop resilience.

7. Summary remarks

Although the term resilience has gained great popularity, different research groups have viewed
resilience within different risk settings, examined the impact of different protective processes, and
defined resilient outcomes according to different criteria. This review has emphasized how
resilience has been investigated both as an outcome of adaptation and as a process of adaptation.
Investigations of resilient outcomes have focussed on the maintenance of functionality (e.g.
vocation, relational or academic competence) despite risk to the contrary. Investigating the
process of adaptation has necessitated assessment of a range of risk and protective mechanisms
that act in concert and over time to mediate the effects of a risk setting.
By identifying a common sub-structure involving assessment of the risk setting, the interaction of
risk and protective process, and resultant adaptive outcomes, it may be possible to integrate the
findings of seemingly diverse studies. By identifying key dimensions of the concept of resilience,
concordant measures can then be developed. Specifically, measurement may focus on assessment of
the range of protective processes antecedent to an adaptive response or the outcome of adaptation.
The study of resilience is closely linked with intervention in that protective processes can inform
the development of targeted intervention. While both risk reduction and resilience development
approaches share the common goal of prevention of disorder, the emphasis of each approach is
somewhat different. A resilience-based approach emphasizes the building of skills and capacities
that facilitate successful negotiation of high-risk environments. A risk reduction approach on the
other hand has emphasized removing or avoiding factors or processes implicated in the
development of problematic outcomes (e.g. drug experimentation). For sustained effect, the
judicious use of both methods of intervention is essential. Certainly, there is still much to learn
from studies of resilience in young people.

References

Allen, J. R. (1998). Of resilience, vulnerability, and a woman who never lived. Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics
of North America, 7, 53–71.
10 C.A. Olsson et al. / Journal of Adolescence 26 (2003) 1–11

Anthony, E. J. (1974). The syndrome of the psychologically invulnerable child. In E. J. Anthony, & C. Koupernik,
(Eds.), The child in his family: children at psychiatric risk, New York: Wiley.
Blum, R. W. (1998). Healthy youth development as a model for youth health promotion: A review. Journal of
Adolescent Health, 22, 368–375.
Brooks, R. B. (1994). Children at risk: Fostering resilience and hope. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 64, 545–553.
Cicchetti, D., & Cohen, D. (1995). Developmental psychopathology, Vol. 2: Risk, disorder, and adaptation. New York:
John Wiley and Sons.
Constantine, N., Bernard, B., & Diaz, M. (1999). Measuring protective factors and resilience traits in youth: The health
kids resilience assessment. Unpublished Work.
Darwin, C. (1898). Preservation of favoured species by means of natural selection. London: John Murray.
Dyer, J. G., & McGuinness, T. M. (1996). Resilience: Analysis of the concept. Archives of Psychiatric Nursing, 10,
276–282.
Eccles, J. (1997). The association of school transitions in early adolescent with developmental trajectories through high
school. In J. Schulenberg, (Ed.), Health and risk developmental transitions during adolescence. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Egeland, B. R., Carlson, E., & Sroufe, L. A. (1993). Resilience as process. Development and Psychopathology, 5,
517–528.
Fergusson, D. M., & Lynskey, M. T. (1996). Adolescent resiliency to family adversity. Journal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry, 37, 281–292.
Florian, V., Mikulincer, M., & Taubman, O. (1995). Does hardiness contribute to mental health during a stressful real–
life situation? The roles of appraisal and coping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 687–695.
Fonagy, P., Steele, M., Steele, H., Higgitt, A., & Target, M. (1994). The Emanuel Miller Memorial Lecture 1992. The
theory and practice of resilience. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 35, 231–257.
Garmezy, N. (1991). Resilience in children’s adaptation to negative life events and stressed environments. Pediatric
Annals, 20, 459–466.
Glover, S., Burns, J., Butler, H., & Patton, G. (1998). Social environments and the emotional wellbeing of young
people. Family Matters, 49, 11–16.
Goodman, R. (1999). The extended version of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire as a guide to child
psychiatric caseness and consequent burden. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 40(5), 791–799.
Harriman, P. L. (1958). Handbook of psychological terms. Patterson, NJ: Littlefield, Adams, and Co.
Jew, C. L., Green, K. E., & Kroger, J. (1999). Development and validation of a measure of resiliency. Measurement and
Evaluation in Counselling and Development, 32, 75–89.
Kobasa, S. C. (1979). Stressful life events, personality, and health. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37,
1–11.
Luthar, S. S. (1991). Vulnerability and resilience: A study of high–risk adolescents. Child Development, 62, 600–616.
Luthar, S. S. (1993). Annotation: Methodological and conceptual issues in research on childhood resilience. Journal of
Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 34, 441–453.
Luthar, S. S., Doernberger, C. H., & Zigler, E. (1993). Resilience is not a unidimensional construct: Insights from a
prospective study of inner-city adolescents. Development and Psychopathology, 5, 703–717.
Luthar, S. S., Cicchetti, D., & Becker, B. (2000). The construct of resilience: A critical evaluation and guidelines for
future work. Child Development, 71(3), 543–562.
Maddi, S. R., & Khoshaba, D. M. (1994). Hardiness and mental health. Journal of Personality Assessment, 63, 265–274.
Maggs, J., Frome, P., Eccles, J., & Barber, B. (1997). Psychosocial resources, adolescent risk behaviour and young adult
adjustment: Is risk taking more dangerous for some than others? Journal of Adolescence, 20, 103–119.
Masten, A. S., Coatsworth, J. D., Neemann, J., Gest, S. D., Tellegen, A., & Garmezy, N. (1995). The structure and
coherence of competence from childhood through adolescence. Child Development, 66, 1635–1659.
North, F. M., Syme, S. L., Feeney, A., Shipley, M., & Marmot, M. (1996). Psychosocial work environment and sickness
absence among British Civil Servants: The Whitehall ii Study. American Journal of Public Health, 86, 332–340.
Patton, G., Glover, S., Bond, L., Butler, H., Godfrey, C., & Di Pietro, G. (2000). The Gatehouse Project: A systematic
approach to mental health promotion in secondary schools. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 34,
586–593.
 C.A. Olsson et al. / Journal of Adolescence 26 (2003) 1–11 11

Ramanaiah, N. V., Sharpe, J. P., & Byravan, A. (1999). Hardiness and major personality factors. Pyschological
Reports, 84, 497–500.
Rhodewalt, F., & Zone, J. B. (1989). Appraisal of life change, depression, and illness in hardy and nonhardy women.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(1), 81–88.
Rutter, M. (1985). Resilience in the face of adversity: Protective factors and resistance to psychiatric disorder. British
Journal of Psychiatry, 147, 598–611.
Rutter, M. (1987). Psychosocial resilience and protective mechanisms. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 57,
316–331.
Rutter, M. (1996). Stress research: Accomplishments and tasks ahead. In R. Haggerty, L. Sherrod, N. Garmezy & M.
Rutter (Eds.), Stress, risk and resilience in children and adolescents: Processes, mechanisms and interventions.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rutter, M. (1999). Resilience concepts and findings: Implications for family therapy. Journal of Family Therapy, 21,
119–144.
Rutter, M., Maughan, B., Mortimore, P., Ouston, J. & Smith, A. (1979). Fifteen thousand hours: secondary schools
and their effects on children. London: Open Books.
Smith, G. (1999). Resilience concepts and findings: Implications for family therapy. Journal of Family Therapy, 21,
154–158.
Subramanian, S. V., Kawachi, I., & Kennedy, B. P. (2001). Does the state you live in make a difference? Multilevel
analysis of self-rated health in the U.S. Social Science & Medicine, 53, 9–19.
Wagnild, G. M., & Young, H. M. (1993). Development and psychometric evaluation of the resilience scale. Journal of
Nursing Measurement, 1(2), 165–178.
Werner, E. E., & Smith, R. S. (1992). Overcoming the odds: High risk children from birth to adulthood. New York:
Cornell University Press.
Werner, E. E. (1995). Resilience in development. Current Directions in Psychological Sciences, 4, 81–85.
Wolff, S. (1995). The concept of resilience. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 29, 565–574.
Yen, I. H., & Syme, S. L. (1999). The social environment and health: A discussion of the epidemiologic literature.
Annual Review of Public Health, 20, 287–308.