Learning from Resilient People

Lessons We Can Apply to Counseling and Psychotherapy

Morley D. Glicken

• Publisher: SAGE Publications, Inc
• Year: 2006
• Print ISBN:
  9781412904841
• Edition: 1
• eBook ISBN:
  9781544340388
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Social Work
• Index: Social Sciences

This comprehensive core textbook analyzes how resilient people navigate the troubled waters of life's traumas and identifies how learning about resilience may help cultivate this quality in other, less resilient, people. Author Morley D. Glicken explains the inner self-healing processes of resilient people and helps individuals training in the helping professions to learn to use these processes in working with their clients.

Key Features:

• Presents Current Research on Resilience: The most current data is provided on a variety of common physical, social, and emotional problems experienced by people and the way in which resilient people cope with those problems. In addition, an entire chapter summarizes what we know about resilience and how it can be applied to clinical practice.
• Provides Engaging Case Examples: Wonderful and honestly written stories from resilient people about how they cope so well with their traumas illustrate how therapy using resilience can work. From this perspective, therapy draws from strength rather than deficit or psychopathology. There is also a chapter on resilient communities, not often discussed in literature, which supports the idea that communities can help people increase their resilience.
• Examines Resilience Across the Life Cycle: The meaning and definitions of resilience is discussed as well as how it functions throughout the life cycle and through multiple life events. This book also clarifies the erroneous notion that resilient people are endlessly resilient and helps recognize resilience as an actual and real attribute, and not one that makes people seem super human.

Intended Audience: This is an ideal textbook for undergraduate and graduate courses in Psychology, Counseling, Social Work, Psychiatric Nursing, Marriage and Family Counseling, and Criminal Justice that teach direct practice techniques, approaches, and theories. It is also a valuable resource for practitioners, administrators, teachers, mental health workers, and family service agencies.?

PART I

What We Can Learn
From Resilient People

CHAPTER 1

Understanding Resilience

This book on resilience takes stories of and from resilient people and evaluates key elements of the stories that appear to explain why some people cope so well with highly traumatic and disturbing life experiences while others don’t. The stories of resilience are presented as I received them, with a minimum of editing or changes, although some changes were necessary to protect confidentiality and to keep stories anonymous. In several cases, the stories were told to me and I wrote them, but then I shared stories with the individuals to check for accuracy. You will be alerted to it when others’ stories were written by me. Although I asked for narrative stories, some people sent back poems and short stories. You may wonder if stories done in formats that suggest a fictionalized account are accurate and true. In each case, I received assurances that all of the stories were absolutely accurate and that more creative forms of conveying the story to the reader were used because it felt more impactful to write a short story or a poem. I tend to agree, and I urge you to approach stories with an open mind even when they don’t appear to suggest resilience or when they are written in dramatic forms. The writers are successful people trying to cope with serious life issues. If a story doesn’t appear to convey resilience, the section following the story, entitled “Lessons to Be Learned From This Story,” will, I hope, fully serve to clarify the story and suggest reasons why the person in the story is resilient and why the story should matter to us.

The primary purpose of this book is to analyze stories of resilience so that we might apply what is learned from resilient people to our own practice. A second purpose of the book is to help practitioners who want to use a wellness or strengths model to develop practice philosophies that use what we know about people who cope well with traumas and apply that knowledge to those who cope less well. Two of my prior books (Glicken, 2004a, 2005b) have discussed ways of helping therapists work more effectively by using the strengths perspective and evidence-based practice (EBP). Much of the research found for those two books points to the existence of resilience in explaining why some people cope well with traumas while others don’t. Because resilience plays such a crucial role in well-being, and since the research on resilience is limited, I believe that a book of stories from resilient people will help us understand why they’ve done so well. In addition to the stories, I’ve included current and seminal research on resilience to lend support to or offer disagreement with the stories’ perspectives. I’ve also included a critical evaluation of each story to determine why the subjects have dealt so well with traumas. In each case, I’ve asked the storyteller why he or she was able to cope so well with such a serious trauma. This information is reported in direct written statements by the storyteller, in conversations between the storyteller and myself, and in my analysis of the story.

In writing this book, I’m mindful that a bias sometimes exists among some practitioners favoring the use of a pathology model. The information in my book on evidence-based practice (Glicken, 2005b) convinces me that many long-held beliefs in the helping professions lead to ineffective practice. Practitioners often make serious errors in diagnosis, often stemming from racial, ethnic, and gender biases. Helping approaches are chosen that support the practitioner’s bias rather than the existing evidence confirming that an approach will work with a specific client. Helping approaches are often chosen in support of existing mythologies rather than best evidence. Few therapists do even the most elementary form of evaluation to determine whether clients have been helped and, if so, why.

Because our work isn’t always effective, increasing numbers of people reject professional help, opting instead for self-help groups using wellness approaches that often lead to clients feeling more optimistic about the future. Natural healing in addictions and in traumatic events suggests that resilience exists in many people, permitting them to cope with serious problems on their own and without professional assistance. Seeing this information unfold has convinced many third-party payers and policy analysts that therapy isn’t especially helpful, which has resulted in limited numbers of paid therapy sessions or, in some cases, a complete elimination of payments for therapy. In its place, there is an increasingly unsupported and sometimes dangerous use of psychotropic medications.

If we are to develop the new models of helping that might improve our level of effectiveness, then we should study healthy people who overcome terrible life tragedies with the same intensity that we’ve studied people who develop pathologies and who require the best help possible. The knowledge gained from studying successful ways of coping with traumas might then be applied to troubled people in treatment. If we can utilize what we know about resilient people and apply it successfully to people who are not doing well, then perhaps we will have begun to overcome the lack of success that seems to be so evident with a variety of client problems, and we can then move therapy to a new level of efficacy.

Definitions of Resilience

---

Walsh (2003) defines resilience as “the ability to withstand and rebound from disruptive life challenges. Resilience involves key processes over time that foster the ability to ‘struggle well,’ surmount obstacles, and go on to live and love fully” (p. 1). Gordon (1996) defines resilience as “the ability to thrive, mature, and increase competence in the face of adverse circumstances” (p. 1). Glick (1994) writes, “‘Resilience’ is the ability to ‘bounce back’ from adversity, to overcome the negative influences that often block achievement. Resilience research focuses on the traits and coping skills and supports that help kids survive, or even thrive, in a challenging environment” (p. 1). Henry (1999) suggests that the notion of resilience was created to help explain why some children do well under very troubled circumstances. Resilience describes children who grow up in highly unfavorable conditions without showing negative consequences. Henry (1999) defines resilience as “the capacity for successful adaptation, positive functioning, or competence despite high risk, chronic stress, or prolonged or severe trauma” (p. 521). In a further definition of resilience, Abrams (2001) indicates that resilience may be seen as the ability to readily recover from illness, depression, and adversity. Walsh (2003) says that “the concept of family resilience extends our understanding of healthy family functioning to situations of adversity. Although some families are shattered by crisis or chronic stresses, what is remarkable is that many others emerge strengthened and more resourceful” (p. 1). Anderson (1997) reports that resilient people have been described as being

socially, behaviorally, and academically competent despite living in adverse circumstances and environments as a result of poverty (Werner & Smith, 1982), parental mental illness (Beardslee & Podorefsky, 1988), interparental conflict (Neighbors, Forehand, & McVicar, 1993), inner-city living (Luthar, 1993), and child abuse and neglect (Farber & Egeland, 1987). Resilient children who are functioning well despite enduring hardships often do not receive treatment services because they find ways to be successful despite their troubled environments. (p. 594)

Mandleco and Peery (2000) are concerned about the inconsistent meaning of the term resilience and wonder if it has begun to mean whatever the person writing about it wishes it to. For example, resilience has been described as a personality characteristic not related to stress; a characteristic of some children from at-risk environments; the absence of psychopathology in a child whose parents have serious emotional problems; success in meeting societal expectations or developmental tasks; characteristics which help children to succeed who were expected to fail; the ability to restore equilibrium and adapt to life situations. The authors note that Polk (1997) tried to synthesize a model of resilience suggesting that “resilience is a midrange theory with a four-dimensional construct, where dispositional, relational, situational, and philosophical patterns intermingle with the environment to form resilience” (Mandleco & Peery, 2000, p. 100). The result of these various definitions of resilience is that while a “commonsense universal definition is assumed, when one attempts to identify specifics affecting resilience, these definitions are inadequate and confusing” (Mandleco & Peery, 2000, p. 100).

Attributes of Resilient People

---

A consistent finding over the last 20 years of resilience research is that most children from highly dysfunctional families or very poor communities do well as adults. This finding applies to almost all populations of children found to be at risk for later life problems, including children who experience divorce, children who live with step-parents, children who have lost a sibling, children who have attention deficit disorder or suffer from developmental delays, and children who become delinquent or run away. More of these children make it than don’t. Furstenberg (1998) and Wilkes (2002a) reviewed the research and found that almost 75% of children at risk do well in later life, including children born to teenage mothers, children who were sexually abused (Wilkes, 2002b), children who grew up in substance-abusing or mentally ill families (Werner & Smith, 2001), and children who grew up in poverty (Vaillant, 1993). Even when children had experienced multiple risks, Rutter (2003) found that half of them overcame adversity and achieved good emotional and social development.

Masten (2001) believes that resilience is part of the genetic makeup of humans and that it is the norm rather than the exception:

What began as a quest to understand the extraordinary has revealed the power of the ordinary. Resilience does not come from rare and special qualities, but from the everyday magic of ordinary, normative human resources in the minds, brains, and bodies of children, in their families and relationships, and in their communities. (p. 9)

We tend to think that traumas will generally lead to malfunctioning behavior in children and adults, but often this isn’t the case. A good example of how well people actually cope with trauma may be seen in the response to the World Trade Center bombings. Gist and Devilly (2002) report that the estimates of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) after the 9-11 attacks dropped by almost two thirds within 4 months of the tragedy. The authors concluded that “these findings underscore the counterproductive nature of offering a [treatment] with no demonstrable effect, but demonstrated potential to complicate natural resolution, in a population in which limited case-conversion can be anticipated, strong natural supports exist, and spontaneous resolution is prevalent” (p. 742). In other words, resilience to severe traumas exists when people heal on their own and when they have strong social and emotional supports. Introducing treatment too early in the process may actually interfere with resilience.

Mandleco and Peery (2000) describe one effort to understand resilience by focusing on the self-righting tendencies that propel children toward normal development under adverse circumstances. This work identifies common dispositions and situations that describe resilient behavior in children and seem crucial in their ability to respond to stress and adversity while still maintaining control and competence in their lives—even when challenged by physical handicaps, a pathological family environment, or the adverse effects of poverty, war, or dislocation. Mandleco and Peery (2000) note that “these commonalities generally have been organized into three categories: personal predispositions of the child, characteristics of the family environment, and the presence of extra familial support sources” (p. 101).

Werner and Smith (1982, 1992, 2001) identify protective factors that tend to counteract the risk of stress. Protective factors include genetic factors (e.g., an easygoing disposition), strong self-esteem and sense of identity, intelligence, physical attractiveness, and supportive caregivers. Garmezy, Masten, and Tellegen (1964) note that there are three protective factors in resilient children: dispositional attributes of the child, family cohesion and warmth, and availability and use of external support systems by parents and children. Seligman (1992) believes that resilience exists when people are optimistic; have a sense of adventure, courage, and self-understanding; use humor in their lives; have a capacity for hard work; and possess the ability to cope with and find outlets for emotions. Findings by Luthar and Zigler (1991) indicate that resilient children are active, humorous, confident, competent, prepared to take risks, flexible, and, as a result of repeated successful coping experiences, confident in both their inner and outer resources. Luthar (1993) suggests that resilient children have considerable intellectual maturity.

Other factors associated with resilience include the finding by Arend, Gove, and Sroufe (1979) that very curious children are more resilient than less curious children. Radke-Yarrow and Brown (1993) associate resilience with children who have more positive self-perceptions. Egeland, Carlson, and Sroufe (1993) and Baldwin, Baldwin, Kasser, Zax, Sameroff, and Seifer (1993) found a relationship between resilience and assertiveness, independence, and a support network of neighbors, peers, family, and elders. In their 32-year longitudinal study, Werner and Smith (1982) found a strong relationship among problem-solving abilities, communication skills, and an internal locus of control in resilient children. As Henry (1999) notes, “Resilient children often acquire faith that their lives have meaning and that they have control over their own fates” (p. 522). Tiet, Bird, and Davies (1998) add that resilient children also have higher educational aspirations, better physical health, and healthier mothers or female caretakers than less resilient children.

In her work on resilient infants and toddlers and the relationship between early signs of resilience and resilience in later life, Gordon (1996) reports the following:

1. Resilient infants and toddlers are energetic, socially responsive, autonomous, demonstrative, tolerant of frustration, cooperative, and androgynous, among other characteristics.
2. Their environments are nurturing, responsive, and indicate a strong bond between the caregiver and the child.
3. Early signs of resilience relate directly to later life resilience and are strongly tied to early indications of an internal locus of control, social skills, and the social support of mothers.
4. Resilience may be enhanced in very young children through social policies and practices that provide social and economic support for the family and improved caregiver education.

Henry (1999) suggests five major themes that derive from her research on resilient children: (1) loyalty to parents, even when they are abusive; (2) the child’s desire to perceive the home as normal; (3) the child’s attempt to make himself or herself invisible to the abuser; (4) a strong sense of self-value; and (5) the child’s focus on the future, with its positive potential for happiness. There are two themes here that should be clarified. The theme of loyalty to parents suggests that even though parents are mistreating the child, the child attempts to understand the reasons for the abuse, making it possible to continue to feel loyalty and love for the abusing parent. The theme of invisibility to the abuser refers to the child’s attempt to vacate the home or to hide when a parent becomes abusive. It may also refer to the child’s attempt to feel invisible even while being abused. Invisibility allows the child to negate the brunt of the abuse and to feel control over it.

Anderson (1997) believes that the recognition of resilience as an important factor in the mental health of traumatized children came from concerns that children at risk might develop adult pathologies (Byrd, 1994). Anderson (1997) indicates that the term resilient originally referred to children who were thought to be “stress resistant” or “invulnerable” because they not only coped with adverse childhood traumas, but they seemed to thrive under very dysfunctional and stressful situations (Kauffman, Grunebaum, Cohler, & Gamer, 1979).

Resiliency research originally tried to discover the characteristics of at-risk children who coped well with stress (Werner, 1989, 1996). Over time, however, resiliency research has focused less on the attributes of resilient children and more on the processes of resilience. As the research has attempted to understand the processes associated with resilience, one important finding suggests that rather than avoiding risks, resilient children take substantial risks to cope with stressors, leading to what Cohler (1987) calls “adaptation and competence.”

In a review of the factors associated with resilience to stressful life events, Tiet and colleagues’ (1998) findings show that the following have been identified as protective factors that allow a child to cope with stressful events: (1) a high IQ, (2) a high quality of parenting, (3) a connection to competent adults other than the child’s parents, (4) an internal locus of control, and (5) excellent social skills. According to Tiet and colleagues (1998), protective factors are primary buffers between the traumatic event and the child’s response. When a child’s response to stress has a positive effect on the resilient child, whether the risk to the child is low or high, the authors’ term this a resource factor, although the literature also uses the terms assets and compensatory factor (Tiet et al., 1998). Tiet and colleagues (1998) also believe that both protective and resource factors are crucial in understanding the way resilien...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Dedication
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Preface
• Acknowledgments
• Part I: What We Can Learn From Resilient People
• Part II: How Resilient People Use Culture, Spirituality, and Support Systems to Improve Their Social and Emotional Functioning
• Part III: Examples of Resilience Across Areas of Psychosocial Difficulty
• Part IV: Practice Implications
• References
• Index
• About the Author