|
Article Excerpt
A study of resiliency was conducted among 236 urban juvenile detainees. Findings reveal that resiliency processes related differently to risk and protective factors, differed among ethnic groups, and varied by age and gender among juvenile detainees.
**********
Research on risk-taking behaviors has traditionally examined factors that place youth at risk (Brown, Cohen, Johnson, & Salzinger, 1998; Pfeffer, 1988; Pierre, Shrier, Emans, & DuRant, 1998), but more recently researchers have begun to explore the strengths and protective factors (Blocker & Copeland, 1994; Pellegrini, 1990; Smith & Prior, 1995) that help youths circumvent problematic behaviors. This new area of research on resiliency uses a variety of terms and phrases to describe resiliency, such as "stress-resistant" (Werner & Smith, 1992)--the ability to bounce back, to withstand hardship, to repair oneself (Wolin & Wolin, 1993)--and "hardiness" (Maddi, 1999). Masten, Best, and Garmezy (1990) defined resilience as "the process of, capacity for, or outcome of successful adaptation despite challenging or threatening circumstances" (p. 426). The experience of incarceration at an early age is clearly one of those threatening circumstances. In this study, we examine resiliency processes among a group of adolescent detainees. To more fully understand the antecedents and concomitant experiences of such adolescents, we examined the relationships between resiliency, risk factors, and protective factors and tested several hypotheses about resiliency using the framework presented by Wolin and Wolin.
The Role of Risk and Protective Factors in the Development of Resiliency
Risk factors are "those characteristics, variables, or hazards that, if present for a given individual, make it more likely that this individual, rather than someone selected at random from the general population, will develop a disorder" (Institute of Medicine, 1994, p. 127). In addition to biological risk factors, other risk factors are often reflected in familial, social, or behavioral problems, many of which may be co-occurring among individuals. For example, a youth may be biologically at risk for developing alcoholism because he or she has parents who are biologically disposed to develop alcoholism. Compounding this biological risk may be family risk factors (e.g., the parents may divorce or experience financial difficulties) or situational behaviors (e.g., associating with a delinquent peer group), both of which can exacerbate the risk that the youth might engage in substance use.
The opposite of risk factors are protective factors. Protective factors are specific circumstances, experiences, or resources that ameliorate or buffer a "person's reaction to a situation that in ordinary circumstances leads to maladaptive outcomes" (Werner & Smith, 1992, p. 5). Although the term protective factor is used here, to be consistent with the majority of the psychological literature, it is the process, or experience, of particular circumstances, events, resources, or relationships that determines the extent of its protective impact for the child (Rutter, 1990). Maintaining this similarity in terminology is useful for acknowledging the presence of influential factors and external forces that interact with one another in a child's life.
Risk factors and protective factors interact to affect individuals' vulnerability to the development of illness and their receptivity to protective processes. Yet, risk factors and protective factors alone do not determine individuals' social or developmental outcomes. Resilience, as an internal, dispositional, and attitudinal construct, helps determine how risk factors and protective factors are understood, experienced, and dealt with by the individual. "Theoretical explanations for the phenomenon of resilience involve the interaction of risk factors, including individual vulnerability, and protective factors to explain why some are spared and others are not" (Institute of Medicine, 1994, p. 128). Children may be biologically or environmentally at risk for developing certain disorders or engaging in problematic behaviors, like substance use, but not develop the full variety of symptoms or behaviors. For example, children of a parent with schizophrenia are biologically disposed to develop schizophrenia, yet may never go on to develop the disorder (Rutter, 2000). Similarly, individuals at biological risk for substance abuse may never experience the full spectrum of symptoms or engage in substance abuse, either because of the presence of protective factors in their lives (often shared by other family members) or because of resiliency processes that are unique to the individual (Pellegrini, 1990). Thus, protective factors indicate specific experiences, events, or resources that buffer against risks that normally would lead to maladaptive outcomes, whereas resilience reflects an individual's ability to deflect, reinterpret, or otherwise circumvent risk factors that are presented through challenging and compromising circumstances (Cohler, 1987; Werner & Smith, 1992).
Research on Resiliency: A Conceptual Model
Through research interviews with 25 adult children from alcoholic families, Wolin and Wolin (1993) identified seven resiliency processes: insight, independence, relationships, initiative, creativity and humor, and morality. These seven resiliency processes represent seven clusters of characteristics that Wolin and Wolin viewed as central to overcoming adverse circumstances and averting problematic behaviors. Other researchers (e.g., Beardslee & Podorefsky, 1988; Garmezy, 1987; Smith & Prior, 1995) have found support for many of these processes in different circumstances. The support for Wolin and Wolin's framework found in such studies suggests that these processes may be useful in explaining the experiences and problems of delinquent youth (i.e., youths under the age of 18 who have been incarcerated for illegal offenses).
The first two resiliency processes described by Wolin and Wolin (1993)--insight and independence--should be expected to vary a great deal across adolescence as a function of the changes in cognitive development and individual autonomy that occur from childhood to adulthood. Insight involves a child's understanding that he or she is not personally responsible
for family problems. Insight may be a particularly difficult variable to measure with adolescents, because its assessment requires them to articulate complex age-inappropriate social cognitive reasoning. Independence is the second resiliency process. It reflects an individual's capacity to create a safe physical and psychological space in the presence of family conflict and the ability to remain calm during criticism, rejection, or silence from parents. Independence may not always be an indicator of resilience among juvenile detainees. For example, many are arrested for runaway behavior, which may reflect attempts to distance themselves from dysfunctional and dangerous family situations but may place them in situations that involve illegal activities and encourage poor choices.
The third resiliency process is the ability to develop relationships that reflect "intimate and fulfilling ties to other people" (Wolin & Wolin, 1993, p. 111). This resiliency process reflects a degree of connectedness in terms of spending time with and enjoying the company of others (Karcher, 2002). It is an important resiliency process, because youths who form connections with positive and nurturing adults and attach themselves to friends are better at seeking out others as a source of comfort and security to overcome adversity than are youths with less relationship resilience (Losel & Bliesener, 1994; Werner & Smith, 1992).
Initiative, the fourth process, is "the determination to assert yourself and master your environment" (Wolin & Wolin, 1993, p. 136). Individuals with a sense of initiative enjoy exploring, working, and solving problems. Initiative can result in a sense of competence and effectiveness, thereby contributing to a strengthened internal locus of control and allowing the individual to feel a sense of power over forces that may attempt to defeat him or her. This ability to explore, enjoy, and master the environment is an important developmental competency (Erikson, 1950).
The last three resiliencies, creativity and humor and morality, reflect proactive responses to adversity. Creativity and humor reflect the ability to reshape one's painful experiences to make them more bearable. This involves playing with and shaping facts and events so that struggles, pain, and defeats are transformed into strengths, pleasures, and triumphs (Nakkula & Ravitch, 1998). It is a process of turning "something into nothing and nothing into something" (Wolin & Wolin, 1993, p. 167). Morality, described as "the activity of an informed conscience" (p. 184) reflects an individual's responses to past pain and current risks and his or her efforts to envision the future and improve the world. Morality also involves the ability to tell right from wrong and the ability to give, even when one has been given little. For example, individuals enlist morality when they assume a responsible role in a dysfunctional family or work to make the world a better place (Wolin & Wolin, 1993).
Resiliency Processes: The Effects of Gender and Age
To this point in the literature on resilience, a few main effects have been identified and highlighted. There seem to be differences in resilience as a function of the gender and age of the individual. Werner (1986), in her long-term study of resilient children of parents who have alcoholism, found that several social and familial factors or processes protected the resilient adolescents...
|
