Page 15 - Biobehavioral Resilence to Stress

xiv Introduction

concerning the impact of severe adversity, poverty, trauma, or cumulative
stress on psychosocial development of a child. What was once seen as a deter-
ministic and unavoidable calculus for psychopathology is now considered, if
not yet fully understood, to be a matter of adaptation. In her research to better
understand regulatory processes associated with the development of human
competency, Masten (2001) conceives of resilience as “ordinary magic” (see
also Masten, 2004; Masten et al., 2004). Developmental researchers are now
concerned with the need to identify specific adaptive (versus maladaptive)

personality characteristics, processes, and strategies that promote compe-
tence, mastery, and growth in the face of adversity.

Scientific interest in resilience has also expanded well beyond the fi eld of
child development to include the study of risk versus resilience to stress in
adult populations, with particular attention to resilience as a protective fac-
tor against the development of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) (Agaibi
& Wilson, 2005; Bonanno, 2004; Connor, 2006; Flach, 1990; Hoge, Austin &
Pollack, 2007; King, King, Fairbank, Keane & Adams, 1998; King, King, Foy,
Keane & Fairbank, 1999; King, Vogt & King, 2004; Voges & Romney, 2003;
Yehuda, 2004). There seems to be little doubt that resilience can mitigate

negative effects of exposure to extreme stress. The more pressing question

now is by what mechanism(s) resilience exerts its benefit and, relatedly, how
resilience can be promoted or optimized.
As yet, there is no clear consensus on the question of whether resilience
is something we have (a unique or universal capacity), something we do (cop-
ing behavior), or something we do with what we have. Thus, it is not sur-

prising that researchers differ in their conceptions of resilience as a set of

characteristics (e.g., Rauh, 1989), a trait (e.g., Work, Parker & Cowen, 1990),
an outcome (e.g., Rutter, 1985), or a process (e.g., Egeland, Carlson & Sroufe,
1993; Richardson, Neiger, Jensen & Kumpfer, 1990). Kaplan (1999) provides

an extensive critical review of these differences and their implications for
causal models of resilience. Although it is certainly desirable that researchers
aspire to the development of a more consistent, well-defined, and scientifi cally

grounded construct, it is also necessary to acknowledge the diffi culty inher-
ent in doing so. Currently, the presence or absence of resilience is inferred
post hoc by the absence of psychological disorder when disorder might oth-
erwise be expected (but cannot be predicted with certainty) in individuals
who are presumed to be “at risk” for stress-related psychopathology. Th us,
researchers are faced with the logically daunting and operationally convo-
luted task of devising testable hypotheses to explore the relationship between
a poorly defined construct and its presumed impact, which in turn is defi ned

by the absence of measurable change.
In this experimentally challenging context, investigators continue
working to identify key and relevant factors of resilience as a phenomenon,
capacity, or process that supports positive outcome in the face of adversity.

1/31/2008 12:28:34 PM
CRC_71777_Fm.indd xiv 1/31/2008 12:28:34 PM
CRC_71777_Fm.indd xiv