TY - JOUR
T1 - Re-evaluating the notion that resilience is commonplace
T2 - A review and distillation of directions for future research, practice, and policy
AU - Infurna, Frank
AU - Luthar, Suniya
N1 - Funding Information:
Frank J. Infurna gratefully acknowledges the support provided by the National Institute of Health ( R01AG048844 ) and Suniya S. Luthar gratefully acknowledges the Rodel Foundation and Authentic Connections. Both authors gratefully acknowledge the support provided by the John Templeton Foundation (Grant Number 60699 ). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the funding agencies.
Funding Information:
Frank J. Infurna gratefully acknowledges the support provided by the National Institute of Health (R01AG048844) and Suniya S. Luthar gratefully acknowledges the Rodel Foundation and Authentic Connections. Both authors gratefully acknowledge the support provided by the John Templeton Foundation (Grant Number 60699). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the funding agencies.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2018 Elsevier Ltd
PY - 2018/11
Y1 - 2018/11
N2 - The majority of multi-wave studies examining resilience in adulthood have involved growth mixture modeling (GMM). We critically evaluate the central conclusion from this body of work that “resilience is commonplace”. Our emphasis is on two questionable methodological assumptions underlying this conclusion: (1) the variances are the same across trajectories (i.e., homogeneity of variance) and (2) the amount of change does not differ across individuals (i.e., slope variances are zero). Seventy-seven empirical studies were included that used GMM to examine resilience to diverse adversities in adulthood. Of these 77 relevant studies, 66 (86%) assumed homogeneity of variances across trajectories and 52 (68%) set slope variances to zero; in the minority of studies where these assumptions were not applied (particularly the homogeneity of variance assumption), the resilient trajectory was among the smallest. Furthermore, 63 (82%) of the 77 studies conferred labels of resilience based on a single outcome, which is problematic as resilience is never an “across-the-board” phenomenon. Based on our conclusions, we discuss three important directions for future research: (1) replication across samples and measures, (2) illumination of processes leading to resilience, and (3) incorporation of a multidimensional approach. We conclude by outlining a resilience framework for research, practice, and policy.
AB - The majority of multi-wave studies examining resilience in adulthood have involved growth mixture modeling (GMM). We critically evaluate the central conclusion from this body of work that “resilience is commonplace”. Our emphasis is on two questionable methodological assumptions underlying this conclusion: (1) the variances are the same across trajectories (i.e., homogeneity of variance) and (2) the amount of change does not differ across individuals (i.e., slope variances are zero). Seventy-seven empirical studies were included that used GMM to examine resilience to diverse adversities in adulthood. Of these 77 relevant studies, 66 (86%) assumed homogeneity of variances across trajectories and 52 (68%) set slope variances to zero; in the minority of studies where these assumptions were not applied (particularly the homogeneity of variance assumption), the resilient trajectory was among the smallest. Furthermore, 63 (82%) of the 77 studies conferred labels of resilience based on a single outcome, which is problematic as resilience is never an “across-the-board” phenomenon. Based on our conclusions, we discuss three important directions for future research: (1) replication across samples and measures, (2) illumination of processes leading to resilience, and (3) incorporation of a multidimensional approach. We conclude by outlining a resilience framework for research, practice, and policy.
KW - Adulthood and old age
KW - Growth mixture modeling
KW - Life adversity
KW - Multidimensional
KW - Resilience
KW - Risk
KW - Trauma
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85051626921&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85051626921&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.cpr.2018.07.003
DO - 10.1016/j.cpr.2018.07.003
M3 - Review article
C2 - 30125756
AN - SCOPUS:85051626921
SN - 0272-7358
VL - 65
SP - 43
EP - 56
JO - Clinical Psychology Review
JF - Clinical Psychology Review
ER -