تعریف تاب آوری روانشناختی

Our literature review shows that psychological resilience is described in different ways. This discrepancy in terminology can hinder a shared definition of the construct, which limits comparisons among the research results and makes objective measurement difficult

Based on our analysis of the literature, we identified five macro-categories which, on the one hand, summarize the recurring elements in the definition of resilience across the works examined; on the other, they highlight the multidimensionality of the construct

Over the years, several authors described resilience as ‘ability to recover’. However, this expression has been understood in various ways. Specifically, some authors define resilience in terms of ability to recover from trauma, stress, or deprivation; others understand it as the ability to remain well despite the difficulties or to recover completely and quickly

The recovery is also intended as a return to a state of balance, as a posttraumatic growth ability, or as learning of useful skills for overcoming future risks. Additional authors describe resilience in terms of recovery by using protective barriers to stress. In summary, the ability of recovery represents the tendency of the individual to maintain their own internal balance despite the experience of traumatic events or stressful conditions

Moreover, the capacity for resilience indicates the ability to deal positively with traumatic events and to reorganize in the face of difficulties. We found that resilience was also described in literature as a ‘Type of functioning that characterizes the individual’. The resilience functioning was intended as an ability both to maintain good levels of psychological and physical health and to return to a state of balance despite adversities

In this context, a reference to resilient qualities emerges in terms of individual features or personality traits such as robustness and resourcefulness, with some authors affirming that these qualities are innate and influenced by the external environmental only in a limited way

The functional adaptation to adverse conditions can be facilitated or hindered by the interaction between internal protective and risk factors. In this regard, literature has recently turned towards a concept of resilience understood as a complex phenomenon in which several factors come into play, including innate personality traits, personal purposes, and the external and psychosocial context

By exploring the protective factors that enable the implementation of resilient behaviors, we can identify the following categories: Cognitive flexibility, positive affect and optimism, humor, acceptance, active coping, religion or spirituality, altruism, social support, role models, exercise, capacity to recover from negative events, and stress inoculation. In summary, what determines resilience are the personal qualities identified as protective factors despite stressful or traumatic events. A third group of definitions, albeit small, refers to resilience as ‘capacity to bounce back

Although this description of resilience seems to be like that of the ability of adaptation, we believe that it deserves to be included in another category as it emphasizes a particular response mode, namely referring to some specific characteristics. Thus, resilience as capacity to bounce back outlines the ability to persist and grow when faced with stressors, to cope despite adversity, and to bounce from negative experience. Resilience refers to having good outcomes despite adversity and risk, and could be described in terms of preserving the same level of outcome or rebounding back to that level after an initial setback

More specifically, resilience as ‘bouncing back’ could involve either rebounding after adversity or affectively adapting to adversity. The resilience construct over the years has also been identified as a ‘dynamic process evolving over time’. Specifically, dynamic process here means firstly the interaction between internal and external protective factors that act to modify the personal effects of an adverse event. Secondly, it refers to the interaction between personal characteristics, biological processes, and family and social resources that can promote or hinder resilient processes. Within this macro-category, it is possible to identify several shades of meaning of the term resilience

Some authors define it as a vital motivational force of the individual that foresees an attitude of continuous struggle and an inclination not to surrender before difficulties, or as a force that can fluctuate over time and push the person to grow through the adversities or interruptions of their life trajectory. Others emphasize the ability to promote developmental processes and identify resilience with a dynamic mental state that can adapt to changing circumstances. Resilience is also defined as a process through which individuals survive or even grow in the face of adversity

It involves both a set of qualities or internal traits, such hardiness or high self-efficacy, and external factors, such as social support, that promote coping skills. Given the great attention paid by the literature to the meaning of resilience as a capacity for adaptation, we decided to include this definition in a specific category, namely ‘positive adaptation to life condition’. In describing resilience in these terms, authors emphasize different aspects of the phenomenon

Some describe it as the ability to promote positive adaptation despite exposure to adverse, stressful, or traumatic conditions. Others define it as an adaptive attitude and behavior that allows one to remain psychologically healthy, or even to thrive until a post-traumatic growth after being exposed to stressful events. Thus conceived, resilience implies that emotional resources are used to adapt to adversity; therefore, it can also be described as the process that links resources (adaptive capacities) to results (adaptation). Other authors focus attention on the duration of the phenomenon

In particular, some describe resilience as a temporary phenomenon, subject to fluctuations based on life circumstances and the stage of development; for others it represents a stable trajectory of operation over time. The analysis of the literature shows that the term resilience does not have a single meaning and takes on different nuances depending on the perspective from which it is analyzed. In the field of resilience studies, there is a heated debate among scholars, in particular between those who consider resilience as a trait of personality that is fixed and stable over time and therefore measurable (‘type of functioning that characterizes the individual’) and those who do not consider it a personality trait but rather as ‘dynamic process evolving over time’, which refers to the interaction between protective factors and risk factors

Specifically, the effects of protective factors such as ‘type of functioning’ are detectable only in the presence of the stressful events, and their role is to modify the response despite adversity. The ‘dynamic process’ is instead described as the interaction of a constellation of variables that allow the reduction of the impact with the risk conditions and thus effectively dealing with the adverse condition. In the ‘recovery category’, it is also possible to identify the attitude toward a gradual return to an initial state—staying well and maintaining an effective functioning—despite the destabilization caused by an adverse event that has a significant impact on the person.

Therefore, it is understood as a return to an initial state of balance. The ‘capacity to bounce back’ instead emphasizes the possibility of a personal growth despite difficulties, changes, or traumatic events rather than a return to an initial state of mind. Literally, ‘bounce back’ means rebound and change of direction

It refers to the tendency to be persevering and not to give up, assuming an attitude of openness to change. We consider the fifth category, ‘positive adaptation to life conditions’, as transversal to the other four that we have identified because the concept of effective adaptation to life events is implicit in each of them. Nevertheless, we have established it as a different category from the others since many definitions in the literature focus on the concept of positive adaptation to define resilience. As can be seen by comparing the tables, the category that identifies resilience as ‘positive adaptation’ includes many definitions. Summarizing all the categories, the processes of psychological resilience make it possible to face events by maintaining and enhancing one’s resources to the point of producing personal strengthening and a positive reorganization of one’s biographical history

Therefore, the use of resilient attitudes makes it possible to construct and rebuild one’s life path, to re-establish a new balance by producing change in oneself and reacting positively in the face of difficulties, transforming them into opportunities for growth. From the study that we conducted, it was interesting to observe the multidimensionality of the resilience construct, which has been described in the literature from different points of view, in some cases with common characteristics. The revision of the definitions of resilience has allowed us to better clarify this term and to propose a broader definition characterized by the elements that we have supposed as being more indicative of the resilient attitude. According to the results of our study, resilience should be considered as a ‘competence’ present in each individual or organization, thanks to which it is possible not to succumb to adverse events, but to react and to reach, or to return, to a state of equilibrium. The importance of the work we carried out thus lies in having observed that resilience resources are considered as ‘skills’ that should be present and functional both on an individual level, for example in professional practice or in social relations, and in organizations

Moreover, being a dynamic process, resilience can be implemented in order to promote a continuous growth of the person and the environment. Getting to know more about the resilience construct also makes it feasible to structure training pathways focused on resilient human qualities as tools aimed at fostering an attitude of openness to change. Regarding the clinical setting, the analysis of the resilience construct we carried out through the review is also a useful starting point with reference to the identification of models of psychological intervention aimed at enhancing individual resources and abilities in order to support the attitude of facing adverse situations while maintaining an adaptive functioning. However, it is necessary to underline that this study has some limitations that we hope to fill in a future research. More specifically, a limitation refers to the methodology of selection of the articles to be analyzed

The use of the keyword ‘definition’ inserted in both of the accessed search engines has excluded some studies which could be useful to further widen the analysis of the resilience construct. Moreover, extending the study to other databases, as well as considering scientific articles written before 2002, would allow us to obtain a greater number of works and to identify probable further definitions of the term resilience. Finally, the review focused on resilience as a psychological construct, thereby excluding the possibility of accounting for nuances of the term other than the personal one that was investigated