Social approaches to building resilience

Each of the studies we’re examining today takes a social rather than strictly individual approach to understanding and building resilience. First, Lee et al. (2024) published, ”How Can We Build Structural Resilience? Integration of social-ecological and minority stress models” in American Psychologist. Here are the edited abstract and public significance statement:

This article proposes a culturally and structurally informed model of resilience for individuals with minoritized identities that integrates social–ecological and minority stress models. First, common stressors and traumas experienced by minoritized individuals at multiple levels of proximal/distal influence are reviewed: microsystem (e.g., family rejection), mesosystem (e.g., community-based discrimination), exosystem (e.g., barriers to health care), macrosystem (e.g., harmful legal policies), and chronosystem (e.g., historical legacy). Next, how these exposures have cascading effects on minority stress processes (e.g., discriminatory policies in the macrosystem affect how a child is socialized in the microsystem) are considered. Then, modifiable factors (e.g., community cohesion) that promote resiliency in the face of ongoing exposures are discussed. To conclude, guidelines are offered for advancing the psychological science of resilience in minoritized groups including mixed methods to reflect participants’ experiences, ecological approaches to assess resilience, and multilevel modeling to understand the interplay between the social–ecological context and individual factors. 

Public Significance Statement—Minority stress has been historically excluded from seminal theories of resilience. This article proposes a social–ecological model of structural resilience to minority stress for guiding conceptual and methodological approaches to studying multiple systems of proximal and distal influence. 

Social-ecological approaches offer a rich understanding of the ways in which stressors impact minoritized groups and individuals. I thought this work was an important introduction to the issues. Next, McClean, Fish, Rogers & Syed published “Integrating Systems of Power and Privilege in the Study of Resilience” in American Psychologist. Here are some excerpts:

Although current approaches to the study of resilience acknowledge the role of context, rarely do those conceptualizations attend to societal systems and structures that include hierarchies of power and privilege—namely systems of racism, colonialism, patriarchy, and capitalism—nor do they articulate how these structural realities are embedded within individual experiences. We offer critiques of the current literature from this structural lens, using the concept of master narratives to articulate the incomplete and, at times, damaging story that the discipline of psychology has told about resilience. We then provide three models that center history, systems, and structures of society that can be employed in the study of resilience. We close with lessons learned from listening to those voices who have been marginalized by mainstream society, lessons that require us to redefine, broaden, and deepen our conceptualization of resilience. 

We offer two concepts as alternative narratives. Rather than seeing thriving and succeeding beyond what we would predict as a marker of resilience, we can see enduring oppressive structures as an alternative story of resilience. . . . When we uplift the exceptions, ignoring the rule – those in the middle, the average individuals who endure and survive structural obstacles and oppression, who are “average” in the mid of dire inequities – we are disqualifying them from the conversation about who can be resilient, missing the opportunity to learn from them.

The second concept is survivance (Vizenore, 2008), an inexact concept to combat common narratives about the plight of Native Americans and Indigenous peoples (Hartmann et al. 2019), which is thought to be a portmanteau of survival and resistance. . . . Instead of  achieving or  accomplishing a resilient state, it is more likely that we, people, are enduring oppressive structures, while they simultaneous endure us. We can thrive, survive, or just simply live in spite of it all. 

American narratives of growth after adversity are prominent in our larger culture as well as in the discipline of psychology. Such narratives rely on an overly narrow and simplistic focus on individuals who are responsible for their growth. This allows us to ignore larger forces, such as systemic oppression, which can create barriers to such growth. We argue for redefining such narratives of what it means to be healthy in the face of adversity by attending to people who have often been left out of the research on growth and resilience—such as those who are Black, Indigenous, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and those who hold other marginalized identities. 

I thought this one was consistent with Lee et al. in emphasizing that a focus on individual responsibility for resilience is “narrow and simplistic.” I’ve always thought narrative research was important and, while largely conceptual, I found this piece helpful. The next article takes a narrower approach but an equally social one. Sahib, Chen, Reynolds & Cárdenas (2025) published “The Curative Effect of Schools: A longitudinal study of the impact of school climate, school identification, and resilience on adolescent mental health” in School Psychology. Here are the edited abstract and impact statement:

Mental illness in adolescents is on the rise, thus it is vital to study factors that can improve youth mental health. The extant theory and research have identified both social (school climate; school identification) and individual (resilience) constructs as protectors of mental health. However, these protective factors remain in silo and require further integration. To address this issue, the present study proposed and investigated an integrative model in which social factors (i.e., school climate, school identification) nurture individual (i.e., resilience) protective factors, which in turn impact adolescent mental health. Using three-wave longitudinal data (2017–2019) from school students (Grades 7–8; N = 1,357), we found evidence supporting the integrated model examining five dimensions of mental health: anxiety, depression, happiness, life satisfaction, and positive affect. Greater Wave 1 school climate predicted greater identification 1 year later, which in turn predicted greater resilience. Furthermore, greater resilience predicted lower depression and anxiety, and greater happiness, life satisfaction, and positive affect 1 year later. These results support efforts to strengthen the school climate and reconceptualize resilience as an outcome of social processes. 

School-based resilience programs can improve youth mental health through school climate and school identification. Our integrated model demonstrates that a group environment (school climate) helps youth to build psychological (school) identification and resilience, which, in turn, promotes greater mental health. Resilience has often been conceptualized as an individual attribute. However, our results suggest that it can be viewed as being related to groups, which could make people feel encouraged and supported. 

I thought this was a good study to end with because it uses a large sample and a longitudinal design to study the value of examining school climate and identification as well as resilience. This is a nice example of reconceptualizing resilience in social rather than individual terms. The findings are fairly impressive.