Resilience has become an increasingly important concept in social sciences, public policy and psychology, particularly in the context of global uncertainty, social fragmentation, economic instability and growing mental health problems. Existing literature focuses primarily on the macro level — how states, institutions or economic systems respond to crises. Resilience also exists at the micro level, influencing how individuals manage difficulties, adapt to change and maintain psychological wellbeing despite stress and disruption.
Understanding the key factors of individual resilience is therefore essential, especially in a time of pandemic threats, geopolitical conflicts, climate risks and social polarisation. Systematic and comparable measurement of resilience, however, remains a methodological challenge. This article proposes a new analytical tool, the Index of Individual Resilience (IIR), and applies it in an international comparison of the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Germany and Sweden. The aim is not only to measure resilience levels, but also to examine the social, health and institutional factors that influence it in different cultural contexts.
Methodology
The study used a quantitative, cross-sectional and comparative design. The target population comprised individuals aged 16–75. Representative samples were obtained in the Czech Republic (N = 1,235; CAWI 620, CAPI 615; data collection 23–29 May 2025 by SC&C agency) and in Slovakia, Germany and Sweden (each N = 1,000; CAWI; data collection 31 July – 20 August 2025 by Talk Online Panel agency).
The IIR was constructed as the sum of 60 questions within eight dimensions (maximum achievable score 226 points). Dimensions and weights: Values (14%), trust in institutions (7%), cohesion (6%), adaptability (18%), mental health (11%), skills (6%), material security (18%), physical activity and health (20%).
The index is balanced between objective factors (physical health, material security, practical skills, accounting for 55%) and subjective and psychosocial aspects (values, trust, cohesion, adaptability, remaining 45%).
Results
Overall resilience level
Average IIR values: CZ = 102 · SK = 97 · DE = 100 · SWE = 104. The score range of 10–197 points shows considerable individual variability. The largest differences between countries were in trust in institutions (SWE 50.7 vs. SK 37.3) and in skills/adaptability (Sweden highest). Although overall resilience scores appear relatively similar across the four countries, this similarity does not mean resilience profiles are identical — comparable IIR scores arise from different combinations of strengths and weaknesses.
Health and lifestyle
BMI results show all four countries are on average in the overweight range. Sweden (average BMI 25.9) is closest to the upper limit of the normal range, followed by the Czech Republic (26.6) and Germany (27.0), while Slovakia (27.3) shows the highest values.
Physical activity ≥3× per week: CZ 44% · SK 31% · DE 37% · SWE 46%.
Hypertension was reported by 18% of respondents in Sweden, compared to 26–27% in the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Germany. Psychological or psychiatric diagnoses requiring treatment: SK 6% · CZ 7% · SWE 12% · DE 14%.
Adaptability and skills
A marked international difference appeared in English language skills: the share reporting "good" knowledge was highest in Sweden (85%), followed by Germany (54%), while the Czech Republic (33%) and Slovakia (27%) showed significantly lower values.
Driving licence ownership ranged from 73–81% across all four countries. Cash reserves at home: SK 48% · CZ 41% · DE 24% · SWE 17%.
Cohesion and support
General trust ("most people can be trusted"): SWE 39% · DE 30% · CZ 27% · SK 14%.
Share reporting 3–5 potential helpers: CZ 38% · DE 38% · SWE 34% · SK 29%.
Slovakia appears most vulnerable — showing both the lowest interpersonal trust and the smallest social support networks. Sweden shows the highest level of generalised trust, suggesting an institutionalised rather than family-based model of social support.
Institutional trust
Highest trust across all countries was consistently given to rescue services and firefighters (8.0–8.6/10). Political institutions (governments, parliaments) received the lowest trust across all countries. Sweden achieved the highest overall institutional trust; Slovakia the lowest.
Discussion
The IIR is based on a combination of eight dimensions. The largest international differences appear in institutional trust and language/skills profiles. The Czech profile shows relatively good health and security, but lower institutional trust — supporting self-reliance but potentially weakening collective responses to crises.
Conclusion
Resilience is a multidimensional construct influenced by health, material and socio-institutional factors. Results show both international differences and large intra-population variability. These findings confirm that resilience is not merely a personal trait but is shaped by the broader socioeconomic and cultural environment.
References:
Bristow, G. and Healy, A. (2018). Innovation and Regional Economic Resilience. Annals of Regional Science, 60(2), 265–284.
Crowne, D. P., and Marlowe, D. (1960). Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale. APA PsycTests.
Fjäder, Christian. (2014). The nation-state, national security and resilience. Resilience, 2:2, 114-129.
Hjemdal, O. et al. (2015). The cross-cultural validity of the Resilience Scale for Adults. BMC Psychology, 3:18.
Friborg, O. (2005). Validation of a scale to measure resilience in adults. University of Tromsø.
The Fund for Peace. (2022). State Resilience Index Dashboard.