This paper reviews and critiques the definitions, concepts, and theories of psychological resilience. The first section discusses how resilience is defined in psychology research, emphasizing the core concepts of adversity and positive adaptation. It highlights that resilience is required in response to various adversities and that positive adaptation must be conceptually appropriate to the adversity. The second section examines the conceptualization of resilience as either a trait or a process and explores its distinction from related terms. The third section reviews theories of resilience, critically analyzing one commonly cited theory. The authors emphasize the need for clarity in defining adversity and positive adaptation, the importance of considering sociocultural factors, and the need for future theories to account for multiple demands, meta-cognitive and emotional processes, and the distinction between resilience and coping. The paper concludes with implications for policy, practice, and research, including the importance of managing individuals' immediate environment and developing protective and promotive factors to build resilience.This paper reviews and critiques the definitions, concepts, and theories of psychological resilience. The first section discusses how resilience is defined in psychology research, emphasizing the core concepts of adversity and positive adaptation. It highlights that resilience is required in response to various adversities and that positive adaptation must be conceptually appropriate to the adversity. The second section examines the conceptualization of resilience as either a trait or a process and explores its distinction from related terms. The third section reviews theories of resilience, critically analyzing one commonly cited theory. The authors emphasize the need for clarity in defining adversity and positive adaptation, the importance of considering sociocultural factors, and the need for future theories to account for multiple demands, meta-cognitive and emotional processes, and the distinction between resilience and coping. The paper concludes with implications for policy, practice, and research, including the importance of managing individuals' immediate environment and developing protective and promotive factors to build resilience.