Question

 

1.How our understanding of individual, family, and community protective factors has gone beyond Emmy Werner’s initial findings?

2.What key issues are important to consider when conducting research in the area of human resilience?  

3.How has research on resilience shifted since Werner’s groundbreaking study?  

Answer 1

2.critical conceptual issues in research on resilience:

(1) distinctions between protective, promotive, and vulnerability factors

(2) the need to unpack underlying processes;

(3) the benefits of within-group experimental designs; and

(4) the advantages and potential pitfalls of an overwhelming scientific focus on biological and genetic factors (to the relative exclusion of familial and contextual ones).

1.Three clusters of protective fac- tors differentiated the resilient boys and girls who had successfully over- come the odds from their high-risk peers who developed serious coping problems in childhood or adoles- (

(1)Protective factors within the individual:

Even in infancy, resilient children displayed tem- peramental characteristics that elic- ited positive responses from their caregivers. At age one, their moth- ers tended to characterize them as active, affectionate, cuddly, good- natured, and easy to deal with; at age two, independent observers described the resilient toddlers as agreeable, cheerful, friendly, re- sponsive, and sociable. They were more advanced in their language and motor development, and in self-help skills than their peers who later developed problems.

By age 10, the children who succeeded against the odds had higher scores on tests of practical problem-solving skills and were better readers than those who de- veloped behavior or learning prob- lems. They also had a special talent that gave them a sense of pride, and they willingly assisted others who

needed help. By late adolescence, they had developed a belief in their own effectiveness and a conviction that the problems they confronted could be overcome by their own ac- tions. They had more realistic edu- cation and vocational plans, and higher expectations for their future than did their peers with coping problems.

(2)Protective factors in the family:

Children who succeeded against the odds had the opportu- nity to establish, early on, a close bond with at least one competent, emotionally stable person who was sensitive to their needs. Much of this nurturing came from substitute caregivers, such as grandparents, older siblings, aunts, and uncles. Resilient children seemed to be es- pecially adept at “recruiting” such surrogate parents.

Resilient boys tended to come from households with structure and rules, where a male served as a model of identification, and where there was encouragement of emo- tional expressiveness. Resilient girls tended to come from families that combined an emphasis on indepen- dence with reliable support from a female caregiver. The families of these children tended to hold re- ligious beliefs that provided some stability and meaning in their lives.

(3) Protective factors in the community:

Resilient youngsters tended to rely on elders and peers in their community for emotional support and sought them out for counsel in times of crisis. A favor- ite teacher was often a positive role model, so were caring neighbors, elder mentors, parents of boy- or girlfriends, youth leaders, ministers, and members of church groups.

(3) As empirical research on resilience has burgeoned in recent years, criticisms have been levied at work in this area. These critiques have generally focused on ambiguities in definitions and central terminology; heterogeneity in risks experienced and competence achieved by individuals viewed as resilient; instability of the phenomenon of resilience; and concerns regarding the usefulness of resilience as a theoretical construct. We address each identified criticism in turn, proposing solutions for those we view as legitimate and clarifying misunderstandings surrounding those we believe to be less valid. We conclude that work on resilience possesses substantial potential for augmenting the understanding of processes affecting at-risk individuals. Realization of the potential embodied by this construct, however, will remain constrained without continued scientific attention to some of the serious conceptual and methodological pitfalls that have been noted by skeptics and proponents alike.

Answer 2

1. Emmy Werner and Ruth Smith began a longitudinal study that followed all of the children born on the island of Kauai during that year. In general, Werner and Smith found that there were a percentage of children in sample that faced very adverse conditions as they grew: perinatal stress, chronic poverty, parents who had not graduated from high school. However, to the researchers’ surprise, about one-third of the children in adverse situations did very well in their lives. Werner and Smith called them the “vulnerable, but invincible.” Aside from the “vulnerable, but invincible” children, it was noted that even more of the high-risk children began to do better as they got older.

These people thrive in spite of their early circumstances;

• Reasoning : Being able to problem solve. Attitude helped them to develop confidence and plan for future.
• Emotional support outside the family : For many of the children in the Kauai study who struggled as teenagers, it was the presence of at least one caring, committed adult that made the difference.
• Inner Direction : Children with a high internal locus of control were achievement-oriented and assertive.
• Autonomy : Being able to accomplish tasks alone.
• Sociability : People wanted to help the children because they were likeable and sought help in constructive ways.
• Seizing Opportunities : People in the Kauai sample who started to do better once they were out of their teen years did so mainly due to taking advantages of opportunities that were opening up to them such as higher education, good jobs, and stable life partnerships.

2. Resiliency, or resilience, is commonly explained and studied in context of a two dimensional construct concerning the exposure of adversity and the positive adjustment outcomes of that adversity. While the construct of resilience is examined across various studies and scholarly articles, there is little consensus as to how researchers define adversity.

The following critical conceptual issues in research on resilience

• Distinctions between protective, promotive, and vulnerability factors : The central objective of resilience researchers is to identify vulnerability and protective factors that might modify the negative effects of adverse life circumstances. “Protective factor,” refer to something that modifies the effects of risk in a positive direction, clearly has positive connotations, refer to something that is helpful or beneficial.
• The need to unpack underlying processes : With regard to risk modifiers. As maternal drug abuse tends to co-occur with diagnoses of depression or anxiety, and also with major life stressors, drug-abusing mothers tend to be seen as having willfully jeopardized their children’s well-being and are subject to punitive measures, such as revocation of parental rights.
• The benefits of within-group experimental designs : These findings on maternal drug abuse lead to another broader issue warranting careful attention in our research, and this pertains to commonplace assumptions about what a risk condition is, or is not.
• The advantages and potential pitfalls of an overwhelming scientific focus on biological and genetic factors : A third critical conceptual issue has to do with the role of statistical interaction effects in resilience research. As frequently noted, interaction effects are conceptually very intriguing.

To Summarize the different themes. First, as we uncover statistical “main effect” findings, labels of “protective” factors versus “vulnerability” factors should not be chosen arbitrarily. Examining the distribution of scores vis-à-vis norms or exceptional dysfunction at the other. Second, the need to unpack underlying processes is important not only with regard to risk modifiers, but with risk indices themselves. Third, when the goal is to inform interventions for a given at-risk group, within-group designs are optimal; these help us understand which of several major influences are most potent in affecting children’s lives. Fourth, increased attention to biology and genes is invaluable, illuminating critical aspects of the human body that can compromise well-being. At the same time, we must ensure balance in our research priorities.

3. The concept of resilience first emerged from studies conducted in the 1970’s in the fields of psychopathology, traumatic stress, and poverty. While studying the effects of “risk factors” upon children’s development researchers discovered that a number of children who were exposed to severe and/or chronic stressors did not experience negative developmental outcomes. These unexpected findings set the foundation for decades of further research in a variety of fields to examine those factors and processes that enabled children and youth to not only survive, but thrive in spite of risk.

Garmezy’s (1971) seminal study of children of  parents with schizophrenia provided a foundation for investigating resilience. He first postulated that existence of “protective factors” that could enable an individual to ameliorate the negative impact of stressors and support positive development. Garmezy found that although having a parent with schizophrenia did increase a child’s risk of developing the disorder, a remarkable 90% of children in this study did not develop this illness.

Rutter’s (1979) study of children of mentally ill parents on the Isle of Wight revealed a similar phenomenon of resilience. In extensive interviews with these children, he concluded that school environments could act as an important protective factor that buffered children against the adverse effects of stress. Rutter noted that schools fostered a sense of achievement in children and contributed to their personal and social growth.

Developmental psychologist Werner’s (1982) four-decade longitudinal study of children on the Hawaiian island of Kauai constitutes the third hallmark study in resilience literature. Out of 698 children studied, fully one-third had four of more risk factors present in their lives and identified as “high risk.” Significantly, however, one-third of those “high-risk” children (72 of 201) demonstrated good outcomes by adolescence. Moreover, by that time the participants had entered their early 30’s, two-thirds of those who had presented problems during adolescence were leading successful adult lives. Throughout those four decades, the researchers explored the protective factors in the lives of resilient individuals that lead to good development. More specifically, factors include family size, access within household of care-givers; substantial attention given to children during infancy; consistent structure and rules during child’s adolescence; family cohesion; informal and intergenerational network of kind and friends. Additionally, findings from these studies offer hope and proof that despite traumatic and stressful life experiences individuals can be resilient.