The following article may be helpful. I think it's generally true that coping strategies apply to everyday life, whereas resilience is more apt to apply after trauma. The article below should have a good bibliography.

An Ecological-Systemic Approach to Resilience: A View From the Trenches.

doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/trm0000074

By Berger, Rony

Traumatology, May 19 , 2016, No Pagination Specified.

This article is the edited transcript of an interview with Rony Berger by Charles Figley regarding trauma resilience. It is part of a special issue focusing on resilience and the results of a panel study. Because, as Berger has noted, resilience as a concept is a socially constructed and culturally bounded concept and saturated with political and ethical aspects, he provides examples. First, this article outlines the major components of both individual and community resilience factors, according to this author. Next, he broadens its scope with such markers as quality of life, values, and identity issues. Resilience, therefore, is not simply “bouncing back to previous level of functioning,” it is a matter of incorporating trauma into their personal and collective narratives. Based on his many humanitarian trips, he is opposed to governments abdicating their responsibilities to their citizens by neglecting to establish a trauma preparedness program before major disasters strike. The author offers the following definition of a resilient society: “The capacity of a community to deal with a major crisis by adapting and growing while minimizing casualties and preserving a fair quality of life for all its citizens and maintaining its core values and identity.” (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)

I would search for concept analyses of resilience.  That will define what it is and what it isn't.  There's one listed on research gate - full text - by Gill Windle

22.99 · Bangor University

There's another term - hardiness - that is linked to not being negatively affected by stress.  The Holmes-Rahe Stress Inventory, as I'm sure you know, gives points to events in our lives that cause stress.  Once you reach a certain level, the chances of illness are great for most people.  Individuals who score high on a hardiness index do not become ill.  I don't know if there is similar research with resilience although resilience is defined often as a synonym of hardiness.  That links a psychological trait to health.  http://www.apa.org/research/action/lemon.aspx

You also might examine the difference between a trait, a state and a learned behavior. That might help you with your coping mechanism question.

Good luck.

http://www.apa.org/research/action/lemon.aspx

Much of the research on resilience has been devoted to children. There have been efforts to examine resilience in adults in the workplace. A review of the literature on resilience training in the workplace can be found here: Robertson, I. T., Cooper, C. L., Sarkar, M., & Curran, T. (2015). Resilience training in the workplace from 2003 to 2014: A systematic review. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 88, 533-562. doi: 10.1111/joop.12120. 

 Resilience is thought to be more of a personality dimension; however, if it is trainable then it is malleable. You may want to read some of the individual studies that were reviewed in the above citation in order to get an idea regarding what constitutes resilience in the workplace. Coping, by contrast, is more situation-specific but that has not stopped researchers from looking for cross-sectional patterns of coping behaviors.

Resilience is the positive adaptation in the context of past or present diversity (Wright & Masten, 2005).  The key phrase to that definition is positive adaptation. Your question was: What is resilience, in terms of behavior?  Ones' positive behaviors directly reflect their level of resilience.  Therefore, resilience as a positive behavior can be taught, modeled, and learned at any time throughout the lifespan.  

Coping involves purposeful attempts to manage stress regardless of effectiveness (Compas, Malcarne, & Fondacaro, 1988).  "Adaptive coping refers to cognitive and behavioral efforts to manage internal and external demands that are taxing or exceeding the resources of the person" (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; as cited in Docena, 2015, p. 29).  Both resilience and adaptive coping have been studied in the context of traumatic events such as disasters.  As a result, resilience may be described as the ability to cope positively.

References

Compas, B. E., Malcarne, V. L., & Fondacaro, K. M. (1988). Coping with stressful     events in older children and young adolescents. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56(3), 405.

Docena, P. (2015). Adaptive coping, resilience, and absence of anxiety among displaced disaster survivors.  Retrieved from www.pap.org.ph/includes/view/default/uploads/pjp.../PJP1502_Final_2Docena.pdf

Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal and coping.

New York: Springer.

Wright, M.O., & Masten, A.S. (2005).  Resilience processes in development: Fostering positive adaptation in the context of adversity.  In S. Goldstein & R.B. Brooks (Eds.), Handbook of resilience in children (pp. 17-37).  New York:  Springer.

Resilience As A Dynamic Process

It is the dynamic interaction between perceived risk and a range of protective coping skills that provide an individual with the ability to adapt well in the face of adversity and thrive in everyday life (Miremadi, 2013). The interplay between perceived vulnerability and initiating the use of self protective factors arises from an individual’s view of the world and their role in it as they search for positive survival adaptations. Research suggests that one’s degree of resilience may be modifiable, and changes affect individuals on a physiological, cellular, and perhaps even genetic level (Spangler, 2012).

In particular, resilience is viewed as a two-dimensional construct, “a personality characteristic that moderates the negative effects of stress and promotes positive adaptation” (Wagnild & Young, 1993). Wagnild (2009) finds that resilient individuals may experience the same stressful experiences as non-resilient people; however, they have protective mechanisms in place to deal with these difficulties and are able to return to a state of equilibrium and balance quickly. When these protective factors are present for an individual at the time of experiencing the adverse event, they help buffer the effects of the perceived negative experience and provide a more positive outcome. Research has shown that resilience protects against, and can sometimes reverse, depressive episodes, anxiety, fear, helplessness, and similar negative emotions (Wagnild, 2009).

Others find this dynamic process as involving the interaction between both detected threat events and protective processes, internal and external to the individual, which then enable healthy adaptation to a stressful event (Rutter, 1990, Luthar, Ciccchetti, & Backer, 2000). Such research includes the exploration of a variety of both intra-personal and environmental contextual factors found to moderate the negative effects of high-risk exposure (Bernard, 1995; Masten, 1994).

An interesting and important question, it is good to see people really refining the terms they're using in this area. The literature surrounding resilience is large, messy, and includes many ongoing debates. Some believe resilience is a trait, others that it is a process influenced by malleable skills. Some believe resilience is only relevant to experiences of significant trauma, others say resilience is a typical behaviour all people do sometimes in their lives. I support the dynamic process view of resilience and go with Windle's definition: the process of effectively negotiating, adapting to, or managing significant sources of stress or trauma. My review of resilience literature has led me to believe that resilience involves protective, attenuating, and recovery factors and incorporates resources across personal, relational and environmental domains. Some of these resources are internal (such as dispositional optimism and adaptive coping behaviours) and others are external (such as useful government policies or access to a responsive and attuned social support network). So to answer your question, resilience is a process made up of many things including but not limited to adaptive coping behaviours. I hope this is helpful, happy to talk further.

Resilience has to do with the way a person generally thinks and reacts to a situation http://dana.org/Briefing_Papers/The_Neurobiology_of_Resilience/  and coping mechanisms are techniques utilized after the stressful event to deal with the situation. When an individual is resilient, they already have a way of thinking in place that naturally helps them deal with life. Good luck!

Dear all, 

Thank you for your responses. From your responses, the literature you suggested, and a search of my own, I have concluded that the measurable behaviours inherent to resilience have not been properly explored; nor has resilience itself.

I have had a go at collecting research into this and suggesting solutions in a (very not) systematic review, which I have uploaded to the unpublished section of my profile. The conclusions of this are:

"Resilience is related to 1) stressful life events, 2) coping mechanisms and 3) a positive outcome, the research has not conclusively explained how. It is possible that resilience may be a state of mind, a process, or an outcome of this relationship. Identifying which relationship is most likely correct has important repercussions for research. For example, resilience has been strongly related to health and health-related behaviours. Understanding this relationship, and how it can be encouraged through theory-led interventions could have a great impact on population health. However this report has not really got any closer to an operational definition of resilience, or the identification of manipulatable variables related to it. It seems likely that developing coping mechanisms, self-esteem, and social support would also improve resilience, but no resilience-specific intervention is required for this, as these factors are commonly addressed in interventions in general. As such it may be that resilience is not usefully different to adaptive coping mechanisms in the development of interventions."

If anyone is interested, it's available there or attached below and I am very happy to argue more on this subject.

Thanks Jennifer, that's a really useful and thought provoking summary.

Hi Jennifer,

Thank you for your hard work and for this useful summary of the literature, I am really looking forward to having a thorough read. It is true that resilience literature is disparate and there is a lack of agreement on core concepts in the area. Many researchers have highlighted the need for the different proposed resilience factors to be explored with regard to their contributions to the overall process but I am not aware of any systematic work being done in the area. I suspect this is due to the complexity and cost of the large, longutidinal studies required to address the question but I hope someone may be able to wangle the funding in the future.

For my own two cents, I think that whether or not resilience is useful for intervention design depends on where it sits in the process. I like Davydov, Stewart, Ritchie & Chaudieu’s (2010) articulation of resilience as the immune system of psychological health. A complex and dynamic system comprised of personal, relational and environmental variables which reciprocally interacts with the individual’s experiences and environment - indeed a nightmare to operationalise and therefore probably not a good fit as a direct outcome variable. But I do think there is utility in using this sort of a model as an overarching theoretical construct to help synthesise information about various domains which may increase wellbeing and are responsive to intervention (for example, community engagement projects, political lobbying, psychosocial skills building etc.) and interpret intervention outcomes. I am a clinical psychologist and while we tend to be a rather internally focused discipline, our clients exist in a context (e.g., life history, connection to community, cultural beliefs and attitudes, barriers to engagement with the health system etc.) which may impact on their ability to engage in and benefit from interventions which target internal processes. The reason some participants obtain a reasonable benefit from an intervention program where others do not may have to do with these contextual factors rather than the program itself so it’s important we remember that when interpreting our research findings. Of course good research methods would encourage us to do this anyway but a theory can be a good reminder and provide some predictive suggestion about what might be going on.

Good luck in your research, adaptive coping mechanisms are an intriguing and generative research interest and I hope your efforts are enjoyable and fruitful.

In Danish discussions on psychosocial work environment, work life balance and HR management, many have argued that we need resilent organizations based on a social capital perspective, rather than the usual focus on resilient individuals. As Cecily and other mentions, so much depend on context, and most people experience fragile periods during their work life, where succesful maintenance of work ability depend on the organizations resources more than their own.

First, let me say that it's been quite a few years since I reviewed the literature. I reply now as a full-time clinician. So please forgive the plain English reply, as compared to those from active researchers in the field. I've been a therapist for more than a third of my 40-year career.

My first PhD was earned at Cornell and a major focus was child development. I even played a small part in shaping the early years of Head Start, because Urie Bronfenbrenner was my dissertation chair. He was among the chief architects of the program, which still thrives with bipartisan support.

To me, coping skills are necessary to achieve at least minimal success in the face of all sorts of stressors. One could even include a teenager's nail-biting as a coping skill, if it helps get her through an exam without experiencing a panic attack. I view coping skills as necessary but far from sufficient to live life to one's full potential. Sadly, not everyone develops sufficient coping skills, for all sorts of reasons, and they may pay a very steep price.

Resilience is in my view something miraculous, even though almost all people demonstrate it beginning in early childhood; it's the rule, not the exception. Can one call something so common miraculous? I have always believed that the answer is yes. Whenever I hear that word, I think of a "superball." Remember those incredibly bouncy balls about the size of a billiard ball? The balls used to bounce very nearly as high as the point from where they were released. Resilience enables people to bounce back even higher than the height from which they were released. It's one of many apparent violations of entropy that can occur in closed systems. Indeed, all living creatures move from less to more complexity during their lives, but in the big picture, death comes along and reduces them to dust, eventually showing that entropy always wins out in the end.

Head Start was based, more than anything else, on the conviction of Urie and others that children raised in awful environments have the ability to truly excel if they are permitted to, and have the resources and support systems to do so. If you can't distinguish two Harvard grads, one who was born into poverty and the other given a stimulating environment since birth, then you've seen proof of the miracle of resilience. It's on display by millions of people every day. You just have to know how to look for it.

Resilience comes in two flavors. On one hand, it is the astonishing ability of people raised in disadvantaged or even abusive conditions to bounce back so as to be indistinguishable from those raised in intellectually and emotionally rich environments. In many cases they develop beyond the norm and become superstars in one form or another. Although I believe that almost every human has this attribute, I am still amazed whenever I see it.

Sadly, resilience has a flip side. Ever hear your parents shocked and puzzled to read about a horrific crime committed by someone raised in a "great" family environment? This is just one of the examples of resilience's dark side. Fall in with the wrong crowd, and really good kids can bounce ever higher into amoral and criminal conduct.

Both sides of resilience were on display in the Eddie Murphy film called Trading Places. If you want to experience the meaning of resiliency at a gut level, then watch that movie.

I've always drawn great hope from my knowledge that most humans are highly resilient. Ideas like "destiny" simply lose all meaning. Hope and optimism replace negative predictions. As a clinician, I see this nearly every day. A person's past may be a good predictor of his future, UNLESS someone intervenes; then all bets are off. The person's past becomes virtually irrelevant and his future achievements almost limitless and unpredictable.

Sorry for the non-academic reply. I was a professor for decades, but now all that knowledge enables me to empower clients beyond their expectations. I have no regrets about the career change.

I hope that was helpful, or at least thought provoking.

I look at Coping mechanisms as the umbrella concept of "coping self-efficacy" and resilience, sense of coherence and the different forms like your active and adaptive coping as means of coping.  

 This has been a very fascinating discussion! I am wondering if we are talking about  frailty's other side, whish would then lead me to  put up for discussion the physiologica/nuropsychocial domains that runs throughout the life span and are therefore related and affected /and effect social/genomic and epiginomic factors. Ie lide all things interesting in both societal and science we are dealing with a complex system. It would be interested to write as a group a review article from the various perspectives of the people who have participated in this discussion! what do you think?? thanks, chariklia

Resilience is the positive psycho-behavioral action of an individual towards obstacles or difficulties.

The resilience mechanisms are based on the will power and the courage of the individual in his self-concept and self-confidence, in self-recognition standards of themselves and in the awareness of their own individuality and identity.

i have read the discussion on researchgate as well as your uploaded material on resilience. i want to ask what is the difference between resilience and psychological resilience???

because both terms are used interchangeably...can you help me out.

Regards

Umm E Rubab Kazmi

Lecturer/Ph.D Scholar

Lahore College for Women University Lahore

Pakistan

Hi Umm E Rubab Kazmi,

In the way you are asking, I think that there is no difference. The reason I've identified it as psychological resilience is because 'resilience' is a phrase that is also used in geography and structural sciences (which impacts search results).

I hope this helps.

thank you so much Jennifer Mcgowan. Can you recommend any book or link as reference to cite this that there is no difference between the two.

Regards

I'm afraid not, I don' t think anyone has specified it.

Thanks again Jennifer Mcgowan

When you fall into the mud, you bounce back and stand on your feet again= this is resilience.

When you do not know how to save your face in your muddy cloths you come up with an explanation or behavior= coping mechanism.

Here are our papers on resilience and coping:

Hi Jennifer,

When I started studying family resilience in Brazil twenty years ago, this was the main question that my colleagues addressed me during Congresses, events and so. At that time there was pratically nothing published in portuguese (my language). My great inspirations were Sir Michael Rutter and Froma Walsh who I admire profoundlly!!! Based on their ideas and the direct contact with Froma as her PhD student, I wrote some pieces.... I think what the colleague above, Beatrice, wrote using the beatiful metaphor represents exactly what I wrote...Dynamic processes of resilience (individual, family, community, professional) and coping mechanisms are interconected concepts, but they do not have the same meaning and can´t be researched as the same construct.

Here are some ideas (not recent though...):

Hi Umm E Rubab Kazmi,

We make a difference between psychological resilience and other types of resilience, such as physical resilience, see:

https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Reviewing-the-labyrinth-of-psychological-criteria-IJntema-Burger/440b596f21165ba690f99c69b7397e4764ddb3b4

Kind regards,

Richta

It has been used in Humans since '84 thus it is ever evolving. I own an evidence based company and we have 2 research hubs. We discuss this weekly with the research team. I wrote a theory paper discussing our underpinning attached. It is being rewritten by 3 grad students, 3 Prof's and myself as we speak to our new evolved thinking. It includes more environmental components of sustaining resilience. We are discussing if resilience is a component of flourishing and how it ties all together. Jonathon R Fowles