See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283340834 Resiliency: Enhancing Coping with Crisis and Terrorism Book · January 2015 CITATION READS 1 1,037 3 authors: Dean Ajdukovic Shaul Kimhi University of Zagreb Tel-Hai Academic College 94 PUBLICATIONS 1,181 CITATIONS 76 PUBLICATIONS 708 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE Mooli Lahad Tel-Hai Academic College 47 PUBLICATIONS 295 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects: EUropean Refugees-HUman Movement and Advisory Network Acronym: EUR-HUMAN View project THE TENTS PROJECT View project All content following this page was uploaded by Shaul Kimhi on 31 October 2015. The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. EMERGING SECURITY CHALLENGES (ESC) DIVISION SCIENCE FOR PEACE AND SECURITY (SPS) PROGRAMME ADVANCED RESEARCH WORKSHOP (ARW) Resiliency: Enhancing Coping with Crisis and Terrorism EDITORS: Dean Ajdukovic Shaul Kimhi Mooli Lahad IOS Table of Content page Introduction: Where Do We Stand Regarding the Concept of Psychosocial Resilience? Dean Ajdukovic 3 Chapter 1 Indomitability, Resilience, and Posttraumatic Growth Peter Suedfeld 12 Chapter 2 Resilience From a Neuroscience Perspective Richard Bryant 40 Chapter 3 Katie Cherry Resilience After Trauma Sandro Galea 65 Chapter 4 Coping, Conflict and Culture: The Salutogenic Approach in the Study of Resiliency Shifra Sagy 76 Chapter 5 Levels of Resilience: A Critical Review Shaul Kimhi 89 Chapter 6 National Resilience in Multinational Societies Merle Parmak 106 Chapter 7 The Integrative Model OF Resiliency: The "BASIC Ph" Model OR What DO We Know About Mooli Lahad Survival? Dima Leykin 125 Chapter 8 Michal Shamai Couples in the Line of Fire: Couples' Resilience in Guy Enosh Preserving and Enhancing their Relationships Ronit Machmali-Kievitz Saray Tapiro 155 Chapter 9 Limor Aharonson-Daniel Community Resilience Assessment - Meeting the Mooli Lahad Challenge - the Development of the Conjoint Dima Leykin Community Resiliency Assessment Odeya Cohen Avishay Goldberg 179 Chapter 10 Dima Leykin Stress and Resilience in the Midst of a Security Limor Aharonson-Daniel Tension Mooli Lahad 206 Chapter 11 A History of Political Violence in the Family as a Evaldas Kazlauskas Resilience Factor Paulina ŽelvIene 225 - 2 - Introduction Where Do We Stand Regarding the Concept of Psychosocial Resilience? Dean Ajdukovic1 Department of Psychology, University of Zagreb, Croatia Research on psychosocial resilience has a history of almost fifty years, beginning within the context of developmental psychopathology. Pioneering scholars on individual resilience like Garmezy [1], Werner and Smith [2], Rutter [3], Masten [4], Ungar [5], and Luthar [6] recognized that among children who grow in highly adverse circumstances there is a subgroup who manage to develop well and thrive. Antonovsky [7] was among the pioneer scholars who studied resilience in adults and recognized that surviving the most horrible experiences may not result in psychopathological and dysfunctional outcomes. The key question in the early studies on resilient children focused on what made a difference in the lives of individuals who developed behavioral and mental health problems compared to those who did not despite living under similar circumstances. This question remains the same in contemporary research on resilience of populations affected by disasters, major incidents and terrorist attacks. Similarly, the ambition to identify protective factors that are relevant for resilience in children growing up in adverse circumstances remains the same for researchers who continue seeking correlates of resilience among adults who live in communities exposed to destruction and violence. Consequently, current research priorities and resource allocation focus on promoting resilience, and developing effective preventive interventions, strategies and policies. 1Corresponding author: Dean Ajdukovic, University of Zagreb, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Department of Psychology, Zagreb, Croatia. E-mail: [email protected] - 3 - The recent decades of increased threat of terrorist attacks and human-made disasters have facilitated a shift in the research, theory and services related to resilience from an approach focused on deficits towards a broader understanding of resilience based on strengths and resources. In other words, the field has witnessed a broadening of interest from developmental resilience of children growing up in extremely adverse environments, to resilience-building strategies that may facilitate recovery, help restore effective functioning and ensure positive outcomes in the wake of major critical events that threaten the well-being of individuals, families, communities and nations. This shift is also evident in the changing definition of resilience over time. For example, Garmezey [1] in 1974, considered resilient children to be those who are “invulnerable,” who despite disadvantages adapt and perform competently. More recent definitions of resilience focus on a system capacity and response, such as: “Resilience is the process of adapting well in the face of adversity, trauma, tragedy, threats or significant sources of stress” [8]. Regarding disasters, Norris and colleagues have described resilience as a positive trajectory of adaptation after disturbance, stress, or adversity [9]. Studying resilience is based on two fundamental assumptions [10]: (1) There has been a threat to an individual or a social system, and (2) Resilience of an individual or a system can be assessed only in comparison to an expected level of positive adaptation and functioning. This means that we cannot truly assess the resilience of an individual or a community unless their usual functioning has been seriously disrupted. Another important methodological issue pertains to when to assess resilience after a disruption. Based on studies of individual recovery from posttraumatic stress symptoms [11], it seems that at least one year is the minimum time to wait after a traumatic event. Assessment of community resilience may require an even longer period. Shorter assessment periods may in fact assess post- exposure coping but not necessarily resilience. In any case, operationalization and measurements based on these assumptions remain a challenge. The chapters in this - 4 - volume have all considered the evidence of resilience in the aftermath of major disruption or trauma affecting groups of people. Another challenge for fully understanding resilience is that its meaning has moved from being understood as a personality trait, to being considered a dynamic process over time [12]. The assumed trait of an individual, referred to as “resiliency” [12], has no sound empirical proof. Systems theory has been helpful in understanding resilience as a process. In fact, it is considered to be an ongoing process of positive adaptive changes to threat and adversity, enabling further positive adaptive changes. This recognizes the importance of various interactions as well as a history of previous adaptations, and opens up opportunities for interventions. In a way, resilience is a process of transactions among individual, proximal and distal social environments which set the stage on which players like personality traits, physiology and genetic- environment interaction, attitudes and beliefs, individual and collective identities, cultures and values, individual and collective experiences, connectedness and alienation, all perform at a time of threat and disruption of habitual functioning. It is the outcome of an individual’s interactions with that environment that protects him or her against the overwhelming influence of risk factors [13]. Masten cautions that, among other issues, the following need to be taken into account when studying resilience: (1) It is a complex group of concepts that always requires a careful conceptual and operational definition; (2) It is neither a single trait nor a process, but rather many attributes and processes are involved; (3) There are multiple pathways to resilience [10]. The main research question in studying resilience relates to the capacities of individuals, communities and societies to withstand and recover from highly adverse and potentially traumatic events, such as a mass casualty terror attack, organized violence, an economic crisis or a disaster. More resilience implies recovering or “bouncing back” quickly after such events, successfully coping with greater stress, and being less disturbed by the same amount of stress than someone less resilient or more vulnerable [14]. However, there are limitations with such a view of resilience - 5 - for it rests on the idea of “restoring conditions” or “returning to normal” after major stress, reflecting the ideal of resuming functioning as if a disruption has not occurred. However, people, communities and nations who overcome disasters or mass violence do not remain the same as before. Crises generate changes that may increase resilience to future adversities. However, studies on posttraumatic growth indicate that only a minority of people show this capacity after trauma. There are no studies regarding communities and nations that “grow” in this sense. In the last two decades, research on resilience has widely expanded from an exclusive focus on individual resilience to the broader ecological levels of the community and society. This is due to the embracing of the social systems perspective,