Jessica Howard

PSY 8400: Developmental Psychology

Resilience and its Implications for Education in Emergencies

Much has been written on the growing interest in the concept of resilience both within psychology as well
as in economics, political science, education, and a range of other fields. There is much evidence to suggest
that this interest is due to part to a broader shift away from a focus on trauma and pathology and towards
an understanding of ‘what works’, presenting new opportunities for the translation of resilience theory
into resilience-building interventions and evidence-based practices which cut across a wide range of social
spheres. At the same time, a review of recent research on the psychology of resilience reveals the concept
itself to be a composite of individual and social factors, inviting cross-disciplinary perspectives on the
nature of the phenomenon, its origins, and methods of assessment and evaluation.

This paper explores current theories of resilience as a psychological concept and its relevance to Education
in Emergencies interventions. The first part of this paper seeks to answer the questions What is resilience,
how is it measured, and what conditions grow and sustain it? The final section responds to the question
How can Education in Emergencies interventions foster resilience among children and youth in low-
resource, fragile, and post-conflict settings?

Towards a Definition of Resilience

While the concept of resilience in psychology is broadly understood as positive adaptation in response to
adversity across the literature, a number of recent studies have sought to further qualify this definition as
new data becomes available regarding the contextual nature of resilience-building, individual capacities
for building resilience over time, and the role of social structures and systems in the development of
adaptive behaviors. Each of the definitions provided below seeks to add nuance to our understanding of
resilience, and each has its own potential implications for future research and interventions.

The American Psychological Association defines resilience as “the process of adapting well in the face of
adversity, trauma, tragedy, threats or significant sources of stress — such as family and relationship
problems, serious health problems or workplace and financial stressors. It means "bouncing back" from
difficult experiences” (2018).

Connor and Davidson, authors of the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale used in a range of clinical settings
to assess resilience, reframe the concept as an indicator of ability, defining resilience as an individual’s
“measure of successful stress coping ability” (Connor & Davidson, 2003, p. 77).
 Jessica Howard
PSY 8400: Developmental Psychology

A definition of resilience favored in the field of trauma studies highlights individual agency in the process
- “reintegration of self that includes a conscious effort to move forward in an insightful integrated positive
manner as a result of lessons learned from an adverse experience.” This definition finds resilience, like
sobriety, to be an active individual choice that must be regularly reaffirmed (Southwick et al., 2014, p. 3).

Other definitions take a systems approach, incorporating social structures which influence individual
behaviors - “the capacity of a dynamic system to adapt successfully to disturbances that threaten the
viability, the function, or the development of that system” (Masten 2014, p. 620).

UNICEF seeks to combine individual and systems perspectives in the definition that supports it
interventions: “The ability of children, communities and systems to anticipate, prevent, withstand, adapt
to and recover from stresses and shocks advancing the rights of every child, especially the most
disadvantaged” (UNICEF 2014, p. 10).

These definitions represent only a sample of some of the more widely-used definitions of resilience
commonly used by researchers, clinicians, and students of psychology to understand the nature of the
phenomenon. This diversity of perspectives on the meaning of resilience can generate confusion -
descriptions of resilience as a process, capacity, or a measure suggest very different ways in which
resilience may be acquired or maintained, for example. At the same time, a review of recent literature on
the concept of resilience suggests that the multiplicity of perspectives is perhaps necessary for
understanding the wide range of factors which appear to impact resilience. As reflected in the majority of
definitions listed above, individual resilience is increasingly studied as a context-specific phenomenon,
which considers both the social context in which an individual lives and the specific type, frequency, and
intensity of adversity experienced.

Resilience follows Adversity

In psychology, studies of resilience frequently focus on the medium- and long-term impact of Adverse
Childhood Experiences (ACEs). ACEs typically refer to emotional, physical, and sexual abuse, neglect, and
dysfunctional household dynamics experienced before the age of 18 years old. An estimated two-third of
Americans have been exposed to at least one ACE; 12% have experienced at least four ACEs (Dube et al.,
2001). As well established in the psychological literature, the long-term impacts of ACEs can be
detrimental to physical and mental health. Chronic or intense exposure to stress is associated with a wide
range of inflammatory and cardiovascular conditions and other diseases (Southwick et al., 2014). The
occurrence of multiple adverse experiences in childhood is correlated with increased mental health
 Jessica Howard
PSY 8400: Developmental Psychology

diagnoses, depression, anxiety, and increased risk of suicide in later life (Southwick et al., 2014; Poole et
al., 2017; Dube et al., 2001; Sroufe et al., 2005). ACEs are often co-occurring, increasing the risk of a
‘developmental cascade’ of negative effects (Masten, 2005).

Yet despite the frequency of adverse and traumatic experienced by the general population, more people
than expected are coming through ACEs without the pathologies and maladaptative behaviors commonly
associated with childhood trauma – what Masten calls the ‘ordinary magic’ of successful development
despite exposure to adversity (2001). Understanding the internal and external conditions that foster
positive adaptive responses gives researchers and clinicians the tools to develop prevention and risk
reduction strategies as well as interventions designed to foster resilience in individuals struggling to cope
with past adversity.

The Roots of Resilience

The definitions listed above provide multiple ways of understanding resilience, but tell us little about its
origins. Understanding where resilience comes from and how it can be nurtured drive much of the current
research about post-trauma interventions. There is strong evidence to suggest that resilience can be
attributed to a combination of the following factors:

Biology

Historically, resilience has been understood as a genetic trait, predisposing certain individuals towards
positive adaptative behaviors following exposure to adverse experiences. More recent studies, however,
have shifted away from declaring strictly biological determinants of resilience and toward a model which
describes the critical role of biological factors in learning positive stress responses.

Panter-Brick calls these factors ‘the biomarkers of resilience’, including blood pressure, stress hormones,
immune function, and gene mythylation. She writes that biomarkers serve to link the neurobiology and
physiology of resilience with a culture of resilience (Southwick et al., 2014; Panter-Brick, 2014). Measuring
psychological stress before and after an intervention, Panter-Brick suggests, provides an alternative
evaluation method to self-reported stress levels, and gives insight into the “mechanisms through which
risk and resilience leave epigenetic and physiological signatures on the body, which have developmental
implications for young children and long-term health implications for adults” (Southwick et al., 2014, 9).

Yehuda also advocates for a better understanding of the role of biology in fostering resilience through
longitudinal studies of individuals who have experienced trauma which follow them through the course
 Jessica Howard
PSY 8400: Developmental Psychology

of specialized treatment. By looking at specific biological changes before and after the treatment, and
comparing the outcomes of those who responded to treatment versus nonresponders, researchers can
draw conclusions about the biological traits associated with positive responses indicative of resilience
(Southwick et al., 2014). Epigenetic or biological information can be used to track people into the types of
interventions most effective for their specific profiles based on predictive technologies (Southwick et al.,
2014).

It appears, however, that there may be limits to the use of biological markers to both predict and mitigate
maladaptive responses to trauma. Biological responses to stress – from the immediate ‘fight or flight’
reaction and the release of cortisol to the slower neuroendocrine response via the blood system – are
well known, yet these responses do not occur in the same way or have the same effect on all people
(Southwick et al., 2014; Rutter, 2006). Understanding these differences requires a closer look at the role
of environmental interactions.

Environmental Influence

Early studies of resilience tended to label children as vulnerable or invulnerable, until Werner and Smith,
Garmezy, and Rutter introduced the concept of resilience as the product of interactions (Ungar 2011). If
children are not born with resilience, they reasoned, then the coping skills and strategies associated with
resilience must be learned or acquired through experience. Yet not all adaptive responses to experience
are positive, healthy, or constructive (Masten, 2005). According to Conner-Davidson, resilience is acquired
through experience of both successful and unsuccessful adaptations to life’s “ever-present” sources of
stress and shock, both internal and external (2003). These experiences typically accumulate to inform
responses to future adversity, and may or may not be effective for steering positive adaptive behaviors.

Social Ecology

Masten roots human adaptive capacities – particularly those fostered in childhood – in the strength of
caregiver bonds and the quality of relationships with other people (Southwick et al., 2014). A number of
studies have demonstrated strong associations between early attachment and later presentation of
positive adaptive behaviors following adverse experiences. One example is Sroufe et al.’s thirty-year study
of 180 children born into poverty in Minnesota; analysis of early childhood and adolescent data indicated
that the security of childhood attachments experienced before 42 months was directly correlated with an
individual’s willingness to take risks and demonstrate vulnerability as a teenager; early parent-child
interactions, in particular, proved to be the strongest predictor of future risk exposure (2005). The
 Jessica Howard
PSY 8400: Developmental Psychology

significance of attachment for resilience is further supported by studies of children affected by war, forced
labor, and violence across historical and geographical contexts; consistently, separation from caregivers
was shown to be more traumatic than exposure to war (Ungar, 2011).

Consideration for the quality of attachments in fostering positive responses to adversity is representative
of a larger shift in resilience studies towards a social ecology model, closely mapping on to the
Bronfenbrenner Social Ecology of Child Development in what Ungar terms the ‘Social Ecology of
Resilience’ (2011). The Social Ecology model looks at microsystem (i.e. family), mesosystem (i.e. between
microsystems), and exosystem (i.e. institutional) interactions for greater understanding of those
influences and interactions which foster resilience in individuals. Ungar asserts that any consideration of
resilience must consider the quality of an individual’s interactions with groups, organizations, and social
institutions which directly impact well-being (2011). He writes that access to high quality institutions may
be more significant than an individual’s use of the institution’s resources for the development of individual
resilience.

Meaning-making

An extension of the social ecology model is the cultural perspective on adaptation and overcoming
challenges, in which resilience is a mechanism closely tied to larger meaning. Following interviews with
over one thousand families in war-torn Afghanistan, Panter-Brick concluded that the variable which
appeared to define resilience for families was hope – “a sense of hope that gives meaning and order to
suffering in life and helps to articulate a coherent narrative to link the future to the past and present”
(Southwick et al. 2014, p.6; Panter-Brick & Eggerman, 2012). In many instances, the belief that adversity
is tied to a greater logic may be rooted in religious or cultural values, rendering ‘meaning-making’ an
arguably social phenomenon – tied to what is valued by a community – and thus well-aligned with the
social ecology model.

Across theories and studies regarding the origins of resilience, there appears to be a broad consensus that
there is no single genetic, environmental, or social factor that predicts or accounts for resilience; it is
instead the product of a range of biological, environmental, and social factors (Ungar, 2011).

Measuring Resilience

The multiplicity of definitions of resilience appears to be matched by the number of tools and methods
which attempt to measure it.
 Jessica Howard
PSY 8400: Developmental Psychology

Resilience assessments have traditionally focused on the individual, relying heavily on self-report of
adverse experiences, stress levels, and responsive behaviors. One such measure is the Connor-Davidson
Resilience Scale (CD-RISC), which asks individuals to self-report their preferences, beliefs, and common
behaviors according to 25 dimensions, rating ability to adapt to change, achieve goals, seek help when
needed, and seek challenges, among other dimensions, on a scale of 1-4 (Connor & Davidson, 2003). The
tool is frequently used in the clinical setting to track changes associated with treatment; an increase in
CD-RISC score is associated with a ‘greater improvement’ in response to treatment. The tool builds on the
work of Kobasa, Rutter, and Lyons with the addition of new dimensions, and aims to demonstrate that
resilience is both quantifiable and modifiable in response to treatment (Connor & Davidson, 2003; Ungar
2011).

As with other assessment tools relying on self-report, the CD-RISC is subject to bias. Individuals suffering
from depression, for example, may be less likely to perceive themselves as resilient (Poole et al., 2017).
In addition, as Connor and Davidson themselves acknowledge, the inclusion of multiple dimensions means
that a single individual may score a high degree in one area but a low score in another area (2003). Should
the individual be considered ‘resilient’? Questions like these suggest that the label of ‘resilience’ can be
problematic, as it assumes a global capacity for positive adaptation when the reality may be dimension-
specific.

Outside of the clinical setting, assessments may take a broader view of social and emotional development
as a proxy measure for resilience. As Masten notes, positive adaptative behaviors may look different for
each individual, but should follow a common developmental trajectory – a “pattern of effective
functioning as demonstrated by successfully engaging and achieving development tasks for people of a
given age, culture, and time in history” (2005, p. 11). This can be measured through an assessment of
progress in accordance with individual developmental benchmarks – i.e. the emergence of language and
attachment in early childhood, academic achievement and social bonds in adolescence, social and
romantic relationships in adulthood (Masten, 2005). Other assessment tools rely on comparative data,
looking at the impact of adverse or traumatic experience on health or education outcomes on individual
children compared with their peers. The International Social and Emotional Learning Assessments tool
developed by Save the Children is one example of a resilience evaluation tool which examines the
potential correlation between learning outcomes and well-being (Mckinney & Keenan, 2017).

Assessment has also expanded to consider an individual’s range of social supports, quality of relationships,
and access to external resources, based on the theory that external environments shape developmental
 Jessica Howard
PSY 8400: Developmental Psychology

trajectories. Assessment domains in this ecological model examine individual risks and coping strategies
as well as risks, access to positive community-level resources (“assets”), and protective factors, which may
include internal resources, such as previous experiences of achievement, self-confidence, or willingness
to take risks, or external factors, such a trusted adult or a safe space (UNICEF, 2014). Ungar, author of the
Social Ecology of Resilience Model, proposed taking resilience evaluation an additional step to include
analysis of the dynamics between social spheres – a mapping exercise which takes on particular salience
in the context of political, economic, and social instability (2011).

An evaluation of an individual’s resilience must necessarily consider both internal and external resilience.
Relying solely on external indicators - academic achievement, positive peer relationships, etc. - may
conceal the fact that internal indicators (being “at peace inside” or having “existential resilience”) are
absent (Fernando & Ferrari, 2005).

Key Findings

The broad consensus across the literature supports the following conclusions about resilience and its
implications for education in emergencies.

Resilience is a composite of traits.

Resilience, as described above, takes on a number of meanings and manifestations across social science
fields. However, common characteristics of resilience include the presence of positive relationships and
strong attachments, healthy brain function, the pursuit of opportunities to learn and be effective, self-
efficacy, emotional and behavioral regulation, and a sense of belonging or meaning (Masten, 2005; Ungar
2011).

Notably, none of these behaviors or skills are in fact ‘extraordinary’ and are instead indicative of healthy
human development and attachment. Thus, resilience is a typical developmental trajectory in spite of
extreme adversity that would be expected to knock one off his or her developmental track. This also
suggests that one’s developmental trajectory prior to an adverse experience is of critical importance for
predicting a post-ACE adaptive response; a delayed or insufficiently supported development trajectory
prior to the adverse experience will clearly limit an individual’s capacity for resilience following an event.
Sroufe et al.’s poverty study, for example, demonstrates a strong correlation between early
developmental history and later presentation of traits associated with resilience, including willingness to
take risks, social competence, and friendship quality (2005).
 Jessica Howard
PSY 8400: Developmental Psychology

Resilience is a Spectrum.

As established above, resilience is not a binary trait that once simply has or doesn’t have, but a spectrum
of internal and external resources cutting across multiple domains which once can draw upon as needed
(Pietrzak & Southwick, 2011.) Studies suggest that resilience can be both a determinant of response or
the effect of exposure to adversity (Connor & Davidson, 2003).

Resilience is acquired over time, and can be developed even after trauma has resulted in maladaptive
responses.

As resilience is characterized by the continuation of a healthy developmental trajectory following

exposure to adversity, it follows that resilience is acquired over time and in response to environmental
interactions. As established above, changes in resilience assessment scores and biomarkers in response
to treatment, the passage of time, or the influence of social support mechanisms are strong evidence that
resilience can be built over time. Note, however, that certain interventions may be more effective at
certain periods of time than others, depending on the individual nature of adaptive responses (Southwick
et al., 2014).

Resilience can be developed prior to experiences of adversity.

Resilience is demonstrated in one’s response following adversity, but research suggests that prevention
programs and strategies can be effective at building coping strategies and positive stress response
behaviors prior to the onset of adverse situations. These strategies may focus on individual capacity
building (training programs, seminars, counseling) as well as additional programs to strengthen the
ecology of social and systemic supports through, for example, teacher training and parent education, as
well as risk reduction and asset mobilization (Varela et al., 2013).

As noted across the literature, the probability of experiencing trauma in one’s lifetime is high, presenting
a strong argument for individual and social resilience-building programs focused on prevention and risk
mitigation (Southwick et al., 2014; Dube et al., 2001; Poole et al. 2017). Existing data and predictive
technologies allow both researchers and practitioners to anticipate potential stressors at the individual
and community levels, and respond with prevention programs which minimize risks, and target resources
where they are needed most.
 Jessica Howard
PSY 8400: Developmental Psychology

Resilience is contextually and culturally specific.

As Yehuda observes, “different people are going to need different things to actualize their resilience”
(Southwick et al., 2014, p.11). Recognition of the context-specific nature of resilience is relatively new in
the literature, and makes specific reference to social, cultural, and lifespan-specific contexts and their role
in shaping beliefs, processes, and manifestations of resilience.

The definition of resilience developed by Panter-Brick was designed to be relevant for diverse contexts.
By defining resilience as “a process to harness resources to sustain well-being”, she leaves room for
individuals to define both resources and well-being in accordance with their own individual ecologies and
value systems (Panther-Brick & Leckman, 2013). “In that sense, resilience is doing more than just
‘functioning well’ or ‘better-than-expected.’ It is about ‘making sense’ of the moral aspects of your life”
(Southwick et al., 2014, p. 10). Stress and trauma occur in the context of interactions with other people,
resources, cultures, faith systems, and communities – each of which can be characterized by its own
unique level of resilience, which determines its ability to support the individual (Southwick et al., 2014;
Sherrieb, Norris, & Galea, 2010).

Resilience is associated with specific conditions.

As noted above, no single factor or condition is responsible for fostering resilience following exposure to
adverse. While Ungar writes that the search continues for the ‘active’ environmental qualities which foster
healthy development and resilience (2011), the literature favors Masten’s ‘ordinary magic’ perspective in
its assertion that the conditions which contribute to positive adaptive behaviors are well-known, as they
closely mirror those required for positive and healthy development. The following three variables, in
particular, have been repeatedly correlated with high levels of resilience:

1. Positive individual development: Research suggests that healthy brain development, self-
awareness, and emotion regulation improve individual capacities to learn and adapt in diverse
environments (Masten, 2005).

2. Strong family support/attachment: Positive and responsive caregiving and healthy attachments
are correlated with emotional security, which contributes to more positive adaptive responses
following adversity (Southwick et al., 2014).
 Jessica Howard
PSY 8400: Developmental Psychology

3. Community resources/social capital: A feeling of belonging in a community which offers access

to material, psychosocial, and religious resources is associated with “meaning making” as well as
timely intervention following exposure to adversity.

The critical importance of supportive relationships and social structures underscores the severity of the
threat to resilience when family and community – the systems that typically protect and nurture healthy
development – are harmed or are themselves the source of violence, emotional abuse, or other forms of
chronic stress (Masten, 2005).

Resilience-Building through Education in Emergencies

Our evolving understanding of the origins and nature of resilience – particularly for those who have been
subjected to ACEs – has important implications for the Education in Emergencies sector. Education in
Emergencies (EiE) refers to education interventions designed the meet the needs of children in crisis,
often due to political conflict, violence, natural disasters, forced displacement, according to the Inter-
agency Network for Education in Emergencies. For these reasons, definitions of resilience which consider
the social ecological model of both risk and response are of particular interest. Understanding resilience
as a combination of internal and external resources allows us to examine current interventions with a
critical eye.

EiE interventions, like most humanitarian response programming, have historically prioritized the
provision of ‘external’ resources – facilities, desks, school books – with limited consideration for the
availability of internal resources, including individual coping mechanisms, emotional security, access to
safe and caring relationships, etc. The last decade, however, has seen a shift towards building individual
and community capacity building to deal with adversity through curricula and training focused on social-
emotional learning (SEL) – the knowledge and skills needed to understand and manage emotions, set and
pursue goals, establish positive relationships, and make healthy decisions (CASEL, 2013). Notably, SEL
principles have expanded beyond the student population to include skill-building for teachers and parents,
reinforcing the structural supports surrounding children to improve their ability to guide positive
development even in the midst of or following experiences of adversity.

The initial success of these programs demonstrates that education systems are well-positioned to support
resilience-building among students as well as within the wider community (Ungar, 2011). “What seems
to matters most to learners in these contexts is the opportunity to make meaning of the adversity
experienced and to find purpose in education” (Varela, 2014, p. 4). Research conducted by Cefair in the
 Jessica Howard
PSY 8400: Developmental Psychology

United States and Loughry et al in the Palestinian Territories has demonstrated that meaningful youth
engagement in schools, families, and the community are associated with social and emotional well-being
even during and after experiences of adversity (Verela, 2014).

In addition, there appears to be a bi-directional relationship between resilience and social-cohesion.

Evidence suggests that resilience honed through SEL and similar capacity-building approaches can event
reduce violence by supporting active communities and proactive problem-solving (Masten, 2005; Varela,
2014).

Conclusion

As the study of resilience in the field of psychology continues to evolve, so too must its role in EiE
interventions. The shift away from studying the resilience of individuals in isolation and towards
understanding individual resilience in a broader social context represents an important step forward for
the development of quality treatment as well as risk-reduction and prevention programs. Additional
research, including longitudinal studies of diverse populations, is needed to fully understand the extent
to which context shapes individual capacities for positive adaptation.
 Jessica Howard
PSY 8400: Developmental Psychology

References

American Psychological Association. (2018). The road to resilience. Retrieved from

https://www.apa.org/helpcenter/road-resilience.aspx.

CASEL, Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning. (2013). What is social and emotional
learning? Chicago: CASEL. http://www.casel.org/social-andemotional-learning

Connor, K.M., & Davidson, J.R.T. (2003). Development of a new resilience scale: the Connor-Davidson
Resilience Scale (CD-RISC). Depression and Anxiety, 18, 76-82.

Dube, S.R., Anda, R.F., Felitti, V.J., Chapman, D.P., Williamson, D.F., & Giles, W.H. (2001). Childhood abuse,
household dysfunction, and the risk of attempted suicide throughout the life span: Findings from
the Adverse Childhood Experiences Study. Journal of the American Medical Association, 286(24),
3089-3096.

Fernando, C., & Ferrari, M. (2013). Handbook of Resilience in Children in War. Springer Science & Business
Media.

Harvard Center for the Developing Child (2018). In-brief resilience series. Retrieved from
https://developingchild.harvard.edu/resources/inbrief-resilience-series/

Masten, A.S. (2001). Ordinary magic. Resilience processes in development. American Psychology, 56 (3),
227-38.

Masten, A.S. (2005). Resilience in development: the power of ordinary magic. Presentation. Retrieved
from https://melissainstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Masten1.pdf.

Masten, A. S. (2014). Global perspectives on resilience in children and youth. Child Development, 85(1),
620. doi: 10.1111/cdev. 12205

Mckinney, R., & Keenan, C. (2017). Learning and well-being in emergencies: A three-pronged approach to
improving refugee education. Save the Children US. Retrieved from
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/583af1fb414fb5b3977b6f89/t/59bdbaa851a584fb03d43
c1b/1505606314802/17_PromisingPractices_SCUS_WEB.pdf.

Panter-Brick, C., & Eggerman, M. (2012). Understanding culture, resilience, and mental health: The
production of hope. In M. Ungar (Ed.), The social ecology of resilience: A handbook of theory and
practice (pp. 369-386). New York: Springer
 Jessica Howard
PSY 8400: Developmental Psychology

Panter-Brick, C. (2014). Health, risk, and resilience: interdisciplinary concepts and applications. Annual
Review of Anthropology, 43, 431-48.

Panter-Brick, C., & Leckman, J. F. (2013). Editorial commentary: Resilience in child

development*Interconnected pathways to wellbeing. The Journal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry, 54, 333-336. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12057

Pietrzak, R. H., & Southwick, S. M. (2011). Psychological resilience in OEF-OIF Veterans: Application of a
novel classification approach and examination of demographic and psychosocial correlates.
Journal of Affect Disorders, 133(3), 560-568.

Poole, J.C., Dobson, K.S., & Pusch, D. (2017). Childhood adversity and adult depression: the protective role
of psychological resilience. Child Abuse & Neglect, 64, 89-100.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2016.12.012

Rutter, M. (2006). Implication of resilience concepts for scientific understanding. In B. M. Lester, A. S.

Masten, & B. McEwen (Eds.), Resilience in children (pp. 1–12). Boston, MA: Blackwell.

Sherrieb, K., Norris, F. H., & Galea, S. (2010). Measuring Capacities for Community Resilience. Social
Indicators Research, 99(2), 227-247.

Southwick, S.M., Bonanno, G.A., Masten, A.S., Panter-Brick, C., & Yehuda, R. (2014). Resilience definitions,
theory and challenges: interdisciplinary perspectives. European Journal of Psychotraumatology,
5, 25338. http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/ejpt.v5.25338

Sroufe, L. A., Egeland, B., Carlson, E. A., & Collins, W. A. (2005). The development of the person: The
Minnesota study of risk and adaptation from birth to adulthood. New York, NY: Guilford.

Ungar, M. (2011). The social ecology of resilience: addressing contextual and cultural ambiguity of a
nascent construct. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 81(1), 1-17.
http://dxidoi.org/10.1111/j.1939-0025.2010.01067.x

UNICEF. (2014). Peacebuilding education and advocacy in conflict-affected contexts program –

compilation of tools for measuring social cohesion, resilience, and peacebuilding. Retrieved from
http://www.ineesite.org/en/learning-for-peace.

Varela, A.D., Kelcey, J., Reyes, J., Gould, M., & Sklar, J. (2013). Learning and resilience: The crucial role of
social and emotional well-being in contexts of adversity. World Bank & International Rescue
 Jessica Howard
PSY 8400: Developmental Psychology

Committee. Retrieved from

http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/849991468337162828/Learning-and-resilience-
the-crucial-role-of-social-and-emotional-well-being-in-contexts-of-adversity.