Child Development, May/June 2000, Volume 71, Number 3, Pages 543–562 The Construct of Resilience: A Critical Evaluation and Guidelines for Future Work Suniya S. Luthar, Dante Cicchetti, and Bronwyn Becker This paper presents a critical appraisal of resilience, a construct connoting the maintenance of positive adapta- tion by individuals despite experiences of significant adversity. As empirical research on resilience has bur- geoned in recent years, criticisms have been levied at work in this area. These critiques have generally focused on ambiguities in definitions and central terminology; heterogeneity in risks experienced and competence achieved by individuals viewed as resilient; instability of the phenomenon of resilience; and concerns regard- ing the usefulness of resilience as a theoretical construct. We address each identified criticism in turn, propos- ing solutions for those we view as legitimate and clarifying misunderstandings surrounding those we believe to be less valid. We conclude that work on resilience possesses substantial potential for augmenting the under- standing of processes affecting at-risk individuals. Realization of the potential embodied by this construct, however, will remain constrained without continued scientific attention to some of the serious conceptual and methodological pitfalls that have been noted by skeptics and proponents alike. INTRODUCTION Resilience refers to a dynamic process encompassing pos- itive adaptation within the context of significant adversity. Implicit within this notion are two critical conditions: (1) exposure to significant threat or severe adversity; and (2) the achievement of positive adaptation de- spite major assaults on the developmental process (Garmezy, 1990; Luthar & Zigler, 1991; Masten, Best, & Garmezy, 1990; Rutter, 1990; Werner & Smith, 1982, 1992). In this article, we strive to critically evaluate the re- silience literature, an exercise spurred by the recent proliferation of research on this construct along with growing scientific concerns about this body of work. Following the publication of early writings by major systematizers in the field (see, e.g., Anthony, 1974; Garmezy, 1971, 1974; Murphy & Moriarty, 1976; Rut- ter, 1979; Werner, Bierman, & French, 1971; Werner & Smith, 1982), scholarly interest in resilience has surged (see, e.g., Cicchetti & Garmezy, 1993; Glantz & Johnson, 1999; Wang, Haertel, & Wahlberg, 1994). This burgeoning attention has been paralleled by growing concerns about the rigor of theory and re- search in the area (e.g., Cicchetti & Garmezy, 1993; Luthar, 1993; Luthar & Cushing, 1999), misgivings which have sometimes culminated in assertions that overall, this is a construct of dubious scientific value (see, e.g., Gordon & Wang, 1994; Kaplan, 1999; Liddle, 1994; Tarter & Vanyukov, 1999; Tolan, 1996). The con- tinued pursuit of research on resilience and the diver- sity of criticisms levied against the construct con- jointly emphasize the value of carefully appraising the various concerns that have been articulated. We begin this paper with a brief historical over- view of the construct of resilience, from its inception to its portrayal in current psychological inquiry. We then consider major concerns that have been raised about this construct, which generally fall into four broad categories: (1) ambiguities in definitions and terminology, (2) variations in interdomain function- ing and risk experiences among ostensibly resilient children, (3) instability in the phenomenon of resil- ience, and (4) theoretical concerns, including ques- tions about the utility of resilience as a scientific con- struct. Within each of these areas, we address the identified criticisms, and, where legitimate, propose solutions for redressing problems that have been noted. Whenever we disagree with criticisms, we strive to elucidate factors that may have contributed to a misunderstanding of the issues. By addressing the valid concerns, clarifying misconceptions, and proposing recommendations for future work, we seek to enhance the quality of scientific investigations and theoretical conceptualizations on resilience in the context of adversity. HISTORICAL CONTEXT The investigation of factors that result in adaptive outcomes in the presence of adversity has a long and illustrious history, with the empirical literature on schizophrenia constituting a salient founding base (Masten et al., 1990). Early investigations of severely © 2000 by the Society for Research in Child Development, Inc. All rights reserved. 0009-3920/2000/7103-0001