Advancing resilience: An integrative, multi-system model of resilience Jenny J.W. Liu ⁎, Maureen Reed, Todd A. Girard Department of Psychology, Ryerson University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada abstract article info Article history: Received 27 October 2016 Received in revised form 27 January 2017 Accepted 2 February 2017 Available online xxxx In this paper, we examine the dynamic nature of the resilience process as an interaction between individuals and their larger socio-ecological context. We introduce a novel, multi-systems model of resilience that addresses lim- itations within existing models, clarifies ambiguity brought on by heterogeneous definitions of resilience, and recognizes resilience as a process across the lifespan. This model includes intra-individual, interpersonal, and socio-ecological variables, and highlights the interactive process of resilience that is dynamic and multi-dimen- sional in nature. © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Resilience Multi-system model Trauma Adversity 1. Introduction Bouncing back, recovery, protective factors, individual traits, and positive outcomes have all been used to describe resilience (Fergus & Zimmerman, 2005; Seery & Quinton, 2016). Resilience, and more specif- ically, psychological resilience, refers to the ability to adapt to stress and adversity (American Psychological Association, 2016). Resilience has traditionally been understood as a trajectory of coping that defies the expectation of negative outcomes (Rutter, 1990; Luthar, Cicchetti, & Becker, 2000; Seery & Quinton, 2016). Its use in traumatic and stressful contexts highlights the utility and importance of this construct to the in- dividual. In addition, resilience has also been applied to larger social contexts and at the community level in response to catastrophic events and tragedies (Savitch, 2008; Sonn & Fisher, 1998). However, research in resilience is limited in scope. Existing models are inadequate in cap- turing the multidimensional nature of resilience. In this paper, we intro- duce a novel model of resilience aimed at addressing the current limitations in research. First, summaries of existing approaches to studying resilience will be overviewed, and their limitations in research and application will be highlighted. 2. Studying resilience The conceptual framework of resilience stems from research with at-risk youths and children (Fergus & Zimmerman, 2005; Rutter, 1987). Developmental trajectories of children exposed to early adversi- ties through various events, traumas, or risk factors were expected to include negative outcomes, such as psychopathology (Garmezy, 1974), poor achievements (Shumow, Vandel, & Posner, 1999), or vio- lence (Borowsky, Ireland, & Resnick, 2002; Madsen & Abell, 2010); yet, studies show that exposure to early life stressors do not result in negative outcomes for all individuals. Instead, some demonstrate posi- tive trajectories and outcomes despite adversity, such as competence, hardiness, or educational achievements (Buckner, Mezzacappa & Beardslee, 2003; Masten, Best, & Garmezy, 1990). The term “resilience” within this framework, thus encompasses alternative trajectories that deviated from the expected maladaptive outcomes after exposure to ad- versity (Rutter, 1987). For illustrative purposes, we present a hypothet- ical case of Julia, a conscientious young girl who grew up in a middle- income family. She had experienced extensive bullying as a child and, as a young adult, she continues to experience adversities, including ha- rassment at her workplace. Through various approaches to studying re- silience, we show how Julia's experience can be classified on a continuum ranging from resilient to non-resilient. 2.1. Theoretical approaches to resilience There are competing approaches to understanding the type of resil- ience described by Rutter (1987). Most approaches conceptualize resil- ience as a trajectory of recovery following trauma. However, each approach has a distinct emphasis. The variability of these approaches has been the subject of much debate within the literature (Seery & Quinton, 2016; Luthar, Cicchetti, & Becker, 2000). The following section will offer a brief conceptual overview to popular approaches in under- standing resilience. Resilience will be discussed as a developmental tra- jectory, as a coping outcome, and as a personality-correlate or trait. A popular stance on resilience is the cumulative events-related ap- proaches to understanding adversity, which include the stress- Personality and Individual Differences 111 (2017) 111–118 ⁎ Corresponding author at: Department of Psychology, Ryerson University, 350 Victoria Street, Toronto, Ontario M5B 2K3, Canada. E-mail address: jenny.liu@psych.ryerson.ca (J.J.W. Liu). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.02.007 0191-8869/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Personality and Individual Differences journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid