Running head: RESILIENCE AND COLLEGE RETENTION 1
Literature Review
The Nature of Resilience
Several empirical studies on resilience have been conducted over the last couple of years.
Following these studies, experts have expressed different opinions regarding the nature and
importance of resilience. Resilience has been associated with the ability of an individual to adapt
to adversity (Becker, Cicchetti & Luthar, 2000; Fleming and Ledogar, 2008; Jones et al. 2012).
To this extent, many scholars agree that resilience is a dynamic process that encompasses
positive adaptation to significant adversity (Becker, Cicchetti and Luthar, 2000). In other words,
resilience is characterized by an individual’s capacity to flexibly adapt to changing demands of
stressful situations and, therefore, their ability to “bounce back” from negative emotional
experiences. Resilience is closely related to optimism, zest, curiosity, openness to new
experiences, positive emotionality, sustained competence under stress, and energy among other
positive traits (Becker, Cicchetti and Luthar, 2000; Fleming and Ledogar, 2008).
While resilience has traditionally been considered a characteristic of the individual
(Becker, Cicchetti & Luthar, 2000; Jones et al. 2012, more recently, scholars have associated it
with entire communities (Fleming & Ledogar, 2008). In their review of the literature on the
scientific construct of resilience and its evolution, Fleming and Ledogar (2008) focused on
aboriginal resilience. The scholars analyzed different theories and perspectives on resilience and
its relation to risk. According to the scholars, one qualifying condition that many researchers
rely on to qualify resilience is the presence of demonstrable substantial risk or stress. The
researchers analyzed three general categories of resilience models; challenge, protective and
compensatory. The researchers noted that the challenge model holds that high and low levels of
exposure to risk factors are associated with negative results while moderate levels of the risk