Runninghead:RESILIENCE

Resilience: What do We Know, and Where do We Go?

Kimberley Kiefuik
University of Calgary

Resilience: What Do We Know and Where Do We Go?

RESILIENCE 2
When faced with the traumatic experience of physical or sexual abuse at a young age, a
wide array of symptoms may result in varying degrees and combinations. These experiences
have lead to research on trauma, prevention and intervention programs, and social policy
development. However, when these symptoms are overcome, or not experienced in the first
place, a different question is asked: In similar situations, why does one individual appear
asymptomatic while another struggles? Further, what factors contribute to each of these
outcomes? The study of resilience, which originated from the field of developmental psychology,
is of particular value when understanding the true impact physical and sexual abuse may have on
an individual. Resilience research examines the underlying positive or negative factors that
influence experienced side effects associated with aversive events (Daigneault, Tourigny & Cyr,
2004). With a focus on children and adolescent victims of sexual and physical abuse, this paper
will outline definitions of abuse and resilience, discuss factors that promote resilience, examine
interventions and counselling techniques thought to foster resilience, and will close with a
discussion of areas for further research. The information in this literature review is primarily
sourced from online academic journals utilizing different search terms stemming from the words
resilience and adolescents.
Definitions
Before proceeding further it is appropriate to define the terms that will be used
throughout this paper. The three primary terms that need defining are physical abuse,
sexual abuse, and resilience. With the definition of resilience, resilience theory will
also be discussed as well as three identified models of resilience; compensatory model,
protective factor model, and the challenge model.
Abuse

RESILIENCE 3
The World Health Organization (WHO) categorizes abuse as a typology of violence,
specifically interpersonal violence, which can be further divided into family violence (violence
acted upon related family members) and community violence (violence upon individuals who are
not related) (2002). Abuse includes all forms of physical and sexual ill-treatment that can result
in potential or actual harm to a child, defined by the WHO as any individual under the age of 18
(World Health Organization, 1999). Physical abuse of a child is physical harm resulting from an
interaction or lack of an interaction, and is within the control of a parent or caregiver in the
position of responsibility, trust, or power (World Health Organization, 1999). Child sexual abuse
is defined as any sexual activity that involves a child who does not fully understand, cannot give
informed consent to, or is developmentally unprepared for, and is perpetrated by an adult or
another child who is in a relationship of power, trust, or responsibility to the child (World Health
Organization, 1999). Child sexual or physical abuse is often ongoing, but these definitions also
apply to a single incident. The WHO (2010) estimates that up to fifty percent of children are
victims of abuse on a world wide scale, and such abuse can be accompanied by heterogenous
symptoms with long-term consequences.
Resilience
The definition of resilience is more complex and dynamic than those definitions already
discussed, and more accustomed to varying opinions. According to Herrman and colleagues
(2011), this can be partially attributed to resilience being studied by researchers from a variety of
disciplines, from psychology, to biology, to epigenetics. Complicating matters further are the
different domains of functioning that can be used as indicators that measure resilience such as
behavioural, educational, and emotional (Walsh, Dawson, & Mattingly, 2010). However, most
definitions agree on two points: a variety of factors contribute as an interactive process that

RESILIENCE 4
increases resilience relative to adversity; and resilience might be time or context specific,
therefore not existing across all life domains (Herrman et al., 2011). Therefore, early studies on
resilience that characterized it as a stable personality trait are no longer viewed as being accurate.
For the purposes of this paper, resilience will be defined as being exposed to a significant
aversive event, and exhibiting competence or average functioning in regard to developmental
level (Walsh et al., 2010). It is important to note that positive adjustment is an outcome of
resilience, and the process of overcoming adversity is resilience. According to Fergus and
Zimmerman (2005) three models of resilience have been identified and are a component of
resilience theory.
Resilience Theory. Resilience theory is concerned with risk exposure, but is focused on
understanding healthy development in spite of such exposure (Fergus & Zimmerman, 2005). A
key requirement of resilience is the presence of risk and protective factors that either foster
positive outcomes, or reduce negative outcomes (Fergus & Zimmerman, 2005). Protective
factors are either assets (i.e., internal positive factors such as competence), or resources (i.e.,
external positive factors such as parental support), that assist in avoiding negative outcomes of
risk, and will be discussed in greater detail in an upcoming section. Each model of resilience
involves the interaction of protective factors and risk factors, but in differing ways.
The compensatory model of resilience is defined by a protective factor counteracting the
effects of a risk factor (Fergus & Zimmerman, 2005). The protective factor directly effects the
outcome, which is independent of the risk factors influences (Ledogar & Fleming, 2008). An
example of this is a child being sexual abused by a family friend (risk factor), but having a very
supportive and caring family (protective factor) that works to compensate for the negative effects
of abuse.

RESILIENCE 5
The protective model of resilience acts by the protective factor moderating or reducing
the effects of the risk factors on the outcome (Ledogar & Fleming, 2008). Within the protective
model, two sub-models have been proposed, protective-stabilizing and protective-reactive, and
account for the different ways protective factors and outcomes may interact (Luthar, Cicchetti, &
Becker, 2000). The protective-stabilizing model refers to situations where the protective factor
assists in neutralizing the effects of the risk factors. In this model, higher levels of risk will equal
higher levels of negative outcomes if the protective factor is not present, but when present there
is no relationship between the risk and the outcome (Fergus & Zimmerman, 2005). For example,
an abused child (risk factor) without a supportive and caring family (protective factor) may show
negative outcomes, whereas a child with a supportive and caring family may not. The protectivereactive model is defined by instances when the protective factor reduces, but does not remove,
the possible correlation between the risk factor and the negative outcome (Fergus & Zimmerman,
2005). This can be seen in the example of a child who was sexually abused being more likely to
engage in risky sexual behaviour. The correlation between the sexual abuse (risk factor) and
risky sexual behaviour (outcome) may be weaker if that child was involved in a psychoeducational group regarding the effects of abuse.
The last model of resilience is the challenge model which asserts that high or low levels
of exposure to risk factors are associated with negative outcomes, whereas moderate levels of
risk factors are related to more positive outcomes (Ledogar & Fleming, 2008). Much like
inoculation theory of learning psychology, this model suggests that a moderate amount of risk
helps the individual to learn how to cope with said risk. Not enough risk may not prepare the
individual to cope with similar stressors and too high of risk may prove to be debilitating. It can
be suggested that this model depends heavily on the type of risk the individual is being exposed

RESILIENCE 6
to. For example, moderate levels of family conflict may prove to be associated with positive
coping strategies in later conflicts, however moderate levels of physical or sexual abuse will
likely prove to be detrimental. This model of resilience can be seen as an ongoing developmental
process where children learn to utilize protective factors as they are exposed to risk (Fergus &
Zimmerman, 2005).
Having this understanding of resilience and the models used to describe ways in which it
may manifest is useful as foundational knowledge before moving forward. The next two sections
of this paper will discuss the negative outcomes or consequences associated with physical and
sexual abuse, and provide a more in-depth look at protective factors and how they can work to
influence resilience.
Negative Outcomes of Abuse
Every case of child abuse is unique due to variations such as psychological, social, and
biological factors that interact in diverse combinations. With such variability, the negative
outcomes of abuse are undeniably heterogenous and encompass a range of symptoms. Not all
children or adolescents will exhibit all symptoms, and the symptoms that are expressed may be
done so in varying levels.
The stress caused by maltreatment and abuse is associated with a disruption in the brain
development, and extreme stress can even impair how the nervous and immune systems grow
(World Health Organization, 2010). With this in mind it is easy to see how abuse at a young age
can have far-reaching and long-term consequences. It has been found by some researchers that
disclosure of abuse can have both positive or negative consequences on a child depending on a
variety of factors, such as the amount of time elapsed since the abuse (for a discussion see
Daigneault, Tourigny, & Cyr, 2004). For instance, young children who are abuse victims often

RESILIENCE 7
have feelings of fear, isolation, shame, and guilt following the disclosure of abuse (Herrenkohl,
Sousa, Tajima, Herrenkohl, & Moylan, 2008). Further, these children are also more likely to
suffer from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and depression than children in a normal
population (Herrenkohl et al., 2008).
Adolescent victims of abuse have been found to be more likely to engage in high risk
behaviours such as substance use, violent behaviours, and sexual risk taking (Fergus &
Zimmerman, 2005). Further, Adolescents are also more likely to drop out of school, become
pregnant at a young age, suffer from depression, and attempt suicide (Fergusson, Horwood, &
Lynskey, 1996). Adults who suffered from abuse as children have an increased risk for alcohol
and drug use, high-risk sexual behaviour, smoking, violence, and health concerns (World Health
Organization, 2010). These adults also have higher prevalence rates of psychological difficulties
such as depression, anxiety, somatic complaints, thought disorders, and social isolation (Molnar,
Buka, & Kessler, 2001). These negative outcomes of abuse have far reaching health, social, and
economic consequences on the individual and on society as a whole.
Given the complex nature of negative outcomes of abuse, no single symptom or
syndrome, including PTSD, can characterize the victims of child physical and sexual abuse. This,
coupled with research showing that child abuse survivors often suffer from co-morbidity of
diagnosis (Silverman, Reinherz, & Giaconia, 1996, as cited in Daigneault et al., 2004) led to the
development of a new diagnostic category describing the complexity of symptoms resulting from
repeated interpersonal violence. This diagnostic category encompasses broader stress reaction
than classic PTSD, and is sometimes referred to as Complex PTSD (Daigneault et al., 2004;
Harvey et al., 2003). In the DSM-IV-TR, Complex PTSD is referred to as Disorders of Stress
Not Otherwise Specified (DESNOS) and it is not recognized as a distinct disorder (Zucker,

RESILIENCE 8
Spinazzola, Blaustein, & van der Kolk, 2006). However, in the DSM-V, PTSD was moved from
the class of anxiety disorder into a newly developed class called trauma and stressorrelated disorders (United States Department of Veterans Affairs, 2013). This movement
reflects the variability in trauma expression, which often involves expressions of anxiety
combined with other maladaptive symptomology. Further, this movement reflects developments
in research and clinical experiences that will likely foster more research and our understanding of
the interactions between trauma, risk and protective factors, and resilience.
Protective Factors and Resilience
Research in this area has shown that their are a number of protective factors that likely
play a role in resilience and have been touched on throughout this paper. In this section I will
further elaborate on these factors and how they interact to promote competency in different areas
that measure resilience. First there will be a brief discussion regarding the different ways
researchers measure resilience in children and adolescents.
How is Resilience Measured?
There are a number of measures that can be used to determine if an individual is resilient
and therefore adjusting positively, and developing normally. Formal measures that have been
developed over the last decade or so utilize the measurement of psychological trauma. Some of
these measures focus on the frequency of traumatic exposure, others look at trauma related
symptoms using measures for depression or anxiety, and still others assess PTSD (Harvey et al.,
2003). Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder is typically measured with structured interviews such as
the Structured Interview for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (SI-PTSD) or the PTSD Symptom
Scale-Interview (PSS-I), among others (Blake et al., 1995). While suffering from a form of
trauma is a requirement of resilience, and an assessment of the trauma is necessary, these types

RESILIENCE 9
of measures do not cover the full scope of resilience and fail to assess the multidimensional
responses to trauma exposure. Further, measures of these types do not attend to trauma recovery
and resilience.
In response to these observations, Harvey (1996) drew from an ecological perspective,
looking at the interactions between person, situation, and environment, to posit a
multidimensional view of trauma impact, recovery, and resilience. Harveys attention to the
interactions of various situational factors and domains is not found in most measures of trauma
or resilience, therefore adding to its credibility of capturing the scope of this phenomena. The
multidimensional quality of individual responses that promote recovery are encapsulated in eight
interrelated domains of psychological experience and are as followed (Harvey et al., 2003):
Authority Over Memory: The individual is able to choose to recall or not recall memories
associated with the trauma.
Integrating Memory and Affect: The individual is able to remember accurate feelings
associated with the trauma, and is able to experience new feelings based on reflection.
Affect Tolerance and Regulation: Refers to the individuals ability to experience and
manage difficult feelings.
Symptom Mastery: The degree to which the individual anticipates, manages, or prevents
negative cognitive or emotional disruptions associated with the trauma.
Self-Esteem: The experience of self-regard and ability to perform self-care.
Self-Cohesion: The degree to which individuals experiences themselves as integrated.
Safe-Attachment: The ability to develop healthy relationships with others.
Meaning Making: The process of understanding the impact and story of the trauma.

RESILIENCE 10
Recovery is the ability of the trauma survivor to change from a negative outcome to a desired
outcome in any of these domains, and resilience is evident when a domain is unaffected, or the
individual is able to draw strength from one domain to repair another (Harvey et al., 2003). The
Multi-Dimensional Trauma Recovery and Resiliency Scale (MTRR, an observerrated questionnaire), and the Multi-Dimensional Recovery and Resiliency Scale
Interview (MTRR-I, a clinically directed interview) were developed to operationalize the
multidimensional view of trauma and resilience outlined in Harveys ecological framework
(Harvey et al., 2003). The MTRR has been shown to be reliable in assessing responses to trauma,
and expressions of resilience and is utilized often in resilience research (Harvey at al., 2003).
Outside of Harveys ecological domains, an overall review of the literature shows that
researchers use a variety of domains to demonstrate whether or not an individual is resilient.
These domain indicators are developmentally appropriate behaviours that are stage-salient. To be
distinguished as resilient, an individual would show competence in domains such as behaviour,
emotions, social, and academic, and would show developmentally appropriate behaviour in areas
such as peer attachment, substance use, and risk-taking behaviours (Walsh, Dawson & Mattingly,
2010; Fergus & Zimmerman, 2005). Such measures are less formal than instruments such as the
MTRR, and run the risk of being confused with protective factors, in turn making these measures
less credible in resilience research.
Protective Factors
There have been a vast amount of protective factors uncovered through the research
process. In this section, I intend to discuss how protective factors interact to promote competency
in different areas that measure resilience by looking at specific published peer-reviewed journal
articles.

RESILIENCE 11
Isabelle Daigneault and colleagues (2004) utilized the MTRR in their exploration of
female adolescents who suffered from child sexual abuse. The purpose of this study was to look
at possible relationships between different risk and protective factors, and the variability in
outcomes as measured by the MTRR. Descriptive analyses were carried out on the MTRR, and
relationships were explored in this manner (Daigneault et al., 2004). The researchers utilized the
MTRR, among other valid and reliable measures, adapting them to the population as necessary,
including an explanation of how and why they were adapted, a strength of this study. The
MTRR and analysis determined that over half of the participants in this study were at least
partially recovered, and those that were had memories of the abuse that was intact, and were able
to recount fairly complete life stories, indicators of recovery and resilience (Daigneault et al.,
2004). Areas of difficulty were linking feelings with past events, and recalling memories with
appropriate intensity of affect.
Daigneault (2004) asserts that intact memory and a capacity to experience a range of
feelings are strengths that serve as essential starting points to engage in a recovery process.
Furthermore, this research demonstrated that protective factors such as trusting relationships with
friends and adults and displaying strengths such as intact memory and appropriate feelings have
an interactive relationship (Daigneault et al., 2004). For example, adolescents that had more
complete memories and showed meaningful affect about their abuse can use this as a strength to
obtain and develop helping relationships with others. It can be concluded that these helping
relationships will also promote appropriate memory and affect (Daigneault et al., 2004). A
limitation of this study is the specific population utilized as participants (French-Canadian
adolescent females suffering from severe sexual abuse), which limits the generalizability of
results. As well, the sample size of the study (n = 30) is small, limiting statistical power.

RESILIENCE 12
Fergus and Zimmerman (2005) look at resilience in adolescents using a different
approach: A literature review. They chose to focus on articles addressing substance abuse, violent
behaviour, and sexual behaviour in adolescents. From there they took an in-depth look at each of
these risk-taking behaviours and the factors that they found to be protective to this risk.
Protective against cigarettes, alcohol, and marijuana use was positive affectivity, interested in a
variety of aspects of life, psychological well-being, and social competency (Fergus &
Zimmerman, 2005). Academic achievement was also found to be a robust protective factor for
substance abuse, the reasons for this include academic motivation and intelligence (Fergus &
Zimmerman, 2005). Further, positive family supports and resources were found to be protective
for a variety of reasons, including parental monitoring.
Fergus and Zimmerman (2005) assert that empirical evidence support the compensatory
and protective models of resilience (previously discussed) in regard to violent behaviour. These
researchers found that prosocial beliefs, religiosity, parental monitoring, and anger control skills
compensate for risks associated with violent behaviour (Fergus & Zimmerman, 2005). Sexual
behaviour can be influenced by substance use, so it is important to note that these two measures
share some of the same protective factors. In addition, sexual behaviour risk was seen to be
compensated for by a variety of personal assets such as self esteem, self-efficacy, religiosity,
school achievement, and knowledge of reproductive health and condom use (Fergus &
Zimmerman, 2005). Fergus and Zimmermans literature review has an easy to read structure, and
discusses many areas related to resilience including models of resilience, protective factors, and
possible interventions. One limitation to literature reviews is that the review is only as good as its
sources. Determining the credibility and level of the original sources is a time consuming
endeavor.

RESILIENCE 13
In a review of the literature, religiosity and spirituality was often mentioned as a
protective factor, however not many studies focused on this. Raftopoulos and Bates (2011),
addressed this void by conducting qualitative research to explore how adolescents perceive
spirituality and how it has helped them to recover. A strength of this study is the research method
used. Given the abstract and complex nature of the concept of spirituality, quantitative
measures may not adequately capture it. Fifteen adolescents between the ages of fifteen to
sixteen participated in a semi-structured interview to elicit information on this topic, and
grounded theory techniques were used to analyze the data. Participants of the study were told
prior to being interviewed that the topic was spirituality, possibly compromising results, a
limitation of the study. The authors of this research found that spirituality fostered resilience and
was a protective factor in that it provided a sense of protection and security, increased selfawareness and self-efficacy, and increased a sense of coherence (Raftopoulos & Bates, 2011).
When recalling Harveys (2003) ecological perspective on resilience and recovery, we can see
these findings on spirituality fit within this framework. In particular, the domains of self-esteem,
self-cohesion, and safe attachments are all addressed and enhanced when an adolescent is
spiritual.
In summary, external resources such as a supportive family and trusting relationships
with friends are both shown as being protective factors in research on the subject of resilience.
However, from this literature review there appeared to be a higher number of internal resources
that are characteristics of resilient adolescents. An overview of internal assets include
psychological well-being, social competency, intelligence, motivation, anger control, and
spirituality. As we can see, research underscores the many different ways that resilience can be
measured and also the variety of protective factor seen in individuals who display resilience.

RESILIENCE 14
While this variety may complicate research attempts and outcomes, it is an obvious benefit for
survivors of abuse. An appropriate question that is raised at this point is can people learn to be
resilient? In other words, is intervention after an abuse(s) effective in promoting resilience?
Intervention
It makes sense that the route to fostering resilience involves nurturing the development of
protective factors. Given that protective factors encompass an assortment of multidimensional
domains and include internal and external resources, interventions can take a variety of forms. In
this section I will look at the specific trauma intervention program titled I Feel Better Now!,
the effects of cognitive training, and a specific cognitive-behavioural intervention developed to
foster resilience.
I Feel Better Now!
William Steele, Caelan Kuban, and Melvyn Raider (2009) took an in-depth look at a
trauma intervention program called I Feel Better Now!. This program is a school-based
intervention for children ages six to twelve in four elementary schools in Michigan. I Feel
Better Now! is based on the Structured Sensory Intervention for Traumatized
Children, Adolescents, and Parents (SITCAP) model, an evidence-based sensory trauma
intervention approach that is designed to lower the cognitive, behavioural, and emotional
symptoms that can be felt following a trauma such as physical or sexual abuse (Steele et al.,
2009). This intervention program focuses on restoring safety and empowerment through a series
of sensory based activities related to the experiences of trauma, and supports cognitive processes
associated with survivor/thriver thinking instead of victim thinking (Steele et al., 2009). Trauma
reactions are normalized and a distinction is made between trauma and grief (Steele et al., 2009).
Six months after completing the program, focus groups were held for participants and their

RESILIENCE 15
parents, and all participants indicated overall gains that may be related to the intervention. These
gains included improved self-esteem, more open with feelings, improved sleep patterns, less
anger, better grades, and exhibiting signs of happiness such as laughter (Steele et al., 2009).
Those who saw the greatest gains had signs of support from their parent/caregiver, whereas those
with fewer gains indicated an absence in this area (Steele et al., 2009).
In summary, the I Feel Better Now! intervention program did have value for its
participants as even those who demonstrated fewer gains exhibited growth and less symptoms
associated with experiencing a trauma. Referring back to Harvey and colleagues (2003)
ecological perspective, we can see that the domains of self-esteem, self-cohesion, safeattachments, and symptom mastery are all improved upon with this intervention. However, this
intervention program does not show that these children gained resilience as a result. Rather, it
demonstrated that the children in this program learned to utilize the factors already present in
their lives that promote resilience. As noted by the authors of this research, resilience
characteristics likely exist in children prior to trauma experiences (Bonanno, Papa & ONeill,
2001 as cited by Steele et al., 2009). This idea is also supported by the results of this program
showing that those with the greatest gains had resources (such as supportive parents) that were
already in place prior to partaking in this intervention.
Cognitive Training and Cognitive-Behavioural Therapy
Taylor, Gillies, and Ashman (2009) focus on the effects of cognitive training, conflict
resolution, and exercise on adolescent coping skills. This study included thirty-one boys in
grades six to eight in a counterbalanced, multiple-baseline design where all participants received
all treatments, which were psychoeducational in nature. Using only boys in this study is both a
limitation and a strength. The limitation is the generalizability of results, which may not be

RESILIENCE 16
applied to females, however, there is a lack of gender specific research in resilience, and this
study shows results specific to males. The interventions taught were based on the concept of how
thoughts and actions influence feelings, conflict-resolution skills, and the positive effects of
exercise. Post intervention surveys and questionnaires were then completed. It was found that
these interventions were successful in reducing depressive symptoms and increasing feelings of
well-being in participants (Taylor et al., 2009). Although this study was not focused on
adolescents who suffered abuse or other traumas, these results may be generalized to adolescents
of this nature, however focused research should be done in this area. Specifically, the researchers
found that there was an improvement in social relationships, reduced aggression, and increase in
sense of optimism in all participants (Taylor et al., 2009). As stated previously in this paper, all
three of these components have been found to be robust protective factors that assist an
individual in being resilient.
Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) strategies to promote resilience have also been
explored, and stem from the success rates of CBT in treating a variety of mental health concerns.
Padesky and Mooney (2012) developed a four step, strengths-based CBT approach to build
resilience that is a collaborative effort between the counsellor and client. Step one involves
searching for strengths and is based on empirically correlated competences that are correlated
with individuals that have resilience (Padesky & Mooney, 2012). In this, the counsellor assists
the client in identifying strengths that they already have, such as good health, positive
relationships, or intelligence. Step two is focused on constructing a personal model of resilience.
In this step, the counsellor and the client build this model together based on the strengths
outlined in the previous step. This is written out by the client and involves listing the strengths
identified in step one and strategies for utilizing those strengths more often. Step three entails a

RESILIENCE 17
discussion on how to apply the personal model of resilience in areas of difficulty. The counsellor
focuses on the idea of staying resilient during these difficulties rather than solving them, often a
new concept for many clients. Step four is when the client practices resilience through counsellor
and client devised behavioural experiments. Overall this model can be used as a stand alone
approach to helping people gain positive qualities and resilience, but is not intended to replace
classic CBT approaches for treating mental health concerns such as depression (Padesky &
Mooney, 2012). Further, a strength of this model is based on its psychotherapeutic foundation of
CBT which is easily adapted to unique clients (Beck & Weishaar, 2011). However, this model
lacks empirical support at this point and further research is necessary.
Limitations and Areas for Further Research
The terminology used in resilience research has created some confusion and has seemed
to slow down the development of the field (Fergus & Zimmerman, 2005). As pointed out by
Walsh and colleagues (2010) the significant differences in defining resilience can yield
dramatically different results across studies. Due to the differences in this area it can be difficult
to define factors that promote resilience as well as domains that measure resilience. Walsh et al.,
(2010) also point out that current formal measures utilized often do not have clear criterion to
establish what is normal or above average functioning. If this criteria is left up to the
judgement of the researcher it is easy to see how results of similar studies could vary. By
clarifying these definitions and measurement procedures, researchers and reviewers will be able
to present clearer, and more valid findings.
Gender differences in the outcome of child abuse is an area which needs further research.
While it is a broad assumption that males more often display externalizing behaviours and
females show more internalizing problems, not all research supports this pattern (Herrenkohl et

RESILIENCE 18
al., 2008). Gender differences in resilience characteristics are also an important area for research.
This need is first seen with the assessment and measurement tools. Relatively few standardized
measurements include information about gender differences and how they relate to factors
associated with resilience (Romer et al., 2011). Also of interest is the specific factors that
promote resilience, and how these factors may differ between males and females. Expanding
this area could help to develop prevention and intervention programs that will produce positive
outcomes.
Longitudinal research is important for many areas in the field of psychology, and
resilience is no exception to this. To properly understand how resilience works, why some
individuals seem to have it while others do not, and assess intervention outcomes, longitudinal
research is imperative. This will provide researchers with functioning levels, as well as a variety
of other interacting factors, before the abuse happens. This will paint a clearer picture of
resilience and promote a better understanding of it.
As this paper has demonstrated, the area of trauma and resilience is complex and requires
many areas of further research before it is fully understood. However, this paper has also shown
that it is an area of research that holds promise. The promotion of this topic will foster further
research, leading to clearer definitions, a better grasp of protective and risk factors, and
empirically supported interventions. Ultimately, this research is fueled by the young trauma
survivors around the world, fighting to overcome abuse, live adjusted lives, and display
resilience.

References

RESILIENCE 19
Beck, A.T., & Weishaar, M.E. (2011). Cognitive therapy. In Corisni R.J., & Wedding, D. (Eds.),
Current psychotherapies (pp. 276-309, 9th ed.). Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Blake, D. D., Weathers, F. W., Nagy, L. M., Kaloupek, D. G., Gusman, F. D., Charney, D. S. &
Keane, T. M. (1995). The development of a clinician-administered PTSD scale. Journal
of Traumatic Stress, 8, 7590. doi:10.1002/jts.2490080106
Daigneault, I., Tourigny, M., & Cyr, M. (2004). Descriptions of trauma and resilience in sexually
abused adolescents: An integrated assessment. Journal of Trauma Practice, 3(2),
23-43. doi:10.1300/J189v03n02_02
Fergus, S., & Zimmerman, M. (2005). Adolescent resilience: A framework for understanding
healthy development in the face of risk. Annual Review Public Health, 26, 399419. doi:

10.1146/annurev.publhealth.26.021304.144357

Fergusson, D. M., Horwood, L. J., & Lynskey, M. T. (1996). Childhood sexual abuse and
psychiatric disorder in young adulthood: Psychiatric outcomes of childhood sexual abuse.
Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry,
35(10),

1365-1374. Doi:10.1097/00004583-199610000-00024

Harvey, M. R. (1996). An ecological view of psychological trauma and trauma recovery.

Journal of Traumatic Stress, 9(1), 3-23. doi:10.1002/jts.2490090103
Harvey, M., Liang, B., Harney, P.A., Koenen, K., Tummala-Narra, P., & Lebowitz, L. (2003).
A multidimensional approach to the assessment of trauma impact, recovery and
resiliency. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 6(2), 87-109.
doi:10.1300/ J146v06n02_05

RESILIENCE 20
Herrenkohl, T., Sousa, C., Tajima, E., Herrenkohl, R., & Moylan, C. (2008). Intersections of
child abuse and childrens exposure to domestic violence. Trauma, Violence, &
Abuse, 9,

84-99. doi:10.1177/1524838008314797

Herrman, H., Stewart, D., Diaz-Granados, N., Berger, E., Jackson, B., & Yuen, T. (2011). What
Is resilience?. Canadian Journal Of Psychiatry, 56(5), 258-265. Retrieved from
http://
ezproxy.lib.ucalgary.ca/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?
direct=true&db=pbh&AN=62078148&site=ehost-live
Ledogar, R., & Fleming, J. (2008). Resilience, an evolving concept: A review of literature
relevant to aboriginal research. Pimatisiwin, 6(2), 7-23. Retrieved from http://
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2956753/pdf/nihms387.pdf
Luther, S., Cicchetti, D., & Becker, B. (2000). The construct of resilience: A critical evaluation
and guidelines for future work. Child Development, 71, 543-562. doi:
10.1111/1467-8624.00164
Molnar, B.E., Buka, S.L., & Kessler, R.C. (2001). Child sexual abuse and subsequent
psychopathology: Results from the National Comorbidity Survey. American Journal
of

Public Health, 91, 753760. Retrieved

from:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/
PMC1446666/pdf/11344883.pdf
Padesky, C. A., & Mooney, K. A. (2012). Strengths-Based Cognitive-Behavioural Therapy: A
four-step model to build resilience. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 19(4),
283-290. doi:10.1002/cpp.1795

RESILIENCE 21
Raftopoulos, M., & Bates, G. (2011). 'It's that knowing that you are not alone': The role of
spirituality in adolescent resilience. International Journal Of Children's
Spirituality,

16(2), 151-167. doi:10.1080/1364436X.2011.580729

Romer, N., Ravitch, N., Tom, K., Merrell, K. W., & Wesley, K. L. (2011). Gender differences in
positive social-emotional functioning. Psychology In The Schools, 48(10), 958970. doi:
10.1002/pits.20604
Steele, W., Kuban, C., & Raider, M. (2009). Connections, continuity, dignity, opportunities
model: Follow-up of children who completed the I feel better now! trauma intervention
program. School Social Work Journal, 33(2), 98-111. Retrieved from:http://
ezproxy.lib.ucalgary.ca/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?
direct=true&db=sih&AN=36961270&site=ehost-live
Taylor, M., Gillies, R. M., & Ashman, A. F. (2009). Cognitive training, conflict resolution and
exercise: Effects on young adolescents' wellbeing. Australian Journal Of Guidance
&

Counselling, 19(2), 131-149. doi:10.1375/ajgc.19.2.131

United States Department of Veterans Affairs. (2013). DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for PTSD
released. Retrieved from http://www.ptsd.va.gov/professional/pages/
diagnostic_criteria_dsm-5.asp
Walsh, W., Dawson, J., & Mattingly, M. (2010). How are we measuring resilience following
childhood maltreatment? Is the research adequate and consistent? What is the impact on
research, practice, and policy? Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 11(1), 27-41. doi:
10.1177/1524838009358892

RESILIENCE 22
World Health Organization. (1999, March 29-31). Report of the consultation on child
abuse

prevention. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization

World Health Organization. (2002). World report on violence and health. Retrieved
from http://
www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/violence/world_report/en/introduction.pdf
World Health Organization. (2010). Child maltreatment, fact sheet. Retrieved from
http:// www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs150/en/index.html
Zucker, M., Spinazzola, J., Blaustein, M., & van der Kolk, B. (2006). Dissociative
symptomatology in posstraumatic stress disorder and disorders of extreme stress.
Journal

of Trauma & Dissociation, 7(1), 19-31. doi: 10.1300/J229v07n01_03