Depertment of Psychology, Faculty of Human Life and Environmental Sciences
Ochanomizu University
Resilience Research
Resilience is a concept that refers to the ability to adapt successfully in the face of stress and to recover from psychological adversity. Although various definitions have been proposed, one of the most widely cited is that of Masten et al. (1990), who describe resilience as "the process of, capacity for, or outcome of successful adaptation despite challenging or threatening circumstances." While resilience is one of several concepts related to psychological strength—including coping and hardiness—it is often described as flexibility or psychological elasticity. Rather than representing an unbreakable, steel-like toughness that prevents distress, resilience can be understood as a softer form of strength: the capacity to recover after being hurt, or to continue moving forward even while experiencing emotional pain.
Previous research has shown that resilience is fostered by various resilience factors that individuals possess. These factors are diverse and include both personal factors, such as impulse control, favorable temperament, empathy, social skills, and autonomy, as well as environmental factors, including family environment, supportive teachers, and emotional support from others. However, among these many resilience factors, which contribute to resilience differs from person to person. In other words, there is no simple formula suggesting that everyone can become resilient by acquiring the same set of qualities or skills.
My research originally began with the question of how people can enhance their resilience. In Japan and abroad, numerous educational and intervention programs have been developed with the goal of cultivating the resilience factors described above. As I examined these interventions, however, I gradually began to wonder whether everyone is equally capable of acquiring these resilience factors. Research in personality psychology suggests that certain aspects of personality—particularly temperament—are strongly influenced by genetic factors and are therefore relatively resistant to change. I hypothesized that the same might be true for resilience factors. Rather than assuming that all resilience factors can be equally developed by everyone, identifying which factors are relatively easy to cultivate and which are more stable could provide a more effective approach to strengthening resilience. With this objective in mind, I developed the Bidimensional Resilience Scale. The process of developing this scale, along with subsequent research based on it, is described in detail in my book Can resilience be acquired? (University of Tokyo Press).
The Bidimensional Resilience Scale (BRS)
The Bidimensional Resilience Scale (BRS) is a 21-item instrument designed to assess individual resilience factors by distinguishing between two dimensions: innate resilience factors, which are closely related to inborn temperament (trait-based factors), and acquired resilience factors, which are more readily developed through life experiences and personal growth.
The scale items are reported in:
Its reliability and validity have been examined in these publications.
Fortunately, the BRS has been utilized in numerous studies. A review summarizing published research that has employed the Bidimensional Resilience Scale is available here.
No prior permission is required to use the BRS for research purposes. Researchers are welcome to use the scale freely, provided that the original source is appropriately cited. When interpreting BRS scores, however, please keep the following points in mind.
・The BRS is designed to assess the extent to which an individual possesses various resilience factors. As described above, resilience itself is understood to emerge through the interaction of multiple resilience factors. Therefore, a higher total score on the BRS does not necessarily indicate a higher level of resilience. The total score should not be interpreted as a direct measure of an individual’s resilience.
・The primary purpose of the BRS is to examine the balance of resilience factors within an individual. Although normative mean scores for different age groups are reported in my book, these averages should not be used to make evaluative judgments about an individual’s resilience based solely on whether their score is above or below the mean. Likewise, simple comparisons between individuals based only on numerical scores should be avoided.
An English version of the BRS has been developed through a back-translation process; however, it has not yet been formally published. The English version was presented at the following conference:
Hirano, M. (2014). Validation of the Bidimensional Resilience Scale for North American College Students: A Classification of the Innate and Acquired Factors. Paper presented at the 7th European Conference on Positive Psychology.
Researchers who wish to use the English version are welcome to use the items provided here.
From Enhancing Resilience to Enabling Resilience
Moving Beyond “High” and “Low” Toward an Understanding of Diversity
Using the BRS described above, I initially sought to identify ways to enhance resilience among individuals with relatively few innate resilience factors—those who might conventionally be regarded as “less resilient.” As my research progressed, however, I found that these individuals often recovered from adversity in ways that differed from those with abundant innate resilience factors. In other words, there is considerable diversity in how people recover from psychological distress and adapt to difficult circumstances.
Resilience is fundamentally shaped by different factors for different individuals, unfolds through different processes, and is directed toward different forms of adaptation. It is therefore not a construct that can be adequately understood by simply placing people on a continuum from “high” to “low.” From this perspective, expecting individuals who are considered “less resilient” to recover in the same way as those considered “more resilient” is unlikely to provide the most effective direction for psychological support.
These findings led me to reconsider the goal of resilience interventions. Rather than focusing solely on enhancing resilience by developing new strengths, I have come to emphasize helping individuals recognize and make use of the resilience they already possess—in other words, enabling them to express or activate their own resilience.
Within clinical approaches to resilience, interventions often focus on strengthening resilience through the acquisition of adaptive skills and knowledge. Equally important, however, are approaches that encourage individuals to become aware of the resilience they have already developed through their own life experiences, thereby enabling them to make fuller use of it.
Everyone has, to varying degrees, a personal history of coping with stress in their own way, often without consciously recognizing it. Facilitating awareness of these existing strengths and helping individuals regain access to them when they are no longer able to utilize them, I believe, represents the essence of resilience-based intervention.
To be sure, such approaches have long been practiced in psychological support and clinical settings. Nevertheless, framing resilience simply as something that is either “high” or “low” may obscure the true nature of the concept. A more meaningful understanding of resilience recognizes its diversity and appreciates the unique ways in which everyone adapts, recovers, and moves forward.
Resilience Orientation
From this perspective, one line of research that seeks to capture the diversity of resilience is the concept of Resilience Orientation.
Resilience Orientation examines how individuals respond to hypothetical stressful situations to identify the direction of their resilience—that is, what kind of recovery they seek and how they attempt to achieve it. Rather than evaluating whether a person possesses “more” or “less” resilience, this framework focuses on the individual’s characteristic orientation toward recovery.
Based on an analysis of more than 12,000 responses, three orientations toward recovery were identified: Restoration, Acceptance, and Transformation. In addition, three primary means of achieving recovery emerged: Self, Others, and Transcendence. Together, these two dimensions form a 3 × 3 matrix comprising nine distinct resilience orientations.
This framework highlights the diversity of resilience by demonstrating that people differ not only in the degree to which they are resilient, but also in how they define recovery and in the resources they rely upon to achieve it.
Resilience is generally understood as a state of successful adaptation under conditions of stress. However, what is considered “adaptation” is inevitably shaped by the values and norms of the society in which it is defined. As a result, ways of living that do not conform to prevailing social values may not be recognized as resilience, even when they represent adaptive outcomes from the individual’s own perspective. This issue is closely related to the fact that the concept of resilience has largely developed within Western cultural frameworks (Unger, 2008).
What constitutes adaptation, and what kind of adaptation an individual wishes to pursue, should itself be understood as diverse and worthy of respect. My current research therefore focuses on developing assessment tools that can capture and describe this diversity of resilience without reducing it to a single normative standard.
For a detailed discussion of the Resilience Orientation framework, please refer to the following publication:
Hirano, M., Ayashiro, H., Noto, H., & Imaizumi, K. (2018). Multiplicity of Individual Differences in Resilience Expressed Through a Projective Method: A Perspective of Resilience Orientation. Japanese Journal of Qualitative Psychology, 17, 43–64.
Practices to Foster Resilience
Based on these research findings, I developed A Workbook for Expressing Your Own Resilience (Kaneko Shobo). In addition, I offer both in-person and online workshops designed to promote resilience. I am also seeking participants who are willing to collaborate in my research. If you are interested, please feel free to contact me.
In-Person Workshops
Self-understanding workshops using psychological assessment scales
Workshops using projective techniques
Workshops incorporating drawing and photography
Group workshops, and more
[Participants]
Elementary, junior high, and high school students
University students
Adults
Resilience workshops for ballerinas
Training programs for helping professionals
Workshops for mothers raising children
Web- and App-Based Programs
Self-care web programs
Online group workshops, and more
Promoting Resilience Through Dialogical Relationships
To date, I have designed and implemented self-reflective exercises and group-based interventions aimed at helping individuals recognize and express their own unique forms of resilience. My current research interest has expanded toward understanding resilience as something that exists within relationships with others.
Most approaches to resilience promotion assume that resilience can be strengthened by enhancing abilities that reside within the individual. However, unlike an intrinsic capacity such as intelligence, resilience is more appropriately understood as a phenomenon that emerges through interactions between individuals and their environments.
Rather than viewing resilience solely as an internal attribute, I seek to conceptualize it as a resource that exists within interpersonal relationships. My goal is to develop clinical psychological approaches that promote resilience through dialogical relationships—relationships in which resilience is co-constructed and fostered through meaningful interaction with others.
To this end, my current research explores two fundamental questions:
-
What does it mean for resilience to be promoted through relationships with others? (i.e., identifying its essential components)
-
Through what processes is such resilience facilitated and sustained?
By addressing these questions, I hope to contribute to a more relational understanding of resilience and to the development of interventions that support resilience as a dynamic, interpersonal process rather than solely an individual capacity.
