Capella Family Dimension of Trauma Resilience and Post Traumatic Growth Discussion

Family Resilience in the Midst of Trauma

Creating meaning out of loss requires an understanding of the profundity of the loss and the willingness to work with families and communities to embrace factors of the loss while emerging in strength through them. Constructivist approaches to intervention and human service support that focus on narrative and solution-oriented support are beneficial. In addition, the movement to understand mindfulness in social practices and to integrate its concepts to create community support is necessary as well.

Walsh (2016) recommends a vast array of supports, including spiritual and relational, personal resources and strengths, and collaboration among systems to help individuals and families thrive beyond the loss. Through narrative celebrations, cultural traditions, and community building, families can support and sustain memories and honor those lost in traumatic circumstances.

In this discussion.

Explain the concept of family resilience in the midst of trauma.

Identify an appropriate theory that can be used to support recommendations for intervention.

Child Development, January/February 2014, Volume 85, Number 1, Pages 6–20
Global Perspectives on Resilience in Children and Youth
Ann S. Masten
University of Minnesota
Global concerns about the consequences of disasters, political violence, disease, malnutrition, maltreatment,
and other threats to human development and well-being have sparked a surge of international interest in
resilience science. This article highlights progress and issues in research that aims to understand variations in
human adaptation to adverse experiences. Two key questions are considered: Why is a new wave of global
research on resilience important for developmental science? and Why is developmental science important for
global resilience? The conclusion calls for developmental scientists to engage in international efforts to promote resilience.
The development of children around the world is
threatened by disasters, political violence, pandemics, and other adversities that can have life-altering
consequences for individuals, families, and the
future of all societies. The beginning of the 21st century was punctuated by a terrifying sequence of
events affecting large numbers of victims across the
world. These include 9/11 and subsequent terror
attacks, Hurricanes Katrina and Sandy, the 2004
tsunami in the Indian Ocean triggered by one of
the largest earthquakes in human history, the BP
Oil Spill in the Gulf of Mexico, the 2008 earthquake
in China, HIN1 flu, and the triple disaster of 2011
in Japan of earthquake, tsunami, and meltdown of
the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant.
Reports from the United Nations (UN) indicate that
tens of millions of children each year are exposed
to disasters and conflicts, and many are displaced
as a result (UNHCR, 2010; UNICEF, 2011, 2012).
Millions more suffer abuse or neglect from caregivers (Cicchetti, 2013b) and sex trafficking or other
forms of exploitation (Hartjen & Priyadarsini, 2012).
These well-publicized adversities have raised
global concerns about dangers posed to children as
well as the future of societies, while also highlighting a lack of preparedness to handle such calamities. These concerns have spurred renewed
attention to resilience across many fields of research
as governments and international agencies search
for evidence and guidance on what helps to
mitigate risk and promote resistance or recovery in
This article is based on the Presidential Address at the biennial
meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, in
Seattle, April 19, 2013.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to
Ann S. Masten, Institute of Child Development, University of
Minnesota, 51 East River Road, Minneapolis, MN 55455. Electronic mail may be sent to amasten@umn.edu.
the face of these threats to human life. Developmental science is well positioned to contribute to
and benefit from a more integrated and global science of resilience.
In this article, I invite the reader to consider two
related questions: Why is a new wave of global
research on resilience important for developmental
science? and Why is developmental science important for global resilience? A brief history of resilience research in child development is highlighted
first, including major accomplishments and critiques. Subsequently, I describe the maturation of
developmental resilience science, progress toward a
global knowledge base on resilience in children and
youth, and enduring controversies. The conclusion
offers some preliminary answers to the two questions, describes signs of globalization in the Society
for Research in Child Development (SRCD), and
issues a call to action for developmental scientists.
Conceptual Origins
Resilience can be broadly defined as the capacity of
a dynamic system to adapt successfully to disturbances that threaten system function, viability, or
development. The concept can be applied to systems of many kinds at many interacting levels, both
living and nonliving, such as a microorganism, a
child, a family, a security system, an economy, a
forest, or the global climate. Interest in resilience as
a concept and observable phenomenon emerged
around the same time but independently in the
© 2013 The Author
Child Development © 2013 Society for Research in Child Development, Inc.
All rights reserved. 0009-3920/2014/8501-0002
DOI: 10.1111/cdev.12205
Global Perspectives on Resilience
fields of ecology (e.g., Holling, 1973) and psychology (e.g., Garmezy, 1971; Murphy & Moriarty,
1976). Both areas of science, as well as many others,
were influenced by general systems theory (von
Bertalanffy, 1968).
The word itself has roots in the Latin verb, resilire
(to rebound). The concept has been adopted by many
fields concerned with how well complex systems
anticipate, adapt, recover, and learn in the context of
major threats, surprises, and disasters(e.g., Gunderson, Allen, & Holling, 2010; Hollnagel, Woods, &
Leveson, 2006; Zolli & Healy, 2012). Social scientists
intrigued with understanding how some people
escape the harmful effects of severe adversity, cope
well, bounce back, or even thrive, eventually settled
on this word to label the focus of their research.
Resilience research in developmental science has
deep roots in research and theory in child development, clinical sciences, and the study of individual
differences (Luthar, 2006; Masten, 2013). The history
of research on resilience is closely tied to the history
of developmental psychopathology (see Cicchetti,
2013a; Masten, 2013) and the relational developmental systems theory that infuses this integrative
approach to understanding variations in human
adaptation over the life course (Lerner et al., 2012;
Overton, 2013; Sameroff, 2000).
The Emergence of Resilience Research in
Child Development
World War II (WWII) set the stage for the emergence of resilience science, bringing worldwide
attention to the plight of children affected by the
devastation (Werner, 2000). Many children died
and millions more survived in perilous condition:
orphaned, injured, sick, traumatized, and starving.
Huge numbers of children were evacuated or displaced. Shortly after the war ended, the United
Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund
(UNICEF) was founded to address this global emergency (Diers, 2013), and “CARE” was organized in
the United States to send aid to Europe (initially
the Cooperative for American Remittances to Europe; later the Cooperative for Assistance and Relief
Everywhere), sending millions of CARE packages
to Europe, often addressed simply, “For a hungry
person in Europe” (Werner, 2000).
Clinicians from different disciplines were called
on to help with children psychologically affected by
the war, including Anna Freud, who founded the
Hampstead War Nurseries in England for children
in need of care. Freud and Burlingham (1943) pub-
7
lished a volume on their observations, War and Children, where they noted that children rarely showed
“traumatic shock” when a parent was present and
also that caregivers’ reactions were important for
children’s reactions. A few systematic studies were
done of children during WWII, but research was
limited by scarce resources and the exigencies of
war itself (Garmezy, 1983).
A rather different legacy of WWII was its effects
on the lives of individuals who would become pioneers in resilience science. For example, Norman
Garmezy (1985; Garmezy & Rutter, 1983) was a
young American soldier who served in the infantry
in Europe, observing the Battle of the Bulge firsthand. Emmy Werner (Werner & Smith, 1982) survived the devastation of Europe as a young girl,
directly experiencing the support of international
relief efforts. Michael Rutter (1979, 1987) was one of
the British children evacuated to safety in the
United States during the war. These three would
play leading roles in the rise of resilience science.
As research on mental health expanded after
WWII, investigators identified risk factors associated with elevated probabilities for various disorders and problems. In childhood, maltreatment,
violence, and traumatic life events were often studied by risk researchers because they were common
and consistently associated with high risk for psychopathology. Research on high-risk children soon
revealed wide variation in outcomes and inspired
research on children who were doing well despite
adversity or risk (Cicchetti, 2013a; Evans, Li, &
Whipple, 2013; Masten, 2013).
Disasters also played a key role in early research
on risk and resilience (Masten & Narayan, 2012). One
occurred in Buffalo Creek, West Virginia, in 1972,
when a coal slurry impoundment dam gave way,
flooding and destroying the community below and
killing 125. Ensuing litigation yielded extensive longitudinal data on effects of this disaster on children
and adults (e.g., Gleser, Green, & Winget, 1981;
Korol, Kramer, Grace, & Green, 2002). Despite concerns about potential bias in data obtained for lawsuits, numerous findings were replicated in
subsequent research on mass-trauma events (Masten
& Narayan, 2012). Children and adults showed
dose-response gradients, for example, with more
symptoms among individuals exposed to greater
destruction, injury, and loss. Seventeen years later,
dose effects were largely gone, although some trauma
symptoms lingered; recovery and resilience appeared
to be the norm (Green et al., 1994; Korol et al., 2002).
A disaster on the other side of the world, the
Australian Bushfire of 1983, also provided remark-
8
Masten
able documentation of short- and long-term effects
of disaster on children. McFarlane (1987; McFarlane
& Van Hooff, 2009) compared symptoms among a
large cohort of fire-exposed school children with
students from schools outside the directly exposed
region, both shortly after the fire and 20 years later.
Again, dose mattered and early effects largely dissipated over the long term. This classic study also
found that separation of children from caregivers
was a critical predictor of how fire-exposed children
fared, and proximity of attachment figures during
life-threatening adversities had protective effects, as
observed during WWII.
In 1987, Michael Rutter published a landmark
paper, still the most cited journal article on psychosocial resilience in the literature, that summed up
much of the first-generation research, delineated
key issues, and set the stage for ensuing waves
of resilience science (Masten, 2012; Rutter, 1987).
Rutter described resilience in terms of processes and
turning points, provided many examples of interaction effects, and noted evidence of “steeling effects,”
where engagement with stress served to prepare the
individual for better subsequent adaptation.
Accomplishments and Critiques of Early
Resilience Science
Rutter’s classic article and other early reviews documented the accomplishments of the first wave of
resilience science, including models, methods, and a
body of findings (e.g., Garmezy, 1985; Masten, Best,
& Garmezy, 1990). Despite notable consistencies in
the findings, shortcomings in the evidence base
became evident and controversies began emerging.
Models and Methods
Early investigators established models and methods for research on resilience that continue to be
useful, although refinements inevitably were
needed, particularly with respect to cultural and
contextual issues. Resilience research requires strategies for assessing risk or adversity, adaptation, and
other influences that might explain variations in
adaptation among children at risk, and statistical
methods for testing models or hypotheses about the
interplay among these possible contributors to resilience. Investigators soon recognized that single risk
indicators did not reflect the reality of adversity
exposure in children, who were often exposed to
multiple risk factors or adversities. Various measures were designed to index cumulative risk or
adversity exposure (see Evans et al., 2013; Obradovic, Shaffer, & Masten, 2012). In disaster studies,
for example, exposure to death and destruction
might be indexed by proximity to the epicenter of
devastation or by counts of traumatic experiences.
Various approaches were taken to defining adaptation as well. In some studies, adjustment was
defined by the absence of psychopathology or other
expected negative outcomes that defined the risk
group of interest. In other cases, adaptation was
evaluated on the basis of positive achievements in
age-salient developmental tasks, the psychosocial or
physical milestones and accomplishments expected
for individuals in a given period of development in
a given sociocultural context (McCormick, Kuo, &
Masten, 2011). Some of these tasks were viewed as
universal, such as learning to walk or talk; others
were common across developed nations, such as
learning to read; still others were more specific to a
culture or context, such as learning to weave textiles, fish, or master sacred texts.
Early models included linear and nonlinear
effects linking adversity to adaptation (e.g., Masten
et al., 1988). Nonlinear effects included exponential
increases in problematic outcomes as risk or adversity levels increased or curvilinear effects where
adaptation improved at lower levels of challenge
and then fell at higher levels (“the challenge
model”), analogous to the Yerkes-Dodson invertedU relation of performance to arousal. Additional
positive explanatory factors or influences were
added to these models to explain positive
outcomes. When they had the same effects across
levels of risk (a main effect in statistical models),
they were conceptualized as assets, resources, or
compensatory factors (later termed “promotive factors” by Sameroff, 2000). When there was an added
or special effect when risk or adversity was high,
they were described as “protective factors” that
moderated risk effects (interaction effects).
Investigators developed two basic approaches to
identifying and testing the resources and protective
factors associated with resilience: person focused
and variable focused (Masten, 2001). The former
included case studies and research on groups of
individuals who met specified criteria for both risk
and good adaptation, typically to compare them
with other groups of people who shared the same
level of risk but were maladaptive, and sometimes
also to others who shared the same positive outcomes but had lower risk. Variable-focused
approaches typically used multivariate statistics,
such as hierarchical regressions, to test main effects
and moderators.
Global Perspectives on Resilience
Early Findings and Critiques
Early findings indicated key differences associated with good adaptation compared to maladaptation among high-risk groups of children. There was
enough consistency that early reviewers (e.g., Garmezy, 1985) could summarize them in terms of
child attributes (individual differences), family attributes (e.g., socioeconomic variation, parenting), and
extrafamilial differences (e.g., neighborhood, school,
mentors outside the family). Complexities emerged
as well, including data congruent with Rutter’s
(1987) admonition that protective effects had to be
considered in terms of function and context, and
not as inherent to the “protective factor” itself. One
example heralding the importance of context was a
study of temperament by deVries (1984) that Rutter
(1989) used to illustrate this issue. At that time,
developmental scientists tended to assume (as
implied by the labels) that “easy” babies who had
more mellow temperaments were more adaptive
than “difficult” or “fussy” babies viewed as more
challenging and demanding. In the deVries study,
temperament was measured in Masai infants using
a measure originally developed for North American
children. After a severe drought, the investigator
found, to his surprise, that difficult infants survived
the harsh conditions better than easy babies. Masai
culture may have played a part in these results,
with multiple family members in caregiver roles,
feeding offered on demand, and a high value on
assertiveness.
Some reviewers emphasized that context was
important (e.g., Masten et al., 1990; Rutter, 1990),
yet on the whole the early resilience literature did
not address context well nor consider important
cultural variations in the meaning and measurement of resilience and culturally based protective
influences. Criteria for judging good adaptation or
success in developmental tasks were clearly culturally based, yet rarely examined in this light, even
though scholars called for a more sociocultural
approach (e.g., Oerter, 1986; Ogbu, 1981). Resilience
studies were criticized for neglecting context in
models and methods, and especially for the lack of
research on culturally based protective factors (e.g.,
Luthar, Cicchetti, & Becker, 2000; Masten, 1999).
The Maturing of Resilience Science
In the quarter-century that followed the first wave
of science and attendant reviews, human resilience
science expanded and matured, becoming more
9
global and multidisciplinary in scope. Advances in
the measurement of genes and biological processes
gave a boost to research on the neurobiology of
resilience. Models, methods, and findings became
more dynamic and more nuanced. Processes involving multiple levels of analysis took center stage.
And finally, as international and multicultural
research gained traction, global perspectives on
resilience emerged and stimulated refinement of
methods and theory. Key changes are highlighted
here.
Complex Adaptive Systems
Over the decades since the science on resilience
in children began, the conceptualization of the construct grew more dynamic (Masten, 2013; Schoon,
2012), reflecting a broader systems transformation
in developmental science (e.g., Lerner et al., 2012;
Zelazo, 2013). This relational developmental systems framework (Overton, 2013) integrated ideas
from developmental systems theory (Lerner, 2006),
ecological systems theory (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006), family systems theory (Goldenberg &
Goldenberg, 2013), biological systems (Lickliter,
2013), and developmental psychopathology (Cicchetti, 2013a). Contemporary systems models assume
that many systems interact or “co-act” to shape the
course of development, across levels of function,
from the molecular to the macro-levels of physical
and sociocultural ecologies. The resilience of an
individual over the course of development depends
on the function of complex adaptive systems that
are continually interacting and transforming. As a
result, the resilience of a person is always changing
and the capacity for adaptation of an individual
will be distributed across interacting systems.
I have previously suggested that many of the
widely observed protective factors for individual
resilience in children reflect adaptive systems
shaped by biological and cultural evolution
(Masten, 2001, 2007). These include close attachment relationships, reward systems and mastery
motivation, intelligence and executive functions,
and cultural belief systems and traditions in many
forms, including religion. Each of these adaptive
systems can be considered at various levels of
analysis from multiple disciplinary perspectives,
including anthropology, biology, ecology, economics, psychology, and sociology.
Multilevel dynamics (processes linking levels of
function within and across systems) hold considerable interest in resilience theory. For example, there
is great interest in processes by which adversity is
10
Masten
biologically embedded and mitigated (e.g., Karatoreos & McEwen, 2013), violence at the community
level influences family function and thereby cascades to affect children (e.g., Cummings et al.,
2012), or good parenting influences the development of executive function skills in children at the
neural and behavioral levels (e.g., Blair, Berry,
Mills-Koonce, & Granger, 2013). Disasters underscore the interdependence of individual, family,
and community systems, as well as biological,
physical, and ecological systems across levels
(Masten & Narayan, 2012). Large-scale disasters like
Katrina or the 2011 tsunami in Japan challenge or
destroy many adaptive systems simultaneously
across large areas and groups of people. Consequently, recovery can take some time, and adequate
preparation for disasters usually requires an integrated perspective with consideration of multiple,
interdependent systems.
Trajectories and Pathways
Modeling dynamic change in complex systems is
a challenge across many fields of research, and
resilience science is no exception. Conceptually,
these models and ideas are not new; Gottesman
illustrated such models decades ago (e.g., Gottesman, 1974) and they have been important in the
history of developmental psychopathology (e.g.,
Cicchetti, 2013a; Masten, 2006). However, progress
in statistical methodology for modeling change
within individuals over time and between-person
differences in within-person change have opened
new possibilities for studying pathways and trajectories in developmental science (Grimm, Ram, &
Hamagami, 2011). Statistical and computing
advances, in combination with repeated measures
in longitudinal studies, have made it possible to
begin testing pathway models and illustrating real
trajectories of behavior over time in the context of
acute or chronic adversities.
Theoretical pathway models of resilience in the
context of acute and chronic adversity have been
presented by a number of scholars in the resilience
field (e.g., Masten & Narayan, 2012). These models
illustrate different patterns of adaptive behavior
over time in relation to onset of a traumatic experience or change in adversity level, often illustrating
stress-resistance, a pattern with little or minor disturbance of function in response to an adverse
experience (Bonanno & Diminich, 2013, term this
pattern “minimal-impact resilience”), breakdown
and recovery of function in response to a sudden
overwhelming stressor (sometimes called a “recov-
ery” pattern), and posttraumatic growth or
improvement in function in response to adversity.
In the case of chronic adversity, such as might
occur with institutional rearing or child maltreatment, another pattern has been delineated, where
function is poor or declining and then turns
around when conditions improve, a pattern variously referred to as “normalization” (Masten &
Obradovic, 2008) or “emergent resilience” (Bonanno
& Diminich, 2013). Some scholars also include the
maladaptive patterns in their pathway figures,
where breakdown or decreases in function occur in
the aftermath of adversity followed by little or no
recovery.
Growth curve modeling and group-based trajectory modeling techniques (Grimm et al., 2011;
Nagin, 2005) have made it possible to study patterns of change over time in individuals and test
for hypothesized response patterns. Longitudinal
studies with repeated measures are rare; however,
there are some recent examples of research on trajectories in children. Betancourt, McBain, Newnham, and Brennan (2013), using latent class growth
curve analysis, identified four trajectories of internalizing symptoms over time in a sample of child
soldiers and other youth from Sierra Leone with
extremely high trauma exposure: a stress-resistance
(minimal-impact resilience) pattern with steady,
low internalizing symptoms (41% showed this pattern), a recovery pattern with substantial improvement over time in symptoms (47%; presoldier
measures were not available), persisting symptoms
(5%), and a deteriorating pattern of worsening
symptoms (6%). Another study of trajectories utilized data from a study of 568 children followed
after Hurricane Andrew (La Greca et al., 2013) and
latent growth mixture modeling to identify three
trajectories based on measures at 3, 7, and
10 months posthurricane: (minimal-impact) resilient
(37%), recovering (43%), and persistently distressed
(20%). Both these studies offer support for several
predicted trajectories, including resilience pathways
and persisting effects, while also corroborating the
observation that the majority of children, even after
severe acute or chronic adversities, show resilience
in some form.
The Neurobiology of Resilience
Research on the neurobiology of resilience has
surged with advances in methodology that make it
possible to measure genes and epigenetic change,
examine the status of stress-response systems and
immune system function, and see the brain in
Global Perspectives on Resilience
action through various imaging techniques (Cicchetti, 2013a, 2013b; Hughes, 2012; Karatoreos &
McEwen, 2013; Kim-Cohen & Turkewitz, 2012;
Masten, 2013; Russo, Murrough, Han, Charney, &
Nestler, 2012). Some of these techniques can only
be utilized in the context of laboratories; however,
some are “field friendly,” making it possible to
assess biomarkers of stress or adaptation processes
in authentic ecological settings and even in the
midst of disaster recovery experiences. DNA, salivary cortisol, and blood spots, for example, have
been collected in remote and high-stress contexts,
including trailer parks set up after Hurricane
Katrina (e.g., Vigil, Geary, Granger, & Flinn, 2010),
homeless shelters (e.g., Cutuli, Wiik, Herbers,
Gunnar, & Masten, 2010), foster homes (e.g., Fisher,
Van Ryzin, & Gunnar, 2011), treatment centers for
maltreated children and their families (e.g., Cicchetti,
2013a, 2013b), home visits with low-income and
rural families (e.g., Blair et al., 2013), and field sites
around the world in which anthropologists are
including biomarker assessments along with their
more traditional measures (McDade, Williams, &
Snodgrass, 2007; Worthman & Costello, 2009;
Worthman & Panter-Brick, 2008).
Research conducted with diverse samples of children from developing and developed nations plays
an important role in the neurobiological wave of
research on risk and resilience. For example, cortisol
from hair sampling has been examined in girls with
various levels of exposure to the 2008 devastating
Wenchuan earthquake in China (Luo et al., 2012).
Cortisol measured from hair samples is a potential
biomarker that provides a “timeline” of stress
responses embedded in the hair as it grows. Results
show exposure effects, with cortisol levels elevated
in girls who were more exposed. In addition, girls
with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) showed
different patterns and lower cortisol than exposed
girls who did not have PTSD.
Research on cortisol using various assessment
methodologies in diverse contexts of adversity has
yielded a complex picture of how the stress regulation systems may be affected by trauma experiences
over the life course and over generations (Gunnar
& Herrera, 2013; Matthews & Phillips, 2012). For
reasons not yet clear, either elevated or reduced
cortisol levels or reactivity can be found after
adversity. Exposure timing may play a role, and
there is considerable interest in prenatal programming effects, presumably epigenetically mediated,
in response to trauma exposure of mothers. Yehuda
and colleagues, for example, have studied cortisol
in the children of survivors of the Holocaust and
11
9/11, observing lower cortisol levels among mothers who developed PTSD and their offspring (see
Yehuda et al., 2010). Greater effects were found
with 9/11 exposure in the third trimester.
Developmental Timing
There is growing international interest in timing
effects of physical and psychological stressors on
human development. Some of this research stems
from WWII, including the studies of radiation exposure on children after the atomic bombing of Japan
and the “Dutch Famine” studies. Research on radiation exposures in children after the atomic bombs
were dropped on Japan and more recently from the
radiation leaks after the explosion of the Chernobyl
nuclear plant shows clear timing effects (Fushiki,
2013); worse effects are observed with fetal exposure during organogenesis, and the central nervous
system is particularly sensitive during weeks 8–25.
Similarly, studies of children who experienced the
famine during the occupation of the Netherlands in
the winter of 1944–1945 also show differential timing effects on the life-long health of surviving children (e.g., Painter, Roseboom, & Bleker, 2005).
Another study of Chernobyl indicated timing
effects focused on psychological stress rather than
radiation, drawing data from a national twin study
underway at the time in Finland. The known timing of Chernobyl (in 1986) made it possible to
design a natural experiment to compare adolescent
twins who were in gestation during this incident
with a cohort of twins conceived a year later, after
the worst fears about radiation had dissipated
(Huizink et al., 2008). Results indicated biological
differences in hormones not attributable to radiation exposure. For example, salivary cortisol levels
were higher among adolescent offspring of mothers
pregnant during Chernobyl, and timing suggested
greater vulnerability during the second trimester.
Developmental timing has been implicated for
protective processes as well as vulnerability. There
is growing interest in delineating the processes by
which adaptive systems “learn” or are “tuned” to
the expected environment, to be effective for the
organism in context. Evidence supporting the
“hygiene hypothesis” for the rising prevalence of
asthma, allergies, and related immune dysfunctions
in modern societies provides an example of the
benefits of early exposure to microorganisms for
calibrating the immune system (Okada, Kuhn,
Feillet, & Bach, 2010). For instance, growing up on
a farm is protective for respiratory allergy (von
Mutius & Radon, 2008). Timing is important as the
12
Masten
same type of exposures coming too late can trigger
problems.
There is great interest in identifying sensitive
periods for additional adaptive systems and processes because of the profound implications for policy, prevention, and practice. There may well be
windows of opportunity and plasticity when adaptive systems can be promoted (or protected from
harm) to favor resilience; these windows could
point to targets and timing of interventions or prevention efforts that would have a high return on
investment or greater effectiveness (Masten, 2011).
For example, research on international adoption as
an intervention to improve the rearing context
suggests that children adopted at younger ages
from institutions to homes with good care-giving
fare better than later adopted children (Gunnar &
Herrera, 2013). The emerging work on prenatal
stress effects on the fetus suggests that stress-regulation systems may also be sensitive to interventions
that protect and support mothers during pregnancy.
The research on programming effects during sensitive periods has raised the possibility of reprogramming adaptive systems as a strategy of
intervention, or reopening windows of plasticity
(Meaney, 2010). Growing knowledge of epigenetic
change and gene expression in mature animals is
opening new horizons for intervention, and also
may recast the questions of sensitization versus
steeling effects in resilience science.
Resilience (At Last!) in Cultural Context
Serious attention to culture in resilience research
was long overdue. During the early decades of
resilience science, theory and data considering resilience in cultural context were limited (Luthar, 2006;
Ungar, Ghazinour, & Richter, 2013; Wachs &
Rahman, 2013; Wright, Masten, & Narayan, 2013).
In the past two decades, research on the role of culture in resilience finally began to flourish. Numerous books and conferences have focused on the
social ecologies of resilience and there are more
cross-cultural and multicultural studies. There is
greater attention to cultural practices, including religion, that may foster resilience in individuals and
communities (see Ungar, 2012). The World Bank
published a review of the international evidence on
risk and resilience related to the global economic
crisis (Lundberg & Wuermli, 2012). Studies of
migration and acculturation flourished (see Masten,
Liebkind, & Hernandez, 2012), addressing issues
like the “immigrant paradox,” when first-generation
youth show better health or adjustment than subse-
quent generations (Garcia Coll & Marks, 2012).
Research on children in war and disasters
expanded, often focused on resilience (Masten &
Narayan, 2012).
Ungar (2011) proposed a social ecological model
of resilience that highlights the role of culture and
context. Ungar and colleagues founded the Resilience Centre at Dalhousie University, mobilizing a
network of investigators across five continents to
study resilience. Their work is yielding a rich body
of qualitative and quantitative data that expands
and challenges resilience theory (see Ungar, 2012;
Ungar et al., 2013). In the Basotho community of
South Africa, for example, investigators observed
the importance of “Botho” (a philosophy similar to
“Ubunto” in other African cultures that emphasize
human interdependence) in young people identified
as resilient (Theron, Theron, & Malindi, 2012). Resilient youth in Basotho were described as flexible
and determined, common attributes reported in
youth viewed as resilient in many cultures, but also
as well connected to community support systems
and respectful of community values important to
their culture.
Investigators have documented cultural rituals
that appear to play a powerful role in the acceptance and recovery of young people who are struggling to overcome adverse experiences, particularly
when they have offended societal values or committed humanitarian atrocities under duress. In an
article on “rethinking resilience from indigenous
perspectives,” Kirmayer, Dandeneau, Marshall,
Phillips, and Williamson (2011) describe the ritual
of reconciliation and forgiveness practiced by
the indigenous people of Atlantic Canada, the
Mi’kmaq, to resolve offenses and settle conflicts.
Rituals of cleansing and forgiveness also appear to
be important in the reintegration and recovery of
child soldiers in African cultures (e.g., Boothby,
Crawford, & Halperin, 2006).
For young people who face racial or ethnic discrimination, there is increasing research on protective strategies that foster resilience, both naturally
occurring and through interventions (Evans et al.,
2012; Hughes et al., 2006; Serafica & Vargas, 2006).
Research indicates strategies used by parents and
families in their racial/ethnic socialization to convey pride in racial/ethnic heritage while also training children to deal with prejudice, the dangers of
discrimination, and barriers to opportunity. Sirin
and colleagues (Sirin & Gupta, 2012) have studied
successful adaptation in Muslim-American youth in
the aftermath of 9/11, a difficult period for Muslim
immigrant families in the United States, with a
Global Perspectives on Resilience
focus on the success of young people who reside
happily “on the hyphen,” effectively navigating
their bicultural contexts. At the same time, there is
growing recognition of the corrosive effects of discrimination on development and the importance of
a social justice agenda directed at changing the context rather than expecting a child to adapt to injustice (Fisher, Busch-Rossnagel, Jopp, & Brown, 2012;
Ungar et al., 2013).
Investigators focused on understanding risk and
resilience in cultural context have taken research
into very challenging environments. The work of
Panter-Brick and Eggerman (Eggerman & PanterBrick, 2010; Panter-Brick, Goodman, Tol, & Eggerman, 2011) in Afghanistan offers an example from
an extremely challenging research environment rife
with ongoing political conflicts, dangers related to
family and community violence, and economic distress. This team was able to conduct a school-based
survey of mental health with over 1,000 students
and their adult caregivers, supplemented by interviews and subsample follow-ups. Their methods
included strategies to systematically glean ethnographic data for analysis, with open-ended questions about daily difficulties and solutions, as well
as quantitative assessments. This group argues persuasively that values in the Afghan culture (faith,
family unity, service, effort, morals, and honor) provide a sense of cohesion and meaning to life that
plays a central role in resilience of Afghan families
and their children.
Research in challenging contexts also includes
studies of young people living in war zones or
engaged in prolonged violent political conflicts.
There is a growing and distinctive literature on
youth engaged in ethnopolitical conflicts around the
world that has required thoughtful attention to political and cultural issues (Barber, 2009; Cummings
et al., 2012; Dimitry, 2012; Masten & Narayan, 2012).
Numerous studies in the Middle East since 2000
have focused on youth engaged, often voluntarily, in
violent situations such as the Palestinian–Israeli conflict that have complex cultural and political histories. For example, researchers have contrasted the
political, socioeconomic, and cultural experiences of
Palestinian, Israeli-Jewish, and Israeli-Arab children
living in Gaza, the West Bank, and other regions of
Israel as they study the effects of the conflict (Barber,
2009; Dimitry, 2012). Some findings are provocative.
Youth in these conflicts appear to gain a sense of
identity and agency through their engagement,
despite the inherent dangers, underscoring the
importance of context for understanding perceived
meaning and roles in these conflicts.
13
In a rare, longitudinal study of multilevel
dynamics, Boxer et al. (2013) examined spreading
effects over time linking interethnic political violence at higher levels of social ecology to violence
exposure in more proximal youth microsystems
(community, family, school violence) to individual
youth aggression. The study applied structural
equation modeling to three waves of data collected
over 3 years with Palestinian and Israeli youth who
were 8, 11, and 14 years old. Results suggested cascading effects of violence across ecological contexts,
from political system to microsystems to individuals, resulting in increases in individual violence.
Revisiting Four Enduring Controversies Through
a Global Lens
Over the years, there have been persistent issues
and controversies in resilience science (see Luthar,
2006; Masten, 2012, 2013; Panter-Brick & Leckman,
2013; Rutter, 1987). Many of these controversies
involve considerations of context, including culture
and nationality.
What Does Resilience Mean?
The meaning of resilience in developmental science has been a matter of some controversy for decades. Research on resilience requires operational
definitions of risk, threat, or disturbances and adaptive outcomes or processes of interest. Defining positive adaptation involves implicit or explicit value
judgments or criteria about desirable adaptation (see
Masten, 2001). Such judgments are influenced by
cultures of science, as well as sociocultural and historical context. Evolutionary biologists may be concerned with reproductive fitness of the population,
while child psychologists may be focused on individual competence in age-salient developmental
tasks. Global research on competence and resilience
indicates both commonalities and variation in these
criteria (McCormick et al., 2011; Ungar, 2012).
Research in more diverse societies highlights the variation in interpreted meaning of similar experiences
and the profound role of culture in shaping exposures, responses, and expectations of children in
adversity (Eggerman & Panter-Brick, 2010; Masten &
Narayan, 2012; Ungar et al., 2013).
Who Defines “Adaptive” or Doing Well?
A related controversy concerns the issue of who
should define the meaning and measures of resil-
14
Masten
ience in research. Should it be individually defined
(e.g., perceived stress and well-being; tailored to the
situation) or objectively defined by community or
national or international standards? What kind of
validation is meaningful for measures developed in
one culture or context and applied to another?
What about research on children who must adapt
to multiple cultures and sets of expectations simultaneously (as is the case for many immigrant
youth)? Wrestling with these questions is essential
to global research on resilience.
Is There a Trait of Resilience?
This perennial issue should be put to rest
(Masten, 2012; Panter-Brick & Leckman, 2013;
Rutter, 1987). The answer is no. There are personality (or temperament) dimensions consistently associated with resilience, such as conscientiousness;
however, there is evidence that experiences shape
personality traits, that traits can influence exposure
to adversity, and also that the same trait can function as a vulnerability or protective influence,
depending on the domain of adaptation, the physical or sociocultural value and meaning of the trait,
and the age or gender of the individual (Lengua &
Wachs, 2012; Shiner & Masten, 2012). An inhibited
adolescent, for example, may be at risk for social or
emotional problems but protected from the dangers
of risk-taking behaviors. Global research has played
a significant role in addressing this issue, through
findings that illustrate the range of capacities and
values related to variations in the meaning and function of individual differences in temperament or personality across cultures and situations. In addition,
growing theory and research on individual differences in sensitivity to experience, or differential susceptibility to the environment, underscore the role of
context in moderating the influence of individual
differences on adaptive function and development
(e.g., Belsky, Bakermans-Kranenburg, & van IJzendoorn, 2007; Ellis & Boyce, 2011). In addition, such
individual differences in temperament or “sensitivity” themselves appear to be developmentally influenced by experience and context.
Is There a Price to Pay for Resilience?
Another enduring issue in the study of resilience
is the question of whether resilience takes a toll
through the demands imposed by adapting well
under high adversity. This issue takes two forms.
One is the idea of scarring or lingering effects of
experienced adversity on development, despite
achieving good adaptive function in multiple ways,
which might better be termed a price of adversity
rather than resilience. A second kind of “price”
explicitly refers to the toll of striving for resilience
under extremely difficult conditions. There has been
scattered evidence that some young people from
very high-risk backgrounds showing resilience in
developmental tasks suffer long-term health issues
(e.g., Werner & Smith, 2001). This issue re-emerged
in a study of allostatic load observed among youth
in an intervention study (Brody et al., 2013), with
the provocative title, “Is Resilience Only Skin Deep?”
Young people with a track record of resilience from
African American families showed high allostatic
load (e.g., high body mass index and high blood
pressure) in conjunction with the good psychosocial
adjustment. Global perspectives may shed light on
the contexts in which resilience exacts such a “toll.”
Conclusion
Today, resilience research in child development
reflects a broad transformation occurring in multiple sciences concerned with adaptation in complex
developing systems. The concepts and empirical
approaches are more dynamic, as investigators
attempt to understand and promote adaptive
change or the capacity for positive adaptation in a
context of existing or potential threats and surprises. Efforts to prepare for global disasters and
threats of diverse kinds appear to be motivating
forces to integrate and share tools, concepts, and
knowledge across fields to enhance the capacity
for effective system responses to expected or
unexpected threats. There are efforts to create common concepts and tools that will facilitate building
a more integrated, scalable, multidisciplinary science of resilience to address issues of global concern (Brown, 2013; Gunderson & Holling, 2002;
Masten & Obradovic, 2008; Welsh, 2013). Intervention efforts have taken center stage, to test models
and methods for promoting resilience.
As a result of this transformation, the importance
of global perspectives, knowledge, and research on
resilience has surged. Developmental science has
much to gain and much to contribute to a new
phase of global science on resilience.
Why Is Global Research on Resilience Important for
Developmental Science?
Global research on resilience in human development has the potential to contribute to developmental
Global Perspectives on Resilience
science in multiple ways. First, research in more
diverse cultural, political, and geographic contexts
expands the evidence base on developmental processes and the full range of adaptive processes
involved in resilience. Second, challenges posed by
multicultural or multinational contexts can drive
innovation in design and methodology, as well as
theory. Research in remote or low-technology contexts, for example, has motivated the development
of practical methods for assessment of behavioral
and biological variables in the field. Third, research
on resilience can challenge theory and provoke
important refinements. The research on temperament and survival in the Masai study by deVries
(1984) challenged the notion of “easy temperament”
(and, by implication, any single personality trait) as
a universal protective factor. Similarly, the recent
research on youth engaged in political violence has
challenged the idea that high exposure to adversity
erodes well-being (Barber, 2009; Tol, Song, &
Jordans, 2013). Global research also offers opportunities for natural and planned experiments on
issues of international significance, such as protecting children and promoting recovery in the contexts
of natural or technological disasters or violent political conflicts. Fourth, global resilience science
informs intervention design, through successes and
failures of efforts to deliberately promote resilience
in different cultures and situational contexts.
Adapting evidence-based practices created in one
sociocultural context for application in another context can generate knowledge about the robustness
as well as the limitations of an intervention. Lessons are beginning to accumulate on traumafocused interventions suitable for implementation
after mass-trauma events with children and families
(e.g., La Greca & Silverman, 2009).
Globalization of resilience science also has the
potential to increase appreciation for the value of
developmental science across sectors, sciences, and
cultures. Research on resilience in children has a
compelling rationale and the translational utility often is readily apparent (Masten, 2011),
generating interest in the science to find out what
may be helpful in reducing exposure or harm and
promoting positive adaptation and development.
Why Is Developmental Science Important for Global
Resilience?
A reciprocal case can be made for the value of
developmental science with respect to global resilience. The scope of endangered children in the
world and the stakes for families, cultures, and
15
societies are enormous. There is a need for more
knowledge about risk and protective processes
and how to prepare for specific threats to human
development in the event of exposures to disaster,
terror, displacement, abandonment, and many
other extremely dangerous situations for child
development. International agencies are requesting
knowledge and guidance about the best ways to
invest their resources; there is growing interest in
moving beyond survival goals to promoting
healthy development and resilience in children
and adolescents (Britto, Engle, & Super, 2013;
Diers, 2013; Shonkoff et al., 2012). Global economic agencies like the World Bank are investing
in children as a key strategy for promoting the
economic future of nations as well as individuals,
again with a strong emphasis on resilience (Lundberg & Wuermli, 2012).
UNICEF is the custodian and champion of the
UN Convention on the Rights of the Child
(UNCRC) which calls on all nations to protect
and foster the rights of children to survival,
development, protection, and participation (Diers,
2013). The UNCRC requires special efforts to protect children in “especially difficult circumstances,” including child labor, sexual exploitation,
and armed conflict. UNICEF and other international agencies also are focused on resilience in
the context of promoting peace through work
with children. For example, UNICEF’s Peacebuilding, Education and Advocacy in Conflictaffected Countries program for 2012 through 2015
includes the goal of increasing “capacity of children, parents, teachers and other duty-bearers to
prevent, reduce, and cope with conflict and promote peace” (UNICEF, 2013).
SRCD has responded to the growing interest
and urgency for global developmental science in
multiple ways. The 2005 strategic plan encourages
global engagement: The mission statement calls
for interdisciplinary research in diverse contexts
and states that SRCD “fosters the exchange of
information among scientists and research consumers worldwide.” One of the five strategic
goals states that “SRCD will incorporate international perspectives in its organization, activities,
and membership. ”Implementing the strategic
plan, SRCD has sponsored a series of preconferences at the biennial meeting with a global
research focus, including one on immigrant youth
in 2011 and a second in 2013 on interventions for
children and youth in low- and middle-income
countries. SRCD fosters engagement of international young scholars through travel awards
16
Masten
and speakers from many different countries and
regions of the world at conferences. In addition,
SRCD sponsors meetings on international themes
through grants, such as the 2014 special topic
meeting in Prague on “Positive Youth Development in the Context of the Global Recession.”
SRCD also features international research in its
journals and books. In 2010, for example, there was
a special section of this journal on Children in War
and Disaster (Masten & Osofsky, 2010). In collaboration with UNICEF, the Society cosponsored the
publication of the Handbook of Early Childhood Development Research and Its Impact on Global Policy (Britto
et al., 2013). These publications have been further
disseminated through briefs and briefings organized by SRCD’s Office for Policy and Communications in Washington, DC.
The Society also played a key role in support of
the newly forming International Consortium of
Developmental Science Societies. This consortium
includes representatives from leading international
research societies, with goals of advancing developmental science and its applications for the enhancement of global health and well-being over the life
course. SRCD helped facilitate the initial planning
meeting for this consortium, hosted in December
2012, by the Jacobs Foundation at Schloss Marbach,
in Germany.
A Call to Global Engagement for Developmental
Scientists
The time is ripe for developmental scientists to
engage in global activities that foster the well-being
and resilience of children. Governmental and nongovernmental organizations around the world, as
well as first responders, educators, and other scientists who study human adaptation and resilience,
are seeking knowledge, guidance, and partners.
We, as developmental scientists, can answer the
call. We can show up, bring the best evidence available, and learn to communicate our science across
fields and sectors and cultures. We can engage
young scholars in these activities to nurture their
future engagement as developmental scientists in
these collaborative global endeavors. Engaged
developmental scientists are not only good for
developmental science and its applications in practice or policy, but ultimately important for improving the well-being of children globally and, with
these investments, the future well-being of global
health and human development.
References
Barber, B. K. (Ed.). (2009). Adolescents and war: How youth
deal with political violence. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Belsky, J., Bakermans-Kranenburg, J. M., & van IJzendoorn, M. H. (2007). For better and for worse: Differential
susceptibility to environmental influences. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 16, 30–304. doi:10.
1111/j.1467-8721.2007.00525.x
Betancourt, T. S., McBain, R., Newnham, E. A., & Brennan, R. T. (2013). Trajectories of internalizing problems
in war-affected Sierra Leonean youth: Examining conflict and post conflict factors. Child Development, 84,
455–470. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01861.x
Blair, C., Berry, D., Mills-Koonce, R., & Granger, D.; the
FLP Investigators. (2013). Cumulative effects of early
poverty on cortisol in young children: Moderation by
autonomic nervous system activity. Psychoneuroendocrinology. Advance online publication. doi:10.1016/j.
psyneuen.2013.06.025
Bonanno, G. A., & Diminich, E. D. (2013). Annual
research review: Positive adjustment to adversity—Trajectories of minimal-impact resilience and emergent
resilience. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 54,
378–401. doi:10.1111/jcpp.12021
Boothby, N., Crawford, J., & Halperin, J. (2006). Mozambique child soldier life outcome study: Lessons learned
in rehabilitation and reintegration efforts. Global Public
Health, 1, 87–107. doi:10.1080/17441690500324347
Boxer, P., Huesmann, L. R., Dubrow, E. F., Landau, S. F.,
Gvisman, S. D., Shikaki, K., & Ginges, J. (2013). Exposure to violence across the social ecosystem and the
development of aggression: A test of ecological theory
in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Child Development, 84,
163–177. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01848.x
Britto, P. R., Engle, P. L., & Super, C. M. (Eds.). (2013).
Handbook of early childhood development research and its
impact on global policy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Brody, G. H., Yu, T., Chen, E., Miller, G. E., Kogan, S. M.,
& Beach, S. R. H. (2013). Is resilience only skin deep?
Rural African Americans’ socioeconomic status-related
risk and competence in preadolescence and psychological adjustment and allostatic load at age 19. Psychological
Science, 24, 1285–1293. doi:10.1177/0956797612471954
Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (2006). The bioecological model of human development. In R. M. Lerner
(Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 1. Theoretical models of human development (pp. 793–828).
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Brown, K. (2013). Global environmental change I: A social
turn for resilience? Progress in Human Geography.
Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/03091325
13498837. Retrieved from http://phg.sagepub.com/
content/early/2013/07/30/0309132513498837
Cicchetti, D. (2013a). An overview of developmental
psychopathology. In P. D. Zelazo (Ed.), The Oxford
Global Perspectives on Resilience
handbook of developmental psychology: Vol. 2. Self and other
(pp. 455–480). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Cicchetti, D. (2013b). Annual research review: Resilient
functioning in maltreated children–past, present, and
future perspectives. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 54, 402–422. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2012.02608.x
Cummings, E. M., Merrilees, C. E., Schermerhorn, A. C.,
Goeke-Morey, M. C., Shirlow, P., & Cairns, E. (2012).
Political violence and child adjustment: Longitudinal
tests of sectarian antisocial behavior, family conflict,
and insecurity as explanatory pathways. Child Development, 83, 461–468. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01720.x
Cutuli, J. J., Wiik, K. L., Herbers, J. E., Gunnar, M. R., &
Masten, A. S. (2010). Cortisol function among early
school-aged homeless children. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 35, 833–845. doi:10.1016/j.psyneuen.2009.11.008
deVries, M. W. (1984). Temperament and infant mortality
among the Masai of East Africa. American Journal of
Psychiatry, 141, 1189–1194.
Diers, J. (2013). Why the world needs to get serious about
adolescents: A view from UNICEF. Journal of Research
on Adolescence, 23, 214–222. doi:10.1111/jora.12042
Dimitry, L. (2012). A systematic review on the mental
health of children and adolescents in areas of armed
conflict in the Middle East. Child: Care, Health, and
Development, 38, 153–161. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2214.2011.
01246.x
Eggerman, M., & Panter-Brick, C. (2010). Suffering, hope,
and entrapment: Resilience and cultural values in
Afghanistan. Social Science and Medicine, 71, 71–83.
doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.03.023
Ellis, B. J., & Boyce, W. T. (2011). Differential susceptibility to the environment: Toward an understanding of
sensitivity to developmental experiences and context.
Development and Psychopathology, 23, 1–5. doi:10.1017/
S095457941000060X
Evans, A. B., Banerjee, M., Meyer, R., Aldana, A., Foust,
M., & Rowley, S. (2012). Racial socialization as a mechanism for positive development among African American youth. Child Development Perspectives, 6, 251–257.
doi:10.1111/j.1750-8606.2011.00226.x
Evans, G. W., Li, D., & Whipple, S. S. (2013). Cumulative
risk and child development. Psychological Bulletin.
Advance online publication. doi:10.1037/a0031808
Fisher, C. B., Busch-Rossnagel, N. A., Jopp, D. S., &
Brown, J. L. (2012). Applied developmental science,
social justice, and socio-political well-being. Applied
Developmental Science, 16, 54–64. doi:10.1080/10888691.
2012.642786
Fisher, P. A., Van Ryzin, M. J., & Gunnar, M. R. (2011).
Mitigating HPA axis dysregulation associated with
placement changes in foster care. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 36, 531–539. doi:10.1016/j.psyneuen.2010.08.007
Freud, A., & Burlingham, D. T. (1943). War and children.
New York, NY: Medical War Books.
Fushiki, S. (2013). Radiation hazards in children—Lessons
from Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and Fukushima.
17
Brain and Development, 35, 220–227. doi:10.1016/j.braindev.2012.09.004
Garcia Coll, C., & Marks, A. K. (Eds.). (2012). The immigrant paradox in children and adolescents: Is becoming
American a developmental risk? Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Garmezy, N. (1971). Vulnerability research and the
issue of primary prevention. American Journal of
Orthopsychiatry, 41, 101–116. doi:10.1111/j.1939-0025.
1971.tb01111.x
Garmezy, N. (1983). Stressors of childhood. In N. Garmezy & M. Rutter (Eds.), Stress, coping, and development
(pp. 43–84). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Garmezy, N. (1985). Stress-resistant children: The search
for protective factors. In J. E. Stevenson (Ed.), Recent
research in developmental psychopathology: Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry book supplement #4 (pp. 213–
233). Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.
Garmezy, N., & Rutter, M. (1983). Stress, coping, and development. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Gleser, G., Green, B., & Winget, C. (1981). Prolonged psychological effects of disaster: A study of buffalo creek. Maryland Heights, MO: Academic Press.
Goldenberg, H., & Goldenberg, I. (2013). Family therapy:
An overview (8th ed.). Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Gottesman, I. I. (1974). Developmental genetics and ontogenetic psychology: Overdue detente and propositions
from a matchmaker. In A. Pick (Ed.), The Minnesota
symposia on child psychology (Vol. 8, pp. 55–80). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Green, B. L., Grace, M. C., Vary, M. G., Kramer, T. L.,
Gleser, G. C., & Leonard, A. C. (1994). Children of
disaster in the second decade: A 17-year follow-up of
Buffalo Creek survivors. Journal of the American Academy
of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 33, 71–79. doi:
10.1097/00004583-199401000-00011
Grimm, K. J., Ram, N., & Hamagami, F. (2011). Nonlinear
growth curves in developmental research. Child Development, 82, 1357–1371. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.
01630.x
Gunderson, L. H., Allen, C. R., & Holling, C. S. (Eds.).
(2010). Foundations of ecological resilience. Washington,
DC: Island Press.
Gunderson, L. H., & Holling, C. S. (Eds.). (2002). Panarchy: Understanding transformations in human and natural
systems. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Gunnar, M. R., & Herrera, A. M. (2013). The development
of stress reactivity: A neurobiological perspective. In P.
D. Zelazo (Ed.), The oxford handbook of developmental psychology: Vol. 2. Self and other (pp. 45–80). New York,
NY: Oxford University Press.
Hartjen, C. A., & Priyadarsini, S. (2012). The global victimization of children: Problems and solutions. New York, NY:
Springer.
Holling, C. S. (1973). Resilience and stability of ecological
systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 4, 1–
23. doi:10.1146/annurev.es.04.110173.000245
18
Masten
Hollnagel, E., Woods, D., & Leveson, N. (Eds.). (2006).
Resilience engineering: Concepts and precepts. Aldershot,
UK: Ashgate.
Hughes, D., Rodriguez, J., Smith, E. P., Johnson, D. J., Stevenson, H. C., & Spicer, P. (2006). Parents’ ethnic-racial
socialization practices: A review of research and directions for future study. Developmental Psychology, 42,
747–770. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.42.5.747
Hughes, V. (2012). The roots of resilience. Nature, 490,
165–167. doi:10.1038/490165a
Huizink, A. C., Bartels, M., Rose, R. J., Pulkkinen, L.,
Eriksson, C. J., & Kaprio, J. (2008). Chernobyl exposure
as stressor during pregnancy and hormone levels in
adolescent offspring. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, 62, e5. Retrieved from http://jech.bmj.
com/content/62/4/e5.full doi:10.1136/jech.2007.060350
Karatoreos, I. N., & McEwen, B. S. (2013). Annual
research review: The neurobiology and physiology of
resilience and adaptation across the life course. The
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 54, 337–347.
doi:10.1111/jcpp.12054
Kim-Cohen, J., & Turkewitz, R. (2012). Resilience and
measured gene-environment interactions. Development
and Psychopathology, 24, 1297–1306. doi:10.1017/
S0954579412000715
Kirmayer, L. J., Dandeneau, S., Marshall, E., Phillips, M.
K., & Williamson, K. J. (2011). Rethinking resilience
from indigenous perspectives. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 56, 84–91.
Korol, M., Kramer, T. L., Grace, M. C., & Green, B. L.
(2002). Dam break: Long-term follow-up of children
exposed to the Buffalo Creek disaster. In A. M. La Greca, W. K. Silverman, E. M. Vernberg & M. C. Roberts
(Eds.), Helping children cope with disasters and terrorism
(pp. 241–257). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
La Greca, A. M., Lai, B. S., Llabre, M. M., Silverman, W.
K., Vernberg, E. M., & Prinstein, M. J. (2013). Children’s
post disaster trajectories of PTS symptoms: Predicting
chronic distress. Child & Youth Care Forum, 42, 351–369.
doi:10.1007/s10566-013-9206-1
La Greca, A. M., & Silverman, W. K. (2009). Treatment
and prevention of posttraumatic stress reactions in children and adolescents exposed to disaster and terrorism:
What is the evidence? Child Development Perspectives, 3,
4–10. doi:10.1111/j.1750-8606.2008.00069.x
Lengua, L. J., & Wachs, T. D. (2012). Temperament and
risk: Resilient and vulnerable responses to adversity. In
M. Zentnerv & R. L. Shiner (Eds.), Handbook of temperament (pp. 519–540). New York, NY: Guilford.
Lerner, R. M. (2006). Developmental science, developmental systems, and contemporary theories of human
development. In W. Damon & R. M. Lerner (Series
Eds.) & R. M. Lerner (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol 1. Theoretical models of human development
(6th ed., pp. 1–17). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Lerner, R. M., Schmid, K. L., Weiner, M. B., Arbeit, M. R.,
Chase, P. A., Agans, J. P., & Warren, A. E. A. (2012).
Resilience across the life span. In B. Hayslip Jr. & G. C.
Smith (Eds.), Emerging perspectives on resilience in adulthood and later life (pp. 275–299). New York, NY:
Springer.
Lickliter, R. (2013). Biological development: Theoretical
approaches, techniques, and key findings. In P. D.
Zelazo (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of developmental psychology: Vol. 1. Body and mind (pp. 65–90). New York,
NY: Oxford University Press.
Lundberg, M., & Wuermli, A. (Eds.). (2012). Children and
youth in crisis: Protecting and promoting human development in times of economic shocks. Washington, DC: World
Bank.
Luo, H., Hu, X., Liu, X., Ma, X., Guo, W., Qiu, C., … Li,
T. (2012). Hair cortisol level as a biomarker for altered
hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal activity in female adolescents with posttraumatic stress disorder after the
2008 Wenchuan earthquake. Biological Psychiatry, 72,
65–69. doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2011.12.020
Luthar, S. S. (2006). Resilience in development: A synthesis of research across five decades. In D. Cicchetti &
D. J. Cohen (Eds.), Developmental psychopathology: Vol. 3.
Risk, disorder, and adaptation (2nd ed. pp. 739–795).
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Luthar, S. S., Cicchetti, D., & Becker, B. (2000). The construct of resilience: A critical evaluation and guidelines
for future work. Child Development, 71, 543–562. doi:
10.1111/1467-8624.00164
Masten, A. S. (1999). Resilience comes of age: Reflections
on the past and outlook for the next generation of
research. In M. D. Glantz & J. L. Johnson (Eds.), Resilience and development: Positive life adaptations (pp. 281–
296). New York, NY: Plenum.
Masten, A. S. (2001). Ordinary magic: Resilience processes
in development. American Psychologist, 56, 227–238.
doi:10.1037//0003-066X.56.3.227
Masten, A. S. (2006). Developmental psychopathology:
Pathways to the future. International Journal of Behavior
Development, 30, 47–54. doi:10.1177/0165025406059974
Masten, A. S. (2007). Resilience in developing systems: Progress and promise as the fourth wave rises. Development
and Psychopathology, 19, 921–930. doi:10.1017/S095457
9407000442
Masten, A. S. (2011). Resilience in children threatened by
extreme adversity: Frameworks for research, practice,
and translational synergy. Development and Psychopathology, 23, 141–154. doi:10.1017/S0954579411000198
Masten, A. S. (2012). Resilience in children: Vintage Rutter and beyond. In A. Slater & P. Quinn (Eds.), Developmental psychology: Revisiting the classic studies (pp. 204–
221). London, UK: Sage.
Masten, A. S. (2013). Risk and resilience in development.
In P. D. Zelazo (Ed.), Oxford handbook of developmental
psychology (pp. 579–607). New York: Oxford University
Press.
Masten, A. S., Best, K. M., & Garmezy, N. (1990). Resilience and development: Contributions from the study
of children who overcome adversity. Development and
Global Perspectives on Resilience
Psychopathology, 2, 425–444. doi:10.1017/S095457940
0005812
Masten, A. S., Garmezy, N., Tellegen, A., Pellegrini, D. S.,
Larkin, K., & Larsen, A. (1988). Competence and stress
in school children: The moderating effects of individual
and family qualities. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 29, 745–764. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.1988.
tb00751.x
Masten, A. S., Liebkind, K., & Hernandez, D. J. (Eds.).
(2012). Realizing the potential of immigrant youth. New
York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Masten, A. S., & Narayan, A. J. (2012). Child development in the context of disaster, war and terrorism:
Pathways of risk and resilience. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 227–257. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych120710-100356
Masten, A. S., & Obradovic, J. (2008). Disaster preparation and recovery: Lessons from research on resilience
in human development. Ecology and Society, 13(1), 9.
Retrieved from http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/
vol13/iss1/art9/
Masten, A. S., & Osofsky, J. D. (2010). Disasters and their
impact on child development: Introduction to the special section. Child Development, 84, 1029–1039. doi:10.
1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01452.x
Matthews, S. G., & Phillips, D. I. (2012). Transgenerational inheritance of stress pathology. Experimental Neurology, 233, 95–101. doi:10.1016/j.expneurol.2011.01.009
McCormick, C. M., Kuo, S. I.-C., & Masten, A. S. (2011).
Developmental tasks across the lifespan. In K. L. Fingerman, C. Berg, T. C. Antonucci, & J. Smith (Eds.), The
handbook of lifespan development (pp. 117–140). New
York, NY: Springer.
McDade, T. W., Williams, S., & Snodgrass, J. J. (2007).
What a drop can do: Dried blood spots as a minimallyinvasive method for integrating biomarkers into population-based research. Demography, 44, 899–925. doi:10.
1353/dem.2007.0038
McFarlane, A. C. (1987). Posttraumatic phenomena in a
longitudinal study of children following a natural
disaster. Journal of the American Academy of Child &
Adolescent Psychiatry, 26, 764–769. doi:10.1097/
00004583-198709000-00025
McFarlane, A. C., & Van Hooff, M. (2009). Impact of
childhood exposure to a natural disaster on adult mental health: 20-year longitudinal follow-up study. British
Journal of Psychiatry, 195, 142–148. doi: 10.1192/bjp.bp.
108.054270
Meaney, M. J. (2010). Epigenetics and the biological definition of Gene 9 Environment interactions. Child Development, 81, 41–79. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01381.x
Murphy, L. B., & Moriarty, A. E. (1976). Vulnerability, coping, and growth: From infancy to adolescence. New Haven,
CT: Yale University Press.
Nagin, D. S. (2005). Group-based modeling of development.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Obradovic, J., Shaffer, A., & Masten, A. S. (2012). Risk in
developmental psychopathology: Progress and future
19
directions. In L. C. Mayes & M. Lewis (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of environment in human development (pp.
35–57). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Oerter, R. (1986). Developmental tasks throughout the life
span: A new approach to an old concept. In P. A. Baltes, D. L. Featherman, & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Life span
development and behavior (Vol. 7, pp. 233–269). Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Ogbu, J. U. (1981). Origins of human competence: A cultural-ecological perspective. Child Development, 52, 413–
429. doi:10.2307.1129158
Okada, H., Kuhn, C., Feillet, H., & Bach, J.-F. (2010). The
“hygiene hypothesis” for autoimmune and allergic diseases: An update. Clinical & Experimental Immunology,
160, 1–9. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2249.2010.04139.x
Overton, W. F. (2013). A new paradigm for developmental science: Relationism and relational-developmental
systems. Applied Developmental Science, 17, 94–107.
doi:10.1080/10888691.2013.778717
Painter, R. C., Roseboom, R. J., & Bleker, O. P. (2005).
Prenatal exposure to the Dutch famine and disease in
later life: An overview. Reproductive Toxicology, 20, 345–
352. doi:10.1016/j.reprotox.2005.04.005
Panter-Brick, C., Goodman, A., Tol, W., & Eggerman, M.
(2011). Mental health and childhood adversities: A longitudinal study in Kabul, Afghanistan. Journal of the
American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 50,
349–363. doi:10.1016/j.jaac.2010.12.001
Panter-Brick, C., & Leckman, J. F. (2013). Editorial commentary: Resilience in child development—Interconnected pathways to wellbeing. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 54, 333–336. doi:10.1111/jcpp.
12057
Russo, S. J., Murrough, J. W., Han, M.-H., Charney, D. S.,
& Nestler, E. J. (2012). Neurobiology of resilience. Nature Neuroscience, 15, 1475–1484. doi:10.1038/nn.3234
Rutter, M. (1979). Protective factors in children’s
responses to stress and disadvantage. In M. W. Kent &
J. E. Rolf (Eds.), Primary prevention of psychopathology:
Vol. 3. Social competence in children (pp. 49–74). Hanover, NH: University Press of New England.
Rutter, M. (1987). Psychosocial resilience and protective
mechanisms. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 57,
316–331. doi:10.1111/j.1939-0025.1987.tb03541.x
Rutter, M. (1989). Isle of wight revisited: Twenty-five
years of child psychiatric epidemiology. Journal of the
American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 28,
633–653. doi:10.1097/00004583-198909000-00001
Rutter, M. (1990). Psychosocial resilience and protective
mechanisms. In J. Rolf, A. S. Masten, D. Cicchetti, K. H.
Nuechterlein, & S. Weintraub (Eds.), Risk and protective
factors in the development of psychopathology (pp. 181–
214). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Sameroff, A. J. (2000). Developmental systems and psychopathology. Development and Psychopathology, 12, 297–
312. doi:10.1017/S0954579400003035
Schoon, I. (2012). Temporal and contextual dimensions to
individual positive development: A developmental-con-
20
Masten
textual systems model of resilience. In M. Ungar (Ed.),
The social ecology of resilience: A handbook of theory and
practice (pp. 143–156). New York, NY: Springer.
Serafica, F. C., & Vargas, L. A. (2006). Cultural diversity
in the development of child psychopathology. In D.
Cicchetti & D. J. Cohen (Eds.), Developmental psychopathology: Theory and method (2nd ed., Vol. 1, pp. 588–
626). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Shiner, R. L., & Masten, A. S. (2012). Childhood personality as a harbinger of competence and resilience in
adulthood. Development and Psychopathology, 24, 507–
528. doi:10.1017/S0954579412000120
Shonkoff, J. P., Garner, A. S., Siegel, B. S., Dobbins, M. I.,
Earls, M. F., McGuinn, L., … Wood, D. L. (2012). The lifelong effects of early childhood adversity and toxic stress.
Pediatrics, 129, e232–e246. doi:10.1542/peds.2011-2663
Sirin, S. R., & Gupta, T. (2012). Muslim, American, and
immigrant: Integration despite challenges. In A. S.
Masten, K. Liebkind, & D. J. Hernandez (Eds.), Realizing the potential of immigrant youth (pp. 253–279). New
York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Theron, L. C., Theron, A. M. C., & Malindi, M. J. (2012).
Toward an African definition of resilience: A rural
South African community’s view of resilient Basotho
youth. Journal of Black Psychology. Retrieved from
http://jbp.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/07/24/00
95798412454675.abstract doi:10.1177/0095798412454675
Tol, W. A., Song, S., & Jordans, M. J. D. (2013). Annual
research review: Resilience and mental health in children and adolescents living in areas of armed conflict
—A systematic review of findings in low- and middleincome countries. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 54, 445–460. doi:10.1111/jcpp.12053
Ungar, M. (2011). The social ecology of resilience:
Addressing contextual and cultural ambiguity of a nascent construct. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 81,
1–17. doi:10.1111/j.1939-0025.2010.01067.x
Ungar, M. (Ed.). (2012). The social ecology of resilience: A
handbook of theory and practice. New York, NY: Springer.
Ungar, M., Ghazinour, M., & Richter, J. (2013). What is
resilience within the social ecology of human development? Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 54,
348–366. doi:10.1111/jcpp.12025
UNHCR. (2010). Global report 2009. Geneva, Switzerland:
UN High Commissioner for Refugees. Retrieved from
http://www.unhcr.org/gr09/index.html
UNICEF. (2011). Young people launch “children’s charter to
be safe from disasters.” Geneva, Switzerland: United
Nations Children’s Fund. Retrieved from http://www.
preventionweb.net/english/professional/news/v.php?
id=20070&utm_source=pw_search&utm_medium=search&utm_campaign=search
UNICEF. (2012). Factsheet on child soldiers. United Nations
Children’s Fund. Retrieved from http://www.unicef.
org/emerg/files/childsoldiers.pdf
UNICEF. (2013). Educating and peacebuilding. Retrieved
from http://www.unicef.org/education
Vigil, J. M., Geary, D. C., Granger, D. A., & Flinn, M. V.
(2010). Sex differences in salivary cortisol, alpha-amylase, and psychological functioning following Hurricane
Katrina. Child Development, 81, 1227–1239. doi:10.1111/j.
1467-8624.2010.01464.x
von Bertalanffy, L. (1968). General system theory: Foundations, development, applications. New York, NY: George
Braziller.
von Mutius, E., & Radon, K. (2008). Living on a farm:
Impact on asthma induction and clinical course. Immunology and Allergy Clinics of North America, 28, 631–647.
doi:10.1016/j.iac.2008.03.010
Wachs, T. D., & Rahman, A. (2013). The nature and
impact of risk and protective influences on children’s
development in low-income countries. In P. R. Britto,
P. L. Engle, & C. M. Super (Eds.), Handbook of early
childhood development research and its impacton global policy (pp. 85–122). New York, NY: Oxford University
Press.
Welsh, M. (2013). Resilience and responsibility: Governing
uncertainty in a complex world. Geographical Journal.
Advance online publication. doi:10.1111/geoj.12012
Werner, E. E. (2000). Through the eyes of innocents: Children
witness World War II. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Werner, E. E., & Smith, R. S. (1982). Vulnerable but invincible: A study of resilient children. New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill.
Werner, E. E., & Smith, R. S. (2001). Journeys from childhood to midlife: Risk, resilience, and recovery. Ithaca, NY:
Cornell University Press.
Worthman, C. M., & Costello, E. J. (2009). Tracking biocultural pathways in population health: The value of
biomarkers. Annals of Human Biology, 36, 281–297.
doi:10.1080/03014460902832934
Worthman, C. M., & Panter-Brick, C. (2008). Homeless
stress children in Nepal: Use of allostatic load to assess
the burden of childhood adversity. Development and
Psychopathology, 20, 233–255. doi:10.1017/S0954579408
000114
Wright, M. O., Masten, A. S., & Narayan, A. J. (2013).
Resilience processes in development: Four waves of
research on positive adaptation in the context of adversity. In S. Goldstein & R. B. Brooks (Eds.), Handbook of
resilience in children (2nd ed., pp. 15–37). New York,
NY: Kluwer (Academic Plenum).
Yehuda, R., Flory, J. D., Pratchett, L. C., Buxbaum, J.,
Ising, M., & Holsboer, F. (2010). Putative biological
mechanisms for the association between early life
adversity and the subsequent development of PTSD.
Psychopharmacology (Berl), 212, 405–417. doi:10.1007/
s00213-010-1969-6
Zelazo, P. D. (2013). Developmental psychology: A new
synthesis. In P. D. Zelazo (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of
developmental psychology: Vol. 1. Body and mind (pp. 3–
12). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Zolli, A., & Healy, A. M. (2012). Resilience: Why things
bounce back. New York, NY: Free Press.
This document is a scanned copy of a printed document. No warranty is given about the
accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material.