Published in Indian Journal of Social Science and Organizational Behaviour, 2 (1), 54-58 (ISSN 2278-568X)

RESILIENCE IN SOCIALLY WITHDRAWN YOUNG ADULTS

Dr. K.R.Santhosh, Ph.D
Consultant Psychologist
Department of Psychology
The Cherpulassery Co-operative Hospital
Cherpulassery, Palakkad 679503, Kerala
Abstract: The lack of social interaction in young adults abstain them from social activities out of a
variety of causes including anxiety, social fear or a preference of loneliness. The present study is an
attempt to find out if socially withdrawn young adults differ from the socially interacting young
adults in their resilience. The sample consisted of 64 middle class young adults, from Calicut district
in the State of Kerala, India. Social withdrawal and social interaction in young adults were measured
using the Social Interaction Rating Scale (Hops et al, 1998) and Resilience was measured using BU
Resilience Scale (Annalakshmi, 2009).

Students t-test indicated that social interaction will

contribute to the resilience in young adults. On the other hand social withdrawal will take the young
adults away from resilience.
Key words: Social withdrawal, Social interaction, Young adults, Resilience.

RESILIENCE IN SOCIALLY WITHDRAWN YOUNG ADULTS

Evidently, for the past few decades, in Psychology, research focusing on factors contributing
to resilience paved way for a paradigm shift that nurtured the wellness rather than centering on the
illness and pathology. Protective factors that build resiliency have been identified and intervention
strategies to make the individuals resilient have been implemented. Considering the significance of
the concept of resilience, however, studies are yet to be done to understand it thoroughly. The
present study aims to identify if social interaction and social withdrawal in young adults has an effect
on their resilience.
In psychological perspective, resilience refers to the power of the individual to withstand risk
and their potential negative consequences (Zimmerman and Arunkumar, 1994, Annalakshmi, 2007).
Studies regarding resilience in the past three decades have unraveled two conditions contributing to
(1) Exposure to adversity, and (2) Rebounding into normality through adaptation (Luthar et al,
2000). The adversities can be defined as the challenges rose by the changes in the environment
(Santhosh, 2008). Sources of these adversities shall be familial, social, economical, and political or
any other circumstances related to ones day-to-day affairs (Schoon et al, 2004). Adversities shall
also be developed due the lack of sufficient resources within the individuals (Dumont and Provost,
1999).
Resilient individuals are said to have a marked social competence (Annalakshmi, 2007;
Adejuwon and Balogun, 2004; Benard, 1991; Oliver et al, 2006). Social competence includes
qualities such as responsiveness, especially the ability to elicit positive responses from others;
flexibility, including the ability to move between different cultures; empathy; communication skills;
and a sense of humor (Adejuwon and Balogun, 2004). In other words, it enables the individuals to
have good social interaction. Social interaction thus seems to be a protective factor that enhances
resilience in the individuals. Those who are weak in social interaction skills will show the symptoms
of social withdrawal. Therefore, social withdrawal shall be a factor that weakens social competence
and ultimately resilience.
2

Socially withdrawn individuals are those who have reduced social interaction during
activities with peer involvement even though there are a lot of opportunities (Green wood, Todd,
Walker, and Hops 1978). However, they are not those who were rejected by the peers or others in
the group. Rejected individuals are those who take high rates of initiation among the peers or the
group, but are less affiliated by peers or others in the group, probably due to the inappropriate nature
of the initiations (Green wood, Walker, and Hops, 1977).

In the case of socially withdrawn

individuals, there will be a frequent refrain from social activities in the presence of peers (Lewis,
1990).
The lack of social interaction may result from a variety of causes, including social fear and
anxiety or a preference for solitude (Lewis, 1990). From early childhood to adolescence, socially
withdrawn children are concurrently at risk for a wide range of negative adjustment outcomes,
including socio-emotional difficulties such as anxiety, low self-esteem, depressive symptoms, and
internalizing problems; peer difficulties such as rejection, victimization, poor friendship quality; and
school difficulties such as poor quality teacher-child relationships, academic difficulties, school
avoidance (Lewis, 1990).
Social withdrawal is not a clinically defined behavioral, social, or emotional disorder, but it
definitely influences the personality of the individual. In the cases of the avoidance of social
company and the isolation from social company, solitude could hardly be construed as
psychologically or socially adaptive (Lewis, 1990). It is not the Isolation, but the difficulties in the
social or emotional nature that would bring the problems here. There are researchers who believe
that social withdrawal is linked with psychological maladjustment as it represents a behavioral
expression of internalized thoughts and feelings of social anxiety or depression (Vasa & Pine, 2006).
Social withdrawal shall act as a catalyst that develops negative outcomes such as negative
self-regard, loneliness, peer rejection, victimization, anxiety, and depression (Lewis, 1990).

It

becomes a curse for those who are in the period of young adulthood. Young adulthood begins at the
age of eighteen which leads to a long period of adjustments to new patterns of life and new social
3

expectations. The young adult is expected to play new roles, such as that of spouse, parent, and
breadwinner and to develop new attitudes, interests and values in keeping with these new roles
(Hurlock, 1980). Many young adults find the early years of adulthood so difficult. Therefore, they try
to prolong their dependency, for instance, by retaining the roles of students etc.
Young adulthood is a time of value change (Hurlock, 1980). Many of the values developed
during childhood and adolescence changes as experience and social contact with people of different
ages broaden. The early part of the young adulthood is a period of transition and during the time the
individuals witness a lot of change. There will be changes in social interests, social participation,
friendships and social groupings. In other words, it is a period when they need a high energy of
social interaction. And it is the period when they need resilience. They have to maintain the
normalcy without breakdowns. Social withdrawal symptoms shall be a barrier during this period to
the demonstration of resilience.
The present study focuses on young adults as its target group. Youth, in any society, is the
energy of that society. Analyzing the History, one can see that progress of a society depends upon
secured feeling in youth; for instance, 17th century England, 19th century America, and 20th century
India have been built on the aspirations and adventures of their youth. Analyzing the protective
factors that promote resilience in young adults has a high relevance in facilitating development. The
interview accounts from the studies made by Bancroft et al (2004) on young people presented a
serious challenge to the notion of choice in relation to youth transitions. During these transitions,
especially from adolescence to young adulthood, resilience is a factor which shall not be kept in
ignorance.
Young adults who are good in social interaction will have good social competence too.
Therefore, they will be highly resilient when compared to those who are socially withdrawn.
Socially withdrawn individuals will be generally less resourceful. They will be blind to the available
resources to demonstrate resilience when a challenging situation arises. Social interaction allows the

young adults to rise according to the situation, and mobilize maximum available resources from the
surroundings, in order to face any newly emerged challenges.
The hypothesis refers to possible association of resilience with the social interaction skills in
young adults.
Hypothesis: Socially interacting young adults differ from the socially withdrawn young adults in
resilience
METHOD
Sample:
The sample for the present study consisted of 64 young adults (age group 18 to 21 years)
from different middle class families at Calicut District in the State of Kerala, India. The subjects
were unaware about the concept of resilience while they were tested for the present purpose.
Tools:
BU Resilience Scale (Annalakshmi, 2009) is used to measure resilience of the subjects. The
scale purports to measure resilience with reference to seven domains including duration for getting
back to normalcy, reaction to negative events, response to risk factors (specifically, disadvantaged
environment) in life, perception of effect of past negative events, defining problems,
hope/confidence in coping with future and openness to experience and flexibility. The scale has
adequate reliability (reliability coefficient of Spearman Brown, 0.84; Guttman, 0.84; and Cronbach
alpha, 0.86) as found on a sample of 577 post-graduate students. The scale was validated against
Friborgs Resilience Scale for Adults (r = 0.401) and Bells Adjustment Inventory (r = -0.392).
Social interaction is scored using Social Interaction Rating Scale (SIRS) (Hops et al, 1978).
The SIRS lists eight items concerning social interactions and asks the teacher to rate each item on a
seven point Likert scale using the descriptors not descriptive or true to very descriptive or true.
The SIRS is scored by adding each items circled descriptor number (Score range is 7 through 56).

A score of 28 or less significantly discriminates socially withdrawn individuals from socially

interacting individuals.
Statistical Analysis:
To test the hypothesis, Students t-test is used. The scores for the subjects in the sample on
resilience ranged from 74 to 135 and the mean and standard deviation were 103.48 and 12.18
respectively. The scores of the social interaction in the subjects ranged from 23 to 51 and the mean
and standard deviation were 40.35 and 7.36 respectively. The subjects who had their scores equal to
or lesser than 28, were grouped together to form the criterion group representing the socially
withdrawn. There were 30 subjects in the socially withdrawn Group and the 34 subjects in the
socially interacting Group.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
In order to test the hypotheses the scores of the various groups on resilience scale were
subjected to appropriate statistical analysis. Students t-test is done to find out if socially interacting
young adults differ from the socially withdrawn young adults on resilience. Table 1 specifies the
Descriptive statistics and t value of Resilience with respect to social interaction/withdrawal.
Table1: Descriptive statistics and t value of Resilience with respect to social interaction/withdrawal
Resilience

Social Interaction
Social interaction
Social Withdrawal

N
30
34

Mean
122.53
99.31

S. D
6.92
10.9

t- value
6.72**

**p < 0.01

The t value with a high level of significance (6.72, p < 0.01) indicates that socially interacting
young adults differ from the socially withdrawn young adults in resilience. Comparing the mean and
standard deviation, socially interacting young adults (M = 122.53 & SD = 6.92) indicates more
resilience than socially withdrawn young adults (M = 99.31 and SD = 10.9). Hence, the hypothesis
H1, which states that Socially interacting young adults differ from the socially withdrawn young
adults in resilience, is deemed to be accepted.
The findings are consistent with the anticipation.

As per the result indicates, the enhancement of social interaction shall enhance resilience.
The association of social interaction with resilience may be due to its relationship with social
competence. Social competence has been identified as a strong reliable factor related to resilience
(Annalakshmi, 2007; Adejuwon and Balogun, 2004; Benard, 1991; Oliver et al, 2006).
Communication skills, sense of humour and the ability to elicit positive responses from others
are some of the factors that seem to be associated with social competence and with resilience
(Santhosh, 2008). All these factors shall be speculated to be related to social interaction.
Socially withdrawn people are those who have reduced social interaction. Even though there
are a lot of opportunities, socially withdrawn people will be blind to them (Green wood, Todd,
Walker, and Hops 1978). This blindness would make them disable to see the protective factors in
the surrounding resources that enable them to be resilient. Social adversities are quite natural in the
day-to-day affairs during young adulthood (Schoon et al, 2004). Social withdrawal, as Lewis (1990),
suggests, may act as a catalyst, to make the problems worse, in such situations. The consequences
shall be the negative outcomes such as negative self-regard, loneliness, peer rejection, victimization,
anxiety, and depression (Lewis, 1990). All these are definitely a curse to the young adult, because
the individual, during the period, is expected to play new roles, such as that of spouse, parent, and
breadwinner and to develop new attitudes, interests and values in keeping with these new roles
(Hurlock, 1980).
The study had been a hairsplitting search which introduced a new protective factor, social
interaction, to the broad body of resilience literature. The findings of the study designate the
importance of the reduction of social withdrawal and the enhancement of social interaction in order
to enhance resilience in young adults. Implications contribute to the existing theory of methods of
enhancement of resilience, a factor which always help an individual to withstand risk and sustain
normality. However, more researches, with an increased sample, are needed to clarify the dynamics
of the relationship reported herein between social interaction and resilience.

REFERENCES
Adejuwon, G. A., & Balogun, S. K. (2004). Resiliency Among Inner-City Youths from Selected
Areas of Ibadan City, Nigeria: Intervening Protective Factors in Response to Risk and
Disadvantage. Journal of Social Science, 9, 3, 177-184
Annalakshmi, N. (2007). Probabilistic Orientation and Resilience. Journal of the Indian Academy of
Applied Psychology, 33, 2, 269-274.
Annalakshmi, N. (2009). Bharathiar University Resilience Scale, Research Methods in Business and
Management. Ed., Harish Purohit and Ajay Wagh. Sri Publishers, New Delhi. In Press
Benard, B. (1991). Fostering Resiliency in Kids: Protective Factors in the Family, School, and
Community. Retrieved January 01, 2007, from http://www.hopeworks.org/ formation /
documents/FosteringResiliency.pdf.
Dumont, M. & Provost, M. (1999). Resilience in Adolescents: Protective Role of Social Support,
Coping Strategies and Social Activities on Experience of Stress. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 28, 3, 343-364
Green wood, C. R., Todd, N. M., Walker, H. M. & Hops, H (1978). Social Assessment Manual for
Preschool level. Eugene, OR: Center at Oregon for Research in Behavioural Education of the
Handicapped
Green wood, C.R.; Walker, H. M. & Hops, H., (1977). Issues in Social Interaction/Withdrawal
Assessment. Exceptional Children, 43, 490-499
Hops, H; Guild, J. J.; Fleischman, D.H.; Paine, S.C.; Street, A.; Walker, H. M.; & Greenwood, C.R.
(1978). PEERS (Procedures for establishing effective relationship skills). Eugene, OR: Center at
Oregon for Research in Behavioural Education of the Handicapped
Hurlock, E. B. (1980). Developmental Psychology (4th ed). McGraw-Hill Publication.
Lewis, T.J. (1990). Social Withdrawal Assessment/Intervention Strategies: An Investigation in
Maintaining Treatment Effects, Thesis, University Microfilms International, USA
8

Luthar, S. S., Cicchetti, D., & Becker, B. (2000). The Construct of Resilience: A Critical Evaluation
and Guidelines for Future Work. Child Development, 71, 3, 543-562.
Oliver, K.G., Collin, P., Burns, J., & Nicholas, J. (2006). Building resilience in young people through
meaningful participation. Australian e-Journal for the Advancement of Mental Health, 5, 1.
etrieved December 17, 2007, from http://auseinet.flinders.edu.au/ journal/vol5iss1/oliver.pdf.
Santhosh, K.R. (2008), Demographic Factors Influencing Resilience in Young Adults of India. In
Proceedings of National Conference on Psychology in the Changing India & World Mental
Health Day Observance. 10th 11th October, Little Flower Institute of Social Sciences and
Health (LISSAH), 26th Mile, Kaithapoyil, Calicut 673023.
Schoon, I., Parsons, S., & Sacker, A. (2004). Socioeconomic Adversity, Educational Resilience, and
Subsequent Levels of Adult Adaptation. Journal of Adolescent Research, 19, 4, 383-404
Zimmerman, M. A., Arunkumar, R. (1994). Resiliency Research: Implications for Schools and
Policy. Social Policy Report: Society for Research in Child Development. 8, 4.