What does resilience refer to when talking about people living in extreme poverty in Central Mexico?

- 55 - Departamento de Personalidad, Evaluación y Tratamiento Psicológicos Anuario de Psicología Clínica y de la Salud Annuary of Clinical and Health Psychology Year 2012 • Volume 08 • Pages 55 to 69 Contact informaction: Joaquina Palomar-Lever Universidad Iberoamericana-Ciudad de México Prol. Paseo de la Reforma 880 Col. Lomas de Santa Fe C.P. 01219. México, D.F. Tel. (52+) (55) 59 50 40 00 Ext. 4866 Fax. (52+) (55) 59 50 42 89 [email protected] Regular Article What does resilience refer to when talking about people living in extreme poverty in Central Mexico? Joaquina Palomar Lever Graciela Lorena Matus García Amparo Victorio Estrada Universidad Iberoamericana Ciudad de México Abstract The aim of this study was to identify the factors that predict resilience in people living in extreme poverty in Mexico, analyzing a broad set of social, school, family and personal variables. A total of 913 adults were interviewed. Four regression analyses were done, one for each area and a fifth that combined all areas. The factors that predict resilience in each individual area are optimism, depression, locus of control, coping, emotional intelligence and achievement motivation. In terms of schools, a reflexive learning style is the variable that predicts resilience. For the area of family, the significant variables were authoritative parenting styles and family relations, while in the social area, the predictors were social support and social identity. In the general regression, locus of control, coping, achievement motivation and sense of humor were identified as significant predictors of the resilience. The results are discussed in terms of their implications for this segment of the population. Key Words: poverty, resilience, individual resources, social resources, family resources, school resources. Received: 17/06/2011 Accepted: 14/03/2012 Introduction Resilience is a concept that explains how people cope with violent or threatening situations during their life. It is more than just resistance and much broader than adaptability, which is just part of resilience (Manciaux, 2003). Although there is no universally accepted definition for resilience, nearly all authors describe it as a process, capacity, growth, positive approach or ability (González-Arratia, 2007). At the same time, resilience is a concept with many different nuances; some authors relate it to the concept of post-traumatic growth, associating it with the ability to walk away from an adverse experience, learn from it and improve oneself. Other authors, however, use the term in a more restricted manner, making reference to the process of confrontation that helps a person remain intact, without including his/her post-traumatic growth (Vera, Carbelo and Vecina, 2006). Bonanno (2004) emphasized the importance of differentiating between the concepts of resilience and recovery, as both represent different moments in time; recovery involves a gradual return to normal functioning, while resilience is one’s ability not only to recover but also to be strengthened by the traumatic experience. For Cyrulnik, (2002), the term refers to a process or an evolution. In other words, people themselves cannot be referred to as “resilient” but their evolution and process of organizing their own life histories can. Therefore, resilience should not be considered a static ability since it varies over time and according to circumstance. In other words, it is the result of a balance between risk factors, protective factors and a human being’s own personality. In terms of poverty, research on resilience has basically focused on three levels of protective factors: individual attributes and attitudes, the family and the community. For people living in poverty, there are detrimental conditions in the environment that could be considered a threat for the local population. However, the level of threat will depend on how vulnerable the population is, since a threat often awakens internal attributes of an individual or group to respond to the threat (Seccombe, 2002). Blaikie, Cannon, David and Wisner (1996) argued that the vulnerability of a population depends on three elements: Exposure: refers to one’s susceptibility to dangerous phenomena due to one’s proximity to the area and one’s physical vulnerability. Social vulnerability: refers to a population’s predisposition to being affected as the result of its degree of marginality or social segregation and its resulting conditions of disadvantage or relative weakness. Inadequate resilience: understood as individuals’ limitation to access and mobilize personal resources and their shortcomings in terms of absorbing the impact of the adverse situation. It thus stands to reason that the limited opportunities resulting from situations of poverty and inequality are what keeps individuals from reaching their full potential. However, several studies have shown that some people have the ability to adapt and overcome adversity, probably because, when considering the three components of vulnerability (exposure, social vulnerability and inadequate resilience), their resilience is high (Gauto, 2008). Therefore, the question of whether or not an individual is resilient when faced with a specific situation depends on the active resources she has available at a given time and place and - 56 - Anuario de Psicología Clínica y de la Salud Annuary of Clinical and Health Psychology Year 2012 Volume 8 the strategy she uses to confront and overcome the adverse circumstances. At certain times, the individual will only have certain resources available and it is likely that different strategies will be used for each specific moment and situation. For this reason, individual life situations should be understood and the active resources available must be identified. In other words, it is essential to do both a micro-analysis (of the individuals and their homes) and a macro-analysis (of their surroundings), without overlooking the connections between the two (Gauto, 2008). Poverty is understood as the lack of the fundamental abilities necessary for a decent living, i.e. when an individual cannot earn enough on her own because she lacks the abilities that the majority possess (De la Torre, 2004). Altimir (1978) defines poverty as a situational syndrome that combines infraconsumption, malnutrition, precarious living conditions, low levels of education, poor health conditions, an unstable position in the production system, attitudes of discouragement and anomie, little participation in social integration mechanisms and perhaps adherence to a particular scale of values that differ to some extent from that of the rest of society. More recently, in order to further clarify this concept of poverty, other immaterial aspects have been incorporated in the assessment such as those related to expanding and strengthening social capital and wellbeing. In its broader definition, poverty thus refers to a condition in which a person does not have sufficient income; cannot easily access free or subsidized government services or benefits (such as social security, healthcare, etc.); does not own a house or any other type of personal asset; has reached only a low level of education and had only minimal job training or none at all, and finally, does not have enough time for education, rest or recreation. All of these limitations reduce an individual’s autonomy and cause their family and social networks to be limited or non-existent (Arriagada, 2005). From this perspective, it is possible to say that the struggle to overcome poverty is an issue as relevant as ever given the progressive drop in economic growth and the high level of financial instability worldwide. Thus, the goal of this study is to identify the variables that explain the resilience of a group of people living in extreme poverty: the female beneficiaries of the human development program Oportunidades1 and their partners. 1 The program for human development opportunities (Oportunidades) is a Mexican federal initiative whose objective is to help extremely poor families get out of poverty. Its activities are designed to encourage and strengthen both the individual and collective capacities of the beneficiaries. Through income transfers and investment in health, nutrition and education, the program seeks to end the intergenerational circle of poverty in Mexico. The program benefits approximately five million households. In all cases, the women are the program recipients and they receive the economic support (with a few exceptions such as disability). For this study, personal resources were divided into four areas: individual, school, family and social. These personal resources allow the individual to relate to his surroundings, some of which are critically important during times of crisis or situations of vulnerability, since they allow the individual to behave with resilience. Method Participants This study covered 602 households that entered the program Oportunidades from 2002 to the date upon which the surveys were conducted. The sample was selected from a universe of 5,512 households. There were two inclusion criteria for the sample. First, beneficiaries had to be active in the program and second, they had to be from urban areas in the states of Guanajuato, Estado de México, Morelos, Tlaxcala, Guerrero, Michoacán, Veracruz and Puebla (all close to Mexico City). A total of 1,257 cases met the criteria. From this list of households, 700 homes were selected at random, 100 or which were backups. The surveys were conducted with 602 program recipients and 311 domestic partners. It was only possible to interview a little over half of the domestic partners given that most worked in other cities; some of the program recipients were widows, divorced or single mothers and in some cases, the domestic partners had migrated in search of better working conditions. In the study sample, 65.2% are women and 34.8% are domestic partners of the recipients. The average age is 43.71 (DE=12.58). According to their place of origin, 58.7% come from a village, 32.5% from a small town and just 3.6% from Mexico City. Those who are not from the place where they are now living have been living at their current residence for 22.02 years (DE=11.59) on avearge. At the same time, the average number of people benefiting from the Oportunidades program is 2.61 (DE=1.48) per household. Variables The dependent variable of the study is resilience, which is defined as the ability to confront, overcome and be strengthened by adverse situations. Scores higher than the average were considered high resilience. The independent variables that were considered are grouped in four areas: individual, school, family and social. The individual areas included thirteen variables: optimism, self-esteem, anxiety, depression, stress, locus of control, achievement motivation, problem solving, coping, emotional intelligence, sense of humor, religious coping and intelligence. The school area is comprised of four variables: the student-teacher relationship, teaching styles, learning styles and family involvement in school. Although the participants were adults, they were asked to respond to the questions in this section based on their own experience in school. The family area has two variables. The first - 57 - http://institucional.us.es/apcs Palomar, Matus y Victorio Regular Article What does resilience refer to when talking about people living in extreme poverty in Central Mexico? is family relations, which is understood as a family’s ability to communicate both verbally and affectionately and a family’s capacity to maintain stability and unity when facing a predicament or events that could even cause family members to fall ill (García, Landeros, Arroja and Pérez, 2007). The second is parenting styles, which refers to the different ways of bringing children up and teaching them; this includes aspects such as establishing limits and social norms (Esteve, 2005). Finally, the social area has three variables: belongingness, social support and social identity. Instruments Several instruments were used in this investigation. First, a closed questionnaire was designed to gather sociodemographic, economic and educational information from the participants. Several instruments were also used to measure individual, social and family variables as well as resilience. The instruments were tested during a pilot study among an adult population living in poverty in Mexico City and neighboring areas in order to verify the relevance of the scales. Validity analyses were done through an exploratory factor analysis and reliability analysis using Cronbach’s alpha to gauge its psychometric properties. The information on the instruments is detailed in Appendix 1; the left column shows the original scales and the right column shows the total number of items that resulted after the psychometric analyses of the pilot study data were applied to the final study. Procedure The data from this investigation are part of a broader study entitled “Identification of a Model of Resilience and its Relationship to Social Mobility among Beneficiaries of the Human Development Program Oportunidades”. The aim of this study is to explore the specific weight of variables from different spheres (individual, school, family and social) on resilience and the impact resilience has on social mobility. For this article, we opted for an explanatory study because we sought to make inferences regarding this phenomenon, particularly searching for individual, school, family and social resources linked to resilience. This is a cross-sectional study in terms of time and in terms of the setting, it is a survey-based fieldwork study with a nonexperimental design. Results Initially, descriptive statistics were analyzed and revealed that the average personal income per month is aproximatedly US$93.25 (DE=95,86), with a minimum of zero and a maximum of US$551.51 while the average family income per month was aproximatedly US$165.74 per household (DE=102.17), with a minimum of zero and a maximum of US$624.08. The average number of people living off of this family income is 4.62 personas per household (DE=1.87) with a minimum of 1 and a maximum of 13 people. In terms of how participants say they spend the money they receive from the Oportunidades program, the funds go first to food (41.1%), school expenses (28.1%) and clothing and shoes (19.4%). As for who contributes the most to the family income, most respondents indicated that it was the recipient herself (47.8%), followed by her domestic partner (39.6%) and then her children (9%). To describe the living conditions, 79.2% live in a house and 20.2% reside in a single room. The average number of rooms in the household (not counting kitchen or bathroom) is 1.79 rooms (DE=0.87), with a minimum of one and a maximum of 6 rooms, while the average number of people living in the same house is 4.8 people per household (DE=2.03), with a minimum of 1 and a maximum of 15 people, where the majority live with their domestic partner and children (68.7%). In terms of the educational level, 29.1% of those surveyed had never gone to school; 28% had been to elementary school but had not finished, and 21.6% had finished elementary school. In spite of the fact that respondents corresponded to an extremely low socioeconomic population with a very limited education, the pilot study and the psychometric analysis of the instruments showed that they did understand the questions posed on the questionnaire. It is also important to note that the survey takers often applied the scale as an interview, given that a good number of the participants did not know how to read or write. With respect to the health of the respondents, 25.5% reported that they suffer from some illness; the two most frequently mentioned were hypertension and diabetes. Additionally, 16.4% stated that one of the people living in the household suffers from a physical or mental illness. In terms of the psychological variables that were measured, the highest variables were religious coping with a mean of 3.22 (DE=0.57); internal locus of control with a mean of 3.27 (DE=0.59); social identity with an average of 3.28 (DE=0.60), and achievement motivation with a mean of 3.35 (DE=0.55). The highest resilience scales were self-confidence (M = 3.30) and family and social support (M = 3.33). The averages of all the variables included in the study are shown on Chart 1. Five multiple regression analyses were done in order to identify the research variables that best explain resilience. The independent variables that were introduced in the first four regressions correspond to the variables in each separate area (individual, school, family and social) and the fifth regression analysis included all the variables. Analyses were done - 58 - Anuario de Psicología Clínica y de la Salud Annuary of Clinical and Health Psychology Year 2012 Volume 8 Chart 1 Psychometric Information of the Pilot Study Variables (N = 913) Scales Factors Items Var α M SE VP Optimism 351.85 .739 3.12 0.02 1 Self-esteem 846.63 .830 2.09 0.02 13 Depression 20 .942 37.38 0.43 8 Anxiety 21 .956 31.60 0.43 7 Stress 43 .842 0.30 0.01 0 Locus of control Externality 4 50.29 .909 2.89 0.03 3 Internality 521.18 .853 3.27 0.02 4 Achievement motivation Skill 948.75 .936 3.35 0.02 4 Competitiveness 420.32 .880 2.63 0.03 4 Problem solving Rational 10 23.39 .875 2.94 0.02 5 Evasive-Impulsive 10 17.55 .852 2.30 0.02 6 Paralysis 76.97 .803 2.56 0.02 3 Coping Support seeking 7 19.26 .84 3.08 0.02 4 Direct 719.09 .823 2.84 0.02 4 Denial 511.62 .652 2.48 0.02 4 Emotional intelligence Personal satisfaction 19 23.4 .937 3.28 0.02 7 Impulsiveness 11 14.75 .909 2.02 0.02 5 Empathy 75.67 .872 3.13 0.02 3 Insecurity-Insensitivity 94.83 .827 2.11 0.02 8 Inability to accurately perceive reality 3 3.78 .848 1.62 0.02 3 Sense of humor Sense of humor 9 48.72 .894 2.78 0.02 4 Humor as a social resource 4 11.85 .833 2.37 0.02 2 Religious coping Religious coping 28 49.19 .970 3.22 0.02 9 Negative religious coping 4 7.48 .772 2.30 0.03 3 Intelligence (Beta III) 268 .910 68.98 0.32 1 Cognitive abilities Verbal comprehension 50 .88(r) 9.92 0.25 0 Word fluency 100 0.70(r) 17.73 0.36 0 Student-teacher relationship Satisfaction with school 8 34.46 .922 3.11 0.03 36 Advice and emotional support 7 16.68 .895 2.25 0.03 36 Poor relationship 5 12.33 .796 1.83 0.03 41 Teaching approaches Directive style 10 54.11 .928 3.06 0.03 33 Participative style 8 6.28 .915 2.89 0.03 33 Learning styles Theoretical-Pragmatic 9 51.02 .883 3.00 0.02 5 Active-Reflexive 67.81 .884 3.08 0.02 1 Family involvement in school Parent involvement 760.3 .921 2.56 0.04 32 Homework help 512.33 .918 2.08 0.04 32 Tutor 13 69.98 .964 3.01 0.04 56 Family Relations Warmth and support 6 47.67 .920 2.99 0.03 5 Conflict 7 14.57 .905 2.05 0.03 5 Violence 46.74 .863 1.72 0.03 2 - 59 - http://institucional.us.es/apcs Palomar, Matus y Victorio Regular Article What does resilience refer to when talking about people living in extreme poverty in Central Mexico? to determine the multicollinearity among the predictors and then the variables with a variance inflation favor of (FIV) ≥ 2 were excluded. The number of subjects participating in the different statistical analyses varied depending on the number of participants that entered in the corresponding regression equations. This variation is due to the fact that not all of the questions applied to all of the respondents. Scales Factors Items Var α M SE VP Parenting styles Authoritative 525.89 .881 2.74 0.03 3 Authoritarian 523.61 .800 2.59 0.03 5 Permissive 411.52 .728 1.98 0.02 3 Social support Social support 12 51.23 .948 3.15 0.02 5 Family support 6 9.03 .897 3.16 0.02 5 Support from friends 3 5.98 .714 2.80 0.02 4 Social identity 6 63.05 .901 3.28 0.02 4 Resilience Self-confidence 12 37.71 .929 3.30 0.52 12 Social competence 85.18 .898 2.96 0.66 8 Endurance 64.39 .836 3.08 0.60 6 Personal structure 53.81 .830 3.09 0.59 5 Note1 TVE = percentage of total variance explained. α = Cronbach’s alpha M = mean. SE= standard error Note 2: The belongingnesss variable was measured based on how frequently the individuals took part in groups and the academic competence variables was measured based on the academic average. Chart 2 Resilience Predictors in the Individual Area Variables BCI 95.0% Constant variable .525*** [.163, .887] Age .000 [-.002, .002] Gender .006 [-.050, .062] Per capita income -3.914E-5 [.000, .000] Negative self-esteem -.031 [-.081, .019] Optimism .084** [.028, .140] Depression -.004** [-.007, -.002] Stress -.018 [-.099, .064] CI Beta .002 [-.001, .005] Problem solving 1 (rational) .044 [-.021,.108] Problem solving 3 (paralysis) .030 [-.017, .076] Internal locus of control .301*** [.246, .356] Coping 1 (support seeking) .066* [.000, .131] Coping 2 (direct) .072* [.007, .136] Coping 3 (denial) Emotional intelligence 2 (impulsiveness) Emotional intelligence 3 (empathy) Emotional intelligence 4 (insecurity-insensitivity) Emotional intelligence 5 (Inability to accurately perceive reality) .035 .005 .024 -.060* .012 [-.013, .084] [-.041, .050] [-.023, .070] [-.115, -.006] [-.034, .058] Religious coping 1 (religious coping) .057 [.000, .115] Religious coping 2 (negative religious coping) .010 [-.026, .045] Achievement motivation 1 (skill) .118** [.051, .185] Achievement motivation 2 (competence) .060*** [.029, .091] Sense of humor 1 (sense of humor) .025 [-.023, .073] R2 adjusted .588 F30.295*** Note: N= 473 CI= Confidence Interval *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001 - 60 - Anuario de Psicología Clínica y de la Salud Annuary of Clinical and Health Psychology Year 2012 Volume 8 For the individual area, the solutions indicate that the variables introduced in the regression equation explain 58.8% of the resilience variance [R2 adjusted = 0.588, F = 30.295, p < .001]. The variables that best predict resilience are internal locus of control, skill and competence (factors within achievement motivation) optimism, support seeking and direct coping (coping factors), emotional intelligence and finally, freedom from depression symptoms. Due to excluded values, 473 participants entered into the regression equation. Chart 2 shows the regression coefficients and the confidence intervals for all the variables in the individual area. For the area of school, the solution indicates that the variables entered in the regression equation explain 42.7% of the resilience variance [R2 adjusted = 0.427, F = 26.164, p < .001]. The variable that best predicts resilience is reflexive learning style. Due to excluded values, 372 participants entered into the regression equation. Chart 3 shows the regression coefficients and the confidence intervals for all the variables in the school area. For the area of family, the solution indicates that the variables entered in the regression equation explain 9.40% of the resilience variance [R2 adjusted = 0.094, F = 12.007, p < .001]. The variables that best predicts resilience are warmth and support (family relations factor) and authoritarian and authoritative parenting styles. Due to excluded values, 742 participants entered into the regression equation.. Chart 4 shows the regression coefficients and the confidence intervals for all the variables in the family area. For the social area, the solution indicates that the variables entered in the regression equation explain 24.2% of the resilience variance [R2 adjusted = 0.242, F = 29.648, p < .001]. The variables that best predicts resilience are social support, family support, support from friends, social identity, age and gender. Due to excluded values, 720 participants entered into the regression equation. Chart 5 shows the regression coefficients and the confidence intervals for all the variables in the social area. Chart 3 Resilience Predictors in the School Area Variables BCI 95.0% Constant variable 1.367*** [.987, 1.748] Age .002 [-.002, .005] Gender .031 [-.040, .103] Per capita income -3.914E-5 [.000, .000] Cognitive abilities Academic competence .000 .001 [-.005, .004] [-.003, .004] Student-teacher relationship 1(satisfaction with school) .049 [-.015, .113] Student-teacher relationship 2 (advice and emotional support) -.023 [-.071, .025] Student-teacher relationship 3 (Poor relationship with teachers) -.041 [-.090, .008] Teaching approaches 1 (directive style) .073 [-.001, .148] Leaning Styles 2 (reflexive) .430*** [.365, .495] Family-school involvement 1 (parent involvement in school) .046 [.002, .090] R2 adjusted .427 F26.164*** Note: N= 372 CI= Confidence Interval *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001 Chart 4 Resilience Predictors in the Family Area Variables BCI 95.0% Constant variable 2.418*** [2.206, 2.630] Age -.002 [-.005, .000] Gender .033 [-.033, .099] Per capita income 4.108E-5 [.000, .000] Family relations 1 (warmth and support) .129*** [.074, .185] Parenting styles 1 (authoritative) .057* [.006, .108] Parenting styles 2 (authoritarian) .079** [.033, .125] Parenting styles 3 (permissive) .015 [-.031, .060] R2 adjusted .094 F12.007*** Note: N= 742 CI= Confidence Interval *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001 - 61 - http://institucional.us.es/apcs Palomar, Matus y Victorio Regular Article What does resilience refer to when talking about people living in extreme poverty in Central Mexico? Finally, for the general model, the solution indicates that the variables entered in the regression equation explain 55.9% of the resilience variance [R2 adjusted = 0.559, F = 11.816, p < .001]. The variables that best predicts resilience are internal locus of control, achievement motivation (skill and competence), sense of humor as a social resource and direct coping. Due to excluded values, 266 participants entered into the regression equation. Chart 6 shows the regression coefficients and the confidence intervals for all the variables in the general model. Discussion Although the main feature of the sample is living in poverty, this study creates a clear view of the precarious living conditions of the participants. This precariousness is owed to their extremely low incomes, which they must use for food, education, health and housing. It is important to note that a family of four to five members survives on approximately US$166. It is thus not surprising that participants have little or no education and that the jobs they can access are generally underpaid. It is also easy to understand the vicious circle of poverty in which people drop out of school because their economic needs take priority over their studies; this in turn limits their job opportunities and reproduces poverty. The values obtained for each scale correspond to the sum of the answers of all the items that comprise each of the factor and divided among the number of items of the scale. Thus the answer range will always go from one to four regardless of the number of items that comprise the factor. The averages obtained on the scales of religious coping, internal locus of control, achievement motivation, personal satisfaction and social identity are all higher than 3.2, while the factors of the resilience variable with averages higher than 3.3 are family and social support and self-confidence. Bearing these results in mind, the high averages of religious coping, social identity and family support come as no surprise since Mexican people have strong family bonds, are highly religious and proud of their traditions (Morandé, 1984; 1991). According to the first regression model, which was done with variables from the individual sphere, the resilience of the participants tends to be explained by high scores in internal locus of control, direct coping and coping through support seeking, achievement motivation (skill and competence) and optimism. It is also explained by low scores in depression and on the insecurity-insensitivity scale, which corresponds to the emotional intelligence variable. Therefore, believing that the consequences of one’s behavior are one’s own responsibility and goal setting (with the underlying behaviors of tenacity and work this implies) are two fundamental conditions for resilience. In relation to the area of school, the variable that best predicts the resilience of the participants is the reflexive learning style since this allows the student to get involved with her own teaching-learning process, an involvement that proves effective in achieving educational goals. In the sphere of family, resilience can be explained by high scores in warmth and support (family relations) and by authoritative and authoritarian styles. This finding concurs with a study by Domenech, Donovick and Crowley (2009), who showed that an authoritative parenting style was positively associated with a child’s cognitive and social funtioning, high academic achievement, adequate self-esteem and social competence. According to these authors, an authoritarian parenting style helps establish limits and norms within both family and society through regular follow-up by the parents. It was also observed that the variable of warmth and support in family relations enter into the regression model. This occurs because the family is our social institution par excellence, that vital space where feelings, emotions and atChart 5 Resilience Predictors in the Social Area Variables BCI 95.0% Constant variable 1.730*** [1.490, 1.970] Age -.003** [-.006, -.001] Gender .070* [.007, .133] Per capita income Belongingnesss 2.118E-5 .001 [ .000, .000] [-.001, .002] Support 1(social support) .197*** [.129, .265] Support 2 (family support) .135*** [.066, .204] Support 3 (support from friends) .064* [.012, .116] Social identity .080** [.027, .134] R2 adjusted .242 F29.648*** Note: N= 720 CI= Confidence Interval *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001 - 62 - Anuario de Psicología Clínica y de la Salud Annuary of Clinical and Health Psychology Year 2012 Volume 8 titudes are shared with others Family is one of society’s resources; it is a privileged sphere for adopting values, a space for personal protection, profound communication and the opening scene to other contexts of socialization and education (Rojas, 2002). Therefore, the family system is tasked with developing biological, economic, educational and social functions (Ortiz, Padilla and Padilla, 2005), because it provides children with the psychosocial space they need to acquire, experience and test the distinctive elements of culture and the social norms that allow them to integrate into society. In the social sphere, resilience is linked to social and family support, support from friends and to one’s social identity. According to Sluzki (2000), social support allows individuals to develop stable relations with family members, friends and coworkers. These relationships have an impact on one’s quality of life, since they help cushion against the stress of everyday life, favoring adaptive responses among the subjects. Finally, the general model that was obtained in the analysis revealed that the variables that best predict resilience are internal locus of control, direct coping, achievement motivation (skill and competence) and sense of humor as a social resource. The predictive variables in the individual areas and in the general model are internal locus of control, direct coping, and competence and skill (as part of achievement motivation). This occurs because individuals with an internal locus of control pay attention to anything that can provide them with information for their behavior in the future. They are people who work to improve the conditions of their environment; they pay more attention to their abilities, skills and achievement reinforcement; they are concerned about their failures or mistakes; they are more resistant to external manipulations, and they have greater cognitive processing, more intentional learning, higher levels of functioning and more positive achievement activities. Thus, the internal locus of control is a component which has tangible similarities to resilience (Godoy-Izquierdo and Godoy, 2002). With respect to achievement motivation, some people find novel and creative solutions to problems instead of repeating conventional solutions (Sagie, 1994). They are willing to take personal responsibilities for the consequences of their actions. Individuals with high achievement motivation seek out tasks that are challenging; they always compete to do things better than others and they reap satisfaction from exhibiting personal skill (Maehr, 1978). Another author, Anzola (2003), reports that the feeling of success, the confidence to start new projects and achievement motivation all reveal aspects of resilience. In addition, direct coping is determined by the creative strategies used by subjects to overcome, reduce or tolerate the internal and external demands caused by the relationship between stress and the environment (González and Landero, 2006). Holahan and Moos (1990) found that when resilient people come up against difficulties or problematic situations, they resort to adaptive self-regulatory strategies, which are referred to as coping. Suffice to say that direct coping is closely linked to resilience, as revealed by Becoña (2006), who showed that resilience is successful coping with traumatic experience. One variable that was predictive of resilience but only in the general model was sense of humor as a social resource. This is because the sense of humor has a coping function and, at the same time, it contributes to an increase in both physical and psychological wellbeing (Kuipier, Grimshaw, Leite and Kirsch, 2004). It is also a tool for self-protection and adaptation. In terms of stress control, the benefits of a sense of humor are owed to the cognitive assessment of a sense of humor as a life perspective or vision (Kuiper, Martin, Olinger and Dance, 1993) and the way in which laughter reduces stress (Yovetich, Dale and Hudak, 1990). A good sense of humor helps people confront problems and upsetting situations because it puts one’s whole life into perspective. For this reason, Cohen (2009) confirms that a sense of humor is one of the variables that has been most associated with resilience. When exploring variables in both individual areas and in the general model, some variables remain while others were discarded. This is because variables with multicollinearity were eliminated when the statistical analyses were done. It should be noted, then, that none of the predictors included in the analysis has an variance inflation factor of two or higher. The variables that predicted resilience in the sample with people who are economically vulnerable allowed us to reflect on their living conditions. Although there are numerous definitions of poverty in both the field of economy and in the field of psychology, Madariaga and Sierra (2000) propose understanding poverty as a situational syndrome characterized by under-consumption, malnutrition, precarious living conditions, low levels of education, poor sanitary conditions, job instability, a manifestation of discouragement with limited participation in the mechanisms for social integration and perhaps by an adherence to a particular scale of values that is somewhat different from that of the rest of society. From this perspective, the findings of the investigation are interesting, given that although poverty is a situation of vulnerability, the people who display an internal locus of control, achievement motivation and direct coping as their main strengths are able to better cope with adverse living conditions. - 63 - http://institucional.us.es/apcs Palomar, Matus y Victorio Regular Article What does resilience refer to when talking about people living in extreme poverty in Central Mexico? On a final note, it is important to mention certain limitations to this study. The first is that the survey was long, which made it tiring for participants and influenced their responses. In addition, although the instruments were tested and adapted for this type of population, there is a chance that not all of the questions were understood entirely due to the low level of education of those responding to the survey. It is important to continue researching resilience. As a society and as individuals, we face more complex challenges each day, challenges that require more committed, integral solutions. It is necessary for human beings to learn to exercise their internal resources—and encourage others to use their own resources—to help them adapt to circumstances and take advantage of the opportunities that hard times provide. Thus, a fuller understanding of the factors that facilitate this task can be highly useful. References Aldwin, C. and Revenson, T. (1987). Does coping help? A reexamination of the relation between coping and mental health. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 237-348. Altimir, O. (1978). La dimensión de la pobreza en América Latina. Naciones Unidas-CEPAL. Anzola, M. (2003). La resiliencia como factor de protección. Educere. La Revista Venezolana de Educación, 22, 190200. Arriagada, I. (2005). Dimensiones de la pobreza y políticas desde una perspectiva de género. Revista de la CEPAL, 85, 101-113. Becoña, E. (2006). Resiliencia: definición, características y utilidad del concepto. Revista de Psicopatología y Psicología Clínica, 11, 125-146. Blaikie, P., Cannon, T., David, I. and Wisner, B. (1996). Vulnerabilidad: El entorno social, político y económico de los desastres. Red de Estudios Sociales en Prevención de Desastres en América Latina. IT. Perú. Bonanno, G. (2004). Loss, Trauma and Human Resilience. Have we underestimated the human capacity to thrive after extremely aversive events? American Psychologist, 59, 20-28. Cohen, M. (2009). Efecto del Humor como factor de resiliencia en la calidad de vida de familias con un miembro con discapacidad intelectual: sus implicaciones educativas en el marco de la educación informal. LiberAddictus, 105, 1-8. Cyrulnik, B. (2002). Los patitos feos. La resiliencia: una infancia infeliz no determina la vida. Barcelona: Gedisa. De la Torre, R. (2004). Evaluación externa del impacto del Programa Oportunidades 2004. México: Instituto Nacional de Seguridad Pública. Domenech, M., Donovick, M. and Crowley, S. (2009). Parenting Styles in a cultural context: observations of “protective parenting” in first-generation latinos. Family Process, 48, 195-210. Esteve, J. (2005). Estilos parentales, clima familiar y autoestima física en adolescentes. Universidad de Valencia. Universidad de Valencia. García, G., Landeros, E., Arroja, G. and Pérez, A. (2007). Funcionalidad familiar y capacidad física de los adultos mayores en una comunidad rural. Revista de Enfermería del Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social, 15, 21-26. Gauto, G. (2008). Resiliencia para enfrentar los contextos de desigualdad y pobreza vinculados a los procesos saludenfermedad y hábitat desde la mirada de los derechos humanos de tercera generación y la vulnerabilidad social. III Congreso de la Asociación Latinoamericana de la Población, (págs. 1-15). Córdoba, Argentina. Godoy Izquierdo, D. and Godoy, J. (2002). La personalidad resistente: una revisión de la conceptualización e investigación sobre la dureza. Clínica y Salud, 13, 135162. González-Arratia, N. (2007). Factores determinantes de la resiliencia en niños de la ciudad de Toluca. Unpublished doctoral thesis. Universidad Iberoamericana. México. González, M. and Landero, R. (2006). Síntomas psicosomáticos y teoría transaccional del stress. Anxiety y Stress, 12, 45-61. Holahan, C. and Moos, R. (1990). Life stressors, resistance factors and improved psychological functioning: an extension of the stress resistance paradigm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 909-917. Honey, P. and Mumford, A. (1986). The learning styles questionnaire. Berkshire: Peter Honey. Kuipier, N., Grimshaw, M., Leite, C. and Kirsch, G. (2004). Specific components of sense of humor and psychological wellbeing. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 17, 1-2.