Métais Clément, Burel Nicolas, Gillham Jane E, Tarquinio Cyril, Martin-Krumm Charles
EA 4360, APEMAC - UDL, Metz, France.
F3S, University of Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France.
Eur J Psychol. 2022 Feb 25;18(1):98-119. doi: 10.5964/ejop.2251. eCollection 2022 Feb.
Resilience may be viewed as the capacity of an individual, or perhaps of a dynamic system, to adjust and adapt positively to adversities and disruptions that impact one's functioning and development. Yet a common statement in the literature is that there are still today numerous ways of defining and conceiving resilience. This multiplicity of approaches calls for clarification and generates a need of common theoretical ground. Therefore, this review aims to examine, to clarify and to synthesize how "human" resilience is conceptualized within the recent human sciences literature to help answer the question: 'What are the key approaches, concepts, and definitions of resilience?". Following Whittemore and Knafl (2005, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2005.03621.x) methods, an integrative review of the recent resilience literature (2013-2019) was undertaken. Four databases were used for the search: PsycINFO, PubMed, ERIC, Google Scholar. A reference and citation tracking was then performed on the papers identified. Sixty-nine papers passed all the stages (identification, screening, eligibility, inclusion) and formed the sample. Results show that resilience definitions are nowadays either about "adapting and bouncing back to previous levels of health" or about "thriving and rising above the adversity towards increased levels of health." Results also show that resilience features-antecedents, mechanisms, consequences-are mainly conceptualized in a vertical sequence where an antecedent influences another or influences a mechanism leading to consequences. This paper concludes that modern conceptions can fit within a transactional and constructivist approach that goes beyond the former approaches by providing a more nuanced and realistic picture of the resilience process and by viewing it as a dynamic and person-situation-defined process.
复原力可以被视为个人或动态系统积极调整和适应逆境与干扰的能力,这些逆境和干扰会影响个人的功能和发展。然而,文献中一个常见的说法是,时至今日,仍有许多定义和理解复原力的方式。这种方法的多样性需要澄清,并产生了对共同理论基础的需求。因此,本综述旨在研究、澄清和综合近期人文科学文献中“人类”复原力是如何被概念化的,以帮助回答以下问题:“复原力的关键方法、概念和定义是什么?”遵循惠特莫尔和克纳夫(2005年,https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2005.03621.x)的方法,对近期的复原力文献(2013 - 2019年)进行了综合综述。使用了四个数据库进行检索:心理学文摘数据库(PsycINFO)、医学期刊数据库(PubMed)、教育资源信息中心数据库(ERIC)、谷歌学术。然后对所识别的论文进行参考文献和引用追踪。六十九篇论文通过了所有阶段(识别、筛选、合格性、纳入)并形成了样本。结果表明,如今复原力的定义要么是关于“适应并恢复到以前的健康水平”,要么是关于“在逆境中茁壮成长并超越逆境,实现更高水平的健康”。结果还表明,复原力的特征——前因、机制、后果——主要是以垂直序列进行概念化的,其中一个前因影响另一个前因或影响导致后果的机制。本文得出结论,现代概念可以纳入一种相互作用和建构主义的方法,这种方法超越了以前的方法,通过提供对复原力过程更细致入微和现实的描述,并将其视为一个动态的、由个人与情境定义的过程。