In the face of unprecedented global challenges such as the COVID-19 pandemic, understanding the intricate mechanisms of human resilience has become more critical than ever before. A pioneering study spearheaded by Joseph Anthony Pettit and colleagues at Bangor University in the United Kingdom sheds new light on the multifaceted nature of resilience. Published in the open-access journal PLOS One in February 2026, this investigation ventures beyond traditional research paradigms by developing a nuanced, dynamic model that encapsulates resilience as a process rather than a fixed trait.
Historically, resilience has been considered a broad concept linked to an individual’s ability to withstand or recover from adversity, stress, or trauma. However, prior studies often treated it as a singular dimension, lacking the granularity needed to appreciate diverse individual experiences. Pettit’s team challenges this monolithic view by introducing a comprehensive 13-item Resilience Process Scale (RPS) that delineates resilience across five critical domains: general, physical, social, cognitive, and emotional. This multifactorial approach acknowledges that resilience emerges as a synergistic interplay between various psychological and physiological capacities.
Crucially, the research articulates resilience as a four-stage model consisting of proactive and reactive components. The proactive dimensions include anticipating potential threats and preparing adequately to minimize their impact. On the reactive side, resilience involves managing the adversity during its occurrence and the subsequent mending phase, where individuals learn from the experience and engage in recovery. This dynamic framework suggests that resilience is not static but fluctuates through time and context, adapting based on evolving challenges.
The empirical foundation of this model rests on data drawn from three separate studies involving a combined total of 865 participants, primarily students and young adults. The participants’ self-reported resilience levels were rigorously analyzed, revealing compelling correlations between resilience processes and psychological outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic. Findings indicate that individuals exhibiting higher scores on both proactive and reactive resilience components consistently displayed lower anxiety and depression rates alongside more adaptive coping mechanisms.
A particularly groundbreaking aspect of the study is the identification of four distinct resilience profiles that map the spectrum of human responses to adversity. The largest group, encompassing nearly half the participants, was characterized by low overall resilience and minimal anticipation of threats. Surprisingly, this cohort reported low levels of anxiety and depression but also demonstrated the highest impulsivity and the least engagement in preventative health behaviors, such as mask-wearing. This paradox highlights the complexity of behavioral responses to crises and the nuanced role resilience plays.
Another significant group, representing 37% of participants, exhibited moderate resilience with balanced proactive and reactive capacity. However, this profile surprisingly showed elevated levels of anxiety and depression coupled with increased risk-taking behaviors. The interplay between balanced resilience components and psychological distress here suggests that moderate resilience alone may not be sufficient to buffer against all negative mental health outcomes.
Approximately 12% of individuals fell into a profile marked by low resilience overall but high anticipatory behaviors with poor mending capabilities. This subgroup experienced the most severe psychological distress, reporting the highest anxiety and depression alongside diminished well-being and coping effectiveness. This pattern suggests that anticipation without the ability to manage and recover effectively may exacerbate mental health vulnerabilities.
The smallest yet most resilient cluster, comprising only 6% of participants, reported high resilience across all measures. This group manifested the lowest levels of anxiety, depression, and impulsiveness while maintaining superior well-being, coping effectiveness, and adherence to preventative behaviors. These results underscore how an integrative and robust resilience process confers substantial psychological and behavioral advantages during periods of adversity.
Methodologically, the study’s reliance on self-reported surveys from predominantly young and student cohorts presents limitations regarding the generalizability of these findings. However, the novel conceptualization of resilience as a process spanning multiple domains invites future research to validate and extend these insights across diverse populations and in varying stressful contexts, including chronic illness, social upheaval, or environmental disasters.
Furthermore, the implications for clinical and public health interventions are profound. Recognizing the variability in resilience profiles offers a pathway to designing personalized mental health strategies that target specific resilience components. For example, individuals with strong anticipatory skills but lacking effective recovery mechanisms may benefit from therapies focused on enhancing emotional regulation and adaptive coping techniques.
From a theoretical perspective, this study advances the field’s understanding by reconciling conflicting findings in resilience research. It elucidates why some individuals with moderate resilience levels may still experience significant psychological distress and emphasizes that the pattern of resilience processes matters as much as the overall magnitude.
The authors advocate for embracing resilience as a dynamic, context-dependent construct informed by the interconnectedness of physical, cognitive, emotional, social, and general domain responses. This comprehensive view mirrors ecological models of mental health, where individual functioning is embedded within broader environmental and biological systems.
As societies worldwide continue to grapple with ongoing and emerging threats, from pandemics to climate change, enhancing resilience becomes a critical public health priority. Pettit and colleagues’ work offers a compelling blueprint for assessing and fostering resilience in a targeted, evidence-based manner. It challenges mental health professionals, policymakers, and researchers to move beyond simplistic resilience metrics and appreciate the nuanced profiles that shape human adaptation.
In sum, this landmark study reconceptualizes resilience not as a static attribute but as an evolving process marked by anticipation, mitigation, active management, and recovery. By mapping resilience profiles during adversity, it enables a deeper understanding of the psychological mechanisms underpinning adaptive and maladaptive responses. These insights pave the way for innovative approaches to bolster mental health resilience in the face of future global and personal challenges.
Subject of Research: Not applicable
Article Title: Mapping resilience: Development of the resilience process scales (RPS) and resilience profiles during adversity
News Publication Date: 11-Feb-2026
Web References: PLOS One Article DOI, KESS II, Outlook Expeditions
References: Pettit JA, Beattie S, Roberts R, Callow N (2026) Mapping resilience: Development of the resilience process scales (RPS) and resilience profiles during adversity. PLoS One 21(2): e0341581.
Image Credits: Bangor University, CC-BY 4.0
Keywords: resilience, mental health, COVID-19 pandemic, psychological adaptation, anxiety, depression, coping strategies, resilience profiles, proactive resilience, reactive resilience, resilience process scales, psychological outcomes, personalized interventions
