Resilience Doesn’t Mean the Same Thing Everywhere: How Our Understanding of Resilience Depends on Culture and Why That Matters
By Scott Furlotte.
Resilience is a popular buzzword in workplace wellness, leadership development, social media, and on the bookshelf in the self-help section. As practitioners and researchers, it is easy to make assumptions that we all think of resilience in the same way; as the ability to bounce back, thrive, and grow through adversity.
However, sometimes the concept of resilience takes on a nuanced interpretation that may be different for everyone.
Resilience research dates back decades, but there remains no universally accepted definition. The British Psychological Society does not have a single official definition. The American Psychological Association describes resilience as successfully adapting to difficult life experiences through mental, emotional, and behavioural flexibility. There is a consistent emphasis in research that resilience is a dynamic and active process influenced by biological, psychological, and social factors, rather than as a fixed personality trait.
What becomes clear when reviewing international research on resilience is that the interpretation and perception of resilience is shaped through the culture in which the person lives, works, and functions.
These nuanced distinctions have profound implications for Business Psychologists, leaders, researchers, coaches, and for anyone working to support the wellbeing of others.
A Universal Definition
One of the earliest influential studies on resilience as a distinctive concept was the Kauai Longitudinal Study by Emmy Werner and Ruth Smith. The authors followed 698 children in Hawaii from birth to adulthood. About one-third of these children grew into competent and resilient adults despite exposure to risk factors like poverty and parental mental illness. The results of this seminal study demonstrated that protective factors play a crucial role in fostering resilience, disputing the idea that our wellbeing is solely determined by adversities we face.
Since that time, resilience has become one of psychology’s most frequently discussed concepts. Much of the research had been completed through the Western perspective, often assuming that the interpretations, perceptions and concepts are universal.
Cross-cultural psychologists and researchers are questioning that assumption.
Across the world, people differ in how they view themselves, their relationships, their responsibilities, and their affiliation with their social environment. If those individual differences shape how we view ourselves, they shape how we define and understand stress, wellbeing, coping, and resilience.
Individual Strength or Collective Responsibility
One of the key distinctions in cross-cultural psychology is examining the difference between individualist and collectivist cultures. This description is based on how those in the culture value and perceive their role as an individual versus their place in the group. Those holding an individualist view, as often found in Western Europe and North America, see themselves as being distinct and autonomous; with their source of identity and relationship to others being internally attributed and developed. Personal achievement, success, failure, and happiness are interpreted as the responsibility of the individual.
Those holding an interdependent view, as found in many collectivist cultures across Asia, the Middle East, Latin America, and Africa, see these individual factors as being fundamentally connected to others; with the primary social goal of maintaining harmony within the group.
As this relates to resilience, those from an individualist culture tend to focus on their own strengths and weaknesses, in achieving their individual goals. This differs from those with the collectivist viewpoint, where the focus is on self-examination as a process to identify and adapt personal strengths and weaknesses to serve the group’s needs.
Many studies from workplaces in historically individualist cultures emphasise the responsibility of resilience building as being on the individual, meaning that it was up to the people themselves to develop the skills to cope in their workplace, and if they are unable to adapt, it is an individual shortcoming.
This differs from research conducted from the collectivist viewpoint, where the focus is on resilience-building processes to serve the group’s needs, and the organisation taking an interdependent role where shortcomings are a collective responsibility.
These differing worldviews subtly change how resilience is understood by the individual, and lead to different questions:
One asks, “How can I become stronger?”
While the other asks, "How can we best all become stronger?”
Why This Matters
Business Psychology practitioners, coaches, organisational leaders, and human resource professionals work with culturally diverse populations. If two people are using the word “resilience” or “stress,” but each has a differing interpretation of that word, the risk of misalignment becomes inevitable. One person may be looking through the lens of strategies for building personal coping skills, while the other may be focused on relationships or organisational change. Both are correct, and both are talking about resilience in their own way, from distinct cultural frameworks.
When a research study involves a population from both collectivist and individualist societies, researchers may want to consider using different instruments, intentionally adapting research methods, and carefully considering wording to capture cultural nuances. It is important that the phrasing of quantitative instruments and qualitative questions in research or assessment tools reflect cultural interpretation. If all parties do not share a collective understanding of the factors being measured, the validity of the results may be compromised.
Appreciating that differences in cultural perception exist allows practitioners to ask better questions before offering solutions.
A More Complete Understanding of Resilience
As Business Psychologists and other practitioners explore resilience with a culturally diverse population, we must keep in mind that there is no single universal understanding of a blueprint for thriving.
Understanding resilience requires an understanding of people, and understanding people requires an understanding of cultures, communities, environments, and perceptions that shape people’s lives.
For ABP Members:
Not a member? We invite you to join us at The Association for Business Psychology!
About the Author
Scott holds a Master of Science in Business Psychology from the University of Hertfordshire and an undergraduate degree from Harvard University. Scott serves as a faculty member with the Nova Scotia Community College in the School of Health and Human Services and with Acadia University’s Department of Psychology. Scott also serves as a Physician Conflict Navigation Consultant, both nationally and internally with Nova Scotia Health, supporting physicians with resilience, managing conflict, team civility, and respectful workplace challenges.
References
American Psychological Association. (2015). Cognition. In APA dictionary of psychology (2nd ed.) p. 200. American Psychological Association.
Barnová, S., Gabrhelová, G., Krásna, S., Hasajová, L., & Barna, D. (2023). Teacher resilience and coping with teacher stress in vocational schools. Societies, 13(9), 204. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc13090204
Consiglio, P., Fokkens-Bruinsma, M., Jansen, E. P. W. A., & Fleer, J. (2024). Do resilience and sociodemographic characteristics predict university lecturers’ well-being? A crossectional study. Pedagogische Studiën, 101(2), 125–139. https://doi.org/10.59302/xx25cm67
Machery, E., Knobe, J., & Stich, S. P. (2023). Editorial: Cultural variation and cognition. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 14(2), 339–347. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13164-023-00687-9
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Cultural variation in the self-concept. In J. Strauss, & G. R. Goethals (Eds.), The self: Interdisciplinary approaches (pp. 18–48). Springer.
Masten, A. S., Lucke, C. M., Nelson, K. M., & Stallworthy, I. C. (2021). Resilience in development and psychopathology: Multisystem perspectives. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 17, 521–549. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-081219-120307
Werner, E., & Smith, R. (1982). Vulnerable but invincible: A longitudinal study of resilient children and youth. Adams, Bannister, and Cox.