Resilience Processes in Development: Four Waves of Research On Positive Adaptation in The Context of Adversity

Resilience Processes
in Development: Four Waves 2

of Research on Positive Adaptation
in the Context of Adversity
Margaret O’Dougherty Wright, Ann S. Masten,

and Angela J. Narayan
How do children and adolescents “make it” when disease-oriented biomedical model that located
their development is threatened by poverty, the source of illness within the individual.
neglect, maltreatment, war, violence, or exposure However, the first investigators to explore the
to oppression, racism, and discrimination? What phenomenon of resilience realized that models
protects them when their parents are disabled by based primarily on predicting psychopathology
substance abuse, mental illness, or serious physi- were limited in scope and usefulness, providing
cal illness? How do we explain the phenomenon little understanding of how good outcomes were
of resilience—children succeeding in spite of achieved by many of the children identified as “at
serious challenges to their development—and put risk.” Such information was vital to the goal of
this knowledge to work for the benefit of children intervening to improve the odds of good develop-
and society? The scientific study of resilience mental outcomes among children at risk. One of
emerged around 1970 when a group of pioneer- the great contributions of the early investigators
ing researchers began to notice the phenomenon was their recognition and championing of the
of positive adaptation among subgroups of chil- idea that understanding positive developmental
dren who were considered “at risk” for develop- pathways in the context of adversity is funda-
ing later psychopathology (Masten, 2001, 2012). mentally important for preventing and treating
The resilience research pioneers led a revolu- problems, particularly among children at risk for
tion in thinking about the origins and treatment of psychopathology.
psychopathology. The primary focus of earlier The study of resilience has advanced in four
clinical research on children at high risk for psy- major waves of research. In this chapter we high-
chopathology had been either to observe the con- light the concepts and findings resulting from
sequences of adversity or the unfolding of risk these waves to date, as they have shaped an
processes accounting for the etiology of disor- emerging resilience framework for research and
ders. Research efforts were directed towards practice. The first wave of work yielded good
understanding pathology and deficits, rather than descriptions of resilience phenomena, along with
on how problems were averted, resolved, or tran- basic concepts and methodologies, and focused
scended. The field of mental health at the time on the individual. The second wave yielded a
was dominated by psychoanalytic theory and a more dynamic accounting of resilience, adopting
a developmental systems approach to theory and
M. O’Dougherty Wright (*)
research on positive adaptation in the context of
Miami University, Oxford, OH, USA adversity or risk, and focused on the transactions
e-mail: wrightmo@muohio.edu among individuals and the many systems in which
A.S. Masten • A.J. Narayan their development is embedded. The third wave
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA focused on creating resilience by intervention
S. Goldstein and R.B. Brooks (eds.), Handbook of Resilience in Children, 15

DOI 10.1007/978-1-4614-3661-4_2, © Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013
16 M. O’Dougherty Wright et al.
directed at changing developmental pathways. typically referred to a pattern of positive adapta-

The fourth wave, now rising, is focused on under- tion in the context of past or present adversity.
standing and integrating resilience across multi- Later definitions have become broader and more
ple levels of analysis, with growing attention to dynamic, in keeping with efforts to integrate the
epigenetic and neurobiological processes, brain concept across levels of analysis and across disci-
development, and the ways that systems interact plines (Masten, 2007, 2012). An example of a
to shape development. systems-oriented definition of resilience follows:
The capacity of a dynamic system to withstand or
recover from significant challenges that threaten its
The First Wave: Identifying Individual stability, viability, or development (Masten, 2011).
Resilience and Factors that Make a Resilience was also recognized as an inferen-
Difference tial concept that involved two distinct judgments
(Luthar & Cicchetti, 2000; Masten & Coatsworth,
Initial research in this area was dominated by a
1998). First, one judges by some criteria that
strong cultural ethos in the United States that
there has been a significant threat to the develop-
glorified rugged individualism—that Horatio
ment or adaptation of the individual or system of
Alger ability to “pick oneself up by one’s own
interest. Second, one judges that, despite this
bootstraps” and succeed solely through one’s
threat or risk exposure, the current or eventual
own efforts. Early on, investigators as well as
adaptation or adjustment of the individual or sys-
journalists referred to children who functioned
tem is satisfactory, again by some selected set of
well despite the odds as “invulnerable” (Anthony,
criteria.
1974; Pines, 1975) and tended to focus on their
There has been considerable confusion
personal traits and characteristics. Such children
throughout the past four decades on the precise
were thought to be impervious to stress because
meaning of many terms used by resilience
of their inner fortitude or character armor. As
researchers (Luthar, Cicchetti, & Becker, 2000;
research extended across time and across types of
Masten, 2001, 2012; Rutter, 2000). Nonetheless,
trauma endured, the term of “invulnerability”
there is some consensus on a working vocabulary
was replaced by more qualified and dynamic
for this domain of inquiry, as presented in
terms such as stress-resistance and resilience.
Table 2.1. Much of that vocabulary (e.g., adver-
These concepts were thought to more appropri-
sity, life events, risks, and vulnerability) was
ately capture the interplay of risk and protective
already familiar from studies of psychopathology.
processes occurring over time and involving indi-
Resilience studies, however, underscored some
vidual, family, and larger sociocultural influences
concepts that had been omitted or underem-
(Masten, Best, & Garmezy, 1990; Rutter, 1987;
phasized in earlier work, most particularly the
Werner & Smith, 1982, 1992).
concepts of assets, compensatory (promotive)
factors, protective factors, and competence or
developmental tasks.
Key Concepts Resilience definitions always consider the
threats to good adaptation (or perturbations in a
During the first generation of research on resil-
system), conceptualized in terms like risk,
ience in development, these phenomena were
adversity, and negative life events. As illustrated
studied in a variety of different contexts through-
in Table 2.1, risk most basically signifies an
out the world (Glantz & Johnson, 1999; Luthar,
elevated probability of a negative outcome. It is
2006; Masten, 2012; Masten, Best, and Garmezy,
a group or population term, in that a risk factor
1990). A consensus emerged on key concepts,
does not identify which individual or individu-
though controversies continue to this day and
als in a group considered at risk will eventually
there have been changes in emphasis over the
display difficulties in adaptation, but rather that
years. For example, in early work, resilience
the group of people with this risk factor is less
2 Resilience Processes in Development… 17
Table 2.1 Definition and illustration of key concepts

Term Definition Examples
Adversity Disturbances to the function or viability Poverty; homelessness; child maltreat-
of a system; experiences that threaten ment; political conflict; disaster
adaptation or development
Resilience Positive adaptation in the face of risk or Child from violent family does well in
adversity; capacity of a dynamic system school, has friends, behaves well, and
to withstand or recover from disturbance gets along well with the teacher;
earthquake survivor recovers to normal
function and development
Risk An elevated probability of an The odds of developing schizophrenia
undesirable outcome are higher in groups of people who have
a biological parent with this disorder
Risk factor A measurable characteristic in a group Premature birth; parental divorce;
of individuals or their situation that poverty; parental mental illness; child
predicts a negative outcome on a maltreatment
specific outcome criteria
Cumulative risk Increased risk due to: (a) the presence Children in homeless families often have
of multiple risk factors; (b) multiple many risk factors for developmental
occurrences of the same risk factor; or problems, including a single parent who
(c) the accumulating effects of ongoing hasn’t graduated from high school, a
adversity history of poor health care, poor
schooling, inadequate nutrition, and
exposure to many negative events, such
as family or community violence
Vulnerability Individual (or system) susceptibility to Anxious children find school transitions
undesirable outcomes; the diathesis in more stressful; compromised immune
diathesis-stressor models of function increases susceptibility to
psychopathology infectious diseases
Proximal risk Risk factors experienced directly by the Witnessing violence; associating with
child delinquent peers
Distal risk Risk arising from a child’s ecological High community crime rate; inaccessible
context but mediated through more health care; recession
proximal processes
Asset, resource, on A measurable characteristic in a group Cognitive skills; competent parenting;
compensatory or of individuals or their situation that high social class
promotive factor predicts a positive or desirable outcome,
similarly for low and high levels of risk
Protective factor A predictor of better outcomes Airbags in automobiles; 911 services;
particularly in situations of risk neonatal intensive care; health insurance
or adversity
Cumulative protection The presence of multiple protective A child in a poor neighborhood has
factors in an individual’s life attentive parents, a safe home, support-
ive kin, a school tutor, and connections
to prosocial peers or community
organizations
Psychosocial Effectiveness or capabilities in the Active engagement of intellectual ability
competence adaptive use of personal and contextual and positive relationships with teachers
resources to accomplish age-appropriate results in school success
developmental tasks
Developmental tasks Psychosocial milestones or Walking; talking; learning to read;
accomplishments expected for people of developing friendships; following rules;
different ages in a given historical or taking care of one’s children
cultural context, often serving as criteria
for judging how well a person is doing
in life
likely overall to do well in some regard. There is has ended (Masten & Obradović, 2008; Wright,
often a lack of precision regarding risk factors, Masten, Northwood, & Hubbard, 1997).
related to their complex and cumulative nature Risk terminology has undergone significant
(Obradović, Shaffer, & Masten, 2012). Many refinement in recent years, inspired by a series of
broad risk indicators or “markers” encompass influential articles by Helena Kraemer and col-
great heterogeneity in outcome within the group. leagues (Kraemer et al., 1997; Kraemer, Stice,
For example, children born prematurely vary Kazdin, Offord, & Kupfer, 2001; Kraemer,
greatly in circumstances, birth weight, accom- Wilson, Fairburn, & Agras, 2002). Their work
panying complications, family socioeconomic underscored the importance of distinguishing
situation, and access to medical care. A closer correlates of poor outcomes from risk factors that
analysis often provides clues to the processes clearly predate the onset of the problem from
accounting for the overall risk of the group. In causal risk factors that can be shown (perhaps
the case of prematurity, knowing details about through experimental manipulation) to contribute
intracranial bleeding or delivery complications to the bad outcome of interest. This work not
may not only improve prediction about out- only has led to greater specificity in risk termi-
comes but also lead to better understanding nology but also provided a conceptual framework
of the actual processes producing the risk for research needed to identify a causal risk fac-
(O’Dougherty & Wright, 1990). tor (see decision tree in Kraemer et al., 1997) and
It soon became apparent that risk factors rarely to test hypothesized mediating and moderating
occur in isolation. More typically, children with influences through experimental intervention
high risk are exposed to multiple adversities designs (Kraemer et al., 2002).
extending over time, sometimes for very long The second key aspect of judging resilience in
periods of their lives (Dong et al., 2004; Finkelhor, the lives of individuals involves decisions about
Ormrod, Turner, & Holt, 2009; Masten & Wright, how well a person is doing in life or, in other
1998; Obradović et al., 2012). Outcomes gener- words, the quality of their adaptation or develop-
ally worsen as risk factors pile up in children’s ment. A variety of criteria have been utilized to
lives, and concomitantly, resilience becomes less judge positive adaptation in the literature, includ-
common. Thus, it has become critical to examine ing criteria focused on the absence of pathology,
cumulative risk factors in order to more accurately successes in age-salient developmental tasks,
predict and understand developmental outcomes subjective well-being, or all of these (see Table 2.1
(Sameroff, Gutman, & Peck, 2003). Divorce, for for examples). In the developmental literature,
example, has been a commonly studied stressor many investigators have defined good outcomes
but research has revealed considerable heteroge- on the basis of the child’s observed or reported
neity in outcome for children whose parents have competence in meeting the expectations for chil-
divorced. The concept of cumulative risk helps to dren of a given age and gender in their particular
clarify this diversity in outcome. Divorce is not a sociocultural and historical context. Competence
single, time limited risk factor or stressor, but is typically assessed by how well the child has
rather an often lengthy process of multiple stres- met, and continues to meet, the expectations
sors and life changes. The extent and duration of explicitly or implicitly set in the society for chil-
these stressors vary considerably from family to dren as they grow up. This is often referred to as
family, and can occur before, during, and after the the child’s track record of success in meeting
divorce itself. Finally, some forms of adversity are developmental tasks, age-related standards of
so chronic and massive that no child can be behavior across a variety of domains, such as
expected to be resilient until a safe and more nor- physical, emotional, cognitive, moral, behavioral,
mative environment for development is restored. and social areas of achievement or function
Thus, in cases of catastrophic trauma, such as (McCormick, Kuo, & Masten, 2011). While these
those resulting from war or torture, resilience may vary from culture to culture, they typically
typically refers to good recovery after the trauma refer to broad tasks that guide the development
and socialization of children (see Table 2.1 for & Cicchetti, 2010; Masten, Obradović, & Burt,
examples). Children judged to show resilience 2006). In developmental theory, good function-
have typically negotiated these developmental ing in developmental tasks provides a platform
tasks with reasonable success despite exposure to on which future success is built. It is becoming
significant risks and adversities. more evident that promoting such competence
During the first wave of research, controver- may be crucial to preventing some kinds of
sies emerged about how to define resilience and problem outcomes among high-risk populations
many of these debates concerned the criteria for of children (see section “The Third Wave:
adaptation by which resilience would be judged Intervening to Foster Resilience”).
(see Masten & Reed, 2002 or Luthar et al., 2000 The first wave of resilience studies focused on
for overviews of these debates). There was identifying the correlates or predictors of positive
debate, for example, about whether a child who adaptation against a background of risk or adver-
was adapting well in terms of observable social sity. Thus, these investigators were also interested
behavior (academic achievement, work, relation- in assessing individual or situational differences
ships, etc.) but suffering internal symptoms of that might account for differential outcomes
distress was showing resilience. There were among children sharing similar adversities or risk
debates about not only the “inside” vs. “outside” factors. Two major kinds of correlates were con-
picture on adaptation but also on how many sidered: (1) positive factors associated with better
domains should be considered and when to assess adaptation at all levels of risk, including high-risk
“outcome.” We would argue, for example, that levels, which were often termed assets or com-
resilience does not necessarily mean that one is pensatory factors (e.g., Garmezy, Masten, &
unaffected or untouched by the trauma one has Tellegen, 1984; see also Benson, Scales, Leffert,
endured nor does it mean that one always func- & Roehlkepartain, 1999), and more recently, pro-
tions well. It is also possible that a child may motive factors (Sameroff, 1999); and (2) factors
show resilience at one point in life and not at that seemed to have particular importance for
another, or in one domain and not another. Such positive adaptation at high levels of risk or adver-
debates linger in the literature (see Masten, sity, which were typically termed protective fac-
2012). Nonetheless, it is clear that the criteria by tors (e.g., Rutter, 1979). The key difference in the
which resilience is judged in a population and two types of concepts was whether the factor
how comprehensively it is assessed across played a special kind of role under hazardous
domains of functioning will impact the preva- conditions.
lence of resilience in high-risk groups and the When a positive predictor is designated a pro-
nature of the processes identified as relevant to tective factor, some type of shielding from the
resilience. effects of risk or adversity is implied. Thus, pro-
One of the most important emerging domains tective factors are assets that particularly matter
of study concerns the linkage among multiple or only matter when risk or adversity is high. For
domains of adaptation, positive and negative, and example, airbags in automobiles or antibodies to
what this may mean for understanding resilience specific disease agents are viewed as protective
and psychopathology. Internal and external factors because they operate to protect individu-
symptoms are related over time, as is adaptive als from the dangers of accidents or infections.
functioning across different domains of compe- Protective factors moderate the impact of adver-
tence and symptoms (Masten, Burt, & Coatsworth, sity on adaptation. The examples of airbags and
2006; Masten & Curtis, 2000). Symptoms can antibodies are causal protective factors in that
contribute to problems negotiating developmen- they provide demonstrable and explainable pro-
tal tasks, and failure in such tasks can lead to tection to a living system in the course of an
symptoms, with snowballing consequences that unfolding experience. Similarly, a parent who
have been referred to as developmental cascades jumps in front of a child to take the brunt of a
(Masten, 2001; Masten, Burt, et al., 2006; Masten physical assault clearly is protective in the sense
of shielding the child from worse harm. Yet many the same continuum. That is, the attribute or
presumed protective factors in studies of resil- variable in question is associated with poor adap-
ience are far less easy to specify. tation at one end of the range and good adapta-
It has proven to be quite difficult to distinguish tion at the other end. For example, when poverty
assets from protective factors in human develop- is present it is identified as a risk factor for
ment because many of the most important corre- negative outcome whereas high socioeconomic
lates of good adaptation are themselves complex status is observed to be a compensatory or pro-
systems or relationships that serve multiple func- motive factor associated with positive outcomes.
tions. Parents, who could be viewed as “Mother Eventually, we may learn “where the action is”
Nature’s Protective Factor,” clearly comprise a for a particular attribute or factor, but in many
protective system of immense complexity for cases, we may learn once again that adaptation
child development. One finding that has emerged arises from complex processes not easily labeled.
and been re-confirmed time and time again is that Certainly, it is conceivable to think about a pure
resilient adaptation rests on good family (or sur- “risk factor” that has a clear negative influence on
rogate family) relationships. For very young chil- development when it occurs (e.g., foot amputated
dren, early relationships with caregivers provide in an accident) but no influence when it does not
the foundation for developing secure attachments occur. It is also conceivable to think about pure
to others (Bowlby, 1988; Sroufe, Carlson, Levy, “asset” factors that have a positive influence
& Egeland, 1999). If this early infant-caregiver when they occur (e.g., musical talent) but have
relationship is warm, attentive, and responsive, little impact on development in their absence. But
the child develops confidence that his or her most factors currently studied as potential causal
needs will be met, learns positive ways of relat- predictors of adaptation or good vs. poor devel-
ing to others, becomes more able to regulate opment reflect continuously distributed variables
emotions, and develops feelings that the self is that may operate in many ways at many levels
worthy and valued. Thus, a responsive, caring, (e.g., poor attentional skills vs. good attentional
and competent caregiver is a very powerful asset skills).
for fostering the child’s healthy growth and devel-
opment in any context. In the face of significant
adversity, such parents also know how to respond Developmental Perspectives
effectively to threat and are able to adaptively
shift their responses to provide protective modes Resilience studies quickly revealed that children
of behavior. Similarly, the human brain is capable might have different vulnerabilities and protective
of many functions and responds to life situations systems at different times in the course of their
in a multitude of adaptive ways. Thus it is not development (Masten et al., 1990; Wright &
surprising to learn that IQ scores, a general esti- Masten, 1997). Infants, because of their total
mate of adaptive problem solving abilities, pre- dependence on caregivers, are highly vulnerable
dict a multitude of good outcomes regardless of to the consequences of loss of their parents or
risk or adversity level (meeting the definition of mistreatment by caregivers. Yet infants are more
asset) and also have been shown to function as protected from experiencing the full impact asso-
moderators of risk or adversity, mattering even ciated with war or natural disasters because they
more under threatening circumstances (Masten lack understanding of what is happening. As chil-
et al., 1999). dren mature, their school milieu and neighbor-
There has been considerable debate over the hood can increasingly contribute to their exposure
years about labeling a continuous variable that to traumatic events. Older children engage in
correlates with adaptation as a risk factor or an more unsupervised activities and their involve-
asset or compensatory factor, when it could be ment with peers can be protective or risk enhanc-
viewed as either or both. Often these constructs ing. Thus, while older children are much more
are composed of bipolar opposites that exist on capable of coping in the world on their own, their
independence from the protection of their Table 2.2 Examples of promotive and protective factors
caregivers can also contribute to their trauma Child characteristics
exposure. Adolescents are also vulnerable to a Social and adaptable temperament in infancy
different type of loss or betrayal, such as loss or Good cognitive abilities, problem solving skills, and
devastation concerning friends, faith, schools, and executive functions
governments. They understand what these losses Ability to form and maintain positive peer
relationships
mean for their future, a realization well beyond
Effective emotional and behavioral regulation strategies
the understanding of young children.
Positive view of self (self-confidence, high self-esteem,
self-efficacy)
Positive outlook on life (hopefulness)
The “Short List” of Resilience Faith and a sense of meaning in life
Correlates Characteristics valued by society and self (talents,
sense of humor, attractiveness to others)
The first wave of research on resilience included Family characteristics
both person-focused and variable-focused Stable and supportive home environment
approaches. Person-focused approaches identified Harmonious interparental relationship
Close relationship to sensitive and responsive
resilient individuals in an effort to determine how
caregiver
they differed from other individuals facing simi- Authoritative parenting style (high on warmth,
lar adversities or risks who were not faring as structure/monitoring, and expectations)
well. Variable-focused approaches, in contrast, Positive sibling relationships
examined the linkages among characteristics of Supportive connections with extended family
individuals and their environments that contrib- members
uted to good outcome when risk or adversity was Parents involved in child’s education
high. This method focused on variables that cut Parents have individual qualities listed above as
protective for child
across large, heterogeneous samples, and drew
Socioeconomic advantages
heavily on multivariate statistics. Across many
Postsecondary education of parent
studies from each of these perspectives and across Faith and religious affiliations
widely divergent methodologies, the first wave of Community characteristics
research revealed a striking degree of consistency High neighborhood quality
in findings, implicating a common set of broad Safe neighborhood
correlates of better adaptation among children at Low level of community violence
risk for diverse reasons. This consistency was Affordable housing
noted early by Garmezy (1985), and has been Access to recreational centers
corroborated repeatedly over the years. Masten Clean air and water
(2001, 2007) has referred to these correlates as Effective schools
“the short list” (see Table 2.2) and argued that Well-trained and well-compensated teachers
they may reflect the fundamental adaptive sys- After-school programs
tems supporting human development. As investi- School recreation resources (e.g., sports, music, art)
gators began to consider the processes that might Employment opportunities for parents and teens
account for why these correlates are repeatedly Good public health care
Access to emergency services (police, fire, medical)
found, the second wave of resilience work began.
Connections to caring adult mentors and prosocial peers
While the first wave produced many ideas, con-
Cultural or societal characteristics
structs, methods, and findings about correlates of
Protective child policies (child labor, child health, and
resilience (as well as many controversies), it was welfare)
soon evident that more sophisticated models were Value and resources directed at education
needed to consider the complex processes that Prevention of and protection from oppression or
were implicated by the initial findings (see Glantz political violence
& Johnson, 1999). Low acceptance of physical violence
Luthar, 2006; Masten, 2001, 2007, 2011, 2012).

The Second Wave: Embedding As a result, studies of resilience are more contex-
Resilience in Developmental and tualized in multiple ways, including both how the
Ecological Systems, with a Focus individual interacts with many other systems at
on Processes many levels throughout life and greater care
about generalizing conclusions about risk and
Early studies delineated a number of important protective factors from one context to another or
factors that were associated with later resilience, one period of development to another. The early
but did not provide an integrative understanding pioneers certainly recognized the complex,
of the processes leading to resilience in develop- dynamic nature of naturally occurring resilience
ment. As noted in a review of the first wave of (see Masten et al., 1990 for this history), but the
work, “it is the task of future investigators to por- basic descriptive data of the initial wave of stud-
tray resilience in research questions that shift ies was a necessary empirical first step before
from the “what” questions of description to the research could begin to address the complexity of
“how” questions of underlying processes that the phenomena.
influence adaptation” (Masten et al., 1990, p. 439). The fact that many of the promotive and pro-
Subsequent research and theory has focused tective factors that were identified in the first
more specifically on understanding the complex, wave appeared to facilitate development in both
systemic interactions that shape both pathologi- high and low risk conditions suggested the impor-
cal and positive outcomes, emphasizing resil- tance of fundamental, universal human adapta-
ience as a phenomenon arising from many tion systems; these systems keep development on
processes (Cicchetti, 2010; Egeland, Carlson, & course and also facilitate recovery from adversity
Sroufe, 1993; Masten, 1999, 2007; Yates, (Masten, 2001, 2007). Examples of these adap-
Egeland & Sroufe, 2003). Wyman, for example, tive systems include the development of attach-
described resilience in the following way: ment relationships; moral and ethical development;
“Resilience reflects a diverse set of processes that self-regulatory systems for modulating emotion,
alter children’s transactions with adverse life arousal, and behavior; mastery and motivational
conditions to reduce negative effects and promote systems; and neurobehavioral and information
mastery of normative developmental tasks” processing systems. Other systems involve the
(Wyman, 2003, p. 308). broader cultural context and consist of extended
The second wave of resilience work reflects a family networks, religious organizations, and
broader transformation occurring in the sciences other social systems in the society that offer adap-
concerned with normative and pathological tive advantages. These systems are versatile and
development that has accompanied the emer- responsive to a wide range of challenges, both
gence of developmental psychopathology normative and non-normative. If the major threats
(Cicchetti, 1990, 2006; Masten, 2006, 2007; to children’s adaptation are stressors that under-
Sroufe & Rutter, 1984). Resilience research over mine the development of these basic protective
the past decade increasingly has focused on con- systems, then it follows that children’s ability to
textual issues and more dynamic models of recover and to be resilient will be highly depen-
change, explicitly recognizing the role of devel- dent on these systems being restored.
opmental systems in causal explanations The influence of developmental systems the-
(Cicchetti, 2010; Cicchetti & Curtis, 2007; ory (DST) is also evident in the multicausal and
Masten, 2007, 2011). This has led to greater dynamic models of resilience characteristic of
emphasis on the role of relationships and systems the second wave of work. Second wave theory
beyond the family, and attempts to consider and and research often encompasses the language of
integrate biological, social, and cultural processes DST, with concepts such as equifinality and
into models and studies of resilience (Charney, multifinality, developmental pathways and tra-
2004; Cicchetti, 2010; Cicchetti & Curtis, 2007; jectories that capture the dynamic, interactional,
reciprocal, multicausal, and multiple-level such conflict. A transactional model of influence

models typical of DST (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; captures this dynamic pattern and highlights the
Cicchetti & Rogosch, 1996; Ford & Lerner, importance of examining reciprocal patterns of
1992). The focus of many second wave studies interaction that shape development over time
has been on the processes that may lead to resil- (Sameroff, 2000).
ience. Studies have attempted to explore moder- Finally, the impact of the social context on
ating processes that would explain protective the child is mediated in part through the child’s
effects that seem to work only for some people perception and interpretation of his or her expe-
under some conditions as well as mediating riences (Boyce et al., 1998), and some investiga-
processes that explain how risk or protection tors have focused on such internal processes
actually works to undermine or enhance (Compas, Connor-Smith, Saltzman, Thomsen,
adaptation. & Wadsworth, 2001). Although important, such
An ecological, transactional systems approach assessments are inherently difficult to obtain,
to understanding resilience marks a dramatic particularly in very young children who lack the
shift from a traditional focus on the individual to verbal skills and conceptual framework needed
a broader focus encompassing family and com- to describe the impact of their traumatic experi-
munity relational networks (Cowen, 2000; ences. There are likely to be significant changes
Cummings, Davies, & Campbell, 2000; Masten in the meaning the child assigns to different
& Obradović, 2008; Walsh, 1998). Developmental experiences at different ages and thus the mean-
outcome is determined by complex patterns of ing and the impact of a traumatic experience can
interaction and transaction. Wave two research change considerably over time. For example,
studies incorporate design and analytic tech- some victims of childhood sexual abuse are so
niques and strategies that allow for detection of young at the time of the initial abuse that they do
such multilevel influences. This dynamic not understand the full meaning of the perpetra-
approach emphasizes the need to formulate dif- tor’s actions. However, when they become older,
ferent research questions in order to understand the extent of betrayal and the shame and humili-
the process of positive or negative adaptation fol- ation they experience can intensify and
lowing stress. Rather than asking questions about significantly enhance the stressfulness of the
why a child is resilient, questions are asked about experience (Wright, Crawford, & Sebastian,
bidirectional connections between the child and 2007). While children’s subjective experience
his or her context. These child–context relation- and other internal cognitive and affective coping
ships and interactions become the focus of study. responses to traumatic experiences are still
Such an approach fosters research designs that sparsely researched areas, these may be critical
more adequately reflect individual differences in areas to pursue in order to fully understand indi-
developmental pathways and contextual varia- vidual variability in response to traumatic stress
tion within families, communities, societies, cul- (Park & Folkman, 1997).
tures, and historical periods. Wave two research
studies also provided a more complex assessment
of family and environmental influences. Parents Contextual Speciﬁcity of Protective
do not respond in identical ways to each of their Processes
own children, nor is the family environment
experienced in an identical way by different chil- With closer attention to processes that might
dren in the family (Plomin, Asbury, & Dunn, account for resilience, second wave investigators
2001). Even when there is significant conflict and also began to note that protective processes could
disharmony within a family, the negativity be contextually specific. This research high-
expressed by the parents may focus more on one lighted the importance of paying careful attention
child than on another and the children themselves to the ways in which specific groups exposed to
may be differentially reactive to and affected by diverse stressors differentially adapt, and also to
exploring which factors were protective for associated with academic disengagement among
which individuals in these contexts. Cicchetti and those participants who also displayed conduct
Rogosch (1997), in their follow-up study of mal- problems. Overall, these findings suggest that
treated children, provide intriguing evidence in individual child characteristics such as high self-
this regard. Whereas many studies of high-risk esteem or positive future expectations may be
children have found that close interpersonal rela- associated with resilience for some children but
tionships and social support predict better long- not for others. It may be quite important to pay
term outcome, Cicchetti and Rogosch found that attention to whether the child’s beliefs and expec-
the maltreated children in their study who dis- tations are congruent with his or her ability to
played positive long-term adjustment actually reach the goals set.
drew on fewer relational resources and displayed
more restrictive emotional self-regulation styles
than did comparison controls who were not Stability and Change in Resilient
maltreated. In a similar vein, both Werner and Adaptation
Smith (1992) and Wyman (2003) found that
interpersonal and affective distancing and low As resilience research developed, more nuanced
expectations for parental involvement were perspectives emerged. It was clear that the same
related to later resilience, not poor adjustment. child could be diagnosed “resilient” at one point
Expanding upon this, Werner and Smith reported in development but not another, that a child
that later in life many of their resilient adults might be adaptive in one context but not another
detached themselves from parents and siblings, at the same point in development, and that chil-
perhaps to prevent being overwhelmed by their dren were often adaptive in some aspects of
families’ emotional problems. These results high- their life but not others. Moreover, wave two
light the distinctive challenges faced by children research gave far more consideration to multiple
who come from highly dysfunctional families levels of context interacting to produce resil-
and emphasize the importance of avoiding ience. Consequently, the most complex models
premature conclusions about what constitutes of resilience focus on healthy vs. maladaptive
positive coping. pathways of development in the lives of children
The Rochester Child Resilience Project exposed to adversity over time. These models
(Wyman, 2003; Wyman, Cowen, Work, & Kerley, provide an opportunity to attend specifically to
1993) has shed additional light on the issues of turning points in individual’s lives, and to con-
context-specific adaptation and the processes sider the complex, holistic interactions of a
underlying resilience. In their follow-up study of changing person and context (Masten, 2012;
urban children growing up in the context of Masten & Reed, 2002; Rutter, 2000).
adversity (high rates of poverty, violence, family To date, much of the discussion of develop-
discord, and substance use problems), factors mental pathways has been drawn from case
considered to be “protective” differed in their examples and composite data obtained in longitu-
effect, depending on additional characteristics of dinal studies (e.g., Cairns, & Cairns, 1994;
the child and the context. For example, although Furstenberg, Brooks-Gunn, & Morgan, 1987;
positive future expectations and perceptions of Hawkins et al., 2003; Masten et al., 2004; Masten,
personal competence have often been found to be Obradović, & Burt, 2006; Rutter & Quinton,
protective, this positive effect was only evident 1984; Sampson & Laub, 1993; Werner & Smith,
among participants in their study when these per- 1992, 2001). This longitudinal data allows us to
ceptions were realistic. If the adolescent had an examine changes within-individuals over time
unrealistic perception of his or her competence, rather than focusing on between-individual analy-
this was associated with an elevated risk of seri- ses. Such data speak to the enduring capacity for
ous conduct problems. Furthermore, in their sam- change that exists throughout development, and
ple, positive future expectations were actually also provide valuable insight into the possible
processes that may operate to produce either characterized by extreme deprivation (Rutter &
stability or change in functioning. For example, the English and Romanian Adoptees (ERA) study
studies identifying and attempting to account for team, 1998), child soldiers (e.g., Betancourt et al.,
desistance trajectories in delinquency and crimi- 2010) and refugees exposed to massive war
nal behavior based on longitudinal data (e.g., trauma (Wright et al., 1997) also suggest a
Hawkins et al., 2003; Mulvey et al., 2010; remarkable capacity for developmental recovery
Sampson & Laub, 1993) suggest that complex when normative rearing conditions are restored.
interactions of youth with parents, peers, and All of these studies reveal the critical importance
other adults in the home, neighborhood, schools, of turning points in the lives of those exposed to
and workplace contribute to positive and negative severe adversity. These turning points, often
trajectories across the transitions from childhood occurring in conjunction with substantial changes
to adolescence and early adulthood. Such studies in status or context (e.g., adoption, immigration,
also suggest that there are critical turning points postsecondary education, rescue, securing stable
in response to specific developmental challenges employment, successful marriage), may indicate
(such as entering school or the transition to ado- lasting alterations in an individual’s developmen-
lescence) that may shape the nature and course of tal pathway. Laub, Nagin, and Sampson (1998)
future adaptation. have described these phenomena in terms of
Three studies that have followed a high-risk “knifing off” in the long-term follow-up of the
sample well into adulthood provide some very Glueck and Glueck cohort of antisocial youth,
encouraging information about the potential for and there are many anecdotal accounts of such
recovery. Werner and Smith (1992) report that dramatic turns in the life course.
the majority of their high-risk youths with seri- The impressive recovery patterns observed in
ous coping problems in adolescence had recov- many individuals later in life, however, do not
ered by the time they reached their 30s, and this mean that all children will recover. A significant
was particularly true for the women in their percentage of the children from the Romanian
sample. Only one in six troubled high-risk teens orphanages as well as from the refugee studies
became a troubled adult. Furstenberg and col- have serious and chronic emotional, behavioral,
leagues (1987) found a similar pattern of later and/or cognitive problems that appear to be last-
recovery among their sample of black adolescent ing effects of their experiences (Gunnar, 2001;
teenage mothers. Also, among antisocial youth, Masten & Hubbard, 2003; Rutter & the ERA
large scale desistance is reported over time, so team, 1998; Wright et al., 1997; Zeanah, Smyke,
that by mid-life, the majority of antisocial youth & Settles, 2006). Both Werner and Smith’s (1992)
have desisted (Sampson & Laub, 1993). Across and Sampson and Laub’s (1993) longitudinal
all three studies, strong ties to work and to one’s studies (Laub & Sampson, 2002) revealed that if
spouse were associated with eventual positive there were several problem areas at an early age,
adaptation and strongly implicated in “turn such as school failure, serious mental health
around” cases. Activities which facilitated these problems, and repeated problems with delin-
ends, such as developing personal resources, quency, the pattern of maladjustment and deviant
obtaining further education, marrying an accept- behavior was more stable. This finding sheds
ing and supportive spouse, joining the armed light on a pattern replicated by other longitudinal
forces to gain vocational skills, and subsequent studies that there is stronger support for develop-
fertility control and family planning, were critical mental continuity of poor adaptation when mul-
components promoting positive within-individual tiple areas of competence have been compromised.
changes over time. For other high-risk individu- Compounding or cascading problems may
als, supportive extended family and friendship explain why intervention becomes more chal-
networks or becoming a member of a church lenging as individuals advance further along
facilitated positive change. Follow-up studies of pathways of maladaptation, or problems show
children adopted away from institutional rearing cascading effects, spreading across domains
(Masten & Cicchetti, 2010; Masten & Powell, also underplays the extensive role of context in
2003; Yates et al., 2003). individual resilience. Because adaptation is
Another important consideration is the possi- embedded within a context of multiple systems of
bility that the effects of early adversity might not interactions, including the family, school, neigh-
be evident immediately, but might emerge much borhood, community, and culture, a child’s resil-
later in development (a kind of “sleeper effect”). ience is very dependent upon other people and
Some types of early adversity, such as living with other systems of influence (Masten & Obradović,
a depressed mother (Goodman, 2007) or experi- 2008; Riley & Masten, 2005). The processes that
encing neglect or abuse (DiLillo & Damashek, foster resilience or vulnerability need to be under-
2003), might impair the child’s later ability to stood within this holistic context. Children who
function successfully in intimate family roles. do not “make it” often lack the basic support, pro-
For example, female survivors of child sexual tection, and respect they need for successful devel-
abuse can display a wide range of later interper- opment, whereas children who succeed typically
sonal problems, including problems with intimate have sufficient external support to continue for-
partner relationships, disturbed sexual function- ward. The same forces that may constrain the
ing, and difficulties in parenting (DiLillo, 2001). child’s development—poverty, discrimination,
Longitudinal data on interpersonal functioning inadequate medical care, or exposure to commu-
over time is particularly needed to understand the nity violence—also often impact and constrain the
influence of early traumatic relationship experi- entire family. Economically impoverished fami-
ences on later attachments and to explore the lies, or parents ravaged by their own struggles
timing and types of subsequent interpersonal with alcoholism or mental illness, are often poorly
experiences that can counteract adverse effects equipped to provide the necessary resources and
(Egeland, Weinfield, Bosquet, & Cheng, 2000). basic protections their children need. All individ-
Understanding resilience in terms of processes uals need the support and assistance of the soci-
that alter children’s transactions with adverse life ety in which they live. The degree of success one
conditions, enabling them to reduce the negative has in surmounting these obstacles is a complex
effects of such experiences, and fostering mas- combination of personal strengths and vulnera-
tery also avoids the type of damaging labeling bilities, as well as ongoing transactions with
that sometimes occurs when resilience is referred one’s family and community network (Cowen,
to as an individual outcome. Children who expe- 2000; Riley & Masten, 2005; Walsh, 1998).
rience adversity, particularly severe and long last-
ing trauma, should be expected to have distress
symptoms of some sort. For this reason it is par- Cultural Inﬂuences on Resilience
ticularly helpful to think of a “continuum of resil-
ience” as well as a “continuum of vulnerability” Another critical component in understanding
across multiple domains (physical, psychologi- processes in resilience is the role of culture.
cal, interpersonal, and occupational) and to be Just as biological evolution has equipped human
alert to the ever changing dynamic of the child’s individuals with many adaptive systems, cul-
functioning over time. tural evolution has produced a host of protec-
There are potentially damaging consequences tive systems. Protective factors are often rooted
of viewing resilience as an individual trait (Masten, in culture. Cultural traditions, religious rituals
2012). Foremost among these is the tendency to and ceremonies, and community support ser-
view those children who do not adapt successfully vices undoubtedly provide a wide variety of
as somehow lacking the “right stuff” and some- protective functions, though these have not
how personally to blame for not being able to sur- been studied as extensively in resilience
mount the obstacles they have faced. This focus research. Moreover, there may well be cultur-
minimizes the overwhelming social stressors and ally specific traditions, beliefs, or support sys-
chronic adversities that many children face and tems that function to protect individuals,
families, and community functioning in the these dimensions might mediate resilience in
context of adversity within those cultures. different ways for different groups (Gaines
Specific healing, blessing, or purification cere- et al., 1997; Kim, Triandis, Kagitcibasi, Choi,
monies, such as those found among American & Yoon, 1994). Our intervention efforts might
Indian tribal cultures (Gone, 2009; LaFromboise, be significantly enhanced by consideration of
Oliver & Hoyt, 2006a, 2006b), as well as in these and of other cultural dimensions.
many cultures and religions around the world
(Crawford, Wright, & Masten, 2006), may
serve to counteract or ameliorate the impact of The Third Wave: Intervening
devastating experiences among people in a cul- to Foster Resilience
ture. Similarly, among minority groups in soci-
ety, factors such as strength of ethnic identity, From inception, a compelling rationale for the
competence and comfort in relating to members systematic study of naturally occurring resilience
of different groups, and racial socialization are was to inform practice, prevention, and policy
particularly important in dealing with chal- efforts directed towards creating resilience when
lenges that arise due to experiences of oppres- it was not likely to occur naturally. The second
sion and discrimination within the context in wave focused on a better understanding of medi-
which they live (Szalacha et al., 2003; Wright ating and moderating processes that might explain
& Littleford, 2002). To date there has been sur- the links between adversity and developmental
prisingly limited systematic investigation of competence, as an intermediate step toward the
culturally based protective processes (Luthar, ultimate goal of intervening to promote resilience
2006, Masten & Wright, 2010). The movement and positive development. Research on such pro-
away from an individually based conceptual- cesses continues to be important. However, using
ization of resilience and towards a contextually lessons from the first two waves, investigators of
situated framework has been a welcome one the third wave began to translate the basic science
from the perspective of many cross-cultural of resilience that was emerging into actions
researchers (Aponte, 1994; Boyd-Franklin & intended to promote resilience. These investiga-
Bry, 2000; Hill, 1999). Whereas some of the tors recognized that experiments to promote posi-
factors and processes that have been identified tive adaptation and prevent problems among
as fostering resilience focus on individual func- individuals at high risk for developing problems
tioning (such as good cognitive skills, socio- represented a powerful strategy for testing resil-
emotional sensitivity, ability to self-regulate), ience theory and hypothesized adaptive processes
the shape and function of these processes may that were targeted in the theory or logic model of
be culturally influenced or may interact with the experimental intervention. Initially, this work
cultural demands and expectations in ways that took the form of theory-driven intervention
are poorly understood. Moreover, many other designs and subsequently, with growing fre-
factors have been identified within the collec- quency, third-wave research has taken the form
tive network of the family and the community. of experiments with randomized control or com-
As the study of resilience continues, it will be parison groups with explicit models of change.
critical to explore the extent to which factors Such experiments represent the “gold standard”
found to promote resilience in one group will of evidence about change processes.
also be replicated across cultural groups and Historically, the third wave represented a
also how the same factor found across multiple confluence of goals, models, and methods from
groups may function differently in different prevention science and studies of naturally occur-
cultural contexts. For example, for various cul- ring resilience (Cicchetti, Rappaport, Sandler,
tural/ethnic groups there can be a great deal of & Weissberg, 2000; Coie et al., 1993; Cowen &
difference in the relative importance placed on Durlak, 2000; Masten, 2007; Masten &
individualism, collectivism, and familism, and Coatsworth, 1998; Weissberg & Kumpfer, 2003;
Yoshikawa, 1994). Multifaceted intervention Strategic timing of intervention also holds

studies designed to prevent or reduce risky behav- great interest for third wave research because evi-
iors, delinquency, and other problems in children dence suggests that there are windows of oppor-
(e.g., FAST Track or the Seattle Social Development tunity for changing the course of development,
Project) and also early childhood interventions when systems may be more malleable or there is
developed to improve the odds of children growing a higher likelihood of potentiating a positive cas-
up in poverty or disadvantage (e.g., Abecedarian, cade (Cicchetti, 2010; Masten & Cicchetti, 2010;
Head Start, Perry Preschool Project, Chicago Masten, Burt, et al., 2006, Masten, Obradović,
Longitudinal Study) encompassed multiple strate- et al. 2006, Masten, Long, Kuo, McCormick, &
gies designed to promote success in developmental Desjardins, 2009; Steinberg, Dahl, Keating,
tasks at the same time they reduced risk for prob- Kupfer, Masten, & Pine, 2006). Timing an inter-
lem behaviors (Ramey & Ramey, 1998; Reynolds vention well may lead to more lasting effects,
& Ou, 2003; Weissberg & Greenberg, 1998). As broader effects, and/or higher returns on invest-
the data on assets, promotive, and protective fac- ment (Heckman, 2006; Masten et al., 2009;
tors began to accumulate in natural resilience stud- Masten & Cicchetti, 2010; Reynolds & Temple,
ies, data was mounting in prevention science based 2006; Shonkoff, Boyce, & McEwen, 2009). For
on randomized clinical trials that promoting com- example, during a developmental transition or
petence was a key element of programs that worked turning point, targeted interventions can be criti-
and the mediators and moderators of change bore a cally important in activating developmental cas-
striking resemblance to the processes implicated cades (i.e., progressive effects) that enhance
by the “short list” in resilience research (Cicchetti multiple domains of functioning or deterring
et al., 2000; Luthar & Cicchetti, 2000; Masten, negative cascades of maladaptive behavior that
2001, 2007; Masten, Burt, et al., 2006; Masten & could undermine adjustment (Masten, Burt,
Coatsworth, 1998; Masten, Obradović, et al., 2006; et al., 2006; Masten & Cicchetti, 2010; Masten,
Reynolds & Ou, 2003). Obradović, et al. 2006). For example, the long-
Over the past decade, there has been a pro- term effects of the Parent-Management Training-
found change in the models for intervention, par- Oregon (PMTO) model to promote parents’
ticularly in prevention models, that likely reflects positive involvement and deter coercive aggression
the growing influence of resilience theory and included cascading pathways of adaptive devel-
research (Masten, 2011). Numerous strength- opment for both parents and children. A follow-up
based models and resilience frameworks for study revealed a higher standard of living and
practice and policy have been articulated healthier social interactions 9 years after the
(e.g., Cicchetti et al., 2000; Galassi & Akos, 2007 intervention (Patterson et al., 2010).
Luthar & Cicchetti, 2000; Masten, 2001, 2006, Experimental intervention designs can pro-
2011; Nation et al., 2003). In the prevention sci- vide a powerful test of hypotheses about how
ence field, intervention models are routinely resilience occurs, particularly when the process
described in terms of protective processes to pro- of change is specified (e.g., parenting or attribu-
mote resilient development (McLain et al., 2010; tional style), the intervention is tailored for
Patterson, Forgatch, & DeGarmo, 2010; Toth, specific needs and targets changes in this pro-
Pianta, & Erickson, 2011; Weissberg, Kumpfer, cess, and the change processes affect subse-
& Seligman, 2003; Wyman, 2003; Wyman, quent change in the targeted behavior of an
Sandler, Wolchik, & Nelson, 2000). Intervening individual or system. For example, possessing
to alter the life course of a child potentially at risk the executive functioning capacity of strong
for psychopathology or other problems, whether inhibitory skills was demonstrated to be cen-
by reducing risk or adversity exposure, boosting trally important for school achievement in
resources, nurturing relationships, or mobilizing homeless children (Obradović, 2010). Also
other protective systems, can be viewed as a pro- important was high quality parenting to buffer
tective process. these children from further adversity and to
serve as a mediator of risk and achievement mothers in this case) and for the role of parental
(Herbers et al., 2011). These studies emphasize functioning in causal processes related to child
the need to promote competence as well as to outcomes during the course of negotiating adver-
reduce risk. Boosting fundamental skills for sity. The dynamic capacities afforded by close
learning and school success and nurturing relationships to foster development and protect
parent−child relationships are also promising individuals and social groups in the face of adver-
pathways to adaptive development for young, sity has led many to conclude that relationships
disadvantaged children (Diamond, Barnett, are the most critical protective factor for young
Thomas, & Munro 2007; Masten & Gewirtz, people at risk (e.g., Luthar, 2006). The children of
2006). parents who already function well during adver-
Kraemer et al. (2002) provided an illustration sity or parents who mobilize what is needed to
of how experimental intervention designs can test protect their children as a result of personal change,
such mediating and moderating effects, with the enlisting help, or other adaptive processes fare
intervention serving as the hoped-for moderator of better during and following adversity in many
the hypothesized mediating process. Experimental situations studied around the globe.
designs are also particularly well suited for identi- Research on interventions to create resilience
fying who benefits most from what aspect of treat- is gaining momentum as evidence builds from
ment, mediated by which changes, thereby testing basic research and experimental data that resil-
additional moderating and mediating effects. The ience processes can be identified and changed,
Seattle Social Development Project provides an and that intervention methods are vital for
excellent example of an experiment designed to testing resilience theory (Masten, 2011). It is
test whether and how an intervention worked to still the case, as noted by Weissberg and Kumpfer
reduce problem behaviors (see Hawkins, Catalano, (2003) some time ago, that much work remains
Kosterman, Abbott, & Hill, 1999; Hawkins et al., to be done to understand resilience processes
2003). For example, a comprehensive intervention (e.g., mediating, moderating, promoting, com-
package (delivered to a group of children in pensating, and cascading processes) well enough
schools serving high crime neighborhoods when to manipulate them most effectively and
they were in elementary school) produced demon- efficiently to benefit children and society.
strable change in school bonding which was asso- However, the evidence base is growing and a
ciated with better outcomes in the secondary good case can also be made that progress would
school years, assessed by less antisocial behavior be accelerated by concerted efforts to span the
and better high school grades. Another excellent translational divide through collaborative trans-
example is provided by Sandler, Wolchik, Davis, lational research that engages basic researchers
Haine, and Ayers (2003), who designed a preven- and community partners in intervention trials
tive intervention for families going through a that reflect current knowledge but also explicitly
divorce, with the goal of moderating a key media- focus on testing theories of change (see Masten,
tor in the child’s life, the parent’s behavior. Six- 2011; Toth et al., 2011). These are ongoing tasks
year follow-up data for this randomized prevention of third wave resilience research. Only by identi-
trial elucidated multiple cascading pathways to fying the multifaceted processes underlying suc-
adaptation in adolescence. Mothers’ more positive cessful adaptation under adverse conditions will
relationships with children and use of effective we find ways to intervene successfully in the
discipline activated positive trajectories of less lives of those who remain vulnerable.
internalizing problems leading to higher self- Analyses of current preventive programs that
esteem, and less externalizing problems and sub- work for children underscore the importance of
stance use leading to higher academic achievement theory-driven approaches that embrace a develop-
(McLain et al., 2010). Such studies offer compel- mental, ecological systems approach and capital-
ling evidence both for the effectiveness of a par- ize on windows of opportunity in development.
ticular intervention (the manualized program for Salient features of successful prevention programs
include many of the factors that have been to resilience at other levels of analysis (e.g.,
described in this chapter. These include a focus on Curtis & Cicchetti, 2003), but earlier waves of
strategically timed, culturally relevant, compre- resilience research were dominated by psycho-
hensive programs across multiple settings, prosocial studies emphasizing individual behavior
grams that are of sufficient length and depth to and development, with some attention to other
address the magnitude of the problem, and strive levels, such as relationships, families, peers, and
to maximize positive resources and the benefit-to- schools or other community systems (Cicchetti,
cost ratio of implementation. Additionally, 2010; Luthar, 2006; Masten, 2007).
because the effects of interventions might be Over the past decade, research aiming to elu-
delayed, unexpected, or indirect, it is important to cidate the biology or neuroscience of resilience
consider more complex models of change and has burgeoned (Cicchetti, 2010; Feder et al.,
monitor outcome appropriately, over time, in mul- 2009). At the same time, once independent and
tiple domains and possibly at multiple-system disparate fields of research on resilience at dif-
levels. Such comprehensive prevention approaches ferent levels in different disciplines (e.g., ecol-
acknowledge the multiplicity of risks and the ogy, engineering, public health, management,
cumulative trauma that many children face and emergency services) are coming together in
emphasize the importance of promoting compe- response to urgent national and global threats
tence and building protection across multiple that require integrative solutions, such as natural
domains in order to achieve a positive outcome. disasters, terrorism, global warming, and flu
pandemic (Masten & Obradović, 2008; Masten
& Osofsky, 2010; Norris, Steven, Pfefferbaum,
The Fourth Wave: Resilience Research Wyche, & Pfefferbaum, 2008).
on Multiple-Systems Levels, Fully describing the exciting and interdisci-
Epigenetic Processes, and plinary directions in the fourth wave of resilience
Neurobiological Processes research is beyond the scope of this chapter.
However, as examples, there is considerable activ-
The fourth wave in resilience research is focused ity and interest in the following research areas:
on multilevel dynamics and the many processes • Gene X environment moderating effects
linking genes, neurobiological adaptation, brain including intervention moderating effects (for
development, behavior, and context at multiple illustration see Kim-Cohen & Gold, 2009;
levels. It is predicated on the idea that develop- Brody, Beach, Chen, & Murry, 2009).
ment arises from probabilistic epigenesis, • Programming, biological sensitivity to con-
involving many processes of interaction across text, differential susceptibility, bidirectional
multiple levels of function, with gene–environ- influences, and calibration of adaptive systems
ment interplay and co-action playing key roles crucial for adaptive response to adversity (see
(Gottlieb, 2007) and explicit recognition that Boyce & Ellis, 2005; Del Giudice, Ellis, &
adaptation is inherently multilevel (Masten, Shirtcliff, 2011; Meaney, 2010).
2007). This wave began to rise as new methods • Reprogramming and interventions to normal-
for research became more widely available to ize poorly regulated adaptive systems in the
study these processes, including the assessment organism, such as stress or immune function,
of genes, gene expression, brain structure and executive function skills, and emotion regula-
function, social interaction, and statistics for tion (see Dozier, Peloso, Lewis, Laurenceau,
modeling growth, change, and interactions in & Levine, 2008; Fisher, Van Ryzin, & Gunnar,
complex systems (Charney, 2004; Cicchetti, 2011; Meaney, 2010; Yehuda, Flory,
2010; Cicchetti & Curtis, 2006, 2007; Feder, Southwick, & Charney, 2006).
Nestler, & Charney, 2009; Masten et al., 2004, • Assessment of biomarkers, gene expression, or
Masten, 2007, 2012; Masten & Obradović, 2008). neural function in intervention studies to tailor
There had been many calls for greater attention the intervention or assess its effectiveness
(see Blair, 2010; Brody et al., 2009; Cicchetti, area has focused very productively on the
2010). psychological and interpersonal arenas, but
• Integrating models and research on resilience efforts to include biological and cultural levels
in ecosystems, social systems, and individual of analysis are just beginning. The thrust of
biology or neural systems (see Longstaff, future research needs to attend more directly
2009; Masten & Obradović, 2008; Norris and explicitly to context and transactional, bidi-
et al., 2008). rectional analyses over time, clarifying the con-
This wave of resilience research is just begin- ditions under which interventions may and may
ning but it promises to transform the science and not work, identifying the most strategic and
the application of resilience. cost-effective targets and timing for interven-
tions, and exploring natural reparative pro-
cesses. Although there is clear evidence that
Conclusion resilience in young people is highly dependent
on other people and multiple systems of
In conclusion, the past 40 years of research on influence, there is limited knowledge of how
resilience have shed much light on the funda- these multiple levels of influence operate syner-
mental adaptive systems supporting human gistically and how best to incorporate the bio-
development and on identifying complex, mul- logical, psychological, interpersonal, and
tisystemic interactions that might shape both cultural levels of analysis into our research and
positive and pathological outcomes following models for clinical intervention. Integrative
adversity. A strong knowledge base has accrued approaches, spanning levels and disciplines, are
on the processes implicated in resilience, par- needed to apply the expanding knowledge based
ticularly on factors that increase vulnerability on resilience in human development with
and those that afford protection. However, much efficiency and effectiveness to foster positive
remains to be done, and as evident in the rising adaptation among the most vulnerable children,
fourth wave of research, there is much uncharted youth, and families in our communities.
territory. It will take time to unravel and under-
stand these multiple levels of influence and Acknowledgments The work of the authors on resil-
build a stronger bridge between science and ience has been supported over the years by grants from the
National Institute of Mental Health, the National Science
practice. It is essential at this juncture not to
Foundation (NSF), the William T. Grant Foundation, the
lose sight of the goals for this work—to enhance University of Minnesota, and the Ohio Department of
understanding of key mechanisms leading to Mental Health. Preparation of this chapter was supported
risk reduction, to determine the key ingredients in part by a grant to Ann Masten from NSF (No. 0745643)
and a predoctoral fellowship to Angela Narayan from
of successful interventions, and to apply what
the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH;
we are learning in prevention and intervention 5T32MH015755). The first two authors also express their
efforts to foster resilience among vulnerable deep and abiding appreciation for the wonderful mentor-
children and their families. Clinical interven- ship of Norman Garmezy. Any opinions, conclusions, or
recommendations expressed in this chapter are those of
tions and primary preventions with known
the authors.
effectiveness currently exist and need to be
made accessible in more diverse community
settings and evaluated. This will allow for criti- References
cal exploration of factors that promote or inter-
fere with resilient processes in different cultural Anthony, E. J. (1974). The syndrome of the psychologi-
contexts. Collaborative work across diverse cally invulnerable child. In E. J. Anthony & C.
contexts is urgently needed to refine resilience- Koupernik (Eds.), The child and his family (Children
at psychiatric risk, Vol. 3, pp. 529–544). New York,
based models of intervention and change, and
NY: Wiley.
also to inform the design of primary prevention Aponte, H. (1994). Bread and spirit: Therapy with the
and social policy programs. Past work in this new poor. New York, NY: Morton.
Benson, P. L., Scales, P. C., Leffert, N., & Roehlkepartain, psychopathology, and resilience. In D. Cicchetti & D.
E. C. (1999). A fragile foundation: The state of devel- Cohen (Eds.), Developmental psychopathology
opmental assets among American youth. Minneapolis, (Developmental neuroscience 2nd ed., Vol. 2,
MN: Search Institute. pp. 1–64). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Betancourt, T. S., Borisova, I. I., Williams, T. P., Brennan, Cicchetti, D., & Curtis, W. J. (2007). Special issue: A
R. T., Whitfield, T. H., de la Soudiere, M., Williamson, multi-level approach to resilience. Development and
J., & Gilman, S. E. (2010). Sierra Leone’s former child Psychopathology, 19(3), 627–955.
soldiers: A follow-up study of psychosocial adjust- Cicchetti, D., Rappaport, J., Sandler, I., & Weissberg, R.
ment and community reintegration. Child Development, P. (Eds.). (2000). The promotion of wellness in chil-
81, 1076–1094. dren and adolescents. Washington, DC: CWLA.
Blair, C. (2010). Stress and the development of self-regu- Cicchetti, D., & Rogosch, F. A. (1996). Equifinality and
lation in context. Child Development Perspectives, 4, multifinality in developmental psychopathology.
181–188. Development and Psychopathology, 8, 597–600.
Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: Clinical applications of Cicchetti, D., & Rogosch, F. A. (1997). The role of self-
attachment theory. London: Routledge. organization in the promotion of resilience in mal-
Boyce, W. T., & Ellis, B. J. (2005). Biological sensitivity treated children. Development and Psychopathology,
to context: I. An evolutionary-developmental theory of 9, 797–815.
the origins and functions of stress reactivity. Coie, J. D., Watt, N. F., West, S. G., Hawkins, J. D., Asarnow,
Development and Psychopathology, 17, 271–301. J. R., Markman, H. J., Ramey, S. L., Shure, M. B., &
Boyce, W. T., Frank, E., Jensen, P. S., Kessler, R. C., Long, B. (1993). The science of prevention: A conceptual
Nelson, C. A., Steinberg, L., & The MacArthur framework and some directions for a national research
Foundation Research Network on Psychopathology program. American Psychologist, 48, 1013–1022.
and Development. (1998). Social context in develop- Compas, B. E., Connor-Smith, J. K., Saltzman, H.,
mental psychopathology: Recommendations for future Thomsen, A. H., & Wadsworth, M. (2001). Coping
research from the MacArthur network on psychopa- with stress during childhood and adolescence: Progress,
thology and development. Development and problems, and potential. Psychological Bulletin, 127,
Psychopathology, 10, 143–164. 87–127.
Boyd-Franklin, N., & Bry, B. H. (2000). Reaching out in Cowen, E. L. (2000). Psychological wellness: Some hopes
family therapy: Home-based, school and community for the future. In D. Cicchetti, J. Rappaport, I. Sandler,
interventions. New York, NY: Guilford. & R. P. Weissberg (Eds.), The promotion of wellness in
Brody, G. H., Beach, S. R., Chen, Y. F., & Murry, V. M. children and adolescents (pp. 477–503). Washington,
(2009). Prevention effects moderate the association of DC: CWLA.
5-HTTLPR and youth risk behavior initiation: Gene x Cowen, E. L., & Durlak, J. A. (2000). Social policy and
environment hypotheses tested via a randomized pre- prevention in mental health. Development and
vention design. Child Development, 80(3), 645–661. Psychopathology, 12, 815–834.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human devel- Crawford, E., Wright, M. O’ D., & Masten, A. S. (2006).
opment: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, Resilience and spirituality in youth. In E. C.
MA: Harvard University Press. Roehlkepartain, P. E. King, L. Wagener, & P. L.
Cairns, R. B., & Cairns, B. (1994). Lifelines and risks: Benson (Eds.), The handbook of spiritual development
Pathways of youth in our time. New York, NY: in childhood and adolescence (pp. 355–370). Thousand
Cambridge University Press. Oaks, CA: Sage.
Charney, D. (2004). Psychobiological mechanisms of Cummings, E. M., Davies, P. T., & Campbell, S. B. (2000).
resilience and vulnerability: implications for success- Developmental psychopathology and family process.
ful adaptation to extreme stress. American Journal of New York, NY: Guilford.
Psychiatry, 161, 195–216. Curtis, J., & Cicchetti, D. (2003). Moving resilience on
Cicchetti, D. (1990). An historical perspective on the dis- resilience into the 21st century: Theoretical and meth-
cipline of developmental psychopathology. In J. Rolf, odological considerations in examining the biological
A. S. Masten, D. Cicchetti, K. H. Nuechterlein, & S. contributors to resilience. Development and
Weintraub (Eds.), Risk and protective factors in the Psychopathology, 15, 773–810.
development of psychopathology (pp. 2–28). New Del Giudice, M., Ellis, B. J., & Shirtcliff, E. A. (2011).
York, NY: Cambridge University Press. The adaptation calibration model of stress responsiv-
Cicchetti, D. (2006). Development and psychopathology. ity. Neuroscience and Behavioral Reviews., 35(7),
In D. Cicchetti & D. J. Cohen (Eds.), Developmental 1562–1592.
psychopathology: Vol. 1 Theory and method (2nd ed., Diamond, A., Barnett, W. S., Thomas, J., & Munro, S.
pp. 1–23). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. (2007). Preschool program improves cognitive con-
Cicchetti, D. (2010). Resilience under conditions of trol. Science, 318, 1387–1388.
extreme stress: A multilevel perspective. World DiLillo, D. (2001). Interpersonal functioning among
Psychiatry, 9(3), 145–154. women reporting a history of childhood sexual abuse:
Cicchetti, D., & Curtis, W. J. (2006). The developing Empirical findings and methodological issues. Clinical
brain ad neural plasticity: Implications for normality, Psychology Review, 21, 553–576.
DiLillo, D., & Damashek, A. (2003). Parenting character- Glantz, M. D., & Johnson, J. L. (1999). Resilience and
istics of women reporting a history of childhood development: Positive life adaptations. New York,
sexual abuse. Child Maltreatment, 8, 319–333. NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
Dong, M., Anda, R. F., Fellitti, V. J., Dube, S. R., Gone, J. P. (2009). A community-based treatment for
Williamson, D. F., Thompson, T. J., Loo, C. M., & Native American “historical trauma”: Prospects for
Giles, W. H. (2004). The interrelatedness of multiple evidence-based practice. Journal of Consulting and
forms of child abuse, neglect, and household dysfunc- Clinical Psychology, 77, 751–762.
tion. Child Abuse & Neglect, 28, 771–784. Goodman, S. H. (2007). Depression in mothers. Annual
Dozier, M., Peloso, E., Lewis, E., Laurenceau, J.-P., & Review of Clinical Psychology, 3, 107–135.
Levine, S. (2008). Effects of an attachment-based Gottlieb, G. (2007). Probabilistic epigenetics. Develop-
intervention on the cortisol production of infants and mental Science, 10, 1–11.
toddlers in foster care. Development and Gunnar, M. R. (2001). Effects of early deprivation:
Psychopathology, 20, 845–859. Findings from orphanage-reared infants and children.
Egeland, B., Carlson, E., & Sroufe, L. A. (1993). Resilience In C. A. Nelson & M. Luciana (Eds.), Handbook of
as process. Development and Psychopathology, 5(4), developmental cognitive neuroscience (pp. 617–629).
517–528. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
Egeland, B., Weinfield, N. S., Bosquet, M., & Cheng, V. Hawkins, J. D., Catalano, R. F., Kosterman, R., Abbott, R.
K. (2000). Remembering, repeating, and working D., & Hill, K. G. (1999). Preventing adolescent health-
through: Lessons from attachment-based interven- risk behavior by strengthening protection during child-
tions. In J. D. Osofsky & H. E. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Infant hood. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine,
mental health in groups at high risk (WAIMH hand- 153, 226–234.
book of infant mental health, Vol. 4, pp. 35–89). New Hawkins, J. D., Smith, B. H., Hill, K. G., Kosterman, R.,
York, NY: Wiley. Catalano, R. F., & Abbott, R. D. (2003). Understanding
Feder, A., Nestler, E. J., & Charney, D. S. (2009). and preventing crime and violence. In T. P. Thornberry
Psychobiology and molecular genetics of resilience. & M. D. Krohn (Eds.), Taking stock of delinquency:
Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 10, 446–457. An overview of findings from contemporary longitudi-
Finkelhor, D., Ormrod, R., Turner, H., & Holt, M. (2009). nal studies (pp. 255–312). New York, NY: Kluwer
Pathways to poly-victimization. Child Maltreatment, Academic.
14, 316–329. Heckman, J. J. (2006). Skill formation and the economics
Fisher, P. A., Van Ryzin, M. J., & Gunnar, M. R. (2011). of investing in disadvantaged children. Science, 312,
Mitigating HPA axis dysregulation associated with 1900–1902.
placement changes in foster care. Psychoneuro- Herbers, J. E., Cutuli, J. J., Lafavor, T. L., Vrieze, D.,
endocrinology., 36(4), 531–539. Leibel, C., Obradovi , J., & Masten, A. S. (2011).
Ford, D. H., & Lerner, R. M. (1992). Developmental sys- Direct and indirect effects of parenting on academic
tems theory: An integrative approach. Newbury Park, functioning of young homeless children. Early
CA: Sage. Education and Development., 22(1), p77–104.
Furstenberg, F. F., Jr., Brooks-Gunn, J., & Morgan, S. P. Hill, R. (1999). The strengths of African-American fami-
(1987). Adolescent mothers in later life. Cambridge: lies: Twenty-five years later. Lanham, MD: University
Cambridge University Press. Press of America.
Gaines, S. O., Marelich, W. D., Bledsoe, K. L., Steers, W. Kim, U., Triandis, H. C., Kagitcibasi, S., Choi, S., &
N., Henderson, M. C., Granrose, C. S., Barajas, L., Yoon, G. (Eds.). (1994). Individualism and collectiv-
Hicks, D., Lyde, M., Takahashi, Y., Yum, N., Ríos, D. ism: Theory, method and applications. Thousand
I., García, B. F., Farris, K. R., & Page, M. S. (1997). Oaks, CA: Sage.
Links between race/ethnicity and cultural values as Kim-Cohen, J., & Gold, A. L. (2009). Measured gene-
mediated by racial/ethnic identity and moderated by environment interactions and mechanisms promoting
gender. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, resilient development. Current Directions in
72, 1460–1476. Psychological Science, 18, 138–142.
Galassi, J. P., & Akos, P. (2007). Strength-based school Kraemer, H. C., Kazdin, A. E., Offord, D. R., Kessler, R.
counseling: Promoting student development and C., Jensen, P. S., & Kupfer, D. J. (1997). Coming to
achievement. London: Routledge. terms with the terms of risk. Archives of General
Garmezy, N. (1985). Stress-resistant children: The Psychiatry, 54, 337–343.
search for protective factors. In J. E. Stevenson Kraemer, H. C., Stice, E., Kazdin, A. E., Offord, D. R., &
(Ed.), Recent research in developmental psychopa- Kupfer, D. J. (2001). How do risk factors work
thology: Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry together? Mediators, moderators, and independent,
Book Supplement #4 (pp. 213–233). Oxford: overlapping, and proxy risk factors. American Journal
Pergamon. of Psychiatry, 158, 848–856.
Garmezy, N., Masten, A. S., & Tellegen, A. (1984). The Kraemer, H. C., Wilson, G. T., Fairburn, C. G., & Agras,
study of stress and competence in children: A building W. S. (2002). Mediators and moderators of treatment
block for developmental psychopathology. Child effects in randomized clinical trials. Archives of
Development, 55, 97–111. General Psychiatry, 59, 877–883.
LaFromboise, T. D., Oliver, L., & Hoyt, D. R. (2006a). psychology. New York, NY: Oxford University Press
Strengths and resilience of American Indian adolescents. (in press).
In L. Whitbeck (Ed.), This is not our way: Traditional Masten, A. S., Best, K. M., & Garmezy, N. (1990).
culture and substance use prevention in American Resilience and development: Contributions from the
Indian adolescents and their families. Tucson: study of children who overcome adversity.
University of Arizona Press. Development and Psychopathology, 2, 425–444.
LaFromboise, T. D., Oliver, L., Hoyt, D. R., & Whitbeck, Masten, A. S., Burt, K. B., & Coatsworth, J. D. (2006).
L. B. (2006b). Family, community, and school Competence and psychopathology in development.
influences on resilience among American Indian ado- In D. Ciccheti & D. Cohen (Eds.), Developmental
lescents in the upper Midwest. Journal of Community psychopathology (Risk, disorder and psychopathol-
Psychology, 34, 193–209. ogy 2nd ed., Vol. 3, pp. 696–738). New York, NY:
Laub, J. H., Nagin, D. S., & Sampson, R. J. (1998). Wiley.
Trajectories of change in criminal offending: Good Masten, A. S., Burt, K., Roisman, G. I., Obradović, J.,
marriages and the desistence process. American Long, J. D., & Tellegen, A. (2004). Resources and
Sociological Review, 63, 225–238. resilience in the transition to adulthood: Continuity
Laub, J. H., & Sampson, R. J. (2002). Sheldon and Eleanor and change. Development and Psychopathology, 16,
Glueck’s Unraveling Juvenile Delinquency study: The 1071–1094.
lives of 1,000 Boston men in the twentieth century. In E. Masten, A. S., & Cicchetti, D. (2010). Editorial:
Phelps, F. F. Furstenberg Jr., & A. Colby (Eds.), Looking Developmental cascades. Developmental cascades
at lives: American longitudinal studies of the twentieth [Special Issue, Part 1]. Development and
century (pp. 87–115). New York, NY: Russell Sage. Psychopathology, 22(3), 491–495.
Longstaff, P. H. (2009). (Editorial) Managing surprises in Masten, A. S., & Coatsworth, J. D. (1998). The develop-
complex systems: Multidisciplinary perspectives on ment of competence in favorable and unfavorable
resilience. Ecology and Society 14(1): 49. [online] environments: Lessons from successful children.
URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss1/ American Psychologist, 53, 205–220.
art49/. Masten, A. S., & Curtis, W. J. (2000). Integrating compe-
Luthar, S. S. (2006). Resilience in development: A syn- tence and psychopathology: Pathways toward a com-
thesis of research across five decades. In D. Cicchetti prehensive science of adaptation in development.
& D. J. Cohen (Eds.), Developmental psychopathol- Development and Psychopathology, 12, 529–550.
ogy (Risk, disorder, and adaptation 2nd ed., Vol. 3, pp. Masten, A. S., & Gewirtz, A. H. (2006). Vulnerability and
739–795). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. resilience in early child development. In K. McCartney
Luthar, S. S., & Cicchetti, D. (2000). The construct of resil- & D. Phillips (Eds.), Handbook of early childhood
ience: Implications for interventions and social policies. development (pp. 22–43). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Development and Psychopathology, 12, 857–885. Masten, A. S., & Hubbard, J. J. (2003). Global threats to
Luthar, S. S., Cicchetti, D., & Becker, B. (2000). The con- child development: A resilience framework for human-
struct of resilience: A critical evaluation and guide- itarian intervention. University of Minnesota:
lines for future work. Child Development, 71(3), Unpublished manuscript.
543–562. Masten, A. S., Hubbard, J. J., Gest, S. D., Tellegen, A.,
Masten, A. S. (1999). Resilience comes of age: Reflections Garmezy, N., & Ramirez, M. L. (1999). Competence
on the past and outlook for the next generation of in the context of adversity: Pathways to resilience and
research. In M. D. Glantz, J. Johnson, & L. Huffman maladaptation from childhood to late adolescence.
(Eds.), Resilience and development: Positive life adap- Developmental Psychopathology, 11, 143–169.
tations (pp. 289–296). New York, NY: Plenum. Masten, A. S., Long, J. D., Kuo, S. I.-C., McCormick, C.
Masten, A. S. (2001). Ordinary magic: Resilience pro- M., & Desjardins, C. D. (2009). Developmental mod-
cesses in development. American Psychologist, 56(3), els of strategic intervention. European Journal of
227–238. Developmental Science, 3, 282–291.
Masten, A. S. (2006). Promoting resilience in develop- Masten, A. S., & Obradović, J. (2008). Disaster prepara-
ment: A general framework for systems of care. In R. tion and recovery: Lessons from research on resilience
J. Flynn, P. Dudding, & J. G. Barber (Eds.), Promoting in human development. Ecology and Society, 13(1): 9
resilience in child welfare (pp. 3–17). Ottawa, ON: [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/
University of Ottawa Press. vol13/iss1/art9/.
Masten, A. S. (2007). Resilience in developing systems: Masten, A. S., Obradović, J., & Burt, K. (2006). Resilience
Progress and promise as the fourth wave rises. in emerging adulthood: Developmental perspectives
Development and Psychopathology, 19, 921–930. on continuity and transformation. In J. J. Arnett & J. L.
Masten, A. S. (2011). Resilience in children threatened by Tanner (Eds.), Emerging adults in America: Coming
extreme adversity: Frameworks for research, practice, of age in the 21st Century (pp. 173–190). Washington,
and translational synergy. Development and DC: American Psychological Association.
Psychopathology., 23, 493–506. Masten, A. S., & Osofsky, J. (2010). Disasters and their
Masten, A. S. (2012). Risk and resilience in development. impact on child development: Introduction to the spe-
In P. D. Zelazo (Ed.), Oxford handbook of developmental cial section. Child Development, 81, 1029–1039.
Masten, A. S., & Powell, J. L. (2003). A resilience frame- Cambridge handbook of environment of human
work for research, policy, and practice. In S. S. Luthar development: A handbook of theory and measure-
(Ed.), Resilience and vulnerability: Adaptation in the ment (pp. 35–57). New York, NY: Cambridge
context of childhood adversities (pp. 1–25). New York, University Press.
NY: Cambridge University Press. Park, C. L., & Folkman, S. (1997). Meaning in the context
Masten, A. S., & Reed, M.-G. (2002). Resilience in devel- of stress and coping. Review of General Psychology, 1,
opment. In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), The 115–144.
handbook of positive psychology (pp. 74–88). New Patterson, G. R., Forgatch, M. S., & DeGarmo, D. S.
York, NY: Oxford University Press. (2010). Cascading effects following intervention.
Masten, A. S., & Wright, M. O. (1998). Cumulative risk Development and Psychopathology, 22, 941–970.
and protection models of child maltreatment. Journal Pines, M. (1975, December). In praise of “invulnerables.”
of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 2(1), 7–30. APA Monitor, p. 7.
Masten, A. S., & Wright, M. O. (2010). Resilience over Plomin, R., Asbury, K., & Dunn, J. (2001). Why are chil-
the lifespan: Developmental perspectives on resis- dren in the same family so different? Nonshared envi-
tance, recovery, and transformation. In J. W. Reich, A. J. ronment a decade later. Canadian Journal of
Zautra, & J. S. Hall (Eds.), Handbook of adult resil- Psychiatry, 46, 225–233.
ience (pp. 213–237). New York, NY: Guilford. Ramey, C. T., & Ramey, S. L. (1998). Early intervention and
McClain, D. B., Wolchik, S. A., Winslow, E., Tein, J.-Y., early experience. American Psychologist, 53, 109–120.
Sandler, I. N., & Millsap, R. E. (2010). Developmental Reynolds, A. J., & Ou, S. R. (2003). Promoting resilience
cascade effects of the New Beginnings Program on through early childhood intervention. In S. S. Luthar
adolescent adaptation outcomes. Development and (Ed.), Resilience and vulnerability: Adaptation in the
Psychopathology, 22, 771–784. context of childhood adversities (pp. 436–459). New
McCormick, C. M., Kuo, S. I.-C., & Masten, A. S. (2011). York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Developmental tasks across the lifespan. In K. L. Reynolds, A. J., & Temple, J. A. (2006). Economic
Fingerman, C. Berg, T. C. Antonucci, & J. Smith benefits of investments in preschool education. In E.
(Eds.), The handbook of lifespan development. New Zigler, W. Gilliam, & S. Jones (Eds.), A vision for uni-
York, NY: Springer. versal prekindergarten (pp. 37–68). New York, NY:
Meaney, M. J. (2010). Epigenetics and the biological Cambridge University Press.
definition of gene x environment interactions. Child Riley, J. R., & Masten, A. S. (2005). Resilience in context.
Development, 81, 41–79. In R. DeV, B. L. Peters, & R. J. McMahon (Eds.),
Mulvey, E. P., Sternberg, L., Piquero, A. R., Besana, M., Resilience in children, families, and communities:
Fagan, J., Shubert, C., & Cauffman, E. (2010). Linking context to practice and policy (pp. 13–25).
Trajectories of desistance and continuity in antisocial New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
behavior following court adjudication among serious Rutter, M. (1979). Protective factors in children’s
adolescent offenders. Development and responses to stress and disadvantage. In M. W. Kent &
Psychopathology, 22, 453–475. J. E. Rolf (Eds.), Primary prevention of psychopathol-
Nation, M., Crusto, C., Wandersman, A., Kumpfer, K. L., ogy (Social competence in children, Vol. 3, pp. 49–74).
Seybolt, D., Morrissey-Kane, E., & Davino, K. (2003). Hanover, NH: University Press of New England.
What works in prevention: Principles of effective Rutter, M. (1987). Psychosocial resilience and protective
intervention programs. American Psychologist, 58, mechanisms. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry,
449–456. 57, 316–331.
Norris, F. H., Steven, S. P., Pfefferbaum, B., Wyche, K. F., Rutter, M. (2000). Resilience reconsidered: Conceptual
& Pfefferbaum, R. L. (2008). Community resilience as considerations, empirical findings, and policy implica-
a metaphor, theory, set of capacities, and strategy for tions. In J. P. Shonkoff & S. J. Meisels (Eds.),
disaster readiness. American Journal of Community Handbook of early intervention (2nd ed., pp. 651–
Psychology, 41, 127–150. 681). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
O’Dougherty, M., & Wright, F. S. (1990). Children born Rutter, M., & The English and Romanian Adoptees (ERA)
at medical risk: Factors affecting vulnerability and Study Team. (1998). Developmental catch-up and
resilience. In J. Rolf, A. S. Masten, D. Cicchetti, K. H. deficit, following adoption after severe global early
Nuechterlein, & S. Weintraub (Eds.), Risk and protec- privation. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry,
tive factors in the development of psychopathology 39, 465–476.
(pp. 120–140). New York, NY: Cambridge University Rutter, M., & Quinton, D. (1984). Long-term follow-up of
Press. women institutionalized in childhood: Factors promot-
Obradović, J. (2010). Effortful control and adaptive func- ing good functioning in adult life. British Journal of
tioning of homeless children: Variable-focused and Developmental Psychology, 18, 225–234.
person-focused analyses. Journal of Applied Sameroff, A. J. (1999). Ecological perspectives on devel-
Developmental Psychology, 31, 109–117. opmental risk. In J. D. Osofsky & H. E. Fitzgerald
Obradović, J., Shaffer, A., & Masten, A. S. (2012) Risk in (Eds.), Infant mental health in groups at high risk
developmental psychopathology: Progress and future (WAIMH handbook of infant mental health, Vol. 4,
directions. In L. C. Mayes & M. Lewis (Eds.), The pp. 233–248). New York, NY: Wiley.
Sameroff, A. J. (2000). Developmental systems and psy- Weissberg, R. P., Kumpfer, K. L., & Seligman, M. E. P.
chopathology. Development and Psychopathology, 12, (2003). Prevention that works for children and
297–312. youth: An introduction. American Psychologist, 58,
Sameroff, A., Gutman, L. M., & Peck, S. C. (2003). 425–432.
Adaptation among youth facing multiple risks. In S. Werner, E. E., & Smith, R. S. (1982). Vulnerable but
Luthar (Ed.), Resilience and vulnerability: Adaptation invincible: A study of resilient children. New York,
in the context of childhood adversities (pp. 364–391). NY: McGraw-Hill.
New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Werner, E. E., & Smith, R. S. (1992). Overcoming the
Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1993). Crime in the mak- odds: High risk children from birth to adulthood.
ing: Pathways and turning points through life. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Werner, E. E., & Smith, R. S. (2001). Journeys from child-
Sandler, I., Wolchik, S., Davis, C., Haine, R., & Ayers, T. hood to midlife: Risk, resilience and recovery. Ithaca,
(2003). Correlational and experimental study of resil- NY: Cornell University Press.
ience in children of divorce and parentally bereaved Wright, M. O., Crawford, E., & Sebastian, K. (2007).
children. In S. S. Luthar (Ed.), Resilience and vulner- Positive resolution of childhood sexual abuse experi-
ability: Adaptation in the context of childhood adver- ences: The role of coping, benefit-finding and mean-
sities (pp. 213–240). New York, NY: Cambridge ing-making. Journal of Family Violence, 22,
University Press. 597–608.
Shonkoff, J. P., Boyce, W. T., & McEwen, B. S. (2009). Wright, M. O., & Littleford, L. N. (2002). Experiences
Neuroscience, molecular biology, and the childhood and beliefs as predictors of ethnic identity and inter-
roots of health disparities. Journal of the American group relations. Journal of Multicultural Counseling
Medical Association, 301(21), 2252–2259. and Development, 30, 2–20.
Sroufe, L. A., Carlson, E. A., Levy, A. K., & Egeland, B. Wright, M. O., & Masten, A. S. (1997). Vulnerability and
(1999). Implications of attachment theory for develop- resilience in young children. In J. D. Noshpitz, J. D.
mental psychopathology. Development and Osofsky, & S. Wieder (Eds.), Handbook of child and
Psychopathology, 11, 1–13. adolescent psychiatry (Infancy and preschoolers:
Sroufe, L. A., & Rutter, M. (1984). The domain of devel- Development and syndromes, Vol. 1). New York, NY:
opmental psychopathology. Child Development, 55, Wiley.
17–29. Wright, M. O., Masten, A. S., Northwood, A., &
Steinberg, L., Dahl, R., Keating, D., Kupfer, D. J., Masten, Hubbard, J. J. (1997). Long-term effects of massive
A. S., & Pine, D. S. (2006). Psychopathology in ado- trauma: Developmental and psychobiological perspec-
lescence: Integrating affective neuroscience with the tives. In D. Cicchetti & S. L. Toth (Eds.), Rochester
study of context. In D. Cicchetti & D. Cohen (Eds.), Symposium on Developmental Psychopathology
Developmental psychopathology (Developmental neu- (The effects of trauma on the developmental pro-
roscience 2nd ed., Vol. 2, pp. 710–741). New York, cess, Vol. 8, pp. 181–225). Rochester: University of
NY: Wiley. Rochester Press.
Szalacha, L. A., Erkut, S., García Coll, C., Fields, J. P., Wyman, P. A. (2003). Emerging perspectives on context
Alarcón, O., & Ceder, I. (2003). Perceived discrimina- specificity of children’s adaptation and resilience:
tion and resilience. In S. S. Luthar (Ed.), Resilience Evidence from a decade of research with urban chil-
and vulnerability: Adaptation in the context of child- dren in adversity. In S. S. Luthar (Ed.), Resilience and
hood adversities (pp. 414–435). New York, NY: vulnerability: Adaptation in the context of childhood
Cambridge University Press. adversities (pp. 293–317). New York, NY: Cambridge
Toth, S. L., Pianta, R. C., & Erickson, M. F. (2011). From University Press.
research to practice: Developmental contributions to Wyman, P. A., Cowen, E. L., Work, W. C., & Kerley, J.
the field of prevention science. In D. Cicchetti & G. I. H. (1993). The role of children’s future expectations
Roisman (Eds.), The origins and organization of adap- in self-system functioning and adjustment to life-
tation and maladaptation: Minnesota symposia on stress. Development and Psychopathology, 5,
child psychology (Vol. 36). New York, NY: Wiley. 649–661.
Walsh, F. (1998). Strengthening family resilience. Wyman, P. A., Sandler, I., Wolchik, S., & Nelson, K.
New York, NY: Guilford. (2000). Resilience as cumulative competence
Weissberg, R. P., & Greenberg, M. T. (1998). School and promotion and stress protection: Theory and
community competence-enhancement and prevention intervention. In D. Cicchetti, J. Rapport, I. Sandler,
programs. In I. E. Siegel & K. A. Renninger (Eds.), & R. P. Weissberg (Eds.), The promotion of well-
Handbook of child psychology (Child psychology in ness in children and adolescents (pp. 133–184).
practice, Vol. 4, pp. 877–954). New York, NY: Wiley. Washington, DC: Child Welfare League of
Weissberg, R. P., & Kumpfer, K. L. (2003). Special Issue: America.
Prevention that works for children and youth. American Yates, T. M., Egeland, B., & Sroufe, L. A. (2003).
Psychologist, 58, 425–490. Rethinking resilience: A developmental process
perspective. In S. S. Luthar (Ed.), Resilience and Yoshikawa, H. (1994). Prevention as cumulative protec-
vulnerability: Adaptation in the context of childhood tion: Effects of early family support and education on
adversities (pp. 234–256). New York, NY: Cambridge chronic delinquency and its risks. Psychological
University Press. Bulletin, 115, 28–54.
Yehuda, R., Flory, J. D., Southwick, S., & Charney, D. S. Zeanah, C. H., Smyke, A. T., & Settles, L. D. (2006).
(2006). Developing an agenda for translational studies Orphanages as a developmental context for early
of resilience and vulnerability following trauma childhood. In K. McCartney & D. Phillips (Eds.),
exposure. Annals of the New York Academy of Science, Blackwell handbook of early childhood development
1071, 379–396. (pp. 424–454). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
http://www.springer.com/978-1-4614-3660-7

Resilience Processes in Development: Four Waves of Research On Positive Adaptation in The Context of Adversity

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Resilience Processes in Development: Four Waves of Research On Positive Adaptation in The Context of Adversity

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Resilience Processes in Development: Four Waves of Research On Positive Adaptation in The Context of Adversity

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Resilience Processes

in Development: Four Waves 2

Margaret O’Dougherty Wright, Ann S. Masten,

S. Goldstein and R.B. Brooks (eds.), Handbook of Resilience in Children, 15

directed at changing developmental pathways. typically referred to a pattern of positive adapta-

Table 2.1 Definition and illustration of key concepts

Luthar, 2006; Masten, 2001, 2007, 2011, 2012).

reciprocal, multicausal, and multiple-level such conflict. A transactional model of influence

Yoshikawa, 1994). Multifaceted intervention Strategic timing of intervention also holds

You might also like