The concept of resilience in ordinary language
Resilience, in ordinary language, is a verb that comes from the Latin result, resilience, which means jumping backwards and bouncing. As seen in Table 1, this term has been used in different disciplines, including medicine (Cornejo, 2010) and psychology. In the latter, and protected by all kinds of justifications, the same ensures that as a concept it is a suggestive and exciting term that requires further clarification (Becoña, 2006); that although it is not a homogeneous concept, it serves to explain something (Vinaccia, Quiceno and Moreno-San Pedro, 2007); that one of the fundamental problems in the research is its definition, however, there is a consensus that it implies effective adaptation (Gaxiola, 2013); finally, that given the diversity of definitions, it is difficult to think of a single conception and an alternative definition must be proposed (González-Arratia, Valdez, Oudhof and González, 2012).
Knowing these various justifications, psychologists, particularly in Ibero-American countries:
- They expressly design or adapt measuring instruments made in other countries (Gaxiola, Frías, Hurtado, Salcido and Figueroa, 2011; Rodríguez, Pereyra, Gil, Jofré, de Bortoli and Labiano, 2009; Serrano-Parra, Garrido-Abejar, Notario-Pacheco, Bartolomé-Gutiérrez, Solera-Martínez and Martínez-Vizcaíno, 2012).
- With these instruments they carry out research on the problems of development, social coexistence, education or health (Gaxiola, González, Contreras and Gaxiola, 2012; Gaxiola, Pérez and González, 2013; González-Arratia, Reyes, Valdez and González , 2011; Quiceno, Vinaccia, Barrera, Latorre, Molina and Zubieta, 2013), and
- Even those who conclude that there is a scientific theory in the making about resilience (Becoña, 2006).
In sum, that the concept is used, that instruments are designed and adapted, that research is carried out and that the data are interpreted to justify their relevance, and explanatory/predictive power is a matter that will ultimately depend on whether they are met or not. With several requirements, one of which has to do with its definition for an elementary request of principle. We intend to demonstrate that a term foreign to psychology, which is subsequently misdefined as a concept – a consequence of a primary logical confusion regarding its origin- in turn, entails a series of methodological and interpretive confusions of the findings. Are obtained by conducting an investigation.
The concept of resilience and confusion in psychology
A logical confusion takes place when the existence of a phenomenon is taken for granted, as is the case of resilience, in the same way that we speak of attending, perceiving, thinking, reasoning, remembering, and so on; additionally when it is ensured that it is a psychological phenomenon. Even though the term has appeared first in the literature that is inscribed in the field of mental health (Saavedra and Villalta, 2008) and that today it has expanded to fields such as development, personality, education and health, mainly (Becoña, 2006; Fernández-Lansac and Crespo, 2011; Gaxiola et al., 2012; Windle, 2011), among the different authors some questions have not been answered satisfactorily; special mention deserves:
1. Is resilience a process or an outcome? 2. What is meant by resilience, that is, is it an attribute of the person? 3. Does it have fully identified biological bases? 4. Is being or doing resilient built throughout the development process? 5. Or, does it lie in the relationship system, that is, as the person's interaction with objects, events or other people in physical-chemical, ecological and social environments?
For the common denominator of psychologists, resilience is conceived as an adaptive response when a person faces adverse or risky conditions (Table 2), even when it has not been specified whether it is ultimately about: a) a process or a result; b) an attribute of the person, in the sense that, inherent and inherent to their existence as a biological and social being, there is some disposition towards resilience (Gaxiola et al., 2012), which is there, latent, waiting to be activated by some internal and external force; c) if it is a concept related to reactivity, that is, how it responds to those external forces that are conceived as adverse and potentially harmful, disturbing, stress-generating …, or d) if it is a consequence of the interaction of the person with the environment in its different modalities.
When Gaxiola et al. (2011) point out that resilience is an inferred construct, one would be equivalent to saying that it is a hypothetical construct that leads to incurring a false cause or, as García-Cadena (2009) elegantly describes, a post hoc fallacy error Procter hot, which leads to a methodological error in its measurement. This has to do with the supposed existence of a particular underlying factor, resilience capacity, generally distributed in the population, in the same way, that occurs with intelligence (Ibáñez, 1992) and personality (Ribes, 1990 ) mention two conspicuous examples.
Now, accepting without granting that this underlying factor existed and that it was concluded that resilience is a concept related to the ability of people to present adaptive responses to adversity (Gaxiola, 2013; Gaxiola and Frías, 2007; Noriega, Angulo and Hernández, 2011), the concept thus defined would be part of the words or expressions that are grouped or classified as capabilities, that is, there is the certainty that something is or will be the case (Ryle, 1967): their relationship would transit the 0 (something is not or will not be the case) to 1 (something is or will be the case). An example of respect is given when a person is asked: are you capable of solving the 2 + 2? In this case, being capable implies that the person would be able to solve it by saying that 2 + 2 is equal to 4. Consequently, being capable describes the behaviour in potential (as a possibility), not in act.
Santos’ team works based on the self-knowledge of capacities and vulnerability of each person through the application of a resilience scale based on ten dimensions and concepts.
The results in each case help put in place an individualized program that focuses on the most vulnerable areas to strengthen the person. These ten pillars are:
- Introspection: ability to observe oneself, know oneself and give an honest answer about the outside world
- Essential motivation: ability to give meaning to life by creating your transcendent project.
- Emotional self-regulation: coping with stress without victimhood as part of life, weakening the stress response.
- Independence and emotional autonomy: the ability to maintain emotional and physical distance from conflicts without falling into isolation and knowing how to set limits between oneself and the environment with problems.
- Confidence in himself and his resources: adequate self-esteem, initiative and responsibility to achieve personal autonomy.
- Ability to relate: the ability to establish affective bonds with other people creating healthy relationships and balancing your own need for affection with the attitude of helping others.