Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2006 Dec:1094:105-15.
doi: 10.1196/annals.1376.009.

Conceptual issues in studies of resilience: past, present, and future research

Suniya S Luthar  1 , Jeanette A Sawyer, Pamela J Brown
Affiliations
Review

Conceptual issues in studies of resilience: past, present, and future research

Suniya S Luthar et al. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2006 Dec.

Abstract

We begin this article by considering the following 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). The next section of the article is focused on guidelines for the selection of vulnerability and protective processes in future research. From a basic science standpoint, it is useful and appropriate to investigate all types of processes that might significantly affect adjustment among at-risk individuals. If the research is fundamentally applied in nature, however, it would be most expedient to focus on risk modifiers that have high potential to alter individuals' overall life circumstances. The final section of this article considers conceptual differences between contemporary resilience research on children versus adults. Issues include differences in the types and breadth of outcomes (e.g., the tendencies to focus on others' ratings of competence among children and on self-reports of well-being among adults respectively).

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Luthar SS, Cicchetti D. The construct of resilience: implications for interventions and social policies. Dev Psychopathol. 2000;12:857–885. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Masten A. Ordinary magic: resilience processes in development. Am Psychol. 2001;56:227–238. - PubMed
    1. Rutter M. Resilience reconsidered: conceptual considerations, empirical findings, and policy implications. In: Shonkoff JP, Meisels SJ, editors. Handbook of Early Childhood Intervention. 2. Cambridge; New York: 2000. pp. 651–682.
    1. Rutter M. Genetic influences on risk and protection: implications for understanding resilience. In: Luthar SS, editor. Resilience and vulnerability: Adaptation in the context of childhood adversities. Cambridge; New York: 2003. pp. 489–509.
    1. Luthar SS. Resilience in development: A synthesis of research across five decades. In: Cicchetti D, Cohen DJ, editors. Developmental Psychopathology: Risk, disorder, and adaptation. Wiley; New York: 2006. pp. 740–795.

Publication types