Literature Review of Concepts: Psychological Resiliency

Abstract

This report provides a detailed literature review of the current state of knowledge on resiliency and its application to military personnel. The report summarizes the current, accepted definitions of resiliency; factors contributing to resiliency; theories of resiliency; empirical research findings on resiliency in protecting individuals from adverse outcomes associated with acute or chronic stress; empirical research findings on resiliency in military personnel and other high-risk occupations; and resiliency measures, their development and validation. Existing definitions implicate resiliency with the ability to adapt and successfully cope with adversity, life stressors, and traumatic events. However, findings from this review demonstrate the lack of a uniform or accepted definition of resiliency. Research to date has resulted in the identification of several individual traits and environmental situations that are contributing factors to resiliency, and this has led to recent efforts to develop and validate emerging interactive resiliency factor models. The theoretical bases of resiliency remain controversial and many existing theories have received modest empirical investigation. Furthermore, the methodologies used in many of these conceptually based studies are poor and results are limited in their generalizability. Empirical research on protective factors remains limited, and their inter-relationships to risk factors and exposure factors remains unclear. Relatively few studies have investigated resiliency in military populations. These studies have primarily investigated protective factors among resilient individuals who have experienced combat exposure (e.g., prisoners of war). Yet, much more is to be learned about resiliency across the range of military personnel experiences (e.g., peacekeepers). Lastly, the review identifies numerous measures of resiliency, and of related constructs, many of which lack sufficient validation.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 93 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.