Factors and Processes Contributing to Resilience

9 - ---- --
Factors and Processes Contributing
to Resilience
The Resilience Framework
Karol L. Kumpfer
Introduction
Resilience is becoming an increasingly popular concept for research and
application in the field of prevention. Because of reduced funding for services
to help at-risk children and families, information on low cost methods
for increasing resilience to negative life events is critically needed. A better
understanding of ways to increase resilience in all children holds great
promise for improving the effectiveness of preventive community, school,
and family services.
A shift in focus from risk to resilience, according to Thrner (1995), has
developed partially from a frustration with such a pervasive emphasis on
the identification of risk factors. Whi1e a risk-focused approach has been
very helpful in the public health field in the reduction of infectious diseases,
more complex diseases of life style require a more comprehensive approach
including proteelive and resilience mechanisms (Rutter, 1993).A paradigmshift
appears to be occurring towards an increasing emphasis on optimism
and hope as opposed to the frustration and despair that can occur from an
emphasis on risk processes.
Karol L. Kumprer • Center ror Substance Abuse Prevention, Substance Abuse and Mental
Health Services Administration, Rockville, Maryland 20857.
Resilience and l>evelopment: Positive Ufe Adaptations, edited by Glantz and Johnson. Kluwer
Academic/Pienum Publishers, New York, 1999.
179

184 Karol L. Kumpfer
or caring others either passively or actively attempt to perceive,
interpret and surmount threats, eh allenges or difficult environments
to construct more protective environments.
4. Internat Self Characteristics include internal individual spiritual,
cognitive, social/behavioral, physical and emotional/affective competencies
or strengths needed to be successful in different developmental
tasks, different cultures, and different personal environrnents.
5. Resilience Processes include unique short-term or long-term
resilience or stress/coping processes learned by the individual
through gradual exposure to increasing chanenges and stressors that
help the individual to bounce-back with resilient reintegration
(Richardson, Neiger, Jensen, & Kumpfer, 1990).
6. Positive Outcomes or successfu11ife adaptation in specific developmental
tasks which are supportive of later positive adaptation in
specific new developmental tasks culminating in a higher likelihood
of reaching a global designation in adulthood as a "resilient child
or adult". While this is an outcome, in a dynamic model, a positive
outcome suggesting resiHence is also predictive of later resilient
reintegration after disruption or stress.
Alt six of these major duster variables or constructs are needed to organize
predictors of resilient outcomes in high-risk youth because research
studies have reviewed these different constructs as predictive of resilience
in an individual. Organizing research findings by these six areas would
help to clarify the differences between environmental stimuli, transactional
environment buffering processes, internal mediating self factors, resilience
processes used to bounce-back after a challenge, and the final developmental
outcomes of resilient children. Because it is a daunting task to
simultaneously test multicausal models (Sameroff, Seifer, & Barocas, 1983),
most of the predictive research cited in this review includes only parts of
this framework in a single study. This resilience framework has been empirically
tested in doctoral dissertations at the University of Utah using
structural equation models in simultaneous measures of multiple domains
in college students (Neiger, 1991), working mothers (Dunn, 1994), and
children of alcoholics (Walker, 1995). As highlighted by Egeland, Carlson,
& Sroufe (1993), an organizational approach or framework for the study
of resilience provides a means of integrating findings on risk and protective
factors in individuals and environments and focuses attention on
processes of adaptation. "From such an organizalional view, the capacity for
resilience is seen as developing over time through an integration of constitutional
and experiential factors in the context of a supportive environment"
(p. 525).

186 Karol L Kumprer
Types of Resilience Research
Different research designs have been used to study resilience or related
concepts (e.g., stress-coping, ego-resilience, personality, motivation, and
health). Each of these different research methodologies can produce discrepant,
but perhaps eventually eonverging, results concerning the most
critical elements predicting resilience to negative life events or high-risk
environments. Five major types of resilience research were reviewed.
Retrospective, Single Sample, or Cross-Sectional Studies
This type of research design is used primarily by life events researchers
and some other resilience researchers. Because of time constraints, tbis
design is popular with graduate students. Life events researchers, typically
Iimit their collection of data to determining the relationship of negative life
events and adaptation. If children or adolescents are studied, they are generally
asked to rate stressful life events experienced in the recent past and
whether they perceive the event as positive or negative (Swearingen &
Cohen, 1985). Simple correlational data analyses suggest that major life
stressors impact life adjustment, but these relationships are more complicated
in individual cases and appear to be moderated by daily hassles and
stressors (DeLongis, Coyne, Dakof, Folkman, & Lazarus 1982). Retrospective,
small sample studies are also conducted using qualitative, in-depth
interview studies of successful adults who have Hmade it despite the odds"
(Gordon & Song, 1993). Life events analysis is used to develop grounded
theory for later hypothesis testing (Strauss & Glaser, 1967).
Retrospective, Cross-Sectional, Multivariate Studies
Resilience researchers using cross-sectional designs tend to include
intervening variables (i.e., daily hassles, personality traits, environmental
context, and interactive processes with significant others). In adults, a retrospective
rating of majornegative life events occurring at any time in their
lives combined with daily hassles has been used to determine "high-risk"
status (Dunn, 1994). High and low risk groups have been created post·hoc
or chosen in advance. General population comparison groups are sometimes
compared to high-risk populations-children of alcoholics, schizophrenics,
and families living in poverty. More sophisticated multivariate
statistics are used, such as multiple regression and structural equation
modeling. Including multiple variables from environmental, individual,
and adjustment domains, researchers increased correlation coefficients to
.,.,.."....
I

188 Karol L. KumpFer
from highwrisk samples function comparably to wellwfunctioning children in
general population samples (Luthar & Zigler, 1991).
Occasionally these prospective studies begin after the occurrence of
a specific traumatic event, such as child abuse or parental divorce. Such
studies can be criticized for not having data on the child's adjustment prior
to the onset of the major stressor or risk factor. Causality is difficult to
determine since these children may have poor life adjustment or behaviors
prior to the trauma.
Prospective, Multiple Sampie Studies
This type of design is used by developmental researchers interested in
comparing children in the general population with a high-risk population
over time (Conger et al., 1992; Kumpfer, Molgaard, & Spoth, in press).
Matched pairs or families are sometimes used as control groups (Johnson,
Glassman, Fiks, & Rosen, 1990). This design could be used with many prevention
sturlies where one group is given an intervention, another is not,
and a generat population sample exists for comparison. Using this type of
design, Abelson, Zigler, & DeBlasi (1974) and Mulholland and associates
(1991) discovered that the resilient children in high-risk groups did not
equal the attainment of the normal, low-risk groups. This type of design
is encouraged by Luthar and Cushing (1996) to answer the question of
whether the most resilient individuals of a high-risk group truly resilient or
are simply the best of a generally poorly functioning group.
Outcome Research Pertaining to the Six Resiliency Predictor
Areas of the Resilience Framework
Outcome research on resilience was organized into the six predictor
areas of the proposed resiliency framework, namely: 1) the acute stressor or
challenge, 2) the cxternal environmental context, 3) person-environment
interactional processes, 4) internalself characteristics or resiliency factors, 5)
resiliency processes, and 6) the positive outcome. Research on each of these
six resilience predictor areas are discussed below in their own sections.
The Acute Stressor or Cha/lenge
The resiliency framework or process begins with an initiating event
and ends with an outcome, hopefully a successful one that demonstrates

190 Karol L. Kumpfer
"high risk". Merely assuming that a child is high risk because of belanging
to a high-risk category has been questioned.
This review of environmental risk and proteetive faetors _will not
attempl an exhaustive Iist of the most eritical risk and proteelive faetors
beeause 1) many existing reviews of risk and proteelive factors for different
adjustment problems exist, and 2) the most important risk and proteetive
faetors differ for eaeh field. For reviews of risk factors for substance
abuse, the reader is referred to Kuropfer (1987) for a review that includes
biological risk factors. Hawkins, Artbur and Catalano (1994) or Hawkins,
Catalano and Miller (1992) provide more recent summaries of risk factors
for substance abuse as weil. What is diseussed in this section are dimensions
of risk and proteelive faetors that must be considered when attempting
to determine the most predictive risk or proteelive factors for positive life
outcomes.
In most research "high-risk" means ehildren from high-risk environments,
such as children from dysfunetional families. However, some
researchers also include personal risky behaviors (i.e., substance use,
conduct disorders, attention deficit disorder, and deJinquency) in their
definition of high risk samples (Stouthamer-Loeber et al., 1993). According
to Luthar and Zigler (1991), it is important to differentiale risk factors or
stressors that the individual can influenee (e.g., failing in school) and those
generallyout of theit eontrol (e.g., death of a parent, war, being born to a
dysfunctional parent). If this is not done, predictive results are confounded
by having maladjustment predict maladjustment or the convcrse.
In this review, risk factors are defined primarily by ehronic adversity
in the environment of the child. Acute stressors are considered the stimuli
for disruption and integration, thus beginning the resiliency process
(Richardson, Neiger, Jensen, & Kumpfer, 1990) towards maladaptation or
resilient reintegration. The environmental eontext of stressors and supports
can help the child through psychosocial facilitation processes. Critieal
dimensions of risk factors and processes must be considered in resilience
research in defining risk, namely:
1. Whether the ebild aetually experiences the risk faetors (Piomin &
Daniels, 1987; Werner & Smith, 1992),
2. Perception or attribution of risk or threat by ehild ( Gordon & Song,
1994),
3. Degree of direct or indirect effects on the child because of proximal
or distal status in a chain of causal variables,
4. Degree of transactional buffering by child or caring others (Radke­
Yarrow & Brown, 1993),

,.
"
Factors and Processes Contributing to Resilience 193
propose a unidirectional, linear model in which low IQ predicts adjustment
difficulties directly or through intervening variables (White, Moffitt, &
Silva, 1989). The St. Louis Risk Research Project found the childhood intelligence
measures predicted mental health in children of mentally ill parents
(Anthony, 1987; Worland, Weeks, & Jones, 1987). Other studies with children
of mentally ill parentS support this relationship (Bleuler, 1984;
Garmezy, 1985; Long & Vaillant, 1984).
lncreased intellectual capabilities, particularly verbal skills, have
been found in resilient children of schizophrenic and depressed parents
(Garmezy, 1985; Masten, Best, & Garmezy, 1990) and children of alcoholics
(COAs) (Werner, 1985). This latter study found that none of the resilient
COAs were judged below average at two years in intellectual development,
compared to 16% of COAs who later manifested adaptive prob­
\ems. Verbal capabilities and aptitude were significantly higher by age 10 as
weil as scholastic aptitude and educational achievement tests in grades 5,
8-10, and 12 in COAs who did not develop serious coping problems compared
to those who did. The resilient COAs also had fewer errors on the
Bender-Gestalt Test, considered a measure of central nervous system
integrity.
Arecent study by Luthar and Zigler (1992) examined the role of intelligence
looking for interaction effects with Ievel of stressors and personal
characteristics. They found that l.Q. can be a vulnerability factor in high
stress Situations for high IQ children. Inner-city. multi-cultural ninth grade
students with higher intelligence showed considerably more variation in
school-based performance depending on locus of control and impulse
control (ego development). Hence, youth with higher levels of internal
locus of control and impulse control were more likely to be motivated to
use their intelligence to achieve academically. However, if these youth have
learned powerlessness through social and educational inequities leading
them to believe that school success does not lead to life success (Fordham
& Ogbu. 1986), they tended to underachieve dramatically. Possibly, their
achievement motivation is directed to other areas where they perceive
greater chances of successfully applying their talents and intelligence, such
as illegal activities and drug dealing (Myers, 1990).
Gender. Another major genetic factor related to increased resiliency
in high-risk children is female gender. Repeatedly, developmental studies
of children living in at-risk environments and families have found girls to
be more resilient than boys (Werner, 1985). Boys appear to be more vulnerable
to out-of-home care (Gamble & Zigler; 1986). Some researchers
(Rutter 1982) sliggest that boys react emotionally and behaviorally in more
negative ways than girJs to negative family Situations.

194 Karol L. Kumpfer
Temperament and Personality. Most resiliency researchers (Garmezy,
1985; Rutter, Maughan, Mortimore, Ouston, & Smith, 1979) regardless of
their discipline, agree that constitutional and temperamental disposition is
a major factor in resilience. Both Garmezy (1985) and Rutter (1979) have
discussed positive temperament or positive personality disposition as one
of the three major precursors of resilience; the other two factors are supportive
family milieu (family cohesion and warmth) and the availability and
use of external support systems by parent and child. In their 14-year study
of ego resilience from pre-school to late adolescence, Block and Block
(1980) found precursors of resilience in children to be positive temperament
traits, such as responsiveness to environmental change, ability to be
comforted after stress, and ability to maintain physiological equilibrium, as
weil as to modify sleep-wakefulness states. Wertlieb and associates (1989)
found three temperament traits related to effects of stress: distractibility,
stimulus threshold sensitivity, and response to novel stimuli.
A number of sturlies have supported the hypothesis that "difficult"
temperament is associated with alcohol and other drug use in later life.
A "difficult" temperament as defined by frequent negative moods and
withdrawal was found by Lerner and Vicary (1984) as correlated with later
drug probJems in a longitudinal study that tracked kindergartners until
adulthood. Children characterized as "easy" children. defined by greater
adaptability and happier dispositions. were significantly less likely than
"difficult" children to become adult regular users of tobacco, alcohol, and
ffi3T1JU8na.
As described by Lernerand Vicary (1984), as well as Brook and associates
(1990), two major temperament traits in children who Jater used
drugs are: 1) negative mood states ( anxiety, irritability, sadness, emotional
upset, anger and crying) and 2) social withdrawal. These are very similar
to the two major temperament characteristics-aggression and shynessfound
in the Kellam and Brown (1982) longitudinal study of adolescents
who later used drugs. lf youth continue aggressive behaviors until13 years
of age, they have a strong likelihood of developing alcoholism (Loeber,
1988) or drug abuse (Barnes & Weite, 1986) and delinquency (Stouthamer­
Loeber et al., 1993). Hyperactivity, attention deficit disorder and oppositional
defiant behavior in juniorhigh school aged children have been found
to increase odds ratios for delinquency (Stouthamer-Loeber et al., 1993).
Neurotransmitter lmbalances. Because of the consistent finding of
temperament differences in negative life adjustment, temperament should
be considered a significant risk factor leading to risk processes involving
parents, teachers, and peers. Youth with difficulty, unpleasant, or aggressive
temperaments are often rejected by other prosocial peers. The role of biological
chemical imbalances (neurotransmitter or hormonal imbalances)

Facton and Processes Contrlbuting to Resilience 195
should be more thoroughly investigated in this powerful risk process. Such
chemical imbalances can be due to genetic inheritance, in utero chemical
exposure, and postnatal exposure. The use of alcohol, tobacco, and other
drugs also Ieads to neurotransmitter imbalances that can increase craving
for drugs ( Goodwin, 1986). In addition to complex interactional processes
between external environmental variables, internal self factors have complex
relationships.
Interna/ Psychological Se/f Resiliency Factars
Organization of Interna/ Personal Traits or Self Factors. To develop a
categorical framework for improving understanding of self factors to
resilience, the internal individual factors have been reviewed in the child
development and child psychopathology literature. Following traditional
wisdom, they have been organized into five major overlapping domains:
spiritual, cognitive, social/behavioral, emotional, and physical.
This organization maps reasonably weil on the mind, body, and spirit
division of traditional wisdom. The "Four Worlds" Native American
tradition consider four major developmental tasks for youth-namely
physica), emotional, cognitive, and spiritual. An additional cluster variable
of social/behavior competencies has been added because of. the Iarge
number of resilience sturlies that equate resilience with social competen·
cies. Luthar (1993) has distinguished three of these five domains in her longitudinal
study, namely social. emotional and physical. lt is of interest that
very few researchers have foctised on the spiritual or affective domain
which is critical to the concepts of ftexibility, perseverance, hopefulness,
optimism and the ability to bounce back after failure.
- Individual characteristics within each of these five internal domains
will be discussed in detail including those that are more determined by
genetics or biological, in utero environment effecting biology or temperament,
and the five types of self factors. In addition, resilience processes will
be discussed a1though few researchers currently focus their research on
these unique processes despite resilience specifically being considered the
ability tobounceback after failure. A nurober of longitudinal studies of positive
life adaptation despite stressful or high-risk environments (Garmezy,
1985; Luthar, 1991; Radke-Yarrow & Brown, 1993; Werner & Smith, 1982,
1992) indicate that strength, hardiness and competence are predictive of
successful interactions with their environments.
Resilience as Internat Capacity or Competence. Resilient children
have coping skills and competencies to minimize stress of negative impacts,
maintain self-esteem and gaining access to opportunities. In studying
resilience, researchers have often focused on the internal characteristics of

Euvironmental Risk Factors
•Anti-social values
•ATOD Abusing Parents
•Poverty
•Farnily Dysfunction
•Family Conflict
\
Spirituality
•Motivation
•Purpose in Life
•Perseverance
I
Environmental Protective Fac:tors
•Prosocial Family Values
•Low Family Stress
•Good Parent/Child Relationship
•Good Parenting Skills (Supervision and Discipline)
•Parent/Child Attachment
•Positive RoJe Models
•Strong Extended Family
•High Expectations
• Family T eaching!Support
•Family Guidance/Counsel
•Opportunities for Meaningful Family Involvement
!
Figure 2. Interna} Self Resmency Characteristics.
!---+
.J

198 K•rol L. Kumpfer
depends on direction or focus. Hence, the variables hypothesized for inclusion
are the following:
• Dreams and Goals (Bandura, 1989; Quinton et al., 1993; Rutter &
Quinton, 1984)
• Purpose in Life (Neiger, 1992)
• Existential Meaning for Life (Frankel, 1959)
• Spirituality (Dunn, 1994; Gordon & Song, 1994).
• Belief in Uniqueness or in Oneself (Gordon & Song, 1994).
• lnternal Locus of Control (Luthar, 1991a; Murphy & Moriarty, 1976;
Parker, Cowen, Work, & Wyman, 1990; Werner & Smith, 1992).
• Hopefulness and Optimism (Seligman, 1975)
• Determination and Perseverance (Bandura, 1989; Werner, 1986)
Dreams!Goals and Purpose in Life. One very important psychological
characteristic of resilient children living in high-risk environments is
their ability to dream (Bandura, 1989; Rutter & Quinton, 1984; Quinton,
Pickeles, Maughan, & Rutter, 1993), create plausible fantasies for themse]ves
and to deveJop a mission or purpose for their lives (Bernard, 1991;
Richardson, Neiger, Jensen, & Kumpfer, 1990). Surviving difficuJt chiJdhoods
often was achieved by a sense of uniqueness or specialness and
spiritual belief that they are here for some cosmic purpose-often a
general commitment to making the world a better place for similar types
of children.
This purpose in life or existential meaning (Frankel, 1959), helps these
resilient individuals to endure hardships, because they believe they must
survive to complete their mission. Beardslee's research (1983; 1989) on civil
rights workers in South and Segal's research (1986) on prisoners ofwar discovered
that a predominant characteristic of resilient individuals was
having a purpose in life reJated to helping others. Creating a perceived
purpose for their pain and suffering (Beardslee, 1989; Segal, 1986) and
healing through helping or caring for others (Werner, 1986; Segal, 1986)
helps individuals to regain environmental mastery and perceived control
(Taylor, 1983) which has been found critical to maintaining hope in adverse
life threatening situations ( e.g., concentration camps, prisons, war zones,
acute care hospital units, and abusive families). Neiger (1991) confirmed in
a structural equations modeling study of college students in South Carolina
that resiliency was the final pathway to positive life adaptation. The most
predictive variable in his multifactoriaJ resiliency duster was life purpose,
next was problern solving, followed by self-efficacy.
r

202 Karol L. Kumpfer
inteUigence dramatically underachieve in school performance if they have
a low internallocus of control or poor ability to delay gratification (Luthar
& Zigler, 1992). Unfortunately, some ethnic youth (particularly African­
American boys) equate academic achievement to "acting White", because
of few concrete roJe models of success through the traditional academic
achievement (Fordham & Ogbu, 1986). High verbal skills are critically
important for success in early grades of elementary school, unfortunately,
children of substance abusers and children of deprived families tend to
have lower verbal scores on standardized tests (Kumpfer, 1987). Increasing
verbal competence by teaching phonetic reading, speJiing, and encouraging
reading will help disadvantaged youth. High verbaland reading skills tend
to help resilient children to leam about the world outside of their family
and neighborhoods (Luthar & Zigler, 1992). Fairy tales and children's
stories frequently portray disadvantaged children overcoming the odds,
hence exposing children to these cultural stories can increase dreams and
belief in achievement against the odds. Girls, however, often experience a
downward academic performance trajectory in middle school related to
sex-rote sociaJization processes sometimes promoted by traditional cultural
stories, teacher's differential response to girls, and an increasing social orientation
that sometimes overwhelms academic priorities. Maternal educational
achievement and roJe modefing tends to help girls to achieve.
Moral Reasoning. A product of higher intellectual thought is the
higher moral reasoning Ievels these children are capable of attaining and
demonstrating. Jacobs and Wolin (1991) suggest that resilient children separate
themselves from the value systems of their families by becoming their
own moral guardians. Coles (1989) has also discussed the importance of
"moral energy" in resilient children from impoverished homes around the
world. Moral energy creates a life-sustaining force that can move resilient
children towards positive Jives. Wolin and Wolin (1993) consider morality
as one of seven resiliencies in their Resilience Mandala, which defines
morality as an informed conscience that extends wishes of a good personal
life to all of humankind. Cognitive aspects of morality include judging right
and wrong,_ developing internal images or standards for the way things
should be or what is normative, valuing compassion, fairness and decency,
and serving others. Kagan's (1984) research suggests that children develop
by two years of age internal images or standards about how things or events
should be. By age seven, Seiman (1980) reports children have a good idea
about how parents should treat them- with sensitivity to tbeir feelings and
with generosity.
lnsight and Intrapersonal Reflective Skills. ResiJient children have
been described as "mini-psychologists'' capable of a quality of "early

Factors and Processes Contrlbuting to Resillence 103
knowing" (Wolin, 1989) and personal insight (Flach, 1988). According to
Wolin and Wolin (1993), insight is the nurober one resiliency. Insight is the
mental habit of asking penetrating questions of oneself and subsequently,
providing honest answers. Resilient children from dysfunctional parents
often are aware very early in life that they are different from and stronger
than their sick parent. While empathetic and caring, they develop "adaptive
distancing" to protect their sense of healthy separation from the parent's
maladaptive coping skills and life patterns. This failure to identify with their
dysfuncüonal parent and to find more successful role models is adaptive for
these children (Beardslee & Podorefsky, 1988). Adaptive distancing has
been found to be a crucial mechanism in children of alcoholics (Bennett,
Wolin, Reiss, & Teitelbaum, 1987; Berlin & Davis, 1989).
The capability to analyze one's psychological and physical strengths
and compare them to others takes a certain Ievel of intrapersonaland interpersonal
reflective skill, which not all children possess. For some reason only
a few children excel in analyzing their intrapersonal skills and judging their
strengths and limitations, whereas others living in similar family and peer
environments are completely unaware of these psychological differences.
Possibly, the early development of certain conceptual centers in the brain
make this type of relational thinking possible in resilient youth.
Self-Esteem and Abilily ToRestore Self-Esteem. Resilient youth have
higher self-esteem associated with an accurate appraisal of their increased
strengths and capabilities. They have resilienl self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977;
1989) and the ability to restore self-esteem (Flach, 1988) after failure or disruption
in homeostasis. Self-efficacy is a self-perception about competence
to perform specific behavioral tasks (Bandura, 1977) and influences choice
of tasks or challenges attempted, the degree of effort employed, and emotional
reactions to threat of failure (Lawrence & McLeroy, 1986).
Youth who avoid opportunities to master challenges because of Iow
self-esteem or specific task self-efficacy will have a more difficult time developing
resilience (Schunk & Carbonari, 1984). Bandura (1989) believes that
overcoming stressors or taking on challenges is necessary for the development
of self-efficacy. Children who are overprotected or shy in accepting
challenges are bindered in developing self-efficacy and competencies. He
has written: "lf people experience only easy successes, they come to expect
quick results and their sense of efficacy is easily undermined by failure" (p.
1179). Perseverance and determination are possible by-products of resilient
self-efficacy that in turn lead to increased self-efficacy when youth are successfuJ
in "sticking it out through tough times '' (p. 1179).
Planning Ability. Another cognitive skill probably related to intelligence
is planning ability, which has becn found related to resilience in high-

206 Karol L Kumpfer
Prevention programs that explicitly teach generat problem-solving
have found increased positive outcomes in their participants, including
reductions in precursors of substance use (DeMarsh & Kumpfer, 1986;
Kumpfer, 1991; Spivack & Shur, 1982). Botvin and associates (1990) have
also reported reductions in tobacco use (Botvin & Tortu, 1988) and alcohol
use (Botvin, Baker, Renick, Filazzola, & Botvin, 1984) following a generic
life skills or social problern solving skills program including advertising
analysis, decision making, goal-setting, stress management, communication
and dating skills. Follow-up studies (Botvin, Baker, Dusenbury, Tortu, &
Botvin, 1990) repJicated these positive effects in seventh to ninth graders
by providing booster sessions over three years. The exception to positive
findings of the study was that, although the prevalence of self·reported
intoxication was reduced, the quantity and frequency of alcohol use was not.
Specific problern solving strategies for the resistance of alcohol and
other drugs, such as peer refusal skills, assertiveness training, advertising or
peer appeal analysis, consequences analysis have been popular substance
abuse prevention interventions. Specific problern solving skills are often
scripted and taught through cognitive behavioral techniques involving modeling,
role playing, behavioral reversal often involving repeated practice,
audio or video feedback and reinforcement for new skills.
Increased resilience to initiation to tobacco (Biglan et al., 1985) and
lower prevalence rates for weekly tobacco, alcohol and marijuana use
(Pentz, 1983; Pentz et al., 1989) were found after two years of intervention
using these specific skill training strategies in cm,nbination with other multicomponent
education, parent and community strategies. After three years,
the positive results for reduced alcohol use in participants was no Ionger
supported (Johnson et al., 1989), which is a common finding for many
specific skills training programs. Reducing alcohol use in youth appears to
be much more difficult. However, Dieiman and associates (Dielman,
Schope, Leech, & Butchard, 1989) have had success in reducing the increasing
rate of alcohol misuse in students who began using alcohol with their
peers in unsupervised settings. Their specific skills training program also
reduced the rate of increase in susceptibility to peer pressure.
Unfortunately, many of the specific substance abuse resistance skiH
training programs do not directly and independently test the efficacy of the
skills training in reducing alcohol and other drug use. Several exceptions
are the Ketchel and Bieger (1989) study and the Kim, McLeod, and Palmgren
(1989) study which both found increased intentions to not use alcohol
and other drugs, and decreased substance use.lt has been hypothesized that
these positive drug use changes may be due more to reinforeerneut of the
existing school or peer non-use norms (Kumpfer, Moskowitz & Klitzner,
1986), or to recent changes in the social climate towards tobacco and other

Factors and Processes Contrlbufing to Resilience 101
drug use or the informal social control climate (Moskowitz, 1983): Hansen
and Graham (1991) have empirical evidence that changing the perceptions
of AOD norms is more salient than specific resistance skills training in
reducing AOD use in youth. ·
Multi-Cultural and Bi-Gender Competencies. Research studies have
also found multicultural or bicultural competence as related to less sub·
stance use in youth (Oetting & Beauvais, 19.90; Buriel, Calzada, & Vasquez,
1982). Youth who are capable of acting competently in several cultures if
needed are more successful. Additionally, bi·ge·nder competence is related
to increased resilience and life success in women (Dunn, 1994).
Empathy and Interpersonal Socia/ Skills. Another hallmark of
resilient children is their sense of responsibility for others, willingness to
care for others, and abilitytobe empathetic of the needs of others (Werner,
1985; 1986). Related coping skills include interpersonal social skills (Platt,
Belding, & Husband, in press), an engaging personality, good listening
and communicating ski11s (Wolin, 1991), and politencss (Kumpfer, 1990a,b).
Resilient children are responsive and active in their relationships with
others and elicit more positive responses from their associates even from
infancy (Demos, 1989; Werner & Smith, 1982). Because of their increased
social skills, resilient children are popular and have increased choice of
fdends allowing them to establish friendships with positive, prosocial peers
if they desire (Berndt & Ladd, 1989).
When combined with the availability of social support (Rutter, 1987)
and the willingness to use external supports (Schwartz, Jacobson, Hauser,
& Dornbush, 1989), resilient children are capable of getting the social supports
they need to buffer stressors and teach them even more coping skills.
Jacobs and Wolin (1991) report that resilient children of alcoholics even as
young children sought ••oases of health in interacting wilh the healthiest parts
of their troubled families" (p. 111 ). By middle childhood, these children are
connecting with neighbors, teachers, and other substitute parents. Werner
(1985) also identified attachment to community institutions and positive
rote models of youth Ieaders as important. Felsman (1989) found in his
study of resilient Colombian street children that they were skillful in locating
existing social supports and using ther;n to their advantage. Children of
mothers who are willing to use social agency support are reported to have
more competencies (Musick, Scott, Spencer, Goldman, & Cohler, 1984),
possibly because of the effective role modeling of the mother, increased
resulting resources or increased social contact.
Wolin and Wolin (1993) report resilient individuals have a capacity for
intimacy. In addition, they are careful in their choice of intimates. Rutter

208 Karol L. Kumpfer
and Quinton (1994) found the more resilient females living in institutions
married better than their less successful cohorts. They choose more prosocial
and supportive spouses and friends.
Emotional Stability and Emotional Management
Characteristics of resilient individuals that could be considered primarily
within the domain of emotional characteristics and skills would be:
• Happiness ( versus Depression)
• Recognition of Feelings
• Emotional Management Skills and Ability to Control Anger and
Depression
• AbilitytoRestore Seif-Esteern
• Humor (Masten, 1982; Wolin & Wolin, 1993)
• Hopefulness
Happiness. Resilient individuals are characterized as reasonably
happy people, at least they are not prone to depression or negative
appraisals of reality characteristic of depressed individuals. The ability to
be hopeful and optimistic may occur because of mastery experiences but
also because of good mental health practices. avoiding psychotropic drugs,
eating weil, reducing stress and getting exercise. After all, Garmezy ( 1974)
has noted that resilient people work weil and play weiL
Emotional Management Skills. A primary characteristic of resilient
children is their optirnism and positiveness about life. Resilient individuals
recognize feelings and can control undesirable feelings such as fear, anger
and depression. For children of alcoholics and drug abusers, learning to recognize
feelings may be more difficult. Special exercises are deveJoped in
prevention programs to help these children learn to recognize their feelings,
however, nothing is as effective as having parents who daily discuss
feelings with the child. Learning to recognize and control destructive
impulses based on these feelings are learned through roJe modeling and
transactions between a parent and a child.
Humor. Many clinical and research descriptions of resilient individuals
mention them as happy, energetic people who frequently use humor as
a coping strategy. The ability to use humor to reduce tension and stress and
restore perspective is a skill of many resilient children. The ability to find
the comic in the tragic, to make themselves and others laugh, is considered
by Wolin and Wolin (1993) as one of several basic resiliencies in children

Stressors., Life Events.
Challenges
Disruption
Envirosocial
Protec'ti ve
Processes
V))
Envirosocial
Enhancing
Processes
esses
Borneostasis
... .....
..._ ...
Envirosocial
Reinlegrating
Processes
Figure 3. The Resiliency Process Model.

I :I
I
214 Karol L. Kumpfer
The primary implication of resiliency research for prevention programming
with high-risk youth isthat prevention programs should focus more directly
on the development of the primary resiJient characteristics identificd in this
review. These resilient traits can be developed by modifying the external
environment to increase proteelive processest employing small challenges,
creating opportunities for involvement and the demonstration of competence,
and increasing involvement, bonding and attachment to prosocial
groups. Interventions should strive to improve the quality of caregiving,
teaching parents and youth workers how to increase resiliency characteristics
in children, reducing environmental inequities and stressors for children
in high-risk or unhealthy environments. Some interventions should work
directly with children and youth to increase personal power and resilience.
Assessments of personal and academic competence could provide information
for tailored resilience interventions, possibly through computer
interactive programs or video tapes for caretakers and families.
Summary
Why is it that we have invested so much into material and scientific
technology to build better material goods, yet we know so little about how
to build better children? The future success of our country depends on
increasing our technology and interest in building better children. For this
reason, increased research into this field of resilience and child development
is critical to the prevention field and our nation's prosperity and weil
being. Promoting resilience in youth holds promise for creating more effective
prevention programs. As can be concluded from this extensive review
of research, there are no simple formulas for instiUing resilience. Research
on resilience, while holding much promise for the alcohol and drug preverition
field, is also plagued by a number of definitionaJ issues and research
limitations. This review suggests that virtually all aspects of a child's personality
and environment as weil as transactional relationships between the
child and his/her environment inßuence positive life adaptation. Determining
the most salient variables is compJicated by gender, culture, history,
local environmental issues and developmental appropriateness. A number
of caveats on the quality of the research have been discussed including
issues in theoretical paradigmst definitions, measurement, designs and
statistical analysis procedures. Because of the increasing willingness to
see behaviors of individuals as influenced by dynamic transactions with
significant others and the environment, studying the predictors of resilience
have become much more complicated. Additional transactional, crosslagged
prospectfve studies are needed incJuding multivariate data collec-

Factors and Processes ContributJng to Resilience ZlS
tions strategies and advanced statistical methodologies capable of analyzing
transactional data.
The Resilience Framework is discussed to organized the findings of
many cross-sectional and longitudinal resilience studies. This theoretical
framework includes six major predictors of resilience: initiating stressors,
environmental risk and proteelive mechanisms, personpenvironmental
transactional processes, internal individual resiliency factors (spiritual, cognitive,
behavioral, emotional, and physical), resiliency processes, and the
positive outcome. The results of this review suggest that there are many
opportunities or possible targets for increasing resilience in a plannful
manner in designing more supportive environments for children living in
at-risk families.
In order to increase drug prevention effectiveness with high-risk youth,
selective and indicated prevention interventions, as recently defined by the
Institute of Medicine (Mrazek & Haggerty, 1994), should be designed with
a special focus on promoting resilience. The prevention field is not far from
this goal. By and large prevention programs currently focus on increasing
proteelive processes and factors. They use risk factor assessments primarily
to determine high-risk status only. While prevention interventionsoften
focus on increasing proteelive and resilience processes, the evaluations
often primarily assess reductions in risk factors. While increasing protective
factors and resilience theoretically should reduce risk factors, the
degree of change in resilience and proteelive processes should also be
measured. Empirically tested etiological models including both risk and
protective/resilience factors and processes should be developed through
prevention studies. Such multivariate studies should increase the field's
information about proteelive and resilience building processes and hence,
better inform prevention program methodology on ways to increase effectiveness
with highprisk youth.
References
Abelson, W. 0., Zigler, E., & DeBlasi, C. L. (l974). Effects of a four-year follow through
program on economicaHy disadvantaged children.Joumal of Educational Psychology, 66.
756- 771 .
Anthony, E. J. (1987). Risk, vulnerability and resilience: An overview. ln E. J. Anthony & B.
Cohler (Eds.), The in vulnerable child (pp. 3-48). New York: The Guilrord Press.
Baldwin, A. L., Baldwin, C. P., Kasser, T., Zax, M., Sameroff, A., & Seifer, R. {1993). Contextual
risk and resiliency during late adolescence. Development and Psychopathology, 5,
741 - 761.
Bandura, A. ( 1977). Self4 efficacy: Toward a unifying lheory of behavior change. Psychological
Review, 84, 191-215.

II
116 Karol L. Kumpfer
Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psychologist, 44(9),
1175-1184.
Barbarin, 0. (1993). Coping and Resilience: El(ploring the inner Jives of African-American
Children. Journal of 8/ack Psychology.
Barnes, G. M., & Welle, J. W. (1986). Patternsand predictors of alcohol use among 7-12th grade
students in New York State. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 47,53-62.
Beardslee, W. R. (1983). Commitment and endurance: A study of civil righls workers who
stayed. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 53, 34-42.
Beardslee, W. R. (1989). The role of self-understanding in resilient individuals: The development
of a perspective. American Journal of Orclwpsychiatry, 59(2), 266-278.
Beardslee, W. R., & Podorefsky, 0. (1988). Resilient adolescents whose parcnts have serious
psychiatric disorders: Importance of self-understanding and relationships. American
Journal of Psyclaiatry, 145(1}, 63-69.
Bennett, L. A., Wolin, S. J., Re iss, 0., & Thilelbaum, M. A. (198J). Coupfes at risk for alcoholism
transmission: Proteelive inHuences. Family Process, 26, 111-129.
Berlin, R., & Oavis, R. B. ( 1989). Children from alcoholic families: Vulnerability and resilience.
In 1imothy F. Dugan and Robert Coles (Eds.), The Child in Our Times: Studies in the
Development of Resiliency (pp. 81-105). New York: Brunner/Mazel.
Benard, B. (1991 ). Fastering resilience in kids: Proteelive factors in fami/y, schoo/, and community.
San Francisco: Western Center for Orug-free Schools and Communities,August 1991.
Benard, B. (1993, Aprii).{Oiscussion du ring conference on "Pulling Resiliency into Substance
Abuse Prevention for Adolescents."J Unpublished prcsentation, New York.
Berndt, T., & Ladd, G. ( 1989). Peer Relationships in Child Developmem, New York: John Wiley
& Sons (Ed.).
Biglan, A., Severson, H. H., Ary, 0. V., Faller, C., Thompson, R., Nautel, C., Lichtenstein, E., &
Weissman, W. W. (1985). Refusal skills training and thc prevention of adolescent cigarette
smoking. Preventative Medicine, 11, 199-2 t 1.
Bleuler, M. (1984). Different forms of childhood stress and pattcrns of adult psychiatric
outcome. In N. F. Watt, E. J. Anthony, & J. E. Rolf (Eds.). Clzildretr at risk for schizophrenia
(pp. 537- 542}. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Block, J. H., & Block, J. ( 1980). The role of ego-control and ego-resiliency in the organization
of behavior. ln W. A. Collins (Ed.), Developmenc of cogtrition, affect, and social relations:
The Minnesota Symposia on Child Psycho/ogy, 13, 39-lOl. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Botvin, G. J., Baker, E., Dusenbury, L., Tortu, S. , & Botvin, E. M. (1990). Preventing adolescent
drug use through a multimodal cognitive-behavioral approach: Results of a 3-year
study. Journal of Consulting and Clinica/ Psycho/ogy, 58, 437-446.
Botvin, G. J., Baker, E., Filazzola, A. 0., & Botvin, E. M. (1990). A Cognitive-Behavioral
Approach to Substance Abusc Prevention: One-year follow-up. Addictive Behaviors, 15,
47-63.
Botvin, G. J., & Tortu, S. (1988). Peer relationships, social competence, and substance abuse
· prevention: Implications for the family.Journal of Social Work und Human Sexuality, 6(2),
105-119.
Botvin, G. 1., Baker, E., Renick, N. L., Filazzola, A. 0., & Botvin, E . M. (1984). A cognitive
behavioral approach to substance abuse prevcntion. Addictive Behaviors, 9, 137- 147.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986). Ecology of the family as a context for human development:
Research pcrspectives. Developmenta/ Psyclaology, 22,723- 742.
Bronfenbrenner, U., & Crouter, A. C. (1983}. The evolution of environmental models in developmental
research. ln P. 1-1. Mussen (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology (4th edition).
New York: Wiley.

218 Karol L. Kumprer
an elementary school-based alcohol misuse prevention program by type of prior drinking
experience. Journal of School Heallh, 59(6), 255-263.
Doernberger, C. H. (1992). Aspects of competence: resilience among inner-city adolescents.
Unpublished Masters' Thesis, Yale University, New Haven, Cf.
Ounn, D. (1994). Rcsilient reintegration of married women with dependent children:
Employed and unemployed. (Doctoral Dissertation, Department of Health Education,
University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah.)
Dunst, C. (1995). Risk and opportunity factors influencing child and family behavior and development.
Presenlation, 4th National Early Intervention Meeting. Coimbra, Portugal, June,
1995.
D'Zurilla, T. J., & Nezu, A. M. (1990). Development and preliminary evaluation of the social
problem-solving inventory. Psychological Assessmem: A Journal of Consu/ting and Clinical
Behavior, 2, 156-163.
Egeland, B., Carlson, E., & Sroufe, A. (1993). Resilience as process. Developmem a11d Psychoparhology,
5, 517-528.
Eider, G. H., Caspi, A., & Van Nguyen, T. (1986). Resourceful and vulnerable children: Family
inßuence in hard times. In R. K. Silbereisen & K. Eyferth (Eds.), Development os oction
in context (pp. 167-186). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Evans, C. ( 1996). Resilience in Native Americans: A Qualitative Study. (Doctoral Dissertation,
Departmenl of Health Education, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah 84112.)
Felsman, 1. K. (1989). Risk and resiliency in childhood. In T. F. Dugan & R. Coles (Eds.),
The child in our Iimes: Studies in the development of resiiiency, 56-80. New York:
Brunncr/Mazel.
Flach, f. F. (1988). Resilience: Discovering new strengthat times of stress. New York: Ballantine
Books.
Fordham, S., & Ogbu, J. U. (1986). Black students' school success: Coping with the "burden of
'acting white.'" Urban Review, I 8, 176-206.
Franke[, V. E. (1959). Man 's Search for Meaning: An lntroduction lo Logotherapy. Prefacc by
Gordon W. Allport. Boston: Beacon Press.
Freud, S. (1908). On the sexual theories of children.
Gamble, T. J .• & Zigler, E. (1986). Effecls of infant day care: Another Iook at the evidence.
American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 56, 26-42.
Garmezy, N. (1974). Children at risk: The search for antecedents of schizophrenia. J. Conceptual
models and research methods. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 8, 14-90.
Garmezy, N. ( 1985). Stress-resistant children: The search for proteelive factors. In J. E. Stevensan
(Ed.), Recent research in developmental psychopathology (pp. 213-233). Journal of
Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 4 (Book Supplement).
Garmezy, N. (1991). Resiliency and vulnerability to adverse developmenlal outcomes associated
with poverty. American Behavioral Scientist, 34(4), 416-430.
Garmezy, N. (1993). Vulnerability and resilience. In D. C. Funder, R. D. Parker, C. Tomlinson­
Keesey, & K. Widaman (Eds.), Studying lives through time: Approaches to personality and
development (pp. 377- 398). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Garmezy, N .• l/i. Masten, A. S. (1986). Stress, competence, and resilience: Common frontiers for
therapist and psychopathologist. Behavior Therapy, 57(2), 159-174.
Garmezy, N., & Masten, A. S. (1991 ). The protective role of competence indicators in children
at risk. In E. M. Cummings, A. L. Greene, & K. H. Karraker (Eds.), Llfe-span developmenta/
psycho/ogy: Perspectives on stress and coping (pp. 151-174). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Garmezy, N., Masten, A. S., & Tellegen, A. (1984). The study or stress and competence in children:
A building block for developmental psychopathology. Child Development, 55,
97- 111.

222 Karol L. Kumpfer
Parker, G. R., Cowen, E. L., Work, W. C., & Wyman, P. A. (1 990) Thst correlates of stress affected
and stress rcsilient outcomes among urban children. Journal of Primary Prevelltion, I I,
19-35.
Pentz, M. A. (1983). Prevention of adolescent substance abuse through social skills development.
In T. J. Glynn, C. G. Leukefeld, & J. P. Ludford (Eds.), Preventing Adolescent Drug
Abuse: Intervention strategies (pp. 195-232). National Institute on Drug Abuse Research
Monograph 47 (DHHS Publication No. ADM 83- 1280). Washington, DC: U. S. Government
Printing Office. ·
Pentz, M. A.,Johnson, C. A., Dwyer,J. H., MacKinnon, D. P., Hansen, W. B., & Flay, B. R. (1989).
A Comprehensive Community Approach to Adolescent Drug Abuse Prevention: Effects
of cardiovascular diseasc risk factors. A1ma/s of Medicine. 21, 219-222.
Plan, J. J., Belding, M. A., & Husband, S. D. (in press). Competency building in adolescents. ln
K. L. Kumpfer (Ed.), Promoting AOD Resiliency in High Risk Youth. Submitted to Office
'of Substance Abuse Prevention, Rockville, MD.
Plomin, R., & Daniels, D. (1 987). Why are children in the same family so different from one
another? Behavior and Brain Sciences, 10, 1-60.
Quinton, 0., Pickcles, A., Maughan, B., & Rutter, M. (1993). Partners, peers, and pathway:
Assortative pairing and continuities in conduct disordcr. Deve/opment and Psychopathology,
5, 763- 783.
Radke-Yarrow, M., & Brown, E. (1 993). Resilience and vulnerability in children of multiplerisk
farnilies. Development and Psychopatho/ogy, 5, 581- 592.
Radke- Yarrow, M., & Sherman, T. ( 1990). Hard growing: Children who survive. In J. E. Rolf,
A. S. Masten, D. Cicchetti, K. Nuechterlein, & S. Weintraub (Eds.), Risk and Proteelive
Factors in the Developmenl of Psychopathology (pp. 97-119). New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Richardson, G. E., Neiger, B. L., Jensen, S., & Kumpfer, K. (1990). The Resiliency Model. Health
Education, 2/(6), 33-39.
Richters, J. E ., & Martinez, P. E. (1993). Violent communities. family choices, and children's:
An algorithm for improving thc odds. Development and Psychopathology, 5, 609-
627.
Rot[, J. E., Masten, A. S., Cicchetti, D., Nuechterlein, K., & Weintraub, S. (1990). (Eds.), Risk
and proteelive factor.s in the developmenr of psychopathology. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Roosa, M .. Beals, J., Sandler, I. N., Pillow, D. R. (1990). The role of risk and protective factors
in predicting symptomatology in adolescent self-identified children of alcohol parents.
American Journal of Community Psychology, 18(5), 725-741.
Rotter, J. B. (1954). Sociallearning and clinical psychology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice­
Hall.
Rutter, M. (1979). Protective factors in children's responses to stress and disadvanlage. In M.
W. Kent and J. Rolf (Eds.), Primary Prevention of Psychopathology, Vol. /II: Social Competence
in Children (pp. 49-74). Hanover, N. H., University Press of New England.
Rutter, M. (1982). Epidemiological-longitudinal approaches to the study of development. Jn
W. A. Collins (Ed.). Tlte concept of developme/11. The Minnesofa Symposia 011 Child Psyclwlogy
(Vol. 15) (pp. 105-144). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrencc Erlbaum.
Rutter, M. (1987). Psychosocial resilience and protective mechanisms. Amtrican Journal of
Orthopsychiatry, 57(3 ), 316-331.
Rutter, M. (1990). Psychosocial resilience and protective mechanisms.ln J. Rolf, A. S. Masten,
D. Cicchetri, K. H. Neuchterlcin, & S. Weintraub (Eds.). Risk and proteelive factors in the
developmem of psychopathology (pp. 181-214). New York: Ca mbridge Universily Press.
1

Factors and Processes Contributing to Resilience 223
Rutter, M. (1992, December). Transitionsand turning points in development. Paper presented
at the British Psychological Society Conference, London.
Rutter, M. (1993). Resilience: Some conceptual considerations. Journal of Adolescent Healtlt,
14, 626--631.
Rutter, M., & Quinton, 0. (1994). Long-term follow-up of women institutionalized in childhood:
Factars promoting good functioning in adult lifc. British Journal of Developmental
Psychology. /8,225-234.
Rutter, M., Maughan, ß., Mortimore, P., Ouston, J., & Smith, A. (1979). Fifteenthousand hours:
Secondary schools and their effects on children. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Sameroff, A. J., & Chandler, M. J. (1975). Reproductive risk and the continuum of caretaking
casualty. In F. 0. Horawitz (Ed.), Review of child development research 4, (pp. 187-244).
Chicago: Univcrsity of Chicago Press.
Sameroff, A. J., Seifer, R., & Barocas. R. (1983). Impact or parental psychopathology: Diagnosis.
severity, or social status effects. ft1/ant Mental Health Journal, 4(3), 236-249.
Scarr, S., & McCarty, K. (1983). How people make their own environments: A theory of geno·
type environment effects. Child Deve/oprnent, 54, 424-435.
Schunk, D. H., & Carbonari, J. P. (1984). Self-erficacy models. In J. 0. Matarazzo, S. M. Weiss,
J. A. Herd, and N. E. Miller (Eds.), Behavioral health: A handbook of hea/th (pp. 230-247).
New York: Wiley.
Schwarrz, J. M ., Jacobson, A. M., Hauser, S. T., & Dornbush, B. B. (1989). Explorations of vulncrability
and resilience: Case studies of diabetic adolescents and their fa milies. Jn T. F.
Dugan & R. Colcs (Eds.), The child in our times: Studies in the developmen.t of resiliency
(pp. 134-156). New York: Brunner/Mazel:
Segal, J. (1986). Winning life 's toughest battles: Roots of human resifience. New York: McGraw­
Hill.
Seligman, M. (1975). Helplessness: On Depression, Development, and Death. San Francisco:
Frecman.
Selman, R. L. ( 1980). The growth of interpersonal understanding: Deve/opmenta{ and clinical
analysis. New York: Academic Press.
Spivack, G., & Shure, M. 8. (1982). The cognition of social adjustment: Interpersonal cognitive
problem-solving thinking.ln B. B. Lahey & A. E. Kazdin (Eds.), Advances in Clinical Child
Psychology (pp. 323-372). New York: Plenum Press.
Spivack, G., Platt, J. J., & Shure, M. (1976). The problem-solving approach ro adjustmenr. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Staudinger, U. M., Marsiske, M., & Balles, P. B. (1993). Resilience and Ieveis of reserve capacity
in latcr adulthood: Perspective from life-span theory. Developmenl an.d Psy·
clzoparhology, 5, 541-566.
Stouthamcr-Loeber, M., Loeber, R., Farrington, D. P., Zhang, Q., Van Kammen, W., & Maguin,
E. ( 1993). l11e double edge of proteelive and risk factors ror delinquency: Interrelations
and developmental patterns. Developmem and Psychopathology, 5, 683-701.
Strauss, B. G., & Glaser, A. L. (1967). The Discovery of Grmmded Theory. Chicago: Aldine.
Swearingen, E. M., & Cohen, L. H. (1985). Measurernent or adolescents' life events: A Junior
HighLife Experiences Survey. American Journal of Community Psychology, 13,69-85.
Tarter, R., & Mezzich, A. (1992). Ontogeny of substance abusc: Perspectives and findings.
In M. Glantz and R. Pickens (Eds.), Vulnerabi/ity to drug abuse. American Psychiatrie
Association.
Tay lor, S. E. ( 1983 ). Adj ustmen t to threatening even ts: A theory of cogni tive adapt ation. A merican
Psyclzologist, 38, 1161-1173.

Karol L. Kumpfer
Thrner, S. (1995). Family variables related to adolescent substance misuse: Risk and resiliency
factors. In T. R. Oullotto, G. R. Adams, & R. Montemayor (Eds.}, Substance Misuse in
Adolescence. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Walker, R. J. (1995). Res·ilie11cy in adult children of alcoholic parents: Use of structural Equation
Modeling. Dissertation submitted to The University of Utah.
Wallerstein, J. (1983). Children of divorce: The psychological tasks or thc child. American
Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 53(2), 230-243.
Werner, E. E. (1985). Stress and proteelive factors in children's lives.ln A. R. Nicol (Ed.), Longitudinal
studies in child psychology and psychiatry (pp. 335-355). New York: John Wiley
and Sons.
Werner, E. E. (1986). Resilient offspring of alcoholics: A longitudinal study from birth to age
18. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 47,34-40.
Werner, E. E. (1989). High-risk children in young adulthood: a longiludinal study from birth
to 32 years. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 59,72-81.
Werner, E. E. (1993). Risk, resilience, and recovery: Perspectives from the Kauai Longitudinal
Study. Development and Psychopathol.ogy, 5, 503- 515
Werner, E. E., & Smith, R. S. (1989). Vulnerable but invincib/e: A longitudinal study of resdient
chi/dren and youth. New York: Adams-Bannister-Cox. (Original work published 1982}.
Werner, E. E., & Smith, R. S. (1992). Overcoming the odds: High risk chi/dren from birth to
adulthood. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press.
Wertlieb, D., Weigel, C., Springer. T., & Feldstein, M. (1989). Temperament as a moderator of
children's strcssful experiences. In S. Chess, A. Thomas. & M. E. Hcrtzig (Eds.), Annual
progress in child psychiatry and child development: /988. New York: Brunner/Mazel.
White, J. L., Moffitt, T. E., & Silva, P. A. (1989). A prospective replication of the proteelive
effccts of 10 in subjects at high risk for juvenile delinquency. Journut of Consu/ting and
Clinical Psychology, 57, 719- 724.
Wolin, S. J. (1989). Resiliency in children of alcoholics. Paper presented at the American
Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Institute on Substance Abuse, New York,
New York, October 13, 1989.
Wolin, S. I. (1991 ). Paper prcsented atthe Protecting Vulnerable Childrcn Project, Children of
Alcoholics Foundation, lnc. Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey, November, 1991.
Wolin, S. J., & Wolin, S. (1993). Bound and Determined: Growing up resilient in a troubled
family. New York: Yilfard Press.
Worland, J., Weeks, D. G., & Janes, C. L. (1987). Predicting mental health in children at risk.
In E. J. Anthony & B. J. Cohler (Eds.), Thein vulnerable child (pp. 185-210). New York:
GuiJrord Press.
Wyman, P. A., Cowen, E. L., Work, W. C., & Kerley, J. H. ( t 993). The role of children 's future
cxpectations in self·system functioning and adjustment to life stress: A prospective study
of urban at·risk children. Development and Psychopathology, 5, 649-661.