Although resilience is a multi-level process, research largely focuses on the individual and little is known about how resilience may distinctly present at the group level. Even less is known about subjective conceptualizations of resilience at either level. Therefore, two studies sought to better understand how individuals conceptualize resilience both as an individual and as a group. Study 1 (N = 123) experimentally manipulated whether participants reported on either individual or group-based responses to real stressors and analysed their qualitative responses. For individual responses, subjective resilience featured active coping most prominently, whereas social support was the focus for group-based responses. As these differences might be attributable to the different stressors people remembered in either condition, Study 2 (N = 171) held a hypothetical stressor (i.e., natural disaster) constant. As expected, resilience at the group level emphasized maintaining group cohesion. Surprisingly, the group condition also reported increased likelihood to engage in blame, denial, and behavioural disengagement. Contrary to expectations, participants in the individual condition reported stronger desire to seek out new groups. The combined findings are discussed within the framework of resilience and social identity and highlight the necessity of accounting for multiple levels and subjective conceptualizations of resilience.

中文翻译：

---

我们是否感到压力或只是我 - 这甚至重要吗？努力在真实和想象的压力源中解开个人和集体的复原力

尽管复原力是一个多层次的过程，但研究主要集中在个人身上，而关于复原力如何在群体层面明显呈现的信息却鲜为人知。对任一级别的复原力的主观概念化知之甚少。因此，两项研究试图更好地理解个人如何将复原力概念化为个人和群体。研究 1 ( N = 123）通过实验操纵参与者是否报告了对真实压力源的个人或团体反应，并分析了他们的定性反应。对于个人反应，主观复原力最突出的是积极应对，而社会支持是基于群体的反应的重点。由于这些差异可能归因于人们在任何一种情况下记忆的不同压力源，研究 2（N = 171）保持假设压力源（即自然灾害）不变。正如预期的那样，群体层面的复原力强调保持群体凝聚力。令人惊讶的是，群体状况还报告说，参与责备、否认和行为脱离接触的可能性增加。与预期相反，个体条件下的参与者报告了寻找新群体的更强烈的愿望。综合研究结果在复原力和社会认同的框架内进行了讨论，并强调了考虑复原力的多个层次和主观概念化的必要性。