Resilience frameworks, measurement tools, and transmission processes in the context of man-made collective trauma: a meta-synthesis and multilevel meta-analysis

<b>Background:</b> Populations affected by war, genocide, political violence, and forced displacement endure severe psychosocial disruption. Resilience is increasingly recognized as key to recovery, yet its definitions, measurement, and mechanisms of transmission in collective trauma contexts remain inconsistently addressed.<b>Objective:</b> This review aimed to synthesize how resilience is conceptualized, measured, and transmitted in the context of collective trauma, and to quantitatively assess the association between trauma exposure and resilience.<b>Methods:</b> Following PRISMA 2020 guidelines and registered in PROSPERO (CRD420250651118), we searched seven databases (e.g. Scopus, Embase, PubMed, PsycINFO) and screened 16,447 records. Eligible studies examined both man-made collective trauma exposure and resilience as an outcome or process. After full-text review, 53 studies were included: 16 qualitative studies and 9 reviews underwent thematic synthesis and 28 were included in a three-level random-effects meta-analysis of 43 effect sizes. Moderator analyses explored demographic and conceptual influences on the association.<b>Results:</b> Three integrative models of resilience were identified: (1) intrapersonal resource models (e.g. coping, emotional regulation), (2) multisystemic and relational process models (e.g. family, community support), and (3) sociocultural continuity and identity models (e.g. collective memory, tradition). These were derived from seven definitions categories, seven domains of protective and risk factors, and five measurement categories. The meta-analysis showed a significant negative association between trauma exposure and resilience (<i>r</i> = -0.109, 95%CI [-0.163, -0.055], <i>p</i> < .0001; <i>I</i>² = 82.3%), robust after outlier adjustment (<i>r</i> = -0.121). Stronger associations were observed in predominantly male samples (<i>r</i> = -0.176) and in intrapersonal or national resilience frameworks (<i>r</i> = -0.136), compared to relational models (<i>r</i> = -0.038), and across age in a quadratic pattern (QM[2] = 11.21, <i>p</i> = .0037). Trauma type, timing, and measurement method were not significant moderators.<b>Conclusion:</b> Resilience following collective trauma is best conceptualized as a multidimensional, context-sensitive process involving psychological, social, and cultural dimensions. Findings support an integrative framework and call for culturally grounded and system-oriented interventions.