154
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Resilience definitions, theory, and challenges: interdisciplinary perspectives

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          In this paper, inspired by the plenary panel at the 2013 meeting of the International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies, Dr. Steven Southwick (chair) and multidisciplinary panelists Drs. George Bonanno, Ann Masten, Catherine Panter-Brick, and Rachel Yehuda tackle some of the most pressing current questions in the field of resilience research including: (1) how do we define resilience, (2) what are the most important determinants of resilience, (3) how are new technologies informing the science of resilience, and (4) what are the most effective ways to enhance resilience? These multidisciplinary experts provide insight into these difficult questions, and although each of the panelists had a slightly different definition of resilience, most of the proposed definitions included a concept of healthy, adaptive, or integrated positive functioning over the passage of time in the aftermath of adversity. The panelists agreed that resilience is a complex construct and it may be defined differently in the context of individuals, families, organizations, societies, and cultures. With regard to the determinants of resilience, there was a consensus that the empirical study of this construct needs to be approached from a multiple level of analysis perspective that includes genetic, epigenetic, developmental, demographic, cultural, economic, and social variables. The empirical study of determinates of resilience will inform efforts made at fostering resilience, with the recognition that resilience may be enhanced on numerous levels (e.g., individual, family, community, culture).

          Related collections

          Most cited references55

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Ordinary magic. Resilience processes in development.

          The study of resilience in development has overturned many negative assumptions and deficit-focused models about children growing up under the threat of disadvantage and adversity. The most surprising conclusion emerging from studies of these children is the ordinariness of resilience. An examination of converging findings from variable-focused and person-focused investigations of these phenomena suggests that resilience is common and that it usually arises from the normative functions of human adaptational systems, with the greatest threats to human development being those that compromise these protective systems. The conclusion that resilience is made of ordinary rather than extraordinary processes offers a more positive outlook on human development and adaptation, as well as direction for policy and practice aimed at enhancing the development of children at risk for problems and psychopathology.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Cumulative risk and child development.

            Childhood multiple risk factor exposure exceeds the adverse developmental impacts of singular exposures. Multiple risk factor exposure may also explain why sociodemographic variables (e.g., poverty) can have adverse consequences. Most research on multiple risk factor exposure has relied upon cumulative risk (CR) as the measure of multiple risk. CR is constructed by dichotomizing each risk factor exposure (0 = no risk; 1 = risk) and then summing the dichotomous scores. Despite its widespread use in developmental psychology and elsewhere, CR has several shortcomings: Risk is designated arbitrarily; data on risk intensity are lost; and the index is additive, precluding the possibility of statistical interactions between risk factors. On the other hand, theoretically more compelling multiple risk metrics prove untenable because of low statistical power, extreme higher order interaction terms, low robustness, and collinearity among risk factors. CR multiple risk metrics are parsimonious, are statistically sensitive even with small samples, and make no assumptions about the relative strengths of multiple risk factors or their collinearity. CR also fits well with underlying theoretical models (e.g., Bronfenbrenner's, 1979, bioecological model; McEwen's, 1998, allostasis model of chronic stress; and Ellis, Figueredo, Brumbach, & Schlomer's, 2009, developmental evolutionary theory) concerning why multiple risk factor exposure is more harmful than singular risk exposure. We review the child CR literature, comparing CR to alternative multiple risk measurement models. We also discuss strengths and weaknesses of developmental CR research, offering analytic and theoretical suggestions to strengthen this growing area of scholarship. Finally, we highlight intervention and policy implications of CR and child development research and theory. © 2013 American Psychological Association
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Resilience across Cultures

              M. Ungar (2006)
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Eur J Psychotraumatol
                Eur J Psychotraumatol
                EJPT
                European Journal of Psychotraumatology
                Co-Action Publishing
                2000-8198
                2000-8066
                01 October 2014
                2014
                : 5
                : 10.3402/ejpt.v5.25338
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Psychiatry, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA
                [2 ]National Center for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (NCPTSD), VA Connecticut Healthcare System, West Haven, CT, USA
                [3 ]Department of Counseling and Clinical Psychology, Teachers College, Colombia University, New York, NY, USA
                [4 ]Institute of Child Development, University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, Minneapolis, MN, USA
                [5 ]Department of Anthropology & Jackson Institute, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA
                [6 ]Division of Traumatic Stress Studies, Department of Psychiatry, James J. Peters Bronx VA and Ichan School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA
                Author notes
                [* ]Correspondence to: Steven M. Southwick, National Center for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (NCPTSD), VA Connecticut Healthcare System, West Haven, CT, USA, Email: Steven.southwick@ 123456va.gov

                Responsible Editors: Ananda Amstadter, Virginia Institute for Psychiatric and Behavioral Genetics, VA, USA; Nicole Nugent, Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, RI, USA.

                Article
                25338
                10.3402/ejpt.v5.25338
                4185134
                25317257
                cc7b06f6-e177-4285-8162-a3ecb60fc05d
                © 2014 Steven M. Southwick et al.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 02 July 2014
                : 03 September 2014
                : 05 September 2014
                Categories
                Resilience and Trauma

                Clinical Psychology & Psychiatry
                resilience,stress,trauma,post-traumatic stress disorder
                Clinical Psychology & Psychiatry
                resilience, stress, trauma, post-traumatic stress disorder

                Comments

                Comment on this article