Resilience Theory a Review of Literature:

Considering Unification and Application of Emerging Psychological Trait Theories

Anthony Solina

University of the Pacific

2

Framework and Definitions

This review of literature examines and relates multiple psychological trait theories within

the theoretical framework of “resilience theory,” through reviewing research and program

applications. Psychological (as opposed to biological) resilience, for the purposes of this paper, is

defined as an individual's ability to succeed despite stress and adversity. A “bouncing back”

effect is observed to a state of normal functioning, or simply shows no negative effects (Masten,

1994). While resilience should be understood as a process, and not an individual trait (Rutter,

2008) the resilience theory framework identifies two types of factors, protective and risk, that

either help or hinder success, especially in stressful situations (Masten, 1990; Rutter, 1988;

Anthony, 1974, Gamezy 1974, 1976, 1991). Finally, the question of whether recent findings in

psychological trait theory, such as grit (Duckworth, 2007, 2009) and mindset (Dweck, 2008), are

actually new descriptors for resiliency protective factors.

Rather than identify gaps in the vast literature on resilience research this review focuses

on attempts to apply resilience theory. This is not a comprehensive examination of psychological

resilience. The scope is limited to four constructs: resiliency, self-efficacy, mindset and grit.

Specific focus is on the protective factors of resilience as in applied research of trait teach-ability

and efforts to teach traits as an intervention. Internal factors, as opposed to external factors, are

considered more heavily. I review attempts to promote internal protective factors in vulnerable

populations with this paper. As a practitioner, finding which protective factor can be encouraged

in the school setting is personally relevant.

3

Introduction

The concept of resiliency has been applied to multiple disciplines: engineering,

economics, biology, climate studies, and anthropology (Martin-Breen & Anderies, 2011) this

study focuses on applied psychology. Grit and mindset have garnered popular interest and public

attention recently for their potential applications to improving student outcomes (Hanford, 2012).

Specific interventions that utilize mindset and grit are explored. Thus, if grit and mindset are

applied as interventions for youth at risk (as individual protective factors) the application may

fall within resilience theory.

The aspiration to unlock student potential for future success is alluring, especially in

school reform circles working to close the achievement gap and working against traditional

tracking systems using intelligence, economic status, grades or test scores to unlock latent talent.

Included are historical, psychological and research underpinning of resilience, grit and mindset.

The conclusion will pose three questions for consideration: 1.Whether grit and mindset are

actually two separate protective factors under resilience theory; 2. Can schools promote student

resilience through deliberate interventions; and 3. If grit and mindset are not considered

protective factors will resiliency theory remain relevant?

Resilience Theory: A Historical Perspective

The Problem-Focused Model

Medical, social and behavioral sciences historically followed a problem-focused

approach to studying human development. Diagnose the problem then attempt to alleviate the

pathology. In behavioral science, this was the case almost exclusively until the 1950s. The

“pathology” model examines problems, disease, illness, abnormalities, incompleteness, deviance,

etc. The early emphasis landed on identifying the risk factors of various disorders like

4

alcoholism, schizophrenia and other mental illnesses, criminality, delinquency, etc. (Benard,

1991). Pathological studies do a onetime assessment of adults with these existing identified

problems, a research design perpetuates the problem perspective and identifies inevitable

negative outcomes (Howard, 1999). Also, these studies ultimately provide limited value towards

prevention (Benard, 1992). Concerned with promoting positive, healthy behaviors and

facilitating social competence in children and youth; preventative psychologist took an alternate

course. Garmezy (1974) stated using a pathology model of research, “provided us with a false

sense of security in erecting prevention models that are founded more on values than facts” (in

Werner and Smith, 1982). Finding causality using the pathology model proves problematic for

investigators studying risks for the development of “problem behaviors.” Problem or pathology

model researchers could not determine whether people diagnosed as schizophrenic, criminal, or

alcoholic were observing the causes or consequences of schizophrenia or alcoholism (Breen,

2011). For example, in an alcoholic, are poor problem-solving skills a cause or a result of

drinking?

Identifying Resilience

In the late 1950s, on through the 1970s, researchers refocused, studying individuals

assumed to be “at risk” for developing psychological disorders, namely growing up under

conditions of great stress and adversity such as: neonatal stress, poverty, neglect, abuse, physical

handicaps, war, and parental schizophrenia, depression, alcoholism, and criminality (Garmezy,

1974; Garmezy & Rutter, 1983; Anthony, 1987; Werner & Smith, 1988). Risk based research,

therefore, used a prospective research design, which was developmental and longitudinal,

assessing children at various stages of their development to better understand the nature of the

risk factors in the development of a disorder. As the children studied in these various

5

longitudinal projects grew into adolescence and adulthood, a surprisingly consistent finding

emerged while a certain percentage of these high-risk children developed various problems (a

percentage higher than in the normal population); a greater percentage of the children became

healthy, competent young adults. For example, Manfred Bleuler found that only 9 percent of

children of schizophrenic parents became schizophrenic, while 75 percent developed into healthy

adults. He found “remarkable evidence of strength, courage, and health in the midst of disaster

and adversity” (in Watt, 1984). Similarly, Michael Rutter’s research on children growing up in

poverty found “that half of the children living under conditions of disadvantage do not repeat

that pattern in their own adult lives” (Garmezy, 1991).

Prevention through Protective Factors

In the 1980s, researchers with Risk Reduction Consortium (a collaborative,

interdisciplinary, international group) reported similar findings. The longitudinal study unveiled

children later described as: invulnerable, stress-resistant, hardy, ego-resilient, invincible, and, the

most popular term, resilient, despite severe adversity. The study’s findings span nations and

demographics. Werner, in her study of the children of Kauai, found similar findings where in the

longitudinal study participants were followed into adulthood had “righted” themselves (Werner

1992). Similarly, child development views the human personality as a “self-righting mechanism”

that readily adapts to the environment (Bronfenbrenner, 1974). Research interest now moves

beyond the identification of risk factors for the development of a problem behavior to an

examination of the “protective” factors. In the field of prevention, both research and practice,

progressed in 1980s: from short-term, one-shot, individualized interventions in schools to a

growing awareness of and beginning application of comprehensive, long-term interventions

expanding beyond the school to include the community (Garmezy, 1991). According to

6

Garmezy, “traits, conditions, situation, and episodes, that appear to alter-or even reverse-

predictions of [negative outcome] and enable individuals to circumvent life stressors” (Garmezy,

1991). The importance of this research to the prevention field shows if we can determine the

individual and environmental factors of social competence and wellness, we can better plan

interventions focused on creating and enhancing the attributes that serve as the key to healthy

development. In earlier work Garmezy and Rutter noted, “Ultimately, the potential for

prevention surely lies in increasing our knowledge and understanding of reasons why some

children are not damaged by deprivation” (Garmezy and Rutter, 1983). These are the precepts of

resiliency theory.

Applications of Resilience Theory

Protective Factors

In the mid-1980s researchers start to espouse “preventionists” strategies and programs

based on research identifying the causes of risk factors for problems such as: alcohol, drug

abuse, teen pregnancy, gangs, and dropouts (Hawkins, Lishner, and Catalona, 1985). However,

the identification of risks does not provide a sense of what is needed to reduce those risks. By the

late 80s, “preventionists” first reference protective factors for building resiliency in youth, and

utilizing what research says about environmental factors that facilitate healthy development of

youth (Benard, 1987). The 1990s began with the identification of the need for the

implementation of prevention strategies that strengthen protective factors from families, schools,

and communities. As Gibbs and Bennett (1990) describe the process, we must “turn the situation

around…by translating negative risk factors into positive action strategies” which are, in essence,

protective factors. Self-efficacy, mindset and grit may also be cultivated as protective factors.

7

Over the past four decades the trend has shifted from social emotional and environmental

strategies for building resilience to intrinsic, individualistically identified traits of self-

determination. For the purposes of this review the focus will narrow toward recent intervention

programs have the most direct connection to the school setting; individual protective factors of

the child in the areas of self-actualization, determination, self-concept, and academic habits of

mind. This is not to say environmental protective factors are any less impactful than factors of

the individual, rather it there exists more exhaustive research centered in the risk and protective

factors external of the child and the emerging research recently has turned towards the intrinsic

traits that provide protection for the individual that were previously unidentified under the

resilience theory. Resilience is dynamic based on environment, age, interests, and influences

(Neenan, 2011; Werner & Smith, 1992) not a static resilience can change. Werner and Smith

explain,

“Our findings and those by other American and European investigators with a life-span

perspective suggest that these [protective] buffers make a more profound impact on the

life course of children who grow up under adverse conditions than do specific risk factors

or stressful life events. They appear to transcend ethnic, social class, geographical, and

historical boundaries. Most of all, they offer us a more optimistic outlook than the

perspective that can be gleaned from the literature on the negative consequences of

perinatal trauma, caregiving deficits, and chronic poverty. They provide us with a

corrective lens—an awareness of the self-righting tendencies that move children

toward normal adult development under all but the most persistent adverse

circumstance” (Werner & Smith, 1992, p. 202).

8

Significant work has occurred in the viability deliberately teaching protective factors. Kennedy

(2010). determined that literacy scores increased measurable through developing students’ self-

efficacy through development of their affective as well as cognitive intelligence Similarly, in an

Iowa State study researchers found that through the teaching of stories related to resiliency traits

students of high vulnerability entering into college cited the stories as protective factors for

enduring the struggles of first generation college goers (Meyer, 2008). The curriculum

implemented in the study pushed post-secondary students to understand, internalize, and “try on”

resiliency through Resiliency Development Education (RDE). The qualitative data gathered

supported research discussions that resilience is teachable (Benard, 1993, 2004; Masen, 2001;

Werner & Smith, 1982; Wolin & Wolin, 1993).

Researchers have commonly categorized protective factors according those falling within

the domains of individual personality attributes or dispositions, family characteristics, and

environmental influences (i.e., peers, school, and community); this review will narrow the

discussion to focus on the role the school plays in contributing to protective factors of the

individual. If resiliency is teachable then what current research in individual protective factors

exists, and are these factors operationalized into successful, deliberate intervention programs?

Grit

Fifteen years after Werner and Smith’s work Angela Duckworth’s research on grit found

individuals that demonstrate higher indicators of the personality traits of perseverance and

passion were more likely than their peers to reach success in stressful settings. In West Point

cadets, National Spelling Bee finalists, and Ivy League undergraduates grit serves as a greater

predictor of success than IQ or the Big Give Conscientiousness (Duckworth, 2007). Though this

study neglects use of the term resilience, the study defines grit as “perseverance and passion for

9

long-term goals.” Duckworth explains, “grit entails working strenuously towards challenges,

maintaining effort and interest over years despite failure, adversity and plateaus in progress”

(Duckworth, 2007 p. 1087). The scale for grit was further refined in 2009 to improved reliability

and predictability with fewer questions still focused on stamina of persistence in the area of

interest and effort and compared which of these two factors were more predictive (Duckworth

2009). In a study funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Duckworth and other

researchers will try to understand what predicts college persistence among graduates of several

urban charter school networks (Hanford, 2012). As these charter networks serve mostly students

from low-income and minority families. Because college completion is a challenging experience

for first generation minority students it is likely grit will be a significant factor. In considering

resiliency in relation to grit the question arises whether grit is teachable as a protective factor in

the same way other protective factors have been fostered in the school setting. If indicators from

Dweck’s mindset and the research on promoting other psychological traits through teaching

awareness of such traits then there could be a likelihood that an awareness of grit traits may

promote “grittier” students.

Mindset

Carol Dweck’s research regarding mindset, found intelligence is malleable and concerted

effort results in development of brain connections that allow the learner to overcome difficult

problems (Dweck, 2002). She discussed how students’ theories about intelligence affect their

achievement and motivation. Two views of intelligence: 1. Fixed mindset – intelligence is

something given, a characteristic, and unchangeable. 2. Growth mindset - intelligence is

malleable, can be changed, and increased. Students who believe that intelligence is fixed and

unchangeable tend to believe that failure or even the need to work hard indicates low

10

intelligence. When these students encounter concepts they do not understand immediately,

without effort, they tend to believe that they are incapable of understanding, and they react with

diminished effort.

Blackwell, Trzesniewski and Dweck (2007) expanded Dweck’s original work by

studying students’ theories of intelligence as predictors of achievement across the transition

through junior high school. They found that students who viewed intelligence as malleable—

capable of incremental change—also tended to hold stronger learning goals. Further, their data

showed that students with incremental views of intelligence were less likely to experience the

downward coursework grade trajectories that are typical as students move through their junior

high years. Teaching growth mindset to learners in a fixed mindset increased effort and

perseverance to solve difficult problems to reach a solution.

Dweck set out to examine if the growth mindset could be taught and if it could be taught

would it enhance their motivation and grades (Dweck, 2008). If mindset, grit or any of the other

traits indicating increased protective factors are found not to be teachable then they would serve

only as predictors and essentially useless as intervention applications for helping improve student

outcomes similar to the intent of the Intelligence Quotient. If believed to be unchangeable then it

is unusable as a tool. Dweck and her team developed “Brainology” a set of modules designed to

emphasize the growth mindset, malleable intelligence and the value of effort by teaching

students about how the brain grows connections through hard work (Dweck, 2008). The program

was piloted in 20 New York City schools. The study reported that all student participants were

able to articulate which ways they changed their thinking about their brains and work habits.

Teachers reported changes in their students noting they had become more active and eager

learners (Dweck 2008). She concludes by stating, “no one succeeds in a big way without

11

enormous amounts of dedication and effort” (Dweck 2008, p 7). An evaluation of the long-term

effects of the program has yet to be studied. Were the effects on student grades and motivation

fleeting or transformative? If the goal is lifelong change then larger longitudinal studies should

be conducted.

Both Duckworth and Dweck refer in one way or another to ideas of effort and

determination yet they nor others have extensively explored the relationship between their

findings and the long established resilience theory. Anthony (1987) refers to a “strong sense of

independence” ; Garmezy, Werner and Smith discuss an “internal locus of control” and “sense of

power” (1974 and 1991; 1982); Rutter and Garmezy to “self-esteem” and “self-efficacy” (1984;

1983); and others to “self-discipline” and “impulse control.” Essentially, the protective factor

resiliency researchers are describing: a sense of one’s own identity, an ability to act

independently, to exert some control over one’s environment over time seem amiable to newer

psychosocial theories. I extend that these theories are all actually interrelated and possibly

synonymous with the principles of grit, mindset and self-efficacy. Thus, if these psychological

traits could be enhanced in youth considered in danger of risk factors then grit and mindset are in

effect an aspect of resiliency theory. Stars in figure 1 highlight descriptors of the resiliency

framework that correlate to the concepts embodied by self-efficacy, grit and mindset and even

more closely relate to the intervention programs that attempt to operationalize the research into

practice discussed later in this review.

12

Figure 1 denotes protective factors internal to the student

Figure 1 adapted from Benard in Operation Military Kids. Benard and Henderson (1992) expend

equal time identifying protective factors internal and external of the child where much of the

early research focused almost exclusively on environmental factors external of the child.

Proportionate to the larger body of current research on resiliency equal attention is given to the

family, school and community components of resiliency theory (Benard & Henderson, 1992).

Figure 2 demonstrates the balance of individual characteristics of resilient children versus the

environmental characteristics that provide protective factors. External factors in the school

setting and internal student factors are the most apt to be influenced by school leaders. As a

13

school site principal I identify interventions promoting school environmental protective factors

and individual protective factors. I will report correlations between the program’s research base

and resiliency theory.

Figure 2: Individual and environmental characteristics of resiliency [protective factors]

(Richardson et al., 1991; Werner & Smith, 1992; Higgins, 1994; Wolin & Wolin, 1993).

Individual Characteristics Environmental Characteristics

1. Gives of self in service to others and/or a cause

2. Uses life skills, including good decision-

making, assertiveness, impulse control, and

problem solving*

3. Sociability/ability to be a friend/ability to form

positive relationships*

4. Sense of humor

5. Internal focus of control*

6. Perceptiveness

7. Autonomy/independence*

8. Positive view of personal future*

9. Flexibility*

10. Capacity for and connection to learning*

11. Self-motivation/initiative*

12. Is “good at something”/personal competence

13. Feelings of self-worth and self-confidence*

14. Personal faith in something greater; Spirituality

1. Promotes close bonds

2. Values and encourages education*

3. Uses high warmth/low criticism style of interaction

4. Sets and enforces clear boundaries (rules, norms, and

laws)*

5. Encourages supportive relationships with many caring

others

6. Promotes sharing of responsibilities, service to others,

“required helpfulness”

7. Provides access to resources for meeting basic needs

of housing, employment, health care, and recreation

8. Expresses high, and realistic, expectations for

Success*

9. Encourages goal-setting and mastery*

10. Encourages pro-social development of

Values (such as altruism) and life skills (such as

cooperation)*

11. Provides leadership, decision-making, and

Other opportunities for meaningful participation*

12. Appreciates the unique talents of each individual

14

* Denotes characteristics found in programs considered in this review.

Programs, Initiatives and Interventions Building Resilience

This section of the review will present several different programs that attempt to promote

student success through the attainment of resiliency through predictive factors, self-efficacy, grit,

mindset, or a combination of these. It is important to note that some of the studies cited as

resources about the programs were funded by the program or were studies commissioned by the

program funders. These sources were used primarily for background on the program, details of

the implementation and the range of implementation. This review also drew from the background

research listed in the program’s research references. Reading the program descriptions I refer

back to the previous topics of the interrelatedness between resilience, self-efficacy, grit and

mindset as many of these programs employ different hybrid combinations of each as they

attempt to operationalize the research they cite as validation.

Search Institute

The not-for-profit organization America’s Promise in partnership with Search Institute

developed The Survey of Student Resources and Assets (Bensen, 1993). The goal of this

partnership is to identify the resources and assets, both internal and external serving as protective

factors (though the institute terms them assets) for higher degrees of school success, health, and

positive development. America’s Promise developed five fundamental resources and 40

developmental assets that arm students with protective factors toward overcoming adversity

(Bensen 1990).

The 40 Developmental Assets included in the survey have come under question for being

too far reaching or promoting specific cultural ideals, e.g. the program claims 6th - 12th grade

students with of 31 of the 40 assets are deemed a high predictor of future wellness and successful

15

adulthood (Howard, 1999). This has been a point of criticism as being an arbitrary cut point with

fewer than 20% of students in the large Minnesota study reaching this mark. Another point of

contention is the specificity of some assets such as: one hour of homework each day, three or

more hours of reading for pleasure each week, and one or more hours per week in religious

activity. In an apparent attempt to quantify the assets, the institute has also faced criticism for

some assets appearing culturally biased (Howard, 1999, p.314). Howard et al. worry that, as

presented, the Developmental Asset Survey may “represent the values and aspirations of one

particular social group…” and thus may be “naively promoting the ‘American Dream’.” Gamezy

is quoted along with Benard cautioning against oversimplification of resiliency theory into

another quick-fix strategy (Howard, 1999, p315).

The broad samples of students surveyed (tens of thousands) in the development and the

large implementations a twenty years span may be the 40 Developmental Assets Survey’s best

defense. Many of the assets do closely align with the community, family and school protective

factors of belonging, self-actualization, and positive influences: though, in the survey and

supporting research resilience it is not directly referenced. Finally, according to their website

(http://www.search-institute.org/community) the use of the Developmental Assets Survey is

extensive with over 600 communities across 45 states promoting success through healthy social-

emotional well-being. Similarly, the next program and supporting research explicitly addresses

resiliency theory and attempts to incorporate resiliency research in the lessons taught towards

furtherance of protective factors. Operation: Military Kids integrates the 40 Developmental

Assets into their program but draws together a wide array of other resources (Benard, 1992).

Operation: Military Kids Ready, Set, Go!

16

Autonomy

– Strong sense of independence

– Internal locus of control

– Sense of personal power,

self-esteem, and self-efficacy

– Self-discipline

– Impulse control

– Ability to separate self

from environment

Sense of Purpose

– Healthy expectancies

– Goal-directedness

– Success/achievement

orientation

– Persistence

– Hopefulness

– Hardiness

– Sense of anticipation for compelling future

Recent application of resiliency theory has emerged in dealing with major traumatic

events such as war and natural disasters. In the aftermath of September 11th, resilience found a

new public focus with the intent of providing information to support recovery from the trauma of

terrorism (e.g., American Psychological Association Task Force on Promoting Resilience in

Response to Terrorism; Alpert et al., 2004; Dudley-Grant, Comas-Diaz, Todd-Bazemore, &

Hueston, 2004). Similarly, Bernard (1992) applied resilience to children of military families with

the risk factors associated with moving frequently, living in fear of war and of having loved ones

work in eminent danger. Her work with the Western Center for Drug-Free Schools and

Communities synthesizes several applications of resilience theory into one program. In

Operation: Military Kids Ready, Set, Go! Training Manual, Bernard, in collaboration with Nan

Henderson, present lesson plans with the objective of teaching resiliency. The lessons are drawn

from Resiliency in Action Inc. research combined with published research of other resiliency

thinkers (Werner & Smith, Wolin & Wolin, Gibbs, Rutter & Garmezy, Search Institute,

17

Developmental Research Programs Inc. Figure 3 is a sample from a lesson in Operation: Military

Kids demonstrating descriptions promoting autonomy and a sense of purpose.

Figure 3 Adapted from Ready, Set, Go! Training Manual.

Bolded words from Figure 3 highlight traits similar to the more recent studies of mindset and

grit. It is especially noteworthy to compare Bernard’s citing resiliency theory to describe:

hardiness, sense of purpose, persistence, goal-directed, and self-discipline to Duckworth’s

combined traits of: perseverance and passion. While not exact, many of these words would be

categorized as synonymous. Thus begs the question, is grit simply another team for the

combination of two protective factors of internal resiliency causing a multiplying effect?

Academic Youth Development (AYD)

Recently a number of programs have emerged with the aim of building protective factors

for youth. The University of Texas at Austin in partnership with The Charles Dana Center

developed Academic Youth Development (AYD) to promote a growth mindset and grittiness

amongst students entering into the college gate keeper course Algebra 1. According to the

Charles A. Dana Center and Carnegie Fondation partnership the AYD program seeks to “build

mastery experiences mediated by motivational processes, situated in a social environment, and

sustained by grit, resilience, and self-discipline” (Fong & Asera, 2009, p. 2) . They claim their

framework incorporates psychological research and theories from the 1970s to 2009 including

Bandura’s self-efficacy, alongside grit, resilience and self-discipline informing AYD program

philosophy. Here again, in the operational phase of this program (intending to build student

success through self-actualization) their research explicitly combines key points of grit, mindset

and resilience. Fong & Asera (2009) place grit, resilience and self-discipline in the same heading

relating the work of Duckworth to Masten. AYD has grown rapidly from two schools and 60

18

students to 126 schools and over 4,000 students across 8 states in 2009 (Fong & Asera, 2009).

These students are explicitly taught about the brain science of intelligence malleability in concert

with applying strategies toward math problem-solving.

Responsive Classroom

The Responsive Classroom (RC) approach developed through the Northeast Foundation for

Children, Inc., focuses on building the overall capacity of teachers and thus places a high

demand on fundamental teacher change (Wanless, 2012). Through print materials and 30 hours

of professional development, the RC approach asks teachers to align their beliefs, practices, and

language about children to reflect a teaching philosophy based in developmental psychology.

RC believes by training teachers to implement the program teachers will grow in emotional

support and classroom organization, students will become more motivated and engaged and thus

students will achieve at a higher level (Rimm-Kaufman et al. 2012)

In existence over 20 years this program has been widely used in schools in a variety of

school settings. The RC approach shares features that align closely with psychological resiliency

theory. Protective factors such as social interaction, independence, and safe, productive learning

environments are encouraged through daily meetings (Rimm-Kaufman 2006). The Responsive

Classroom principles give rise to several specific teaching practices that parallel resiliency

theory, including:

Using an approach to devising and reinforcing rules that is developmentally and

individually relevant to the child and teaches responsibility and self-control;

Organizing classrooms Forming school/home partnerships in which teachers invite

parents to share their knowledge of their child, keep them informed about what’s

happening in school, and welcome their presence in the classroom;

19

Introducing classroom materials through Guided Discovery, a format that encourages

children’s excitement about learning and teaches care of materials;

Using Academic Choice, an instructional approach that motivates children and

encourages autonomy by letting them select from among several teacher offered ways to

meet learning goals; children learn a three stage process of planning, working, and

reflecting; and

During the first six weeks of school, taking specific steps to create a climate of warmth

and safety, teach school routines and behavioral expectations for each of them, introduce

school and classroom learning materials and teach students how to use and care for them,

and establish expectations for how children will learn together in the days ahead.

(Northeast Foundation for Children 2006)

Started as a grass roots program in Wisconsin the Responsive Classroom approach has a

surprising number of research studies supporting the work of RC and the proliferation of the

program has steadily grown over the past twenty years.

Self-efficacy and the Efficacy Institute

The roots of resiliency theory and self-efficacy theory took hold simultaneously as

potential preventative responses to the problem-based model in the late 1970s. Self-efficacy can

best be summarized as the ability to self-advocate completing tasks and pursuing goals (Ormrod,

2006). According to Bandura (1977) self-efficacy and motivation originates from four sources:

mastery experiences, vicarious experiences, verbal (social) persuasion, and physiological and

emotional states. Cognitive processes that appraise and attribute information to inform beliefs of

self-efficacy then mediate these four modalities. In a more recent, study Bandura et al. (2001)

determined that self-efficacy beliefs shape a child’s aspirations and ultimately career choices.

20

The mission of the Efficacy Institute is to build self-efficacy in students to ultimately guide them

to successful futures. Their strategy predicates the belief that given the right tools and supports

all students will reach proficiency. “The primary work of caring adults - in schools, families, and

community institutions – [is] to develop the intellectual capacity of every child.” This quote from

the institute’s website rings strongly of influence of resiliency. Focus on building belief

consensus with the adult stakeholders around the goal of proficiency first, then target promotion

of students to be self-aware of their performance to promote acceptance to feedback as a tool for

growth.

Founder and President Dr. Jeff Howard (Ph.D. Social Psychology) employs a theory of

action that students will become motivated when they realize they have control of their own

performance. The Efficacy Institute employs a program called SDIS (Self-Directed Improvement

System) to provide students with a feedback loop for improvement (Feinberg, 2004). The

influence of mindset theory is evident in the institute’s student mantra “think I can, work hard,

get smart”. In Cara Feinberg’s (2004) portrait of Dr. Howard and the Efficacy Institute, she

chronicles how high expectations and mindset are included in the Efficacy Institute’s work yet

no discussion links the work to resiliency. The conflation of efficacy, high expectations,

community buy in, and long-term goal setting are all separate components of resiliency let alone

the combination of all the traits together.

Question of Resiliency

The development of psychological resiliency is closely related to a quest for healthy

human development. As a complexly dynamic process where both individual and environmental

influences interact this review has tried to remain focused on individual factors because they

would appear the most lasting and most teachable by the school site practitioner. Many programs

21

appear to have put resiliency into practice though not all use the exact term. Based on the work

above the following questions remain to be researched and could be addressed further.

1. Can we predict a students’ success by calculating the protective factors a child possesses

subtracted by the number of risk factors?

While true the balance between risk factors -stressful life events, and protective factors

determines the success or failure (Werner and Smith, 1982). Such factors cannot be quantified

simply on the number of risk and protective factors to determine if positives outweigh negatives,

such an equation is absurd (i.e. protective factors – risk factors = success). Human influences and

environments are complex interactions where the severity, frequency, duration, as well as the

timing in life at which stressors occurs dramatically effect impact. Yet, there has been substantial

research demonstrating the predictive capabilities of grit and mindset in anticipating student

success above other measures. “As long as [this] balance between stressful life events and

protective factors is favorable, successful adaptation is possible” (Werner, 1990). This statement

is the foundation of the preventative application of resilience. Conversely, when risk factors

outweigh the protective factors, any, even the most resilient can be derailed. Rutter (1979)

asserts no one is “invulnerable”, every person has a “threshold” beyond which he or she can

“succumb”. “Intervention may be conceived as an attempt to shift the balance from vulnerability

to resilience, either by decreasing exposure to risk factors and stressful life events, or by

increasing the number of available protective factors…in the lives of vulnerable children”

(Werner, 1990). This is the urban reform educators’ goal, to favorably tip the scales of

opportunity for their students. Programs encouraging grit, mindset and resilience seek to do just

that. What combinations of these theories are favorable? A deeper dive of intervention programs

using resilience theory practices could be done to measure generalized outcomes, or a meta-

22

analysis of the programs literature and research could be conducted to further explore areas of

overlap.

2. Can the school setting promote lasting student resilience through deliberate

interventions?

In the school setting, moving the needle from vulnerability to resilience is a function of the

supports provided on campus: academic, social, and emotional. “Individuals who have succeeded

in spite of adverse conditions have because of the support in the form of one family member, one

teacher, one school, one community person that encouraged their success and welcomed their

participation” (Benard, 1992, p.26).

There is a persistent danger in education of oversimplifying the findings into an easy to

package curriculum. The programs reviewed in this paper tended to be more grass roots in their

beginnings, deeply rooted in research, and aligned with resiliency theory. More evaluation is

necessary to evaluate the lifelong lasting benefits of explicit individual protective factor teaching

before proclaiming their success, especially in the more recent grit and mindset. Longitudinal

and/or qualitative studies of students who have participated in interventions promoting grit and

mindset would help build on the quantitative data collected by Duckworth and Dweck.

3. Where does resiliency go from here?

Resilience theory is over 40 years old now and has changed iterations multiple times. Yet,

seems to show a hardiness of its own even today as new findings and applications unfold.

Emerging research is examining if there is a connection between DNA and resiliency (Bazelon,

2006) potentially taking the theory into another new direction. “Tipping the scales toward

resiliency through individual, serendipitous relationships or events is certainly important, the

increasing number of children and families that are experiencing growing numbers of risks due

23

to economic pressures necessitate that as preventionists take an operational system perspective

and intervene with planned environmental strategies to build protection factors into the lives of

all children”(Benard, 1992). Relying merely on serendipity given the urgency of the time in

education simply is not sufficient. Programs were reviewed that attempt to operationalize and

intervene as Benard suggests yet with such widely different definitions behind the same terms

true comparisons become problematic. With grit and mindset, psychosocial research potentially

identified two new protective traits, or they may simply renamed long held protective factors

from the 70s and repackaged them for the millennial generation.

REFERENCES

Anthony, E.J. (1974) The syndrome of the psychological invulnerable child. In The Child in His

Family, Vol. 3: Children at Psychiatric Risk, ed. by E. J. Anthony. New York: John

Wiley and Sons, 1974, 529-544.

Bazelon, E. (2006). A question of resilience. The New York Times, 1-8.

Benard, B. Protective factor research: what we can learn from resilient children. Illinois

Prevention Forum 7(3), March 1987.

Benard, B., & Western Center for Drug-Free Schools and, C. s. (1991). Fostering Resiliency in

Kids: Protective Factors in the Family, School, and Community.

Benson, P. L. (1993). The Troubled Journey: A Portrait of 6th-12th Grade Youth.

Benson, P. L. (1990). Profiles of Student Life: Attitude and Behaviors. Search Institute,

Minneapolis, MN.

Blackwell, L. S., Trzesniewski, K. H., & Dweck, C. S. (2007). Implicit theories of intelligence

24

predict achievement across an adolescent transition: A longitudinal study and an

intervention. Child Development, 78(1), 246-263. Center, C. A. D. Psychosocial Theories

to Inform a New Generation of Student Support

Structures for Learning Mathematics.

C. A. D. Center. Psychosocial Theories to Inform a New Generation of Student Support

Structures for Learning Mathematics.

Duckworth, A. L., Peterson, C., Matthews, M. D., & Kelly, D. R. (2007). Grit: perseverance and

passion for long-term goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology; Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 92(6), 1087.

Duckworth, A. L., & Quinn, P. D. (2009). Development and validation of the Short Grit

Scale (GRIT–S). Journal of Personality Assessment, 91(2), 166-174.

Dweck, C. S. (2008). Brainology: Transforming students' motivation to learn. Independent

school, 67(2), 110-119.

Edmonds, Ron. Characteristics of effective schools. In The School Achievement of Minority

Children: New Perspectives. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1986, 93–104.

Feinberg, C. (2004). The possible dream: A nation of proficient school children. Retrieved

December, 15, 2008.

Garmezy, N. (1974) The study of competence in children at risk for severe psychopathology. In

The Child in His Family, Vol. 3: Children at Psychiatric Risk, ed. by R.J. Anthony, 1974,

77–98.

Garmezy, N. (1976). Vulnerable and invulnerable children: theory, research, and intervention /

Norman Garmezy. Washington : Journal Supplement Abstract Service of the American

Psychological Association.

25

Garmezy, N. (1991) Resiliency and vulnerability to adverse developmental outcomes associated

with poverty. American Behavioral Scientist, 34(4), March/ April 1991, 416–430.

Hanford, E. (2012, October). How Important is Grit in Student Achievement? Retrieved from

http://blogs.kqed.org/mindshift/2012/10/ho-important-is-grit-in-student-achievement/

Higgens, Catherine. Youth Motivation: At-Risk Youth Talk to Program Planners. Philadelphia:

Public/Private Ventures, Summer, 1988.

Howard, S., Dryden, J., & Johnson, B. (1999). Childhood resilience: Review and critique of

literature. Oxford Review of education, 25(3), 307-323.

Luthar, S. S., Cicchetti, D., & Becker, B. (2003). The construct of resilience: A critical

evaluation and guidelines for future work. Child development, 71(3), 543-562.

Martin-Breen, P., Anderies, J. (2011) Resilience: A Literature Review. The Rockefeller

Foundation, New York.

Masten, A.S. (1994). Resilience in individual development: Successful adaptation despite risk

and adversity. In M. Wang & E. Gordon (Eds.), Risk and resilience in inner city America:

challenges and prospects (pp.3-25). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Masten, A. S., Best, K. M., & Garmezy, N. (1990). Resilience and development: Contributions

from the study of children who overcome adversity. Development and psychopathology,

2(4), 425-444.

Moskovitz, S. Love Despite Hate: Child Survivors of the Holocaust and Their Adult Lives. New

York: Schocken, 1983.

Noddings, Nel. Schools face crisis in caring. Education Week, December 7, 1988.

Ormrod, J. E. (2006). Educational psychology: Developing learners (5th ed.). Upper Saddle

River, N.J.: Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall.

26

Richardson, Jean et al. Substance use among 8th-grade students who take care of themselves.

Pediatrics 84(3), September 1998, 556-566.

Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., Fan, X., Chiu, Y. J., & You, W. (2007). The contribution of the

Responsive Classroom Approach on children's academic achievement: Results from a

three year longitudinal study. Journal of School Psychology, 45(4), 401-421.

Rimm-Kaufman, S. E. (2006). Social and Academic Learning Study on the Contribution of the

Responsive Classroom® Approach. Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia, Curry

School of Education and Center for Advanced Study of Teaching and Learning. Retrieved

July, 9, 2007.

Rutter, M. (1988) Protective factors in children’s responses to stress and disadvantage. In

Primary Prevention of Psychopathology, Vol. 3: Social Competence in Children, ed. by

M. W. Kent and J. E.

Rutter, M. (1984) Resilient children. Psychology Today, March 1984, 57–65.

Rutter, M. (2008). Developing concepts in developmental psychopathology. In J.J. Hudziak

(ed.), Developmental psychopathology and wellness: Genetic and environmental

influences (pp.3-22). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Publishing.

Rutter, Michael et al. Fifteen Thousand Hours. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1979.

Sameroff, Arnold et al. The early development of children born to mentally ill women. In

Children At Risk for Schizophrenia: A Longitudinal Perspective, ed. by Norman Watt et

al., 1984, 482–514.

Scales, P. C. (2000). Building students' developmental assets to promote health and school

27

success. The Clearing House, 74(2), 84-88.

Wanless, S. B., Patton, C. L., Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., & Deutsch, N. L. (2012). Setting-Level

Influences on Implementation of the Responsive Classroom Approach. Prevention

Science, 1-12.

Werner, Emmy and Ruth Smith. Vulnerable But Invincible: A Longitudinal Study of Resilient

Children and Youth. New York: Adams, Bannister, and Cox, 1989 (1st edition 1982).

Werner, Emmy. High-risk Children in young adulthood: a longitudinal study from birth to 32

years. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 59, 1989, 72–81.

Williams, N., Developing Resilience: A Cognitive-Behavioural Approach. (2012). Occupational

Medicine, 62(5), 391.

Work, William et al. Stress resilient children in an urban setting. Journal of Primary Prevention

11(1), 1990, 3–17.

Ziegler, Suzanne, Noreen Hardwick, and Glenys McCreath. Academically successful inner-city

children: what they can tell us about effective education. Paper presented at Society for

Applied Anthropology Annual Conference, Santa Fe, NM, April 5-9, 1989.