8080 MD3 DIS4

Global Perspectives on Resilience in Children and Youth

Ann S. Masten University of Minnesota

Global concerns about the consequences of disasters, political violence, disease, malnutrition, maltreatment, and other threats to human development and well-being have sparked a surge of international interest in resilience science. This article highlights progress and issues in research that aims to understand variations in human adaptation to adverse experiences. Two key questions are considered: Why is a new wave of global research on resilience important for developmental science? and Why is developmental science important for global resilience? The conclusion calls for developmental scientists to engage in international efforts to pro- mote resilience.

The development of children around the world is threatened by disasters, political violence, pandem- ics, and other adversities that can have life-altering consequences for individuals, families, and the future of all societies. The beginning of the 21st cen- tury was punctuated by a terrifying sequence of events affecting large numbers of victims across the world. These include 9/11 and subsequent terror attacks, Hurricanes Katrina and Sandy, the 2004 tsunami in the Indian Ocean triggered by one of the largest earthquakes in human history, the BP Oil Spill in the Gulf of Mexico, the 2008 earthquake in China, HIN1 flu, and the triple disaster of 2011 in Japan of earthquake, tsunami, and meltdown of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. Reports from the United Nations (UN) indicate that tens of millions of children each year are exposed to disasters and conflicts, and many are displaced as a result (UNHCR, 2010; UNICEF, 2011, 2012). Millions more suffer abuse or neglect from caregiv- ers (Cicchetti, 2013b) and sex trafficking or other forms of exploitation (Hartjen & Priyadarsini, 2012).

These well-publicized adversities have raised global concerns about dangers posed to children as well as the future of societies, while also highlight- ing a lack of preparedness to handle such calami- ties. These concerns have spurred renewed attention to resilience across many fields of research as governments and international agencies search for evidence and guidance on what helps to mitigate risk and promote resistance or recovery in

the face of these threats to human life. Develop- mental science is well positioned to contribute to and benefit from a more integrated and global sci- ence of resilience.

In this article, I invite the reader to consider two related questions: Why is a new wave of global research on resilience important for developmental science? and Why is developmental science impor- tant for global resilience? A brief history of resil- ience research in child development is highlighted first, including major accomplishments and cri- tiques. Subsequently, I describe the maturation of developmental resilience science, progress toward a global knowledge base on resilience in children and youth, and enduring controversies. The conclusion offers some preliminary answers to the two ques- tions, describes signs of globalization in the Society for Research in Child Development (SRCD), and issues a call to action for developmental scientists.

Conceptual Origins

Resilience can be broadly defined as the capacity of a dynamic system to adapt successfully to distur- bances that threaten system function, viability, or development. The concept can be applied to sys- tems of many kinds at many interacting levels, both living and nonliving, such as a microorganism, a child, a family, a security system, an economy, a forest, or the global climate. Interest in resilience as a concept and observable phenomenon emerged around the same time but independently in theThis article is based on the Presidential Address at the biennial

meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, in Seattle, April 19, 2013.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Ann S. Masten, Institute of Child Development, University of Minnesota, 51 East River Road, Minneapolis, MN 55455. Elec- tronic mail may be sent to [email protected].

© 2013 The Author Child Development © 2013 Society for Research in Child Development, Inc. All rights reserved. 0009-3920/2014/8501-0002 DOI: 10.1111/cdev.12205

Child Development, January/February 2014, Volume 85, Number 1, Pages 6–20

fields of ecology (e.g., Holling, 1973) and psychol- ogy (e.g., Garmezy, 1971; Murphy & Moriarty, 1976). Both areas of science, as well as many others, were influenced by general systems theory (von Bertalanffy, 1968).

The word itself has roots in the Latin verb, resilire (to rebound). The concept has been adopted by many fields concerned with how well complex systems anticipate, adapt, recover, and learn in the context of major threats, surprises, and disasters(e.g., Gunder- son, Allen, & Holling, 2010; Hollnagel, Woods, & Leveson, 2006; Zolli & Healy, 2012). Social scientists intrigued with understanding how some people escape the harmful effects of severe adversity, cope well, bounce back, or even thrive, eventually settled on this word to label the focus of their research.

Resilience research in developmental science has deep roots in research and theory in child develop- ment, clinical sciences, and the study of individual differences (Luthar, 2006; Masten, 2013). The history of research on resilience is closely tied to the history of developmental psychopathology (see Cicchetti, 2013a; Masten, 2013) and the relational develop- mental systems theory that infuses this integrative approach to understanding variations in human adaptation over the life course (Lerner et al., 2012; Overton, 2013; Sameroff, 2000).

The Emergence of Resilience Research in Child Development

World War II (WWII) set the stage for the emer- gence of resilience science, bringing worldwide attention to the plight of children affected by the devastation (Werner, 2000). Many children died and millions more survived in perilous condition: orphaned, injured, sick, traumatized, and starving. Huge numbers of children were evacuated or dis- placed. Shortly after the war ended, the United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF) was founded to address this global emer- gency (Diers, 2013), and “CARE” was organized in the United States to send aid to Europe (initially the Cooperative for American Remittances to Eur- ope; later the Cooperative for Assistance and Relief Everywhere), sending millions of CARE packages to Europe, often addressed simply, “For a hungry person in Europe” (Werner, 2000).

Clinicians from different disciplines were called on to help with children psychologically affected by the war, including Anna Freud, who founded the Hampstead War Nurseries in England for children in need of care. Freud and Burlingham (1943) pub-

lished a volume on their observations, War and Chil- dren, where they noted that children rarely showed “traumatic shock” when a parent was present and also that caregivers’ reactions were important for children’s reactions. A few systematic studies were done of children during WWII, but research was limited by scarce resources and the exigencies of war itself (Garmezy, 1983).

A rather different legacy of WWII was its effects on the lives of individuals who would become pio- neers in resilience science. For example, Norman Garmezy (1985; Garmezy & Rutter, 1983) was a young American soldier who served in the infantry in Europe, observing the Battle of the Bulge first- hand. Emmy Werner (Werner & Smith, 1982) sur- vived the devastation of Europe as a young girl, directly experiencing the support of international relief efforts. Michael Rutter (1979, 1987) was one of the British children evacuated to safety in the United States during the war. These three would play leading roles in the rise of resilience science.

As research on mental health expanded after WWII, investigators identified risk factors associ- ated with elevated probabilities for various dis- orders and problems. In childhood, maltreatment, violence, and traumatic life events were often stud- ied by risk researchers because they were common and consistently associated with high risk for psy- chopathology. Research on high-risk children soon revealed wide variation in outcomes and inspired research on children who were doing well despite adversity or risk (Cicchetti, 2013a; Evans, Li, & Whipple, 2013; Masten, 2013).

Disasters also played a key role in early research on risk and resilience (Masten & Narayan, 2012). One occurred in Buffalo Creek, West Virginia, in 1972, when a coal slurry impoundment dam gave way, flooding and destroying the community below and killing 125. Ensuing litigation yielded extensive lon- gitudinal data on effects of this disaster on children and adults (e.g., Gleser, Green, & Winget, 1981; Korol, Kramer, Grace, & Green, 2002). Despite con- cerns about potential bias in data obtained for law- suits, numerous findings were replicated in subsequent research on mass-trauma events (Masten & Narayan, 2012). Children and adults showed dose-response gradients, for example, with more symptoms among individuals exposed to greater destruction, injury, and loss. Seventeen years later, dose effects were largely gone, although some trauma symptoms lingered; recovery and resilience appeared to be the norm (Green et al., 1994; Korol et al., 2002).

A disaster on the other side of the world, the Australian Bushfire of 1983, also provided remark-

Global Perspectives on Resilience 7

able documentation of short- and long-term effects of disaster on children. McFarlane (1987; McFarlane & Van Hooff, 2009) compared symptoms among a large cohort of fire-exposed school children with students from schools outside the directly exposed region, both shortly after the fire and 20 years later. Again, dose mattered and early effects largely dissi- pated over the long term. This classic study also found that separation of children from caregivers was a critical predictor of how fire-exposed children fared, and proximity of attachment figures during life-threatening adversities had protective effects, as observed during WWII.

In 1987, Michael Rutter published a landmark paper, still the most cited journal article on psycho- social resilience in the literature, that summed up much of the first-generation research, delineated key issues, and set the stage for ensuing waves of resilience science (Masten, 2012; Rutter, 1987). Rutter described resilience in terms of processes and turning points, provided many examples of interac- tion effects, and noted evidence of “steeling effects,” where engagement with stress served to prepare the individual for better subsequent adaptation.

Accomplishments and Critiques of Early Resilience Science

Rutter’s classic article and other early reviews docu- mented the accomplishments of the first wave of resilience science, including models, methods, and a body of findings (e.g., Garmezy, 1985; Masten, Best, & Garmezy, 1990). Despite notable consistencies in the findings, shortcomings in the evidence base became evident and controversies began emerging.

Models and Methods

Early investigators established models and meth- ods for research on resilience that continue to be useful, although refinements inevitably were needed, particularly with respect to cultural and contextual issues. Resilience research requires strate- gies for assessing risk or adversity, adaptation, and other influences that might explain variations in adaptation among children at risk, and statistical methods for testing models or hypotheses about the interplay among these possible contributors to resil- ience. Investigators soon recognized that single risk indicators did not reflect the reality of adversity exposure in children, who were often exposed to multiple risk factors or adversities. Various mea- sures were designed to index cumulative risk or

adversity exposure (see Evans et al., 2013; Obrad- ovi�c, Shaffer, & Masten, 2012). In disaster studies, for example, exposure to death and destruction might be indexed by proximity to the epicenter of devastation or by counts of traumatic experiences.

Various approaches were taken to defining adap- tation as well. In some studies, adjustment was defined by the absence of psychopathology or other expected negative outcomes that defined the risk group of interest. In other cases, adaptation was evaluated on the basis of positive achievements in age-salient developmental tasks, the psychosocial or physical milestones and accomplishments expected for individuals in a given period of development in a given sociocultural context (McCormick, Kuo, & Masten, 2011). Some of these tasks were viewed as universal, such as learning to walk or talk; others were common across developed nations, such as learning to read; still others were more specific to a culture or context, such as learning to weave tex- tiles, fish, or master sacred texts.

Early models included linear and nonlinear effects linking adversity to adaptation (e.g., Masten et al., 1988). Nonlinear effects included exponential increases in problematic outcomes as risk or adver- sity levels increased or curvilinear effects where adaptation improved at lower levels of challenge and then fell at higher levels (“the challenge model”), analogous to the Yerkes-Dodson inverted- U relation of performance to arousal. Additional positive explanatory factors or influences were added to these models to explain positive outcomes. When they had the same effects across levels of risk (a main effect in statistical models), they were conceptualized as assets, resources, or compensatory factors (later termed “promotive fac- tors” by Sameroff, 2000). When there was an added or special effect when risk or adversity was high, they were described as “protective factors” that moderated risk effects (interaction effects).

Investigators developed two basic approaches to identifying and testing the resources and protective factors associated with resilience: person focused and variable focused (Masten, 2001). The former included case studies and research on groups of individuals who met specified criteria for both risk and good adaptation, typically to compare them with other groups of people who shared the same level of risk but were maladaptive, and sometimes also to others who shared the same positive out- comes but had lower risk. Variable-focused approaches typically used multivariate statistics, such as hierarchical regressions, to test main effects and moderators.

8 Masten

Early Findings and Critiques

Early findings indicated key differences associ- ated with good adaptation compared to maladapta- tion among high-risk groups of children. There was enough consistency that early reviewers (e.g., Gar- mezy, 1985) could summarize them in terms of child attributes (individual differences), family attri- butes (e.g., socioeconomic variation, parenting), and extrafamilial differences (e.g., neighborhood, school, mentors outside the family). Complexities emerged as well, including data congruent with Rutter’s (1987) admonition that protective effects had to be considered in terms of function and context, and not as inherent to the “protective factor” itself. One example heralding the importance of context was a study of temperament by deVries (1984) that Rutter (1989) used to illustrate this issue. At that time, developmental scientists tended to assume (as implied by the labels) that “easy” babies who had more mellow temperaments were more adaptive than “difficult” or “fussy” babies viewed as more challenging and demanding. In the deVries study, temperament was measured in Masai infants using a measure originally developed for North American children. After a severe drought, the investigator found, to his surprise, that difficult infants survived the harsh conditions better than easy babies. Masai culture may have played a part in these results, with multiple family members in caregiver roles, feeding offered on demand, and a high value on assertiveness.

Some reviewers emphasized that context was important (e.g., Masten et al., 1990; Rutter, 1990), yet on the whole the early resilience literature did not address context well nor consider important cultural variations in the meaning and measure- ment of resilience and culturally based protective influences. Criteria for judging good adaptation or success in developmental tasks were clearly cultur- ally based, yet rarely examined in this light, even though scholars called for a more sociocultural approach (e.g., Oerter, 1986; Ogbu, 1981). Resilience studies were criticized for neglecting context in models and methods, and especially for the lack of research on culturally based protective factors (e.g., Luthar, Cicchetti, & Becker, 2000; Masten, 1999).

The Maturing of Resilience Science

In the quarter-century that followed the first wave of science and attendant reviews, human resilience science expanded and matured, becoming more

global and multidisciplinary in scope. Advances in the measurement of genes and biological processes gave a boost to research on the neurobiology of resilience. Models, methods, and findings became more dynamic and more nuanced. Processes involv- ing multiple levels of analysis took center stage. And finally, as international and multicultural research gained traction, global perspectives on resilience emerged and stimulated refinement of methods and theory. Key changes are highlighted here.

Complex Adaptive Systems

Over the decades since the science on resilience in children began, the conceptualization of the con- struct grew more dynamic (Masten, 2013; Schoon, 2012), reflecting a broader systems transformation in developmental science (e.g., Lerner et al., 2012; Zelazo, 2013). This relational developmental sys- tems framework (Overton, 2013) integrated ideas from developmental systems theory (Lerner, 2006), ecological systems theory (Bronfenbrenner & Mor- ris, 2006), family systems theory (Goldenberg & Goldenberg, 2013), biological systems (Lickliter, 2013), and developmental psychopathology (Cicch- etti, 2013a). Contemporary systems models assume that many systems interact or “co-act” to shape the course of development, across levels of function, from the molecular to the macro-levels of physical and sociocultural ecologies. The resilience of an individual over the course of development depends on the function of complex adaptive systems that are continually interacting and transforming. As a result, the resilience of a person is always changing and the capacity for adaptation of an individual will be distributed across interacting systems.

I have previously suggested that many of the widely observed protective factors for individual resilience in children reflect adaptive systems shaped by biological and cultural evolution (Masten, 2001, 2007). These include close attach- ment relationships, reward systems and mastery motivation, intelligence and executive functions, and cultural belief systems and traditions in many forms, including religion. Each of these adaptive systems can be considered at various levels of analysis from multiple disciplinary perspectives, including anthropology, biology, ecology, econom- ics, psychology, and sociology.

Multilevel dynamics (processes linking levels of function within and across systems) hold consider- able interest in resilience theory. For example, there is great interest in processes by which adversity is

Global Perspectives on Resilience 9

biologically embedded and mitigated (e.g., Karato- reos & McEwen, 2013), violence at the community level influences family function and thereby cas- cades to affect children (e.g., Cummings et al., 2012), or good parenting influences the develop- ment of executive function skills in children at the neural and behavioral levels (e.g., Blair, Berry, Mills-Koonce, & Granger, 2013). Disasters under- score the interdependence of individual, family, and community systems, as well as biological, physical, and ecological systems across levels (Masten & Narayan, 2012). Large-scale disasters like Katrina or the 2011 tsunami in Japan challenge or destroy many adaptive systems simultaneously across large areas and groups of people. Conse- quently, recovery can take some time, and adequate preparation for disasters usually requires an inte- grated perspective with consideration of multiple, interdependent systems.

Trajectories and Pathways

Modeling dynamic change in complex systems is a challenge across many fields of research, and resilience science is no exception. Conceptually, these models and ideas are not new; Gottesman illustrated such models decades ago (e.g., Gottes- man, 1974) and they have been important in the history of developmental psychopathology (e.g., Cicchetti, 2013a; Masten, 2006). However, progress in statistical methodology for modeling change within individuals over time and between-person differences in within-person change have opened new possibilities for studying pathways and trajec- tories in developmental science (Grimm, Ram, & Hamagami, 2011). Statistical and computing advances, in combination with repeated measures in longitudinal studies, have made it possible to begin testing pathway models and illustrating real trajectories of behavior over time in the context of acute or chronic adversities.

Theoretical pathway models of resilience in the context of acute and chronic adversity have been presented by a number of scholars in the resilience field (e.g., Masten & Narayan, 2012). These models illustrate different patterns of adaptive behavior over time in relation to onset of a traumatic experi- ence or change in adversity level, often illustrating stress-resistance, a pattern with little or minor dis- turbance of function in response to an adverse experience (Bonanno & Diminich, 2013, term this pattern “minimal-impact resilience”), breakdown and recovery of function in response to a sudden overwhelming stressor (sometimes called a “recov-

ery” pattern), and posttraumatic growth or improvement in function in response to adversity. In the case of chronic adversity, such as might occur with institutional rearing or child maltreat- ment, another pattern has been delineated, where function is poor or declining and then turns around when conditions improve, a pattern vari- ously referred to as “normalization” (Masten & Obradovi�c, 2008) or “emergent resilience” (Bonanno & Diminich, 2013). Some scholars also include the maladaptive patterns in their pathway figures, where breakdown or decreases in function occur in the aftermath of adversity followed by little or no recovery.

Growth curve modeling and group-based trajec- tory modeling techniques (Grimm et al., 2011; Nagin, 2005) have made it possible to study pat- terns of change over time in individuals and test for hypothesized response patterns. Longitudinal studies with repeated measures are rare; however, there are some recent examples of research on tra- jectories in children. Betancourt, McBain, Newn- ham, and Brennan (2013), using latent class growth curve analysis, identified four trajectories of inter- nalizing symptoms over time in a sample of child soldiers and other youth from Sierra Leone with extremely high trauma exposure: a stress-resistance (minimal-impact resilience) pattern with steady, low internalizing symptoms (41% showed this pat- tern), a recovery pattern with substantial improve- ment over time in symptoms (47%; presoldier measures were not available), persisting symptoms (5%), and a deteriorating pattern of worsening symptoms (6%). Another study of trajectories uti- lized data from a study of 568 children followed after Hurricane Andrew (La Greca et al., 2013) and latent growth mixture modeling to identify three trajectories based on measures at 3, 7, and 10 months posthurricane: (minimal-impact) resilient (37%), recovering (43%), and persistently distressed (20%). Both these studies offer support for several predicted trajectories, including resilience pathways and persisting effects, while also corroborating the observation that the majority of children, even after severe acute or chronic adversities, show resilience in some form.

The Neurobiology of Resilience

Research on the neurobiology of resilience has surged with advances in methodology that make it possible to measure genes and epigenetic change, examine the status of stress-response systems and immune system function, and see the brain in

10 Masten

action through various imaging techniques (Cicch- etti, 2013a, 2013b; Hughes, 2012; Karatoreos & McEwen, 2013; Kim-Cohen & Turkewitz, 2012; Masten, 2013; Russo, Murrough, Han, Charney, & Nestler, 2012). Some of these techniques can only be utilized in the context of laboratories; however, some are “field friendly,” making it possible to assess biomarkers of stress or adaptation processes in authentic ecological settings and even in the midst of disaster recovery experiences. DNA, sali- vary cortisol, and blood spots, for example, have been collected in remote and high-stress contexts, including trailer parks set up after Hurricane Katrina (e.g., Vigil, Geary, Granger, & Flinn, 2010), homeless shelters (e.g., Cutuli, Wiik, Herbers, Gunnar, & Masten, 2010), foster homes (e.g., Fisher, Van Ryzin, & Gunnar, 2011), treatment centers for maltreated children and their families (e.g., Cicchetti, 2013a, 2013b), home visits with low-income and rural families (e.g., Blair et al., 2013), and field sites around the world in which anthropologists are including biomarker assessments along with their more traditional measures (McDade, Williams, & Snodgrass, 2007; Worthman & Costello, 2009; Worthman & Panter-Brick, 2008).

Research conducted with diverse samples of chil- dren from developing and developed nations plays an important role in the neurobiological wave of research on risk and resilience. For example, cortisol from hair sampling has been examined in girls with various levels of exposure to the 2008 devastating Wenchuan earthquake in China (Luo et al., 2012). Cortisol measured from hair samples is a potential biomarker that provides a “timeline” of stress responses embedded in the hair as it grows. Results show exposure effects, with cortisol levels elevated in girls who were more exposed. In addition, girls with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) showed different patterns and lower cortisol than exposed girls who did not have PTSD.

Research on cortisol using various assessment methodologies in diverse contexts of adversity has yielded a complex picture of how the stress regula- tion systems may be affected by trauma experiences over the life course and over generations (Gunnar & Herrera, 2013; Matthews & Phillips, 2012). For reasons not yet clear, either elevated or reduced cortisol levels or reactivity can be found after adversity. Exposure timing may play a role, and there is considerable interest in prenatal program- ming effects, presumably epigenetically mediated, in response to trauma exposure of mothers. Yehuda and colleagues, for example, have studied cortisol in the children of survivors of the Holocaust and

9/11, observing lower cortisol levels among moth- ers who developed PTSD and their offspring (see Yehuda et al., 2010). Greater effects were found with 9/11 exposure in the third trimester.

Developmental Timing

There is growing international interest in timing effects of physical and psychological stressors on human development. Some of this research stems from WWII, including the studies of radiation expo- sure on children after the atomic bombing of Japan and the “Dutch Famine” studies. Research on radia- tion exposures in children after the atomic bombs were dropped on Japan and more recently from the radiation leaks after the explosion of the Chernobyl nuclear plant shows clear timing effects (Fushiki, 2013); worse effects are observed with fetal expo- sure during organogenesis, and the central nervous system is particularly sensitive during weeks 8–25. Similarly, studies of children who experienced the famine during the occupation of the Netherlands in the winter of 1944–1945 also show differential tim- ing effects on the life-long health of surviving chil- dren (e.g., Painter, Roseboom, & Bleker, 2005).

Another study of Chernobyl indicated timing effects focused on psychological stress rather than radiation, drawing data from a national twin study underway at the time in Finland. The known tim- ing of Chernobyl (in 1986) made it possible to design a natural experiment to compare adolescent twins who were in gestation during this incident with a cohort of twins conceived a year later, after the worst fears about radiation had dissipated (Huizink et al., 2008). Results indicated biological differences in hormones not attributable to radia- tion exposure. For example, salivary cortisol levels were higher among adolescent offspring of mothers pregnant during Chernobyl, and timing suggested greater vulnerability during the second trimester.

Developmental timing has been implicated for protective processes as well as vulnerability. There is growing interest in delineating the processes by which adaptive systems “learn” or are “tuned” to the expected environment, to be effective for the organism in context. Evidence supporting the “hygiene hypothesis” for the rising prevalence of asthma, allergies, and related immune dysfunctions in modern societies provides an example of the benefits of early exposure to microorganisms for calibrating the immune system (Okada, Kuhn, Feillet, & Bach, 2010). For instance, growing up on a farm is protective for respiratory allergy (von Mutius & Radon, 2008). Timing is important as the

Global Perspectives on Resilience 11

same type of exposures coming too late can trigger problems.

There is great interest in identifying sensitive periods for additional adaptive systems and pro- cesses because of the profound implications for pol- icy, prevention, and practice. There may well be windows of opportunity and plasticity when adap- tive systems can be promoted (or protected from harm) to favor resilience; these windows could point to targets and timing of interventions or pre- vention efforts that would have a high return on investment or greater effectiveness (Masten, 2011). For example, research on international adoption as an intervention to improve the rearing context suggests that children adopted at younger ages from institutions to homes with good care-giving fare better than later adopted children (Gunnar & Herrera, 2013). The emerging work on prenatal stress effects on the fetus suggests that stress-regula- tion systems may also be sensitive to interventions that protect and support mothers during pregnancy.

The research on programming effects during sen- sitive periods has raised the possibility of repro- gramming adaptive systems as a strategy of intervention, or reopening windows of plasticity (Meaney, 2010). Growing knowledge of epigenetic change and gene expression in mature animals is opening new horizons for intervention, and also may recast the questions of sensitization versus steeling effects in resilience science.

Resilience (At Last!) in Cultural Context

Serious attention to culture in resilience research was long overdue. During the early decades of resilience science, theory and data considering resil- ience in cultural context were limited (Luthar, 2006; Ungar, Ghazinour, & Richter, 2013; Wachs & Rahman, 2013; Wright, Masten, & Narayan, 2013). In the past two decades, research on the role of cul- ture in resilience finally began to flourish. Numer- ous books and conferences have focused on the social ecologies of resilience and there are more cross-cultural and multicultural studies. There is greater attention to cultural practices, including reli- gion, that may foster resilience in individuals and communities (see Ungar, 2012). The World Bank published a review of the international evidence on risk and resilience related to the global economic crisis (Lundberg & Wuermli, 2012). Studies of migration and acculturation flourished (see Masten, Liebkind, & Hernandez, 2012), addressing issues like the “immigrant paradox,” when first-generation youth show better health or adjustment than subse-

quent generations (Garcia Coll & Marks, 2012). Research on children in war and disasters expanded, often focused on resilience (Masten & Narayan, 2012).

Ungar (2011) proposed a social ecological model of resilience that highlights the role of culture and context. Ungar and colleagues founded the Resil- ience Centre at Dalhousie University, mobilizing a network of investigators across five continents to study resilience. Their work is yielding a rich body of qualitative and quantitative data that expands and challenges resilience theory (see Ungar, 2012; Ungar et al., 2013). In the Basotho community of South Africa, for example, investigators observed the importance of “Botho” (a philosophy similar to “Ubunto” in other African cultures that emphasize human interdependence) in young people identified as resilient (Theron, Theron, & Malindi, 2012). Resil- ient youth in Basotho were described as flexible and determined, common attributes reported in youth viewed as resilient in many cultures, but also as well connected to community support systems and respectful of community values important to their culture.

Investigators have documented cultural rituals that appear to play a powerful role in the accep- tance and recovery of young people who are strug- gling to overcome adverse experiences, particularly when they have offended societal values or com- mitted humanitarian atrocities under duress. In an article on “rethinking resilience from indigenous perspectives,” Kirmayer, Dandeneau, Marshall, Phillips, and Williamson (2011) describe the ritual of reconciliation and forgiveness practiced by the indigenous people of Atlantic Canada, the Mi’kmaq, to resolve offenses and settle conflicts. Rituals of cleansing and forgiveness also appear to be important in the reintegration and recovery of child soldiers in African cultures (e.g., Boothby, Crawford, & Halperin, 2006).

For young people who face racial or ethnic dis- crimination, there is increasing research on protec- tive strategies that foster resilience, both naturally occurring and through interventions (Evans et al., 2012; Hughes et al., 2006; Serafica & Vargas, 2006). Research indicates strategies used by parents and families in their racial/ethnic socialization to con- vey pride in racial/ethnic heritage while also train- ing children to deal with prejudice, the dangers of discrimination, and barriers to opportunity. Sirin and colleagues (Sirin & Gupta, 2012) have studied successful adaptation in Muslim-American youth in the aftermath of 9/11, a difficult period for Muslim immigrant families in the United States, with a

12 Masten

focus on the success of young people who reside happily “on the hyphen,” effectively navigating their bicultural contexts. At the same time, there is growing recognition of the corrosive effects of dis- crimination on development and the importance of a social justice agenda directed at changing the con- text rather than expecting a child to adapt to injus- tice (Fisher, Busch-Rossnagel, Jopp, & Brown, 2012; Ungar et al., 2013).

Investigators focused on understanding risk and resilience in cultural context have taken research into very challenging environments. The work of Panter-Brick and Eggerman (Eggerman & Panter- Brick, 2010; Panter-Brick, Goodman, Tol, & Egger- man, 2011) in Afghanistan offers an example from an extremely challenging research environment rife with ongoing political conflicts, dangers related to family and community violence, and economic dis- tress. This team was able to conduct a school-based survey of mental health with over 1,000 students and their adult caregivers, supplemented by inter- views and subsample follow-ups. Their methods included strategies to systematically glean ethno- graphic data for analysis, with open-ended ques- tions about daily difficulties and solutions, as well as quantitative assessments. This group argues per- suasively that values in the Afghan culture (faith, family unity, service, effort, morals, and honor) pro- vide a sense of cohesion and meaning to life that plays a central role in resilience of Afghan families and their children.

Research in challenging contexts also includes studies of young people living in war zones or engaged in prolonged violent political conflicts. There is a growing and distinctive literature on youth engaged in ethnopolitical conflicts around the world that has required thoughtful attention to politi- cal and cultural issues (Barber, 2009; Cummings et al., 2012; Dimitry, 2012; Masten & Narayan, 2012). Numerous studies in the Middle East since 2000 have focused on youth engaged, often voluntarily, in violent situations such as the Palestinian–Israeli con- flict that have complex cultural and political histo- ries. For example, researchers have contrasted the political, socioeconomic, and cultural experiences of Palestinian, Israeli-Jewish, and Israeli-Arab children living in Gaza, the West Bank, and other regions of Israel as they study the effects of the conflict (Barber, 2009; Dimitry, 2012). Some findings are provocative. Youth in these conflicts appear to gain a sense of identity and agency through their engagement, despite the inherent dangers, underscoring the importance of context for understanding perceived meaning and roles in these conflicts.

In a rare, longitudinal study of multilevel dynamics, Boxer et al. (2013) examined spreading effects over time linking interethnic political vio- lence at higher levels of social ecology to violence exposure in more proximal youth microsystems (community, family, school violence) to individual youth aggression. The study applied structural equation modeling to three waves of data collected over 3 years with Palestinian and Israeli youth who were 8, 11, and 14 years old. Results suggested cas- cading effects of violence across ecological contexts, from political system to microsystems to individu- als, resulting in increases in individual violence.

Revisiting Four Enduring Controversies Through a Global Lens

Over the years, there have been persistent issues and controversies in resilience science (see Luthar, 2006; Masten, 2012, 2013; Panter-Brick & Leckman, 2013; Rutter, 1987). Many of these controversies involve considerations of context, including culture and nationality.

What Does Resilience Mean?

The meaning of resilience in developmental sci- ence has been a matter of some controversy for dec- ades. Research on resilience requires operational definitions of risk, threat, or disturbances and adap- tive outcomes or processes of interest. Defining posi- tive adaptation involves implicit or explicit value judgments or criteria about desirable adaptation (see Masten, 2001). Such judgments are influenced by cultures of science, as well as sociocultural and his- torical context. Evolutionary biologists may be con- cerned with reproductive fitness of the population, while child psychologists may be focused on indi- vidual competence in age-salient developmental tasks. Global research on competence and resilience indicates both commonalities and variation in these criteria (McCormick et al., 2011; Ungar, 2012). Research in more diverse societies highlights the var- iation in interpreted meaning of similar experiences and the profound role of culture in shaping expo- sures, responses, and expectations of children in adversity (Eggerman & Panter-Brick, 2010; Masten & Narayan, 2012; Ungar et al., 2013).

Who Defines “Adaptive” or Doing Well?

A related controversy concerns the issue of who should define the meaning and measures of resil-

Global Perspectives on Resilience 13

ience in research. Should it be individually defined (e.g., perceived stress and well-being; tailored to the situation) or objectively defined by community or national or international standards? What kind of validation is meaningful for measures developed in one culture or context and applied to another? What about research on children who must adapt to multiple cultures and sets of expectations simul- taneously (as is the case for many immigrant youth)? Wrestling with these questions is essential to global research on resilience.

Is There a Trait of Resilience?

This perennial issue should be put to rest (Masten, 2012; Panter-Brick & Leckman, 2013; Rutter, 1987). The answer is no. There are personal- ity (or temperament) dimensions consistently associ- ated with resilience, such as conscientiousness; however, there is evidence that experiences shape personality traits, that traits can influence exposure to adversity, and also that the same trait can func- tion as a vulnerability or protective influence, depending on the domain of adaptation, the physi- cal or sociocultural value and meaning of the trait, and the age or gender of the individual (Lengua & Wachs, 2012; Shiner & Masten, 2012). An inhibited adolescent, for example, may be at risk for social or emotional problems but protected from the dangers of risk-taking behaviors. Global research has played a significant role in addressing this issue, through findings that illustrate the range of capacities and values related to variations in the meaning and func- tion of individual differences in temperament or per- sonality across cultures and situations. In addition, growing theory and research on individual differ- ences in sensitivity to experience, or differential sus- ceptibility to the environment, underscore the role of context in moderating the influence of individual differences on adaptive function and development (e.g., Belsky, Bakermans-Kranenburg, & van IJzen- doorn, 2007; Ellis & Boyce, 2011). In addition, such individual differences in temperament or “sensitiv- ity” themselves appear to be developmentally influ- enced by experience and context.

Is There a Price to Pay for Resilience?

Another enduring issue in the study of resilience is the question of whether resilience takes a toll through the demands imposed by adapting well under high adversity. This issue takes two forms. One is the idea of scarring or lingering effects of experienced adversity on development, despite

achieving good adaptive function in multiple ways, which might better be termed a price of adversity rather than resilience. A second kind of “price” explicitly refers to the toll of striving for resilience under extremely difficult conditions. There has been scattered evidence that some young people from very high-risk backgrounds showing resilience in developmental tasks suffer long-term health issues (e.g., Werner & Smith, 2001). This issue re-emerged in a study of allostatic load observed among youth in an intervention study (Brody et al., 2013), with the provocative title, “Is Resilience Only Skin Deep?” Young people with a track record of resilience from African American families showed high allostatic load (e.g., high body mass index and high blood pressure) in conjunction with the good psychosocial adjustment. Global perspectives may shed light on the contexts in which resilience exacts such a “toll.”

Conclusion

Today, resilience research in child development reflects a broad transformation occurring in multi- ple sciences concerned with adaptation in complex developing systems. The concepts and empirical approaches are more dynamic, as investigators attempt to understand and promote adaptive change or the capacity for positive adaptation in a context of existing or potential threats and sur- prises. Efforts to prepare for global disasters and threats of diverse kinds appear to be motivating forces to integrate and share tools, concepts, and knowledge across fields to enhance the capacity for effective system responses to expected or unexpected threats. There are efforts to create com- mon concepts and tools that will facilitate building a more integrated, scalable, multidisciplinary sci- ence of resilience to address issues of global con- cern (Brown, 2013; Gunderson & Holling, 2002; Masten & Obradovi�c, 2008; Welsh, 2013). Interven- tion efforts have taken center stage, to test models and methods for promoting resilience.

As a result of this transformation, the importance of global perspectives, knowledge, and research on resilience has surged. Developmental science has much to gain and much to contribute to a new phase of global science on resilience.

Why Is Global Research on Resilience Important for Developmental Science?

Global research on resilience in human develop- ment has the potential to contribute to developmental

14 Masten

science in multiple ways. First, research in more diverse cultural, political, and geographic contexts expands the evidence base on developmental pro- cesses and the full range of adaptive processes involved in resilience. Second, challenges posed by multicultural or multinational contexts can drive innovation in design and methodology, as well as theory. Research in remote or low-technology con- texts, for example, has motivated the development of practical methods for assessment of behavioral and biological variables in the field. Third, research on resilience can challenge theory and provoke important refinements. The research on tempera- ment and survival in the Masai study by deVries (1984) challenged the notion of “easy temperament” (and, by implication, any single personality trait) as a universal protective factor. Similarly, the recent research on youth engaged in political violence has challenged the idea that high exposure to adversity erodes well-being (Barber, 2009; Tol, Song, & Jordans, 2013). Global research also offers opportu- nities for natural and planned experiments on issues of international significance, such as protect- ing children and promoting recovery in the contexts of natural or technological disasters or violent polit- ical conflicts. Fourth, global resilience science informs intervention design, through successes and failures of efforts to deliberately promote resilience in different cultures and situational contexts. Adapting evidence-based practices created in one sociocultural context for application in another con- text can generate knowledge about the robustness as well as the limitations of an intervention. Les- sons are beginning to accumulate on trauma- focused interventions suitable for implementation after mass-trauma events with children and families (e.g., La Greca & Silverman, 2009).

Globalization of resilience science also has the potential to increase appreciation for the value of developmental science across sectors, sciences, and cultures. Research on resilience in children has a compelling rationale and the translational util- ity often is readily apparent (Masten, 2011), generating interest in the science to find out what may be helpful in reducing exposure or harm and promoting positive adaptation and development.

Why Is Developmental Science Important for Global Resilience?

A reciprocal case can be made for the value of developmental science with respect to global resil- ience. The scope of endangered children in the world and the stakes for families, cultures, and

societies are enormous. There is a need for more knowledge about risk and protective processes and how to prepare for specific threats to human development in the event of exposures to disaster, terror, displacement, abandonment, and many other extremely dangerous situations for child development. International agencies are requesting knowledge and guidance about the best ways to invest their resources; there is growing interest in moving beyond survival goals to promoting healthy development and resilience in children and adolescents (Britto, Engle, & Super, 2013; Diers, 2013; Shonkoff et al., 2012). Global eco- nomic agencies like the World Bank are investing in children as a key strategy for promoting the economic future of nations as well as individuals, again with a strong emphasis on resilience (Lund- berg & Wuermli, 2012).

UNICEF is the custodian and champion of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) which calls on all nations to protect and foster the rights of children to survival, development, protection, and participation (Diers, 2013). The UNCRC requires special efforts to pro- tect children in “especially difficult circum- stances,” including child labor, sexual exploitation, and armed conflict. UNICEF and other interna- tional agencies also are focused on resilience in the context of promoting peace through work with children. For example, UNICEF’s Peace- building, Education and Advocacy in Conflict- affected Countries program for 2012 through 2015 includes the goal of increasing “capacity of chil- dren, parents, teachers and other duty-bearers to prevent, reduce, and cope with conflict and pro- mote peace” (UNICEF, 2013).

SRCD has responded to the growing interest and urgency for global developmental science in multiple ways. The 2005 strategic plan encourages global engagement: The mission statement calls for interdisciplinary research in diverse contexts and states that SRCD “fosters the exchange of information among scientists and research con- sumers worldwide.” One of the five strategic goals states that “SRCD will incorporate interna- tional perspectives in its organization, activities, and membership. ”Implementing the strategic plan, SRCD has sponsored a series of preconfer- ences at the biennial meeting with a global research focus, including one on immigrant youth in 2011 and a second in 2013 on interventions for children and youth in low- and middle-income countries. SRCD fosters engagement of inter- national young scholars through travel awards

Global Perspectives on Resilience 15

and speakers from many different countries and regions of the world at conferences. In addition, SRCD sponsors meetings on international themes through grants, such as the 2014 special topic meeting in Prague on “Positive Youth Develop- ment in the Context of the Global Recession.”

SRCD also features international research in its journals and books. In 2010, for example, there was a special section of this journal on Children in War and Disaster (Masten & Osofsky, 2010). In collabo- ration with UNICEF, the Society cosponsored the publication of the Handbook of Early Childhood Devel- opment Research and Its Impact on Global Policy (Britto et al., 2013). These publications have been further disseminated through briefs and briefings orga- nized by SRCD’s Office for Policy and Communica- tions in Washington, DC.

The Society also played a key role in support of the newly forming International Consortium of Developmental Science Societies. This consortium includes representatives from leading international research societies, with goals of advancing develop- mental science and its applications for the enhance- ment of global health and well-being over the life course. SRCD helped facilitate the initial planning meeting for this consortium, hosted in December 2012, by the Jacobs Foundation at Schloss Marbach, in Germany.

A Call to Global Engagement for Developmental Scientists

The time is ripe for developmental scientists to engage in global activities that foster the well-being and resilience of children. Governmental and non- governmental organizations around the world, as well as first responders, educators, and other scien- tists who study human adaptation and resilience, are seeking knowledge, guidance, and partners. We, as developmental scientists, can answer the call. We can show up, bring the best evidence avail- able, and learn to communicate our science across fields and sectors and cultures. We can engage young scholars in these activities to nurture their future engagement as developmental scientists in these collaborative global endeavors. Engaged developmental scientists are not only good for developmental science and its applications in prac- tice or policy, but ultimately important for improv- ing the well-being of children globally and, with these investments, the future well-being of global health and human development.

References

Barber, B. K. (Ed.). (2009). Adolescents and war: How youth deal with political violence. New York, NY: Oxford Uni- versity Press.

Belsky, J., Bakermans-Kranenburg, J. M., & van IJzen- doorn, M. H. (2007). For better and for worse: Differential susceptibility to environmental influences. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16, 30–304. doi:10. 1111/j.1467-8721.2007.00525.x

Betancourt, T. S., McBain, R., Newnham, E. A., & Bren- nan, R. T. (2013). Trajectories of internalizing problems in war-affected Sierra Leonean youth: Examining con- flict and post conflict factors. Child Development, 84, 455–470. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01861.x

Blair, C., Berry, D., Mills-Koonce, R., & Granger, D.; the FLP Investigators. (2013). Cumulative effects of early poverty on cortisol in young children: Moderation by autonomic nervous system activity. Psychoneuroendocri- nology. Advance online publication. doi:10.1016/j. psyneuen.2013.06.025

Bonanno, G. A., & Diminich, E. D. (2013). Annual research review: Positive adjustment to adversity—Tra- jectories of minimal-impact resilience and emergent resilience. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 54, 378–401. doi:10.1111/jcpp.12021

Boothby, N., Crawford, J., & Halperin, J. (2006). Mozam- bique child soldier life outcome study: Lessons learned in rehabilitation and reintegration efforts. Global Public Health, 1, 87–107. doi:10.1080/17441690500324347

Boxer, P., Huesmann, L. R., Dubrow, E. F., Landau, S. F., Gvisman, S. D., Shikaki, K., & Ginges, J. (2013). Expo- sure to violence across the social ecosystem and the development of aggression: A test of ecological theory in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Child Development, 84, 163–177. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01848.x

Britto, P. R., Engle, P. L., & Super, C. M. (Eds.). (2013). Handbook of early childhood development research and its impact on global policy. New York, NY: Oxford Univer- sity Press.

Brody, G. H., Yu, T., Chen, E., Miller, G. E., Kogan, S. M., & Beach, S. R. H. (2013). Is resilience only skin deep? Rural African Americans’ socioeconomic status-related risk and competence in preadolescence and psychologi- cal adjustment and allostatic load at age 19. Psychological Science, 24, 1285–1293. doi:10.1177/0956797612471954

Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (2006). The bioecolog- ical model of human development. In R. M. Lerner (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 1. Theoreti- cal models of human development (pp. 793–828). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Brown, K. (2013). Global environmental change I: A social turn for resilience? Progress in Human Geography. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/03091325 13498837. Retrieved from http://phg.sagepub.com/ content/early/2013/07/30/0309132513498837

Cicchetti, D. (2013a). An overview of developmental psychopathology. In P. D. Zelazo (Ed.), The Oxford

16 Masten

handbook of developmental psychology: Vol. 2. Self and other (pp. 455–480). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Cicchetti, D. (2013b). Annual research review: Resilient functioning in maltreated children–past, present, and future perspectives. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychi- atry, 54, 402–422. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2012.02608.x

Cummings, E. M., Merrilees, C. E., Schermerhorn, A. C., Goeke-Morey, M. C., Shirlow, P., & Cairns, E. (2012). Political violence and child adjustment: Longitudinal tests of sectarian antisocial behavior, family conflict, and insecurity as explanatory pathways. Child Develop- ment, 83, 461–468. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01720.x

Cutuli, J. J., Wiik, K. L., Herbers, J. E., Gunnar, M. R., & Masten, A. S. (2010). Cortisol function among early school-aged homeless children. Psychoneuroendocrinolo- gy, 35, 833–845. doi:10.1016/j.psyneuen.2009.11.008

deVries, M. W. (1984). Temperament and infant mortality among the Masai of East Africa. American Journal of Psychiatry, 141, 1189–1194.

Diers, J. (2013). Why the world needs to get serious about adolescents: A view from UNICEF. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 23, 214–222. doi:10.1111/jora.12042

Dimitry, L. (2012). A systematic review on the mental health of children and adolescents in areas of armed conflict in the Middle East. Child: Care, Health, and Development, 38, 153–161. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2214.2011. 01246.x

Eggerman, M., & Panter-Brick, C. (2010). Suffering, hope, and entrapment: Resilience and cultural values in Afghanistan. Social Science and Medicine, 71, 71–83. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.03.023

Ellis, B. J., & Boyce, W. T. (2011). Differential susceptibil- ity to the environment: Toward an understanding of sensitivity to developmental experiences and context. Development and Psychopathology, 23, 1–5. doi:10.1017/ S095457941000060X

Evans, A. B., Banerjee, M., Meyer, R., Aldana, A., Foust, M., & Rowley, S. (2012). Racial socialization as a mech- anism for positive development among African Ameri- can youth. Child Development Perspectives, 6, 251–257. doi:10.1111/j.1750-8606.2011.00226.x

Evans, G. W., Li, D., & Whipple, S. S. (2013). Cumulative risk and child development. Psychological Bulletin. Advance online publication. doi:10.1037/a0031808

Fisher, C. B., Busch-Rossnagel, N. A., Jopp, D. S., & Brown, J. L. (2012). Applied developmental science, social justice, and socio-political well-being. Applied Developmental Science, 16, 54–64. doi:10.1080/10888691. 2012.642786

Fisher, P. A., Van Ryzin, M. J., & Gunnar, M. R. (2011). Mitigating HPA axis dysregulation associated with placement changes in foster care. Psychoneuroendocrinol- ogy, 36, 531–539. doi:10.1016/j.psyneuen.2010.08.007

Freud, A., & Burlingham, D. T. (1943). War and children. New York, NY: Medical War Books.

Fushiki, S. (2013). Radiation hazards in children—Lessons from Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and Fukushima.

Brain and Development, 35, 220–227. doi:10.1016/j.brain- dev.2012.09.004

Garcia Coll, C., & Marks, A. K. (Eds.). (2012). The immi- grant paradox in children and adolescents: Is becoming American a developmental risk? Washington, DC: Ameri- can Psychological Association.

Garmezy, N. (1971). Vulnerability research and the issue of primary prevention. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 41, 101–116. doi:10.1111/j.1939-0025. 1971.tb01111.x

Garmezy, N. (1983). Stressors of childhood. In N. Gar- mezy & M. Rutter (Eds.), Stress, coping, and development (pp. 43–84). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Garmezy, N. (1985). Stress-resistant children: The search for protective factors. In J. E. Stevenson (Ed.), Recent research in developmental psychopathology: Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry book supplement #4 (pp. 213– 233). Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.

Garmezy, N., & Rutter, M. (1983). Stress, coping, and devel- opment. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Gleser, G., Green, B., & Winget, C. (1981). Prolonged psy- chological effects of disaster: A study of buffalo creek. Mary- land Heights, MO: Academic Press.

Goldenberg, H., & Goldenberg, I. (2013). Family therapy: An overview (8th ed.). Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Gottesman, I. I. (1974). Developmental genetics and onto- genetic psychology: Overdue d�etente and propositions from a matchmaker. In A. Pick (Ed.), The Minnesota symposia on child psychology (Vol. 8, pp. 55–80). Minne- apolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Green, B. L., Grace, M. C., Vary, M. G., Kramer, T. L., Gleser, G. C., & Leonard, A. C. (1994). Children of disaster in the second decade: A 17-year follow-up of Buffalo Creek survivors. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 33, 71–79. doi: 10.1097/00004583-199401000-00011

Grimm, K. J., Ram, N., & Hamagami, F. (2011). Nonlinear growth curves in developmental research. Child Devel- opment, 82, 1357–1371. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011. 01630.x

Gunderson, L. H., Allen, C. R., & Holling, C. S. (Eds.). (2010). Foundations of ecological resilience. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Gunderson, L. H., & Holling, C. S. (Eds.). (2002). Panar- chy: Understanding transformations in human and natural systems. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Gunnar, M. R., & Herrera, A. M. (2013). The development of stress reactivity: A neurobiological perspective. In P. D. Zelazo (Ed.), The oxford handbook of developmental psy- chology: Vol. 2. Self and other (pp. 45–80). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Hartjen, C. A., & Priyadarsini, S. (2012). The global victim- ization of children: Problems and solutions. New York, NY: Springer.

Holling, C. S. (1973). Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 4, 1– 23. doi:10.1146/annurev.es.04.110173.000245

Global Perspectives on Resilience 17

Hollnagel, E., Woods, D., & Leveson, N. (Eds.). (2006). Resilience engineering: Concepts and precepts. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.

Hughes, D., Rodriguez, J., Smith, E. P., Johnson, D. J., Ste- venson, H. C., & Spicer, P. (2006). Parents’ ethnic-racial socialization practices: A review of research and direc- tions for future study. Developmental Psychology, 42, 747–770. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.42.5.747

Hughes, V. (2012). The roots of resilience. Nature, 490, 165–167. doi:10.1038/490165a

Huizink, A. C., Bartels, M., Rose, R. J., Pulkkinen, L., Eriksson, C. J., & Kaprio, J. (2008). Chernobyl exposure as stressor during pregnancy and hormone levels in adolescent offspring. Journal of Epidemiology & Commu- nity Health, 62, e5. Retrieved from http://jech.bmj. com/content/62/4/e5.full doi:10.1136/jech.2007.060350

Karatoreos, I. N., & McEwen, B. S. (2013). Annual research review: The neurobiology and physiology of resilience and adaptation across the life course. The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 54, 337–347. doi:10.1111/jcpp.12054

Kim-Cohen, J., & Turkewitz, R. (2012). Resilience and measured gene-environment interactions. Development and Psychopathology, 24, 1297–1306. doi:10.1017/ S0954579412000715

Kirmayer, L. J., Dandeneau, S., Marshall, E., Phillips, M. K., & Williamson, K. J. (2011). Rethinking resilience from indigenous perspectives. Canadian Journal of Psy- chiatry, 56, 84–91.

Korol, M., Kramer, T. L., Grace, M. C., & Green, B. L. (2002). Dam break: Long-term follow-up of children exposed to the Buffalo Creek disaster. In A. M. La Gre- ca, W. K. Silverman, E. M. Vernberg & M. C. Roberts (Eds.), Helping children cope with disasters and terrorism (pp. 241–257). Washington, DC: American Psychologi- cal Association.

La Greca, A. M., Lai, B. S., Llabre, M. M., Silverman, W. K., Vernberg, E. M., & Prinstein, M. J. (2013). Children’s post disaster trajectories of PTS symptoms: Predicting chronic distress. Child & Youth Care Forum, 42, 351–369. doi:10.1007/s10566-013-9206-1

La Greca, A. M., & Silverman, W. K. (2009). Treatment and prevention of posttraumatic stress reactions in chil- dren and adolescents exposed to disaster and terrorism: What is the evidence? Child Development Perspectives, 3, 4–10. doi:10.1111/j.1750-8606.2008.00069.x

Lengua, L. J., & Wachs, T. D. (2012). Temperament and risk: Resilient and vulnerable responses to adversity. In M. Zentnerv & R. L. Shiner (Eds.), Handbook of tempera- ment (pp. 519–540). New York, NY: Guilford.

Lerner, R. M. (2006). Developmental science, developmen- tal systems, and contemporary theories of human development. In W. Damon & R. M. Lerner (Series Eds.) & R. M. Lerner (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psy- chology: Vol 1. Theoretical models of human development (6th ed., pp. 1–17). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Lerner, R. M., Schmid, K. L., Weiner, M. B., Arbeit, M. R., Chase, P. A., Agans, J. P., & Warren, A. E. A. (2012).

Resilience across the life span. In B. Hayslip Jr. & G. C. Smith (Eds.), Emerging perspectives on resilience in adult- hood and later life (pp. 275–299). New York, NY: Springer.

Lickliter, R. (2013). Biological development: Theoretical approaches, techniques, and key findings. In P. D. Zelazo (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of developmental psy- chology: Vol. 1. Body and mind (pp. 65–90). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Lundberg, M., & Wuermli, A. (Eds.). (2012). Children and youth in crisis: Protecting and promoting human develop- ment in times of economic shocks. Washington, DC: World Bank.

Luo, H., Hu, X., Liu, X., Ma, X., Guo, W., Qiu, C., … Li, T. (2012). Hair cortisol level as a biomarker for altered hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal activity in female ado- lescents with posttraumatic stress disorder after the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake. Biological Psychiatry, 72, 65–69. doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2011.12.020

Luthar, S. S. (2006). Resilience in development: A synthe- sis of research across five decades. In D. Cicchetti & D. J. Cohen (Eds.), Developmental psychopathology: Vol. 3. Risk, disorder, and adaptation (2nd ed. pp. 739–795). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Luthar, S. S., Cicchetti, D., & Becker, B. (2000). The con- struct of resilience: A critical evaluation and guidelines for future work. Child Development, 71, 543–562. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00164

Masten, A. S. (1999). Resilience comes of age: Reflections on the past and outlook for the next generation of research. In M. D. Glantz & J. L. Johnson (Eds.), Resil- ience and development: Positive life adaptations (pp. 281– 296). New York, NY: Plenum.

Masten, A. S. (2001). Ordinary magic: Resilience processes in development. American Psychologist, 56, 227–238. doi:10.1037//0003-066X.56.3.227

Masten, A. S. (2006). Developmental psychopathology: Pathways to the future. International Journal of Behavior Development, 30, 47–54. doi:10.1177/0165025406059974

Masten, A. S. (2007). Resilience in developing systems: Pro- gress and promise as the fourth wave rises. Development and Psychopathology, 19, 921–930. doi:10.1017/S095457 9407000442

Masten, A. S. (2011). Resilience in children threatened by extreme adversity: Frameworks for research, practice, and translational synergy. Development and Psychopathol- ogy, 23, 141–154. doi:10.1017/S0954579411000198

Masten, A. S. (2012). Resilience in children: Vintage Rut- ter and beyond. In A. Slater & P. Quinn (Eds.), Develop- mental psychology: Revisiting the classic studies (pp. 204– 221). London, UK: Sage.

Masten, A. S. (2013). Risk and resilience in development. In P. D. Zelazo (Ed.), Oxford handbook of developmental psychology (pp. 579–607). New York: Oxford University Press.

Masten, A. S., Best, K. M., & Garmezy, N. (1990). Resil- ience and development: Contributions from the study of children who overcome adversity. Development and

18 Masten

Psychopathology, 2, 425–444. doi:10.1017/S095457940 0005812

Masten, A. S., Garmezy, N., Tellegen, A., Pellegrini, D. S., Larkin, K., & Larsen, A. (1988). Competence and stress in school children: The moderating effects of individual and family qualities. Journal of Child Psychology and Psy- chiatry, 29, 745–764. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.1988. tb00751.x

Masten, A. S., Liebkind, K., & Hernandez, D. J. (Eds.). (2012). Realizing the potential of immigrant youth. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Masten, A. S., & Narayan, A. J. (2012). Child develop- ment in the context of disaster, war and terrorism: Pathways of risk and resilience. Annual Review of Psy- chology, 63, 227–257. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych- 120710-100356

Masten, A. S., & Obradovi�c, J. (2008). Disaster prepara- tion and recovery: Lessons from research on resilience in human development. Ecology and Society, 13(1), 9. Retrieved from http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/ vol13/iss1/art9/

Masten, A. S., & Osofsky, J. D. (2010). Disasters and their impact on child development: Introduction to the spe- cial section. Child Development, 84, 1029–1039. doi:10. 1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01452.x

Matthews, S. G., & Phillips, D. I. (2012). Transgeneration- al inheritance of stress pathology. Experimental Neurol- ogy, 233, 95–101. doi:10.1016/j.expneurol.2011.01.009

McCormick, C. M., Kuo, S. I.-C., & Masten, A. S. (2011). Developmental tasks across the lifespan. In K. L. Fin- german, C. Berg, T. C. Antonucci, & J. Smith (Eds.), The handbook of lifespan development (pp. 117–140). New York, NY: Springer.

McDade, T. W., Williams, S., & Snodgrass, J. J. (2007). What a drop can do: Dried blood spots as a minimally- invasive method for integrating biomarkers into popu- lation-based research. Demography, 44, 899–925. doi:10. 1353/dem.2007.0038

McFarlane, A. C. (1987). Posttraumatic phenomena in a longitudinal study of children following a natural disaster. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 26, 764–769. doi:10.1097/ 00004583-198709000-00025

McFarlane, A. C., & Van Hooff, M. (2009). Impact of childhood exposure to a natural disaster on adult men- tal health: 20-year longitudinal follow-up study. British Journal of Psychiatry, 195, 142–148. doi: 10.1192/bjp.bp. 108.054270

Meaney, M. J. (2010). Epigenetics and the biological defi- nition of Gene 9 Environment interactions. Child Devel- opment, 81, 41–79. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01381.x

Murphy, L. B., & Moriarty, A. E. (1976). Vulnerability, cop- ing, and growth: From infancy to adolescence. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Nagin, D. S. (2005). Group-based modeling of development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Obradovi�c, J., Shaffer, A., & Masten, A. S. (2012). Risk in developmental psychopathology: Progress and future

directions. In L. C. Mayes & M. Lewis (Eds.), The Cam- bridge handbook of environment in human development (pp. 35–57). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Oerter, R. (1986). Developmental tasks throughout the life span: A new approach to an old concept. In P. A. Bal- tes, D. L. Featherman, & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Life span development and behavior (Vol. 7, pp. 233–269). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Ogbu, J. U. (1981). Origins of human competence: A cul- tural-ecological perspective. Child Development, 52, 413– 429. doi:10.2307.1129158

Okada, H., Kuhn, C., Feillet, H., & Bach, J.-F. (2010). The “hygiene hypothesis” for autoimmune and allergic dis- eases: An update. Clinical & Experimental Immunology, 160, 1–9. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2249.2010.04139.x

Overton, W. F. (2013). A new paradigm for developmen- tal science: Relationism and relational-developmental systems. Applied Developmental Science, 17, 94–107. doi:10.1080/10888691.2013.778717

Painter, R. C., Roseboom, R. J., & Bleker, O. P. (2005). Prenatal exposure to the Dutch famine and disease in later life: An overview. Reproductive Toxicology, 20, 345– 352. doi:10.1016/j.reprotox.2005.04.005

Panter-Brick, C., Goodman, A., Tol, W., & Eggerman, M. (2011). Mental health and childhood adversities: A lon- gitudinal study in Kabul, Afghanistan. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 50, 349–363. doi:10.1016/j.jaac.2010.12.001

Panter-Brick, C., & Leckman, J. F. (2013). Editorial com- mentary: Resilience in child development—Intercon- nected pathways to wellbeing. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 54, 333–336. doi:10.1111/jcpp. 12057

Russo, S. J., Murrough, J. W., Han, M.-H., Charney, D. S., & Nestler, E. J. (2012). Neurobiology of resilience. Nat- ure Neuroscience, 15, 1475–1484. doi:10.1038/nn.3234

Rutter, M. (1979). Protective factors in children’s responses to stress and disadvantage. In M. W. Kent & J. E. Rolf (Eds.), Primary prevention of psychopathology: Vol. 3. Social competence in children (pp. 49–74). Hano- ver, NH: University Press of New England.

Rutter, M. (1987). Psychosocial resilience and protective mechanisms. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 57, 316–331. doi:10.1111/j.1939-0025.1987.tb03541.x

Rutter, M. (1989). Isle of wight revisited: Twenty-five years of child psychiatric epidemiology. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 28, 633–653. doi:10.1097/00004583-198909000-00001

Rutter, M. (1990). Psychosocial resilience and protective mechanisms. In J. Rolf, A. S. Masten, D. Cicchetti, K. H. Nuechterlein, & S. Weintraub (Eds.), Risk and protective factors in the development of psychopathology (pp. 181– 214). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Sameroff, A. J. (2000). Developmental systems and psy- chopathology. Development and Psychopathology, 12, 297– 312. doi:10.1017/S0954579400003035

Schoon, I. (2012). Temporal and contextual dimensions to individual positive development: A developmental-con-

Global Perspectives on Resilience 19

textual systems model of resilience. In M. Ungar (Ed.), The social ecology of resilience: A handbook of theory and practice (pp. 143–156). New York, NY: Springer.

Serafica, F. C., & Vargas, L. A. (2006). Cultural diversity in the development of child psychopathology. In D. Cicchetti & D. J. Cohen (Eds.), Developmental psychopa- thology: Theory and method (2nd ed., Vol. 1, pp. 588– 626). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Shiner, R. L., & Masten, A. S. (2012). Childhood personal- ity as a harbinger of competence and resilience in adulthood. Development and Psychopathology, 24, 507– 528. doi:10.1017/S0954579412000120

Shonkoff, J. P., Garner, A. S., Siegel, B. S., Dobbins, M. I., Earls, M. F., McGuinn, L., … Wood, D. L. (2012). The life- long effects of early childhood adversity and toxic stress. Pediatrics, 129, e232–e246. doi:10.1542/peds.2011-2663

Sirin, S. R., & Gupta, T. (2012). Muslim, American, and immigrant: Integration despite challenges. In A. S. Masten, K. Liebkind, & D. J. Hernandez (Eds.), Realiz- ing the potential of immigrant youth (pp. 253–279). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Theron, L. C., Theron, A. M. C., & Malindi, M. J. (2012). Toward an African definition of resilience: A rural South African community’s view of resilient Basotho youth. Journal of Black Psychology. Retrieved from http://jbp.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/07/24/00 95798412454675.abstract doi:10.1177/0095798412454675

Tol, W. A., Song, S., & Jordans, M. J. D. (2013). Annual research review: Resilience and mental health in chil- dren and adolescents living in areas of armed conflict —A systematic review of findings in low- and middle- income countries. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychi- atry, 54, 445–460. doi:10.1111/jcpp.12053

Ungar, M. (2011). The social ecology of resilience: Addressing contextual and cultural ambiguity of a nas- cent construct. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 81, 1–17. doi:10.1111/j.1939-0025.2010.01067.x

Ungar, M. (Ed.). (2012). The social ecology of resilience: A handbook of theory and practice. New York, NY: Springer.

Ungar, M., Ghazinour, M., & Richter, J. (2013). What is resilience within the social ecology of human develop- ment? Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 54, 348–366. doi:10.1111/jcpp.12025

UNHCR. (2010). Global report 2009. Geneva, Switzerland: UN High Commissioner for Refugees. Retrieved from http://www.unhcr.org/gr09/index.html

UNICEF. (2011). Young people launch “children’s charter to be safe from disasters.” Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations Children’s Fund. Retrieved from http://www. preventionweb.net/english/professional/news/v.php? id=20070&utm_source=pw_search&utm_medium=sear- ch&utm_campaign=search

UNICEF. (2012). Factsheet on child soldiers. United Nations Children’s Fund. Retrieved from http://www.unicef. org/emerg/files/childsoldiers.pdf

UNICEF. (2013). Educating and peacebuilding. Retrieved from http://www.unicef.org/education

Vigil, J. M., Geary, D. C., Granger, D. A., & Flinn, M. V. (2010). Sex differences in salivary cortisol, alpha-amy- lase, and psychological functioning following Hurricane Katrina. Child Development, 81, 1227–1239. doi:10.1111/j. 1467-8624.2010.01464.x

von Bertalanffy, L. (1968). General system theory: Founda- tions, development, applications. New York, NY: George Braziller.

von Mutius, E., & Radon, K. (2008). Living on a farm: Impact on asthma induction and clinical course. Immu- nology and Allergy Clinics of North America, 28, 631–647. doi:10.1016/j.iac.2008.03.010

Wachs, T. D., & Rahman, A. (2013). The nature and impact of risk and protective influences on children’s development in low-income countries. In P. R. Britto, P. L. Engle, & C. M. Super (Eds.), Handbook of early childhood development research and its impacton global pol- icy (pp. 85–122). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Welsh, M. (2013). Resilience and responsibility: Governing uncertainty in a complex world. Geographical Journal. Advance online publication. doi:10.1111/geoj.12012

Werner, E. E. (2000). Through the eyes of innocents: Children witness World War II. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Werner, E. E., & Smith, R. S. (1982). Vulnerable but invinci- ble: A study of resilient children. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Werner, E. E., & Smith, R. S. (2001). Journeys from child- hood to midlife: Risk, resilience, and recovery. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Worthman, C. M., & Costello, E. J. (2009). Tracking bio- cultural pathways in population health: The value of biomarkers. Annals of Human Biology, 36, 281–297. doi:10.1080/03014460902832934

Worthman, C. M., & Panter-Brick, C. (2008). Homeless stress children in Nepal: Use of allostatic load to assess the burden of childhood adversity. Development and Psychopathology, 20, 233–255. doi:10.1017/S0954579408 000114

Wright, M. O., Masten, A. S., & Narayan, A. J. (2013). Resilience processes in development: Four waves of research on positive adaptation in the context of adver- sity. In S. Goldstein & R. B. Brooks (Eds.), Handbook of resilience in children (2nd ed., pp. 15–37). New York, NY: Kluwer (Academic Plenum).

Yehuda, R., Flory, J. D., Pratchett, L. C., Buxbaum, J., Ising, M., & Holsboer, F. (2010). Putative biological mechanisms for the association between early life adversity and the subsequent development of PTSD. Psychopharmacology (Berl), 212, 405–417. doi:10.1007/ s00213-010-1969-6

Zelazo, P. D. (2013). Developmental psychology: A new synthesis. In P. D. Zelazo (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of developmental psychology: Vol. 1. Body and mind (pp. 3– 12). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Zolli, A., & Healy, A. M. (2012). Resilience: Why things bounce back. New York, NY: Free Press.

20 Masten

This document is a scanned copy of a printed document. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material.