The Issue of Protection

Protective buffers ... seem to be helpful to us [as] members
of the human race.... [They] appear to make a more profound
impact on the life course of individuals who grow up and
overcome adversity than do specific risk factors.

-- Dr. Emmy Werner, 1996

While situations which put us at risk for impaired functioning may be limitless, research has been "remarkably consistent in pointing to qualities of child and environment that are associated with competence or better psychosocial functioning during or following adverse experiences" (Masten and Coatsworth, 1998). As do many writers, Masten and Coatsworth categorize protective factors according to their occurrence in the individual, the family, or the society or culture as follows:

The Cumulative Effects of Protection

Just as multiple risks and adversities increase one’s risk, so multiple protective mechanisms improve one’s chances for a positive outcome. Radke-Yarrow and Brown (1993) found that their resilient children general enjoyed multiple supportive factors (M = 4.5, range = 0-7) which outnumbered risk factors (M = 1.1, range = 0-6). "The typical situation for the resilient child," they say, "was one in which positive factors reinforced each other, enhancing the possibilities of sustaining the child’s successful functioning. .... Support factors within and outside the child ... act synergistically to maintain adaptive functioning.... If one area were to cause difficulty, other areas are there to repair or replace" (p.588).

Masten and her colleagues (1988) stress "the importance of assessing multiple dimensions of adaptation and multiple attributes in the search for understanding resilience." She notes that the combination of higher IQ, higher SES, and better parenting quality have been found to be positively associated with competence and negatively associated with stress exposure (Masten, et al., 1988, p.759). Similarly, Garmezy reports that he and Nuechterlein (19 ) found multiple protective factors associated with competent black children: Their teachers rated them as friendly, well liked by peers, and not lethargic, tense, sullen, or restless. Their self-perceptions were founded on a sense of power, self regard, and positive assessments of their social attributes. In terms of their cognitive skills, they scored high on intelligent tests, were cautious., not impulsive, and solved problems in a reflective manner. They were active, goal-directed, eager to learn, did more than was required of them, participating in classroom discussion, preferred active educational pursuits, and aspired to high vocational goals (Garmezy, 1991).

In his study of 200 families from inner-city Minneapolis, Garmezy (1987) devoted a great deal of time "to exploring relations among a number of major environmental and individual variables, using multiple indicators of stress exposure, competence and the like, to insure the stability of our constructs" (p. 170). Among his findings were:

1. Children with greater assets (higher IQ, higher SES, and positive family attributes of stability and cohesion) appeared to be more competent and, under stress, more socially engaged with their peers and in their classroom.

2. Higher SES, IQ, and, for girls, more positive family attributes (e.g., quality of the parent-child relationship, adequacy of family communication, degree of parents’ perceptiveness about the child, and overall competence of the parent) appeared to be protective factors against disruptive-aggressive response to stress.

3. The quality of a child’s social engagement in school was related not only to IQ and SES but also to social comprehension – a factor that reflects interpersonal understanding, problem-solving ability, and humor comprehension, appreciation, and production. Social comprehension was, in turn, positively related to the engagement in school and negatively related to disruptiveness.

4. Potential family-related modifiers of competence and stress were family stability, organization, and cohesion. Children with these more advantageous family characteristics were more intelligent, more competent, and less likely to become disruptive under high levels of stress.

   (Garmezy, 1987, p. 170)

With regard to the protective factors listed above and others we will discuss, Masten and Coatsworth (1998) stress the fact that all of these characteristics are only known to correlate with resilience; they are not necessarily causes. In fact, they could just as well be consequences of success rather than causes of it. Moreover, we must remember Rutter’s advice and attempt to understand the processes by which these variables interact with each other to provide protection against risk processes. To organize the vast body of research on protective factors/mechanisms/processes, we will look first at characteristics of individuals deemed to be resilient, then we will look at the processes in families, school, and communities which appear to foster the development and maintenance of resilience.