Content uploaded by Steven Condly
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Steven Condly on Aug 14, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
http://uex.sagepub.com/
Urban Education
http://uex.sagepub.com/content/41/3/211
The online version of this article can be found at:
DOI: 10.1177/0042085906287902
2006 41: 211Urban Education
Steven J. Condly
Resilience in Children : A Review of Literature With Implications for Education
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
can be found at:Urban EducationAdditional services and information for
http://uex.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:
http://uex.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:
http://uex.sagepub.com/content/41/3/211.refs.htmlCitations:
What is This?
- Apr 18, 2006Version of Record >>
by guest on February 19, 2013uex.sagepub.comDownloaded from
RESILIENCE IN CHILDREN
A Review of Literature With
Implications for Education
STEVEN J. CONDLY
University of Central Florida
In spite of the most adverse circumstances, some children manage to survive and
even thrive, academically and socially, into adulthood. A complex array of indi-
vidual, family, and community factors has been identified that best explains
resilience and lays the foundation for programs and interventions targeted at
fostering the development and maintenance of resilience in at-risk youth. The
literature is reviewed to identify and explain those factors, discuss their mutual
interaction, and explain their implications for the creation of programs designed
to support resilience in school-aged children.
Keywords: at-risk children; thriving; overcoming; beating the odds
In her book Shattered Assumptions,Janoff-Bulman (1992) posits
the existence of three fundamental assumptions that all people hold
and by which all people operate. They are as follows: The world is
essentially a good place; life and events have meaning and purpose;
and one’s own person is valuable or worthy. Because these assump-
tions are so fundamental, they are not usually consciously consid-
ered (Bargh & Chartrand, 1999). Rather, sensory and mental events
are evaluated through these principles. For most of what occurs in
life, with all its ups and downs, both the routine and the novel, these
assumptions remain intact, unquestioned, and unmoved. Yet occa-
sionally events transpire that are so hurtful to persons that their fun-
damental worldview is questioned and altered. Traumatic events
effect great damage not so much because of the immediate harm
they cause but also because of the lingering need to re-evaluate
one’s view of oneself and the world.
211
URBAN EDUCATION, Vol. 41 No. 3, May 2006 211-236
DOI: 10.1177/0042085906287902
© 2006 Corwin Press, Inc.
by guest on February 19, 2013uex.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Of course, trauma does not affect all people in the same way and
with the same force. Some people, after initial pain and suffering,
manage to lead essentially normal, and perhaps even highly pro-
ductive, lives. They do not seem embittered, angry, depressed, or
otherwise incapacitated. Although exact percentages are unavail-
able, it is probably fair to state that, given greater severity of trauma
and/or frequency of traumatic events, an individual’s likelihood of
being able to cope and progress lessens. Nevertheless, there are
examples of people surviving severe and prolonged exposure to
trauma who manage both to survive and prosper (e.g., Elie Wiesel,
survivor of Auschwitz, Buna, Buchenwald, and Gleiwitz, and win-
ner of the Nobel Peace Prize). How many others are there who sur-
vive trauma of the nonheadline variety and manage to succeed
in family, work, and in their communities? It is these so-called
resilient people who have become the focus of intense recent psy-
chological research.
Although not demonstrated as empirical fact, most people would
assume that, although an earthquake or brutal robbery would be
devastating to adults and children alike, it is children who suffer
more and therefore warrant more concern and care, as they lack the
cognitive, physical, and financial means to care for themselves,
make sense of happenings, affect changes, and take preventive mea-
sures to help ensure against a repeat of the traumatic event (assum-
ing such a prevention is possible). This, however is a belief, not a
fact determined by research. Nevertheless, this belief has fueled
much professional research interest and private and governmental
investment of time and money in strategies, policies, and programs
that can help protect children against environmental harm, and
when harmed, mitigate the consequences.
Clearly, poverty and its associated problems (crime, lack of
opportunity, violence, etc.) are hard on children (Cicchetti &
Garmezy, 1993, Sigman, 1995). When exposed to the multiple
stressors of poverty, children typically do not do well in school, are
more likely to be delinquent in later years, and have more and greater
marital and occupational problems (Cowen, Wyman, Work, &
Parker, 1990; Garbarino, 1995; Garbarino, Dubrow, Kostelny, &
Pardo, 1992; Katz, 1997; Stouthamer-Loeber et al., 1993; Werner,
1989, 1993; Zimrin, 1986). But there is a class of children who defy
212 URBAN EDUCATION / MAY 2006
by guest on February 19, 2013uex.sagepub.comDownloaded from
the conventional wisdom and not only survive hostile environments
but also actually thrive; these are the resilient (Garmezy, 1996;
Masten & Coatsworth, 1998; Masten et al., 1995; Wolff, 1995). A
cautionary note is in order, however. Resilience should not be con-
sidered a single dichotomous variable (you either are or are not
resilient in any and all situations); rather, resilience is better per-
ceived as a label that defines the interaction of a child with trauma
or a toxic environment in which success, as judged by societal
norms, is achieved by virtue of the child’s abilities, motivations,
and support systems. Additionally, it is more accurate to describe
resilience in continuous rather than dichotomous terms.
The study of resilience is rooted in earlier research in psy-
chopathology, poverty, and traumatic stress (both individual and
historical; Cicchetti & Garmezy, 1993). Garmezy (1971, 1991) him-
self serves as the best starting point for modern research in resilience
as he and others began to examine not pathology under adverse
circumstances but rather resistance and growth. While research-
ers were busy discovering principles that would explain the psy-
chopathology associated with conditions of poverty, environmental
stress, and low socioeconomic status (SES) and IQ levels, it became
clear that a significant minority of people living in such conditions
were not suffering obvious or overt ill effects. The medical com-
munity examined how persons exposed to the stressors of disease
and illness led and continue to lead productive lives (Hoekelman,
1991; Leonard, 1991; Patterson, 1991; Sinnema, 1991). Persons
interested in understanding and effectively dealing with delinquency
examined the relationship between IQ and delinquency as well as
factors such as SES and ethnicity (Cederblad, Dahlin, Hagnell, &
Hansson, 1995; Kandel et al., 1988; Lynam, Moffit, & Stouthamer-
Loeber, 1993; Moffitt & Silva, 1988; White, Moffitt, & Silva, 1989).
Educators refined the concept and sought to understand the factors
that explained academic, as opposed to social, resilience (Finn &
Rock, 1997; Gordon, 1996; Masten, et al., 1988; Waxman, Huang, &
Padrón, 1997; Winfield, 1994). Some researchers focused on charac-
teristics of the individual, whereas others examined the family
(Carro, Grant, Gotlib, & Compas, 1993; Conrad & Hammen, 1993;
Gribble et al., 1993; Janoff-Bulman, 1992; Radke-Yarrow & Brown,
1993; Rende & Plomin, 1993; Smith, 1995; Smith & Prior, 1995;
Condly / RESILIENCE IN CHILDREN 213
by guest on February 19, 2013uex.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Wyman, Cowen, Work, & Parker, 1991; Wyman et al., 1992). Of
particular importance to the discussion of relevant individual and
social (i.e., familial and environmental) characteristics is the theory
of Scarr and McCartney (1983), which seeks to explain how indi-
vidual characteristics interact with the environment to produce new
environments (however, see Baumrind, 1993, for a critique of the
theory). Suffice it to say that there are many perspectives on the
causes of resiliency and how it plays out in the lives of children and
adults.
This review will introduce the discussion of resilience by nesting
it within a brief acknowledgement of the situation in which children
find themselves today. Next, presentation of competing theoretical
perspectives leads to an in-depth analysis of the three main factors
associated with resilience. This analysis segues into a discussion of
present perspectives on the exact nature of the resilience construct
and ends with a description of how the reviewed research informs (or
should inform) the fostering of resilience in an educational setting.
DANGER AND SURVIVAL
Although perhaps society, civilization, and life have never been
ideal and technological and legal advances have improved the lot of
most people, research makes clear that children in modern American
society are being exposed to an ever increasingly hostile or toxic
environment (Garbarino, 1995; Garbarino et al., 1992; Katz, 1997;
Masten & Coatsworth, 1998). There have been increases in child
poverty, drug use, violence, and abuse; declines in academic perfor-
mance; and fundamental changes (for the worse) in discipline and
social behavior. Garbarino (1995) goes so far as to say that the envi-
ronments in which children live today have become “poisonous to
their development” (p. 4). What seems most problematic about the
aforementioned list of social and personal pathologies is their simul-
taneous and concurrent existence. Specifically, it is hypothesized
that no one single factor is, in and of itself, sufficient to pose a
significant risk to the child’s development and behavior. Rather,
there is a cumulative effect, one that is multiplicative (not merely
additive) in nature (Garbarino et al., 1992). For example, Sameroff,
214 URBAN EDUCATION / MAY 2006
by guest on February 19, 2013uex.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Seifer, Barocas, Zax, and Greenspan (1987) compared verbal IQ
with number of risk factors experienced. There was not much of a
decline in mean IQ scores in the presence of none, one, or two risk
factors, but there was a precipitous drop when there were three or
more risk factors. In addition to this, it was also discovered that the
effect size of multiple risk factors was much greater (three times as
large) than that of any single risk factor. According to Garbarino
et al. (1992), although the danger for urban children is already at
critical levels, children in general are at risk because of the power-
fully negative effect of multiple risk factors such as single parent-
hood, parental rigidity, lack of community support for the child and
family, and economic pressures.
The seminal Kauai Longitudinal Study (Werner, 1989, 1993,
1995), which followed all children born on that Hawaiian island in
1955, indicates that of 698 children born, one third (201) were con-
sidered high risk; and of the high-risk children, one third (72) were
considered resilient. One third of a birth cohort is a large number,
and it must be remembered that this percentage is based on children
born nearly a half a century ago and away from mainland United
States and its metropolitan areas. The situation today is considered
to be even more grim (Garbarino, 1995; Garbarino et al., 1992).
In spite of the condition of today’s children’s environment, many
children manage to survive and even do quite well. Much research
has already examined the correlates and causes of psychological and
social pathology; now research is targeting those individuals who
thrive in spite of risk. It is hoped that, by studying those children and
adults who have succeeded in spite of extremely negative circum-
stances, interventions can be developed and delivered to those in
need (Cicchetti & Garmezy, 1993; Consortium on the School-Based
Promotion of Social Competence, 1996; Cowen, Wyman, Work, &
Iker, 1995; Cowen et al., 1990; Garbarino, 1995; Work, Cowen,
Parker, & Wyman, 1990).
THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES
A prerequisite for the success of any theory is the accurate defin-
ition and operationalization of terms. Resilience can be thought of as
Condly / RESILIENCE IN CHILDREN 215
by guest on February 19, 2013uex.sagepub.comDownloaded from
an enduring characteristic of the person, a situational or temporal
interaction between the person and the context, or a unitary or
multifaceted construct, and it can be applied to social, academic,
or other settings (Cicchetti & Garmezy, 1993). Some definitions
include the following: success in meeting tasks and expectations
(Luthar, Doernberger, & Zigler, 1993), the maintenance and orien-
tation of homeostasis and functionally optimal adaptation (Block &
Block, 1980), and the ability to thrive in the face of obstacles or
adverse circumstances (Gordon, 1996).
Garmezy (1991) provides the most widely accepted framework
for understanding resilience. Based on past and current research,
this pioneer in the field posits three factors that seem to be found
universally in all definitions and research on children and adults
and how they deal with and overcome obstacles and hostile envi-
ronments. The first factor deals with the individual and includes
such elements as native intelligence and temperament. The second
concerns the family and the degree of support it can give to the
child. The third is the external support from persons and institu-
tions outside the individual and the family that can assist both the
child and the family. Werner’s (1989) three common factors are
similar to those of Garmezy (1991). She identifies personality
characteristics of the child, emotional integration within the family,
and the degree of outside support that the child and family can
obtain. Each of these three general factors will be explored indi-
vidually. It should be emphasized at the outset that, although each
factor has identifiable characteristics, there is nothing inherently
immutable about them. That is to say, although a child and his or
her family may behave in a certain way, both genetic inheritance
and the social environment interact to produce the observed behav-
ior (Rutter, 1987, 1996). Disagreements abound on which has pri-
macy in a particular situation, but there is little disagreement over
the fact that children’s resilience can be explained as an interaction
between their genetic makeup and the kind of support they receive.
INDIVIDUAL CHARACTERISTICS
The two most frequently mentioned individual characteristics of
resilient children are high intelligence or cognitive ability and an
216 URBAN EDUCATION / MAY 2006
by guest on February 19, 2013uex.sagepub.comDownloaded from
easy temperament (Cicchetti, Rogosch, Lynch, & Holt, 1993;
Eysenck, 1998; Luthar, 1993; Quinton, Pickles, Maughan, &
Rutter, 1993; Rutter, 1987, 1996; Wolff, 1995). An above-average
intelligence contributes to children’s resilience by allowing children
to understand what is happening to them, to distinguish between
what is controllable and what is not, to choose effective means of
coping, and to select and modify more supportive environments
(Block & Kremen, 1996; Cederblad et al., 1995; Sameroff et al.,
1987; Scarr & McCartney, 1983). Kandel et al. (1988) found high
IQ (a useful proxy for intelligence; Jensen, 1998) to offer protec-
tion against delinquency for high-risk men. Sameroff et al. (1987)
found that high-risk children were 24 times as likely to have an IQ
below 85 as were low-risk children. It has been argued that class
or race is at least as strongly related to delinquency as IQ is; how-
ever, Hirschi and Hindelang (1977) found that IQ has an indepen-
dent effect on men at high risk of delinquency and that this effect
was mediated by school-related variables and attitudes. The theory
is that high intelligence leads to more rewards in school (teacher
praise, recognition, high grades), and these rewards then serve to
increase the student’s attachment to the school community. Positive
regard for the school’s social community, subsequently, decreases
instances of antisocial behavior and delinquency (Kandel et al.,
1988; White et al., 1989).
High intelligence is not a perfectly protective factor, however,
nor does it come without its own peculiar costs. Resilient children
of high intelligence, when compared to their nonresilient at-risk
peers, seem to suffer more emotional distress and depression
(Luthar, 1991; Luthar et al., 1993). It is hypothesized that highly
intelligent children are more sensitive to environmental stimula-
tion and therefore suffer greater symptoms of internal stress. Thus,
although high intelligence may help a child find a satisfactory
solution to a traumatic event, this same intelligence may also leave
that child more vulnerable to emotional scarring and the internal-
ization of stress. It is normal for children to fight against negative
stressors. Most take the fight outside themselves with aggressive
and disruptive behavior, usually to no avail; more resilient children
shift the fight away from the outside world to their own internal
Condly / RESILIENCE IN CHILDREN 217
by guest on February 19, 2013uex.sagepub.comDownloaded from
mental world. The fight is no less energy depleting, but the results
on the child’s psyche may be more harmful.
Parenthetically, this unusual finding raises an issue crucial to the
identity and identification of resilience. When a child makes it out of
a high-crime, low-income neighborhood and enrolls in college, we
label that child resilient. Yet if Luthar (1991; Luthar et al., 1993) is to
be believed, that same child likely is more depressed than a similar
but less bright child from the same neighborhood. Depression clearly
has debilitating effects (see Ekman & Davidson, 1994, and LeDoux,
1996, for a discussion of the powerful beneficial and harmful effects
that both positive and negative emotions can have on individuals)
so the high-IQ child should be in worse shape; yet the research indi-
cates that, except for the greater levels of depression, they often fare
better than do their lower IQ age mates. No long-term studies have
been performed to track the lifespan of the depression, but it is pos-
sible that the depression fades with time as the resilient individual
adjusts, strategizes, and ultimately takes situation-improving actions.
The other individual characteristic frequently mentioned in the
literature is an easygoing temperament. Werner (1989, 1993) states
that such a temperament is obvious from infancy, allows the child
to engage the world on easier terms, and elicits more positive
responses from caregivers. Scarr and McCartney (1983) advance
the notion that, although environments obviously affect people’s
behavior, the reverse is also true. Individuals, through the pheno-
typic expression of their genotype, modify and even actively select
environments that they find to be more conducive to their prefer-
ences and talents. Additionally, through their behavior, people can
evoke responses that work either for their benefit or their harm
(Wolff, 1995). For example, in one study (Smith & Prior, 1995),
teacher ratings of students’ positive temperament better predicted
resilience on academic and social indicators than did ratings of
self-esteem, gender, and mother-child warmth (r2=.38); however,
IQ still was the strongest predictor with more than half the vari-
ance explained (r2=.55).
Research has shown that resilient adults typically attribute their
status to a dogged determinism, held throughout childhood, that
they would conquer their circumstances, that they were people of
218 URBAN EDUCATION / MAY 2006
by guest on February 19, 2013uex.sagepub.comDownloaded from
worth and value, and that they had the inner resources to succeed
(Staudinger, Marsiske, & Baltes, 1993; Watt, David, Ladd, &
Shamos, 1995; Werner, 1989, 1993, 1995). The research on locus of
control is surprisingly equivocal: Some studies show an internal locus
of control contributing to resilience (Cicchetti & Rogosch, 1997;
Luthar, 1991; Werner, 1989) whereas others do not (Watt et al., 1995).
This is perhaps best understood as a conflation of locus and control-
lability that much research ignores; that is, just because a perceived
cause is deemed to be internal does not necessarily mean that the
cause is subject to the person’s own influence (Pintrich & Schunk,
2002). The importance of individual characteristics pertinent to
resilience cannot be overestimated. Cicchetti and Rogosch (1997)
found that for nonmaltreated at-risk children, relationship variables
were more important for predicting resiliency, whereas for maltreated
at-risk children, individual characteristics were more important.
To summarize, resilient children tend to possess an above-
average intelligence and have a temperament that endears them to
others and that also does not allow them to succumb to self-pity.
High intelligence alone is insufficient for protection against stress;
the increased awareness of the miserable circumstances in which
resilient children find themselves can serve to exacerbate their mis-
ery. What is also needed is a temperament that renders them akin to
velvet-covered steel: soft to the touch outside but strong inside to
provide necessary support in times of stress. Their intelligence and
temperament interact so as to allow them to understand a situation
well, seek out coping mechanisms, not feel sorry for themselves
(and thus incur a paralyzing emotional effect), and persist in their
attempts to survive and survive well.
FAMILY CHARACTERISTICS
When a child manages to thrive in spite of adverse environmen-
tal circumstances such as violence in the neighborhood or extreme
poverty, it is reasonable to examine the family for clues in explain-
ing the child’s resilience. Gribble et al. (1993) focused on this sec-
ond of the three major resilience factors. They found that parents of
stress-resilient children had more positive parental attitudes, were
more involved in their children’s lives, and provided more and better
Condly / RESILIENCE IN CHILDREN 219
by guest on February 19, 2013uex.sagepub.comDownloaded from
guidance. The result was that the stress-resilient children were more
securely attached than were stress-affected children. A discriminant
function analysis performed by Wyman et al. (1991) showed that
seven aggregated variables accounted for 57% of group status. Of
the seven, five were direct family effects on the child: caregiver’s
positive expectations for the child’s future, reduced infant separa-
tions from caregiver, inductive discipline, father’s involvement, and
stable family discipline. Other research has confirmed these findings
(Wyman et al., 1992).
Even when the parents themselves are a source of stress for the
child, the parent-child relationship can still somewhat paradoxically
offer protection against stress. Kauffman, Grunebaum, Cohler, and
Gamer (1979) studied resilient children of psychotic mothers.
Maternal depression was found to be more of a risk factor than
was schizophrenia, but children managed to obtain a high level of
social competence if they had a warm relationship with their
mothers. Apparently, the resilient child was able to distinguish
between the mother’s problem behavior and her feelings toward
her child. Thus, although the psychosis offered risk, relational
warmth was demonstrated to be compensatory.
Work by Conrad and Hammen (1993) further dissects the psy-
chosis issue and examines the relationship between children’s
resilience status and mothers who were categorized as normal,
medically ill, suffering from unipolar depression, or suffering
from bipolar depression. The research made it clear that resiliency
is a very complicated issue. For example, strong friendships with
peers served as protective factors for children with medically ill
mothers; however, an adult friend was a risk factor for children of
unipolar depressed mothers. Maternal competence was a protec-
tive factor for children of unipolar depressed mothers but was a
risk factor for children of bipolar depressed mothers. The same
was true for children whose fathers were healthy and in the home.
Thus, it seems clear that it is not enough to point to variables such
as maternal depression or paternal involvement and categorize
them as risk and protective factors, respectively. Apparently, other
factors interact with these that then work together to leave a child
resilient or vulnerable to stress.
220 URBAN EDUCATION / MAY 2006
by guest on February 19, 2013uex.sagepub.comDownloaded from
No serious researcher denies the importance of the microenvi-
ronments and macroenvironments as factors in resiliency status;
where there is disagreement, however, is in how much individual
characteristics based on one’s genotype contribute and how much
the environment contributes. If a child grows up in a poor, violence-
ridden neighborhood and lives in a broken, dysfunctional family
and yet manages to thrive, that child is labeled resilient. Clues for
an explanation of the phenomenon of the child’s resilience are
sought in the child and in the child’s environment. An easy tem-
perament and high intelligence are often cited as factors that serve
to protect against or compensate for adverse circumstances. Family
warmth and stable significant others (usually adult) are also fre-
quently cited. Yet it is possible that what appears to be resilience is,
in fact, not.
Plomin (1989) and Rende and Plomin (1993) distinguish
between distal and proximal environmental risks. An abusive parent
would be a proximal risk because the abuse directly affects the
child, whereas parental lack of education would be a distal risk
because it affects family income, kinds and amounts of reading
material, and the like that then affect the child.
Additionally, Plomin (1989) and Rende and Plomin (1993)
make the claim that there are children who do quite well in spite
of being in at-risk families, not because they are resilient but
rather because they are not genetically at risk. That is, the pheno-
typic behavior of high academic and social competence is directly
related to a genotype that, given any chance at all, will be
expressed. Scarr and McCartney (1983) argue that there is a wide
range of environments in which people can thrive and that things
are not so delicate that the slightest stressor will condemn a child
to a less-than-fulfilling life. There are many environments that are
“functionally equivalent” (p. 429), and humans are able to reach
their potential, or at least marginal competency, in environments
that are less than ideal. Therefore, from the point of view of behav-
ior genetics, a child would be considered resilient if he or she did
not exhibit any behavioral abnormalities in spite of a genetic predis-
position toward such abnormalities. Perhaps science is a long way
from devising tests that can help determine genetic predispositions
Condly / RESILIENCE IN CHILDREN 221
by guest on February 19, 2013uex.sagepub.comDownloaded from
one way or the other, but the theory is an intriguing one and should
encourage much research.
Against the common wisdom, some researchers question the
importance of the family regarding child development. Rowe
(1994) cites behavior genetic research in proposing the primacy
of individual genotype and nonshared environmental experiences
in producing a particular phenotype. According to Rowe, there
are three main problems with family socialization theories of
development. One, such theories do not account for the presence or
effect of genes. Two, borrowing from Scarr and McCartney (1983),
people are able both to select and modify their environments. And
three, also reminiscent of Scarr and McCartney’s theory, whereas
the child’s development is shaped by how the parents treat and react
to the child, it is also true that the child, through his or her own dis-
positions, evokes certain kinds of treatment and responses from
parents, thus reinforcing certain propensities and depressing others.
Baumrind (1993) offers a major critique of the environmental
theory of Scarr and McCartney (1983), and by extension, behavior
genetics. She argues that because the average expectable environment
is a concept poorly defined, it cannot contribute to an understanding
of the development of resilience or psychopathology. Additionally,
she claims that because percentages of shared as compared with non-
shared environment increase as one moves from attitude and obser-
vation measures to more traditional IQ and personality measures, it is
impossible to be certain just how much each kind of environment is
contributing. Finally, she questions the value of heritability estimates
that cannot explain the developmental process.
In summary, at the very least, it can be claimed that a good and
supportive family can do no harm in helping a child cope with
adverse circumstances and that it very probably helps. There is
presently much debate about the relative contribution of shared as
opposed to unshared environment in the development of person-
ality and how much the environment contributes compared to the
contribution of one’s genotype. Without making an unsubstanti-
ated statement, it is perhaps best, in light of recent evidence, to
claim that the role of the family in the development of resilience
in children is most important early in life and that the role of the
family declines in importance as the child ages.
222 URBAN EDUCATION / MAY 2006
by guest on February 19, 2013uex.sagepub.comDownloaded from
EXTERNAL SUPPORT
Enough correlational research has been conducted to substantiate
the claim that parental involvement in a child’s life can be either
a source of risk or resilience depending on the child’s own character-
istics and how the larger environment interacts with the child and
family (Carro et al., 1993; Radke-Yarrow & Brown, 1993). Although
the debate continues on the relative importance of the family envi-
ronment for child development (see Baumrind, 1993; Plomin, 1989;
Rende & Plomin, 1993; Rowe, 1994; Scarr & McCartney, 1983), a
great deal of research has supported the contention of both Garmezy
(1991) and Werner (1989) that external support for the child and the
family is indispensable for the development of childhood resilience.
Wolff (1995), for instance, has found that employment opportunities
for high-risk men greatly reduces risk for the children of these men.
External support does not simply manifest itself magically; there are
causal explanations. Milgram and Palti (1993), while pointing to the
oft-cited characteristics of high intelligence and easy temperament to
explain a child’s resilience, also discuss how such children are supe-
rior in locating and maintaining support from their age mates and
from adults. It seems as though the individual characteristics of supe-
rior cognitive functioning and easy temperament serve as the foun-
dation for the superior social skills that resilient children possess.
Their individual qualities make them more attractive to peers and
adults, and this attraction allows them greater ease in maintaining
close relationships.
Support for the family has been cited as a major discriminating
factor in identifying resilient urban children who have experienced
major life stresses (Wyman et al., 1991); however, the support must
be specific in nature. Carro et al. (1993), when examining parental
depression, did not find evidence for any protective effects that
social support might have for children. Conrad and Hammen (1993)
obtained mixed results for the effects that social support for the child
of depressed, ill, or normal mothers would have. In some instances,
friendships were a protective factor, and in others, it was a risk
factor. It seems that, to be useful for children, social support must
include the at-risk children in a central way but also involve the
larger family. In other words, it is best when the family as a whole
is being supported.
Condly / RESILIENCE IN CHILDREN 223
by guest on February 19, 2013uex.sagepub.comDownloaded from
THE NATURE OF RESILIENCE
If one concentrates on examining the characteristics of the
resilient child, one might be tempted to view resilience as an innate
quality that would allow the child to survive a great many adverse
circumstances. If one looks at the child’s family and social envi-
ronment, then an argument can be made that resilience is not so
much a quality of the child as it is the interactional processes
between the child and the environment. The two positions are not
necessarily in conflict, as there is research that supports both
points of view. Wolff (1995) summarizes the situation expertly:
Resilience is an enduring aspect of the person. Genetic and other
constitutionally based qualities both determine and are in turn
modified by life experiences. Good intelligence plays a major part,
as does an easy, adaptable, sociable temperament that, together
with an appealing appearance, attract positive responses from
others which in turn contribute to that inner sense of self-worth,
competence and self-efficacy that has repeatedly been identified
as a vital component of resilience. The sources of such positive
responses are threefold: primary relationships within the family;
the network of relationships with adults and children outside the
family; and competence and achievement. (p. 568)
Although the three factors of individual characteristics, positive
family relationships, and outside support continue to be examined
in the literature, attention is shifting toward an attempt to under-
stand other aspects of the nature of resilience. It is becoming clearer
to researchers that resilience and risk are multifaceted; that is, they
are not unitary in their origin, expression, being, or maintenance.
Masten et al. (1995), in researching both young children and
adolescents, found that competence in childhood had three
dimensions: school or academic, social, and conduct or behavior.
In adolescence, two additional dimensions were found: romantic
and occupational. Risks from trauma and adverse circumstances
could affect a young child’s or adolescent’s competence along any
one or several of the aforementioned dimensions, with the other
dimensions remaining relatively unaffected. The work of Luthar
et al. (1993) echoes this concept. They found that children who
224 URBAN EDUCATION / MAY 2006
by guest on February 19, 2013uex.sagepub.comDownloaded from
exhibited resilient behavior in one domain (teacher-rated school
behavior, for example) were not necessarily resilient in another
domain (such as school grades or level of depression).
Risk itself is multidimensional (Work et al., 1990). It can be
viewed as life events, minor stressors that accumulate with time,
specific high-risk factors, low SES, or any combination thereof
(Luthar & Zigler, 1991). Masten and Coatsworth (1998) refer to
the cumulative nature of risk and the necessary effect this has on
the design of interventions. These observations are not unimpor-
tant. An accurate description of the nature of risk is crucial to
understanding how it affects people, how resilience operates, and
how to develop interventions that work in the real world. Because
risks are multifaceted in nature, it necessarily follows that
resilience too is multi-faceted. Thus, the concept of an overall
resilience may have to give way to one that is situational in its
operation (Luthar, 1993).
Many researchers are now defining resilience as a process with
a dynamic character (Rutter, 1987, 1996). Quinton et al. (1993)
describe a resilience that operates both passively, through an
increase in a person’s ability to withstand traumatic situations, and
actively, by shaping the environment so as to minimize the person’s
interaction with trauma and possibly to leave the negative environ-
ment for a more positive one (cf. Scarr & McCartney, 1983). If
resilience is not conceived of as a given character trait but rather a
capacity that develops as a result of how the person interacts with his
or her environment, there should be little evidence of competence
with time; that is, protective factors should only diminish the impact
of negative consequences. This idea has some research support
(Cicchetti & Rogosch, 1997; Egeland, Carlson, & Sroufe, 1993).
Egeland et al. found that the effects of extreme risk are cumulative
and that they increased with the passage of time. Resilience, or the
positive response to extreme risk, would necessarily be under
increasingly greater strain as the various risk factors accumulate. In
examining middle-aged adults who had overcome extreme stress
early in their lives, Watt et al. (1995) noted that in their discussion
with the participants there was unanimity on only one issue. All
adults interviewed held the belief that their triumphing over adverse
Condly / RESILIENCE IN CHILDREN 225
by guest on February 19, 2013uex.sagepub.comDownloaded from
childhood circumstances was not a one-step process; instead, it was
an ongoing process that must be chosen by the person constantly,
in a variety of circumstances, and with some assistance to nurture the
decision. Waxman et al. (1997), in examining motivational and learn-
ing environmental differences between resilient and nonresilient
Hispanic middle school students, found that the factors such as
problem-solving skills, use of time, and social competence, all of
which combine to influence overall academic resilience, are them-
selves subject to intervention and modification. Gordon (1996)
contributed the finding that personal and environmental factors asso-
ciated with resiliency do not change across ethnic groups, although
this finding may depend on how resilience and risk were defined and
measured. What is considered risk or resilience in one culture may
be the norm or rebellion in another.
In seeking to understand how human personality is structured,
Block and Block (1980) distinguish between ego control and ego
resiliency. Ego control is concerned with the degree of control one
has over one’s emotions and how such control is modulated. A key
aspect of ego control is permeability, or how much one’s personality
systems’ boundaries allow or disallow the passage of forces or ten-
sions on those systems. This factor is measured on a continuous scale
with overcontrol and undercontrol at the extremes. Ego resiliency
refers to the structures and processes that allow a person to maintain
homeostasis and optimize functional adaptation to adverse circum-
stances. The key concept here is elasticity, the degree to which the
boundaries between personality systems change their permeability
capability and allow the person to adapt to environmental demands.
The scale here is bounded by resiliency or brittleness.
Strong ego development has been found to be a major com-
pensatory factor that remains robust in the face of various stres-
sors and through time (Luthar, 1991). Cicchetti et al. (1993)
showed that ego overcontrol was predictive of resiliency in mal-
treated children. Overcontrol, characterized by suppressed emo-
tionality, empathy, and compliance, permits the stressed child to
limit the number of additional problems that need be faced,
diminishes their effect and the chances of their growing into
larger problems, and perhaps protects them from being targeted
226 URBAN EDUCATION / MAY 2006
by guest on February 19, 2013uex.sagepub.comDownloaded from
for further incidents of maltreatment and stress (Block & Block,
1980; Cicchetti et al., 1993). Such overcontrol may assist the
child in determining what is needed for coping successfully with
a difficult environment (Cicchetti & Rogosch, 1997).
Another curious phenomenon associated with resilience is the
mediating role of gender. Werner (1989), in her longitudinal study
of resiliency among a cohort of people born in 1955 on the
Hawaiian island of Kauai, found that boys were more vulnerable
than girls to biological insult and caregiver deficits. Women were
more at risk during adolescence, and by age 30, the advantage had
shifted again with men being at greater risk. Boys have been shown
to be at greater risk of developing behavioral and emotional prob-
lems when they are exposed to stressful family arrangements
(Rutter, 1987, 1996). Boys often do not have a positive same-sex
role model in the home as girls do, as many troubled, lower SES
families tend to be headed by single mothers. Additionally, boys
tend to be treated more harshly than girls in both school and in the
home. It is this combination of increased environmental pressure
coupled with a more immature neurological and other biological
development (vis-à-vis girls’ development) that probably best
explains the rather robust finding of sex-related differences in risk
and resilience.
FOSTERING RESILIENCE IN AN
EDUCATIONAL SETTING
Tolan and Dodge (2005) assert that there is a tendency in psy-
chology for “passive reliance on the client to initiate contact”
(p. 612). Perhaps this is more of a problem when offering services
to adult alcoholics as opposed to troubled children; after all, such
adults are not under obligation to obtain these services, whereas
children are required to attend school. It would seem that children
by and large would be enjoying development and support services
because most of them attend public schools for 13 years. However,
the mere presence of the child in the school does not guarantee that
the child will step forward to apply for these services, and that is
Condly / RESILIENCE IN CHILDREN 227
by guest on February 19, 2013uex.sagepub.comDownloaded from
assuming that such services even exist at the school. Essential for
attempts at fostering resilience in at-risk students, then, is a proac-
tive (even aggressive?) stance on the part of school personnel to
identify such students and involve them in school-based support
programs.
According to Katz (1997), the key to developing resiliency in
children is opportunities, both plentiful and meaningful. Opportu-
nities to rest from resisting a hostile environment, opportunities
to explore in safety and security, opportunities to believe and to
dream; all these need to be given to at-risk children if they are to
have any chance at all of making it out of their dire circumstances
successfully.
One way of providing the opportunity for developing resilience
is through religious involvement (Katz, 1997; Werner, 1989, 1993).
Many adults who have successfully made their way out of poor
environments have cited religious faith as being extremely impor-
tant in their coming to grips with themselves, their circumstances,
and the world, and cited that it has provided a sense of hope for
them. Most of the adults who were interviewed by Katz (1997) and
Werner (1989, 1993) said that their faith in God was instrumental
in their overcoming bad circumstances and maintained that they
would not have made it otherwise. Thus, children who are at risk of
problems of abuse, violence, drugs, crime, and the like, can poten-
tially be affected positively by the involvement of formal and infor-
mal religious organizations in their lives.
This, naturally, presents a problem for the nonsectarian public
schools; faculty and staff are in no position to recommend reli-
gions, engage in religious acts, or serve as mediators of religious
dogma. However, even the public schools can acknowledge that
religion exists, that there is evidence of its efficacy (Katz, 1997;
Werner, 1989, 1993), and that there are (in all likelihood) a wide
variety of local religious organizations of which students (and
their families) can avail themselves.
Schools’ recommendations to students to avail themselves of
outside services are not limited to religious organizations; nonsec-
tarian organizations and programs abound. Tolan, Gorman-Smith,
and Henry (2004) report that in one such program, SAFEChildren,
228 URBAN EDUCATION / MAY 2006
by guest on February 19, 2013uex.sagepub.comDownloaded from
420 inner-city families were assigned either to a control condition
or an experimental one in which family-focused preventive inter-
ventions and academic tutoring were offered. Although quite weak
(the largest effect size was .17), benefits included improved acade-
mic performance and better parental involvement. Thus, it would
appear that even large-scale, multifaceted interventions might not
realize all the benefits for which one hopes and works on.
For good or ill, children spend a great deal of time in school. If the
schools are resource poor, short on qualified staff, and/or exist in dan-
gerous neighborhoods, then the development of resilience is likely to
be hampered. On the other hand, because schools are places in which
children spend so much time, they are ideal locations for the imple-
mentation of programs designed to support children and assist them
in overcoming environmental stressors (Ross, Smith, Casey, &
Slavin, 1995). The Consortium on the School-Based Promotion of
Social Competence (1996) argues that schools are unique in that they
have students for a great many years, deal with academic, moral, and
health issues, and usually enjoy strong community support to suc-
ceed in their endeavors. There are concerns, however, about the abil-
ity of schools to carry out their charges, because the list of failures of
schools to deal with these academic, moral, and health issues seems
to grow endlessly (Price, Cowen, Lorion, & Ramos-McKay, 1988;
Steinberg, 1996). What apparently works best is when an interven-
tion takes into consideration the personal developmental level of the
child and includes all aspects of the school in the intervention. The
curriculum should include development of the target skills; the train-
ing should be intensive and ongoing (i.e., it should last beyond a
simple lesson or even a semester); and the school’s adult staff should
be convinced of the efficacy of the intervention and be devoted both
to the students and to the proper implementation of the intervention
program (Consortium on the School-Based Promotion of Social
Competence, 1996). Starting early seems to increase the likelihood of
developing resilience (Werner & Smith, 1992).
Another point about the development of resilience in children is
that it is important to distinguish between programs that seek to pro-
tect and programs that aim to reduce risk (Consortium on the
School-Based Promotion of Social Competence, 1996). In fostering
Condly / RESILIENCE IN CHILDREN 229
by guest on February 19, 2013uex.sagepub.comDownloaded from
protection and reducing risk, researchers and program personnel
need to consider attributes of the individual, the family, and the larger
community (Garmezy, 1971). Researchers need to analyze both
the children at risk and their immediate and larger environments to
determine the effectiveness of the intervention, the suitability of
the program, and provide information useful for troubleshooting
and maintenance of the program (Pless & Stein, 1996; Richters &
Martinez, 1993). Wyman, Cowen, Work, and Kerley (1993) were
able to demonstrate the medium to nearly strong protective effects
of early positive future expectations on outcomes as diverse as
depression (Cohen’s d=.5795), competence (.7949), locus of con-
trol (.4344), reading achievement (.7029), school engagement
(.5557), and socioemotional adjustment (.5083). (nb. Wyman et al.
reported Fstatistics; the effect size calculations were performed by
this author using the statistics in their article.)
Finally, it should be realized that, ultimately, resilience is not a
guaranteed outcome even with the most carefully designed and
thoroughly researched programs. At best, research can inform the
design of interventions; interventions can make attempts at
changing human behavior and thinking. But surprises are still
likely to be found. Occasionally, children will still sink in the
despair of the hostile environment, whereas other children, who
perhaps have even fewer resources, might survive and ultimately
thrive. The imperative remains nonetheless, but it is always good
to be cognizant of the vagaries and difficulties involved with try-
ing to develop rich and full lives in the midst of harsh and toxic
environmental stressors (Garbarino, 1995; Janoff-Bulman, 1992).
CONCLUSIONS
A proper understanding of risk and resilience is essential to the
design and implementation of policies and programs that attempt to
redress some of the effects that community violence, family discord
and abuse, and poverty and minority status can have on children.
Present research in the origin and development of resilience should
inform existing knowledge on risk and psychopathology so that one
is not favored or emphasized over the other and therefore lead to
230 URBAN EDUCATION / MAY 2006
by guest on February 19, 2013uex.sagepub.comDownloaded from
ill-designed programs. In short, personality characteristics of the
child interact with small and large environments such as family,
friends, school personnel, and the many people in the community
to create the conditions that will either foster or inhibit positive
growth and development. Powerful and promising new statistical
techniques (such as Structural Equation Modeling) allow for the
analysis and study of independent variables in both an interactional
and causal fashion. This means that future studies can proceed
beyond mere correlation (with implied or imagined causation) and
actually consider how one variable relates to another, determine the
direction of that relationship, and demonstrate how other variables
mediate their relationship. Such future studies can greatly aid in
assistive program design in that they can clearly demonstrate the
primacy of certain variables and can explain the nature of their
direct and indirect effects on outcomes of choice.
Another useful study (though one that cannot be performed fre-
quently) is a meta-analysis. The advantage of meta-analysis over a
traditional review of literature such as the present article is that it
takes the statistics generated in the many studies and equates them;
that is, it translates them into a common statistic called an effect
size (such as Cohen’s d). This allows the researcher to cut across
studies and arrive at a summary numerical evaluation. However, the
meta-analysis technique is constrained by the literature itself; arti-
cles not published (because of the bias against publishing non-
significant findings) cannot be meta-analyzed. Thus, meta-analysis,
oddly enough, often provides a crystal clear view of what is perhaps
inherently unrepresentative.
In that vein, all researchers and the research-consuming commu-
nity would best be served by a more liberal publishing policy, one
that permits (or even encourages) publication of studies with non-
significant statistical results, provided that proper adherence to
research design protocols has been maintained. The advantage here
is that what does not work would be as heralded as what does work;
and that seems particularly important, given the costs associated
with the implementation of interventions in schools and districts
with tight budgets.
Efforts to build resilience in school children, although admirable,
are certainly faced with large difficulties. Regardless of the program
Condly / RESILIENCE IN CHILDREN 231
by guest on February 19, 2013uex.sagepub.comDownloaded from
selected, money is and always will be an issue. Assuming that deci-
sion makers select the very best program and have the funds neces-
sary for implementation, there needs to be buy-in from both school
personnel and students; without it, the program will neither be
implemented fully nor received fully. Finally, the very nature of a
program is somewhat at odds with what is known about the nature
of resilience. One of the identified three main characteristics of
resilience is high intelligence and an even temperament. All argu-
ment aside on whether such constructs can be influenced positively
by external forces, it is safe to say that it is very difficult to do so.
Because these individual characteristics seem to be essential, if it
turns out that they are mostly genetic in origin and resistant to inter-
vention, then even the best efforts will succeed only with a minority
of students. Such an acknowledgement is hardly defeatist; after all,
AIDS research progresses apace, even though the disease remains
strongly resistant to attempted cures. It seems certain that, although
no one single program or policy is likely to fit every situation or
person, enough is known to allow for some degree of tailoring that
can allow for the maximum probability of success.
REFERENCES
Bargh, J. A., & Chartrand, T. L. (1999). The unbearable automaticity of being. American
Psychologist, 54(7), 462-479.
Baumrind, D. (1993). The average expectable environment is not good enough: A response
to Scarr. Child Development, 64(5), 1299-1317.
Block, J. H., & Block, J. (1980). The role of ego-control and ego-resiliency in the organi-
zation of behavior. In W. A. Collins (Ed.), Minnesota symposia on child psychology:
Development of cognition, affect, and social relations (Vol. 13, pp. 39-101). Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Block, J., & Kremen, A. M. (1996). IQ and ego-resiliency: Conceptual and empirical con-
nections and separateness. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 70(2), 349-361.
Carro, M. G., Grant, K. E., Gotlib, I. H., & Compas, B. E. (1993). Postpartum depression
and child development: An investigation of mothers and fathers as sources of risk and
resilience. Development and Psychopathology, 5(4), 567-579.
Cederblad, M., Dahlin, L., Hagnell, O., & Hansson, K. (1995). Intelligence and tempera-
ment as protective factors for mental: A cross-sectional and prospective epidemiolog-
ical study. European Archives of Psychiatry & Clinical Neuroscience, 245(1), 11-19.
Cicchetti, D., & Garmezy, N. (1993). Prospects and promises in the study of resilience.
Development and Psychopathology, 5(4), 497-502.
232 URBAN EDUCATION / MAY 2006
by guest on February 19, 2013uex.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Cicchetti, D., & Rogosch, F. A. (1997). The role of self-organization in the promotion of
resilience in maltreated children. Development & Psychopathology, 9(4), 797-815.
Cicchetti, D., Rogosch, F. A., Lynch, M., & Holt, K. D. (1993). Resilience in maltreated
children: Processes leading to adaptive outcome. Development and Psychopathology,
5(4), 629-647.
Conrad, M., & Hammen, C. (1993). Protective and resource factors in high- and low-risk
children: A comparison of children with unipolar, bipolar, medically ill, and normal
mothers. Development and Psychopathology, 5(4), 593-607.
Consortium on the School-Based Promotion of Social Competence. (1996). The school-based
promotion of social competence: Theory, research, practice, and policy. In R. J. Haggerty,
L. R. Sherrod, N. Garmezy, & M. Rutter (Eds.), Stress, risk, and resilience in children and
adolescents: Processes, mechanisms, and interventions (pp. 268-316). Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Cowen, E. L., Wyman, P. A., Work, W. C., & Iker, M. R. (1995). A preventive intervention
for enhancing resilience among highly stressed urban children. Journal of Primary
Prevention, 15(3), 247-260.
Cowen, E. L., Wyman, P. A., Work, W. C., & Parker, G. R. (1990). The Rochester child
resilience project: Overview and summary of first year findings. Development and
Psychopathology, 2(2), 193-212.
Egeland, B., Carlson, E., & Sroufe, L. A. (1993). Resilience as process. Development and
Psychopathology, 5(4), 517-528.
Ekman, P., & Davidson, R. J. (Eds.). (1994). The nature of emotion: Fundamental ques-
tions. New York: Oxford University Press.
Eysenck, H. (1998). Dimensions of personality. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
Finn, J. D., & Rock, D. A. (1997). Academic success among students at risk for school fail-
ure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(2), 221-234.
Garbarino, J. (1995). Raising children in a socially toxic environment. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Garbarino, J., Dubrow, N., Kostelny, K., & Pardo, C. (1992). Children in danger: Coping
with the consequences of community violence. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Garmezy, N. (1971). Vulnerability research and the issue of primary prevention. American
Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 41(1), 101-116.
Garmezy, N. (1991). Resilience in children’s adaptation to negative life events and stressed
environments. Pediatric Annals, 20(9), 459-466.
Garmezy, N. (1996). Reflections and commentary on risk, resilience, and development.
In R. J. Haggerty, L. R. Sherrod, N. Garmezy, & M. Rutter (Eds.), Stress, risk, and
resilience in children and adolescents: Processes, mechanisms, and interventions
(pp. 1-18). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Gordon, K. A. (1996). Resilient Hispanic youths’ self-concept and motivational patterns.
Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 18(1), 63-73.
Gribble, P. A., Cowen, E. L., Wyman, P. A., Wyman, P. A., Work, W. C., Wannon, M.,
et al. (1993). Parent and child views of parent-child relationship qualities and resilient
outcomes among urban children. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 34(4),
507-519.
Hirschi, T., & Hindelang, M. J. (1977). Intelligence and delinquency: A revisionist review.
American Sociological Review, 42(4), 571-587.
Hoekelman, R. A. (1991). A pediatrician’s view. Pediatric Annals, 20(9), 455-456.
Condly / RESILIENCE IN CHILDREN 233
by guest on February 19, 2013uex.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Janoff-Bulman, R. (1992). Shattered assumptions: Towards a new psychology of trauma.
New York: Free Press.
Jensen, A. R. (1998). The gfactor: The science of mental ability. New York: Praeger.
Kandel, E., Mednick, S. A., Kirkegaard-Sorensen, L., Hutchings, B., Knop, J., Rosenberg, R.,
et al. (1988). IQ as a protective factor for subjects at high risk for antisocial behavior.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56(2), 224-226.
Katz, M. (1997). On playing a poor hand well: Insights from the lives of those who have
overcome childhood risks and adversities. New York: Norton.
Kauffman, C., Grunebaum, H., Cohler, B., & Gamer, E. (1979). Superkids: Competent
children of psychotic mothers. American Journal of Psychiatry, 136(1), 1398-1402.
LeDoux, J. E. (1996). The emotional brain: The mysterious underpinnings of emotional
life. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Leonard, B. J. (1991). Siblings of chronically ill children: A question of vulnerability versus
resilience. Pediatric Annals, 20(9), 501-506.
Luthar, S. S. (1991). Vulnerability and resilience: A study of high risk adolescents. Child
Development, 62(3), 600-616.
Luthar, S. S. (1993). Annotation: Methodological and conceptual issues in research on
childhood resilience. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 34(4), 441-453.
Luthar, S. S., Doernberger, C. H., & Zigler, E. (1993). Resilience is not a unidimensional
construct: Insights from a prospective study of inner-city adolescents. Development
and Psychopathology, 5(4), 703-717.
Luthar, S. S., & Zigler, E. (1991). Vulnerability and competence: A review of research on
resilience in childhood. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 61(1), 6-22.
Lynam, D., Moffitt, T. E., & Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (1993). Explaining the relation
between IQ and delinquency: Class, race, test motivation, school failure, or self-
control? Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 102(4), 187-196.
Masten, A. S., & Coatsworth, J. D. (1998). The development of competence in favorable
and unfavorable environments. American Psychologist, 53(2), 205-220.
Masten, A. S., Coatsworth, J. D., Neemann, J., Gest, S.D., Tellegen, A., & Garmezy, N.
(1995). The structure and coherence of competence from childhood through adoles-
cence. Child Development, 66(6), 1635-1659.
Masten, A. S., Garmezy, N., Tellegen, A., Pellegrini, D. S., Larkin, K., & Larsen, A.
(1988). Competence and stress in school children: The moderating effects of individ-
ual and family qualities. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 29(6), 745-764.
Milgram, N. A., & Palti, G. (1993). Psychosocial characteristics of resilient children.
Journal of Research in Personality, 27(3), 207-221.
Moffitt, T. E., & Silva, P. A. (1988). IQ and delinquency: A direct test of the differential
detection hypothesis. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 97(3), 330-333.
Patterson, J. M. (1991). Family resilience to the challenge of a child’s disability. Pediatric
Annals, 20(9), 491-499.
Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (2002). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and
applications (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Pless, I. B., & Stein, R. E. K. (1996). Intervention research: Lessons from research on children
with chronic disorders. In R. J. Haggerty, L. R. Sherrod, N. Garmezy, & M. Rutter (Eds.),
Stress, risk, and resilience in children and adolescents: Processes, mechanisms, and inter-
ventions (pp. 317-353). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Plomin, R. (1989). Environment and genes: Determinants of behavior. American Psychol-
ogist, 44(2), 105-111.
234 URBAN EDUCATION / MAY 2006
by guest on February 19, 2013uex.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Price, R. H., Cowen, E. L., Lorion, R. P., & Ramos-McKay, J. (Eds.). (1988). 14 ounces
of prevention: A casebook for practitioners. Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Quinton, D., Pickles, A., Maughan, B., & Rutter, M. (1993). Partners, peers, and pathways:
Assortative pairing and continuities in conduct disorder. Development and Psycho-
pathology, 5(4), 763-783.
Radke-Yarrow, M., & Brown, E. (1993). Resilience and vulnerability in children of multiple-
risk families. Development and Psychopathology, 5(4), 581-592.
Rende, R., & Plomin, R. (1993). Families at risk for psychopathology: Who becomes
affected and why? Development and Psychopathology, 5(4), 529-540.
Richters, J. E., & Martinez, P. E. (1993). Violent communities, family choices, and children’s
chances: An algorithm for improving the odds. Development and Psychopathology, 5(4),
609-627.
Ross, S. M., Smith, L. J., Casey, J., & Slavin, R. E. (1995). Increasing the academic success
of disadvantaged children: An examination of alternative early intervention programs.
American Educational Research Journal, 32(4), 773-800.
Rowe, D. C. (1994). The limits of family influence: Genes, experience, and behavior.
New York: Guilford.
Rutter, M. (1987). Psychosocial resilience and protective mechanism. American Journal of
Orthopsychiatry, 57(3), 316-331.
Rutter, M. (1996). Stress research: Accomplishments and tasks ahead. In R. J. Haggerty,
L. R. Sherrod, N. Garmezy, & M. Rutter (Eds.), Stress, risk, and resilience in children
and adolescents: Processes, mechanisms, and interventions (pp. 354-386). Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Sameroff, A. J., Seifer, R., Barocas, R., Zax, M., & Greenspan, S. (1987). IQ scores of
four-year-old children: Social environmental risk factors. Pediatrics, 79(3), 343-350.
Scarr, S., & McCartney, K. (1983). How people make their own environments:A theory of
genotype environment effects. Child Development, 54(2), 424-435.
Sigman, M. (1995). Nutrition and child development: More food for thought. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 4(2), 52-55.
Sinnema, G. (1991). Resilience among children with special health-care needs and among
their families. Pediatric Annals, 20(9), 483-486.
Smith, J. C. (1995). “More on stress-resilient children”: Reply. Journal of the American
Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 34(11), 1403-1404.
Smith, J., & Prior, M. (1995). Temperament and stress resilience in school-age children:
A within-families study. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent
Psychiatry, 34(2), 168-179.
Staudinger, U. M., Marsiske, M., & Baltes, P. B. (1993). Resilience and levels of reserve
capacity in later adulthood: Perspectives from life-span theory. Development and
Psychopathology, 5(4), 541-566.
Steinberg, L. (1996). Beyond the classroom: Why school reform has failed and what
parents need to do. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Stouthamer-Loeber, M., Loeber, R., Farrington, D. P., Zhang, Q., van Kammen, W., & Maguin, E.
(1993). The double edge of protective and risk factors for delinquency: Interrelations and
developmental patterns. Development and Psychopathology, 5(4), 683-701.
Tolan, P. H., & Dodge, K. A. (2005). Children’s mental health as a primary care and con-
cern: A system for comprehensive support and service. American Psychologist, 60(6),
601-614.
Condly / RESILIENCE IN CHILDREN 235
by guest on February 19, 2013uex.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Tolan, P. H., Gorman-Smith, D., & Henry, D. (2004). Supporting families in a high-risk
setting: Proximal effects of the SAFE Children preventive intervention. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72(5), 855-869.
Watt, N. F., David, J. P., Ladd, K. L., & Shamos, S. (1995). The life course of psycholog-
ical resilience: A phenomenological perspective on deflecting life’s slings and arrows.
Journal of Primary Prevention, 15(3), 209-246.
Waxman, H. C., Huang, S. L., & Padron, Y. N. (1997). Motivation and learning environ-
ment differences between resilient and nonresilient Latino middle school students.
Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 19(2), 137-155.
Werner, E. E. (1989). High-risk children in young adulthood: A longitudinal study from
birth to 32 years. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 59(1), 72-81.
Werner, E. E. (1993). Risk, resilience, and recovery: Perspectives from the Kauai longitu-
dinal study. Development and Psychopathology, 5(4), 502-515.
Werner, E. E. (1995). Resilience in development. Current Directions in Psychological
Science, 4(3), 81-85.
Werner, E. E., & Smith, R. S. (1992). Overcoming the odds: High risk children from birth
to adulthood. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
White, J. L., Moffitt, T. E., & Silva, P. A. (1989). A prospective replication of the protec-
tive effects of IQ in subjects at high risk for juvenile delinquency. Journal of Clinical
and Consulting Psychology, 57(6), 719-724.
Winfield, L. F. (1994). Developing resilience in urban youth (Urban Monograph Series).
Oakbrook, IL: North Central Regional Educational Laboratory.
Wolff, S. (1995). The concept of resilience. Australian & New Zealand Journal of
Psychiatry, 29(4), 565-574.
Work, W. C., Cowen, E. L., Parker, G. R., & Wyman, P. A. (1990). Stress resilient children
in an urban setting. Journal of Primary Prevention, 11(1), 3-17.
Wyman, P. A., Cowen, E. L., Work, W. C., & Kerley, J. H. (1993). The role of children’s
future expectations in self-system functioning and adjustment to life stress: A prospec-
tive study of urban at-risk children. Development and Psychopathology, 5(4), 649-661.
Wyman, P. A., Cowen, E. L., Work, W. C., & Parker, G. R. (1991). Developmental and
family milieu correlates of resilience in urban children who have experienced major
life-stress. American Journal of Community Psychology, 19(3), 405-426.
Wyman, P. A., Cowen, E. L., Work, W. C., Raoof, B. A., Gribble, P. A., Parker, G. R., et al.
(1992). Interviews with children who experienced major life stress: Family and child
attributes that predict resilient outcomes. Journal of the American Academy of Child and
Adolescent Psychiatry, 31(5), 904-910.
Zimrin, H. (1986). A profile of survival. Child Abuse and Neglect, 10(3), 339-349.
Steven J. Condly, PhD, is an assistant professor of educational psychology at the
University of Central Florida in Orlando. His research interest is in the application
of cognitive psychology to developing and enhancing human motivation and learn-
ing in classrooms and workplace settings.
236 URBAN EDUCATION / MAY 2006
by guest on February 19, 2013uex.sagepub.comDownloaded from
