The ABC of Psychological Resilience: Adapt, Bounce Back or Cope?

Abstract

This project investigates whether the conceptualization of the scientific term "resilience" in psychological and behavioral research is consistent.

The problem of inconsistent labeling has been coined under the term "construct instability" and is a well-known and investigated issue [1]. Its occurrence leads to different phenomena becoming falsely classified under an equivalent term, or manifestations of the same phenomena being decomposed into separate theories and models. This hinders scientific progress and reliability of findings within the broader research community. Particularly, said problem exists in the context of psychological resilience. While generally speaking, resilience may be viewed as "the process of adapting well in the face of adversity, trauma, tragedy, threats or even significant sources of stress", the prevalent scientific literature disagrees on its exact notion [2]. It is not clearly established whether resilience implies a capability to recover from traumatic events, or remain largely unaffected by them in the first place. This project aims to target this gap by identifying inconsistencies in terminology and resulting implications across research on psychological resilience.

The method will draw from conceptual analysis as commonly deployed in philosophy of science [3]. Psychological papers will be chosen for citation count and publication date to examine what sub-constructs and operationalizations their definition of resilience is based on. The chosen papers range from developmental psychology to behavioral genetics in order to reflect the variety of methods and underlying assumptions present in the psychological domain. All papers must have been published no earlier than the year 2000 and have a citation count of at least 100. Those two conditions are viewed as reliable indicators for accurate representation of the currently existing conceptualizations in the discipline. 

The potential of existing construct instability in the case of resilience holds significance for both philosophy of psychology as a general epistemological issue, as well as any field interested in resilience - such as public health, education or sociology. Whether resilience is presumed to varying degrees as a static trait, development in a scaffolding environment, or an experientially acquired capacity, directly affects how further research is conducted. By evaluating the current landscape of conceptions, the obtained insights can serve as a basis for subsequent identification of empirical gaps, contradictions and opportunities for theory integration. Moreover, the alignment of conceptions within research bears implications concerning the feasibility of so far produced intervention and facilitation methods. Thus, the findings can pave the way towards an overall evaluation of approaches dedicated to supporting psychological resilience. 

References

[1] J. A. Sullivan, “Construct Stabilization and the Unity of the Mind-Brain Sciences,” Philosophy of Science, vol. 83, no. 5, pp. 662–673, 2016. doi: https://doi.org/10.1086/687853.

[2] S. M. Southwick, G.A. Bonanno, A.S. Masten, C. Panter-Brick and R. Yehuda, “Resilience definitions, theory, and challenges: Interdisciplinary perspectives,” European Journal of Psychotraumatology, vol.5, no.1, October 2014. doi: https://doi.org/10.3402/ejpt.v5.25338.

[3] I. Koskinen and A. Alexandrova, “Conceptual Analysis Plus” in Methods in the Philosophy of Science – A User’s Guide., S. J. Veigl and A. Currie, Eds., Cambridge, US: MIT Press, July 2025, unpublished.