Yunes e Szymanski (2001, pp. 24-25) explains that risk factors refer to adverse life events that enhance the chances of physical, social, and emotional issues present in one's life if those factors become a risk or not will depend on the behaviors that one has in mind. As well as the mechanisms in which those risk processes operate negatively affect the child (Cowan, Cowan e Schulz, apud Yunes e Szymanski, 2001 p.24).
Wherefore, psychological risks shift according to one's life circumstances. It will unfold in different ways depending on each person's experience; in such a way, it can become impossible to infer in a linear form what type of cause-effect refers to psychological risks. That is because risk factors can operate in different manners according to the stage of development and context one's is going thru and all experience acquired by it.
Thus, risk indicators do not always translate into risk mechanisms because risk in a given situation may be protective in another. It also follows that we cannot consider isolated events as risk factors (Yunes and Szyamanski, 2001, pp. 24-27).
Zimmerman and Arunkumar (1994 apud Hutz) consider vulnerability as an individual predisposition to developing psychological dysfunctions or adopting inappropriate responses in a given situation. A personal attribute manifests itself in a risk situation – based on a broader dimension that even involves the individual's environment.
Risk factors are situations or variables associated with a high probability that undesirable and or harmful results will occur, including behaviors that can compromise the individual's health, well-being, or social performance (Jessor et al., apud Hutz, 2002).
Bandeira et al. (apud Hutz, 2002, p.11) consider a child at risk when the development does not occur as expected for their age group and by the established cultural standards
Zimmerman and Arunkumar (apud CECCONELO and KOLLER, 2000, p.73) state that poverty is considered a type of constant threat that increases children's vulnerability as it can cause social deprivation, starvation, and educational disadvantage. In certain situations, economic misery may come with other risk factors – such as marital conflicts – consequently affecting the relationship between the couple and the child, to which Hutz et al., Nunes, Pierre and Layzer (apud HUTZ 2002, p. ) give the name of affective misery.
Vulnerability – which only operates in the presence of risk, without it has no effect – is the individual predisposition for psychopathologies or ineffective behaviors to develop in crises (cowan, cowan, and Schulz apud Yunes and Szymanski, 2001, p .29). It does not only refer to genetic predispositions – considering that compromised self-esteem, personality traits, and depressive states are commonly defined as vulnerability – since external factors – such as ineffective educational practices – can act as vulnerabilities. (Patterson and Capaldi apud Yunes and Szymanski, 2001, p.29)
For Hutz, Koller, and Bandeira (apud Yunes and Szyamanski, 2001, p.29), the concept of vulnerability defines the individual psychological susceptibilities that increase the effects of stressors and prevent the individual from responding satisfactorily to stress.
Garmezi and Master define vulnerability as an individual predisposition that enhances a stressful event. Zimmerman and Arunkumar claim that the characterization is maladaptive responses that have negative consequences for psychological development.
Variations in children's sensitivity to environmental hazards can either have genetic origins or an origin from their repertoire of experiences. Whether its consequences will be harmful to their psychological development will depend on the interrelationships between the factors already exposed above. This, somehow, partially explains the diversity of responses to psychosocial risk situations (RUTTER apud Yunes and Szymanski, 2001, p.29).
Zimmerman and Arunkumar argue that vulnerability refers to "predispositions to developing various forms of psychopathologies."
Apparent alterations in the psychological and/or physical development of an individual who underwent risky situations is the definition of vulnerability given by Rutter, which he complements by stating that these alterations are, in such a way, evident in the adaptive trajectory of this individual to the point of being able to make you prone and susceptible to symptoms and illness.
Social vulnerability and psychic vulnerability are terms originating in the field of international law and designate, in their origin, groups or individuals weakened, legally or politically, in the protection or guarantee of their citizenship rights (Alves, 1994). Subsequently, the term vulnerability became part of the health field.
Ayres et al. (apud Tedesco and Liberman, 2008) present some important components to assess conditions of greater or lesser social vulnerability of individuals: access to the media, schooling, availability of material resources, power to influence political decisions, possibility of facing cultural barriers , to be free from violent coercion or to be able to defend oneself against them.
Bellenzani and Malfitano (2006) consider the definition of psychic vulnerability relevant because of the possibility of thinking about potential factors for its development, so that,
synergistically, compose propelling conditions to suffering or psychic illness. Such factors would be related to the cultural, historical and social universe; hence the dimension of Social Vulnerability, as the unique life experiences that, combined, would be the raw material for the constitution of subjectivities (Bellenzani and Malfitano 2006, p. 122).
Especially in adolescence, because it is a stage of development in which significant physical and psychological changes occur, which Erikson (1976) calls psychosocial moratorium - fundamentally a period of experimentation with roles and the search for alternatives for the internal elaboration of the socially agreed upon. –, is a very vulnerable period of life for most individuals (Alves, 1997). The process of becoming independent from parents, associated with the tendency to value more of their peers, as well as the individual's desire to explore a variety of situations with which he does not know exactly how to deal, ends up leaving him confused and insecure about which decisions to make and which directions to take (Berger, 1972).
As stated by Pesce et al. (2004), the development and/or promotion, by individuals, of mechanisms that allow them to overcome adversities, transforming what could be an obstacle into motivation, has proved to be a fruitful strategy for the development of a healthy life mentioned elsewhere in this article. text. This ability to overcome adversity and revert obstacles in propulsion towards success is called resilience: an ability to quickly return to your usual state of health or spirit after going through illnesses, difficulties, among others. The term was imported from a concept in physics, which defines resilience as the ability of a substance to return to its original form when pressure is removed.
For Rutter, resilience is the final process of protective processes that, before eliminating the risk, drives the individual to face – effectively – the risk situation.
“Resilience refers to processes that operate in the presence of risk to produce consequences that are good or better than those obtained in the absence of risk” (Cowan, Cowan and Schulz, apud Yunes and Szyamanski, 2001)
Pereira (2001) defines resilience as a psychological process that develops throughout life from the binomial “risk mechanisms and protective factors”, which can be defined as:
1) risk mechanisms: processes in which, for example, the total number of risk factors to which the individual was exposed, the period of time, the moment of risk exposure and the context are more important than a single severe exposure ( Engle Castle and Menon, apud Pesce et AL 2004). When many risk situations occur simultaneously, they harm the development of the individual, his acquisition of skills and his performance of social roles (Sapienza and Pedromônico, 2005).
Conditions of poverty, social isolation, family breakdowns, experiencing some type of violence, experiencing illness in the individual or in the family and important losses are some examples. In short, they are individual environmental obstacles;
2) protective factors: personal or social resources that mitigate or neutralize the impact of risk.
Antoni and Koller (apud Pinheiro, 2004) identified four factors whose product provides a certain level of protection. They are: (1) feeling loved and accepted, (2) attention and guidance from caregivers, (3) quality of relationships, (4) close and meaningful social relationships.
Protection processes are essentially characterized by causing a catalytic modification of the individual's response to risk processes and have four main functions: reducing the impact of risks, reducing the negative chain reactions that follow, establishing and maintaining self-esteem and self-efficacy. , create opportunities for reversal of the effects of stress (Rutter, 1987).
Trombeta and Guzzo's (2002) statement is that the resilient individual has a balance between:
a) Stressful events: threats, dangers, suffering and adverse conditions that lead to the development of vulnerability;
b) Strengths: competences, success and the ability to react and cope.
This balance occurs through the use of forces as a way to neutralize or overcome stressful events.
The danger lies in arbitrarily defining isolated events as risk factors, giving importance to the idea of a balance between risk and protection, so that the former is moderated by the latter, providing as a result a positive attitude in the face of adversity in life (Rutter , 1987).
Pinheiro (2004, p.1) defines resilience as “the ability of human beings to recover psychologically when subjected to adversities, violence and catastrophes in life”.
Further, Tavares (2001) states that resilience should not be seen only as an individual attribute, but also as a collective one, insofar as, being present in social institutions and organizations, it can greatly contribute to the formation of a more resilient society. .
According to Yunes and Szyamanski (2001, p.24), “resilience does not mean avoiding risky experiences and presenting healthy characteristics or having good experiences”
In an exploratory study, Alvarez et al. (1998) expounded the hypothesis that resilience is the result between internal and external factors, resulting in a formation of meaning of life itself through a guiding direction of projects. They also demonstrated the importance of instituting some form of secure attachment of the individual, whether with siblings, relatives, other people or even an institution.
According to Pesce (2004), it is possible to learn ways of coping with situations of risk and vulnerability from living with people who have been successful in such situations.