The construct of resilience: Implications for interventions and social policies

Advantages in applying the resilience paradigm

The resilience framework serves to direct interventionists to empirical knowledge regarding the salience of particular vulnerability and protective processes within the context of specific adversities. This framework helps to organize the scientific evidence concerning factors that may differentially alter the effects of various high-risk conditions and adversities, thus yielding specific directions for intervention efforts.

At a macrolevel, this function is useful in demarcating factors that exert substantial effects in the presence of adverse life circumstances but are less potent in the absence of risk. An example is positive experiences at school. Researchers have demonstrated that extracurricular activities and supportive relationships with teachers tend to be more beneficial for youngsters raised in institutions (Rutter, 2000) and in urban poverty (Dubois, Felner, Meares, & Krier, 1994; Dubois, Felner, Brand, Adan, & Evans, 1992) than for “low-risk” youth from more mainstream community families. Ostensibly, children in such stress-laden environments encounter relatively few experiences in their everyday lives that engender a positive sense of well-being, so that when such experiences do occur they can have a marked effect on children’s adjustment (Luthar, 1999; Rutter, 1999, 2000).

Conversely, some forces can have substantive effects in the absence of salient environmental risks but have relatively weak effects in their presence. Luthar and colleagues (2000) illustrate this with data on mother–child interactions. Among most mothers, perceptions of their children tend to shape how they behave with their children, so that disruptive child behaviors, for example, elicit negative maternal reactions. On the other hand, for mothers living in poverty the powerful stressors these women face on an ongoing basis often detract from the salience of particular child behaviors (Dumas & Wekerle, 1995). What is usually a significant vulnerability factor (i.e., child disruptive behavior) may do little to explain variations in the type of parenting displayed by a poor mother toward her children.

At a microlevel as well, research evidence on resilience has important functions in that it demarcates areas of heightened significance among groups facing particular types of adversities. To illustrate, strictness of parental monitoring is linked with positive adjustment outcomes among adolescents in poverty, yet it is not necessarily protective for middle-class children who contend with familial risks such as parental depression. Similarly, assuming the blame for the parents’ mental illness is a serious vulnerability factor for offspring of depressed mothers yet may be far less salient for children exposed to exosystemic risks such as chronic community violence or war.

The importance of careful attention to empirical evidence on context-specific vulnerability and protective effects is underscored by findings that forces that appear to be unequivocally beneficial can have negative ramifications in some circumstances, as well as the converse (Luthar, 1999; Rutter, 2000). For example, high peer status is typically beneficial for children’s overall adaptation. Among inner-city youth, however, it has been found to be linked with repudiation of conventionally conforming behaviors, such as academic effort (Luthar, 1995). Whereas intelligence is generally beneficial, in the presence of adverse psychosocial forces such as limited opportunities to apply talents toward legal pursuits, it can exacerbate adaptational problems (Freitas & Downey, 1998; Luthar, 1999).

Distinguishing features of the construct of resilience

In considering the points raised in the preceding section, one might argue that the construct of resilience does not have to be invoked in demarcating relevant empirical evidence: from a taxonomic perspective, one might simply rely on the broad category of knowledge on vulnerability and protective factors that modify the effects of risk. Without question, the term “resilience” is not indispensable. There have been scores of scientifically productive research studies that have illuminated processes operating among particular at-risk groups that have never mentioned resilience.

The construct of resilience does, however, connote some features, both in basic science as well as in applied intervention science, that distinguish it as unique in conducting research with groups of individuals experiencing adversity. First, the resilience framework implies a focus on positive outcomes and not just negative ones (Luthar et al., 2000). Of central interest are not only adaptational failures (traditionally focused on in research with groups at high risk; Cicchetti, 1993) but also, and more importantly, positive adaptational outcomes and their antecedents (Garmezy, Masten, & Tellegen, 1984; Luthar & Zigler, 1991; Masten, et al., 1990). From an intervention—policy perspective, therefore, applying this framework implies an implicit shift of emphasis to encompass primary prevention, rather than simply attempting to ameliorate serious maladjustment after it has already crystallized (Cowen, Hightower, Pedro–Carroll, Work, Wyman, & Haffey, 1996; Rolf & Johnson, 1999; Sroufe & Rutter, 1984; Windle, 1999).

Second, even in instances where problems have already crystallized, the resilience framework entails an emphasis not only on deficits but also on areas of strength (Luthar, 2000). This is illustrated in work with substance-abusing mothers, a group typically characterized by various parenting deficits and personal psychopathology. Without minimizing their problems, applying a resilience paradigm implies attention to assets among these women: strengths such as high concern for their children’s welfare (often a driving force for addicted mothers to seek treatment) and tendencies to regret past parenting “mistakes” (which can be harnessed in motivating positive change; see Luthar & Suchman, 2000). From an intervention standpoint, therefore, applying the resilience perspective implies efforts to harness notable strengths of “vulnerable populations” to derive significant impetus for positive change.

A third critical feature is that work on resilience connotes a commitment to understanding processes that underlie the effects of vulnerability and protective factors. As we have noted earlier, for researchers in this area the identification of forces that show significant links with adjustment outcomes constitutes only the initial step in their work. The ultimate goal is to illuminate which of various potential mechanisms are implicated in the effects of these vulnerability or protective factors, such that appropriate directions for intervention can be derived.

In summary, the term “resilience” represents a parsimonious label for a scientific approach that has multiple distinguishing features. Applying the resilience framework implies attention (a) to positive outcomes in the presence of adversity rather than positive adaptation in general and, more specifically, (b) to empirically derived knowledge about vulnerability and protective mechanisms that are salient within, and possibly unique to, particular risk conditions. From an intervention perspective, the implication is (c) a shift away from maladjustment to consider competence as well (thus implicitly emphasizing prevention), (d) attention to at-risk individuals’ strengths in addition to their “deficits”, and (e) systematic exploration of processes that might explain or underlie links involving empirically identified vulnerability and protective factors.

Guiding principles

As resilience research has evolved, several scholars have appraised appropriate directions, based on this body of work, for interventions targeting different at-risk groups (see Beardslee et al., 1999; Cowen, 1999; Knitzer, 2000a; Luthar, 1999; Luthar & Suchman, 2000; Rutter, 1999; Werner, 2000; Werner & Johnson, 1999). Many of the recommendations offered are strongly resonant with those emphasized by scientists in the broader fields of prevention research, developmental psychopathology, community psychology, and social policy (see Cicchetti, Rappaport, Sandler, & Weissberg, in press; Cicchetti & Toth, 1998, 1999; Coie et al., 1993; Hogue & Liddle, 1999; Institute of Medicine, 1994; Knitzer 2000a, 2000b; National Institute of Mental Health, 1993, 1998; Weissberg & Greenberg, 1998; Yoshikawa & Knitzer, 1997). For future interventions that are developed specifically within the resilience paradigm, Luthar (2000) summarized a series of 10 guiding principles, listed below.

1. Interventions must have a strong base in theory. The design of all interventions must be anchored in a sound theoretical framework that specifically recognizes the mutual, transactional influences between children and different aspects of their contextual surrounds. Piecemeal attempts to improve isolated “protective factors” are likely to be ineffective.
2. More specifically, interventions must have a strong basis in theory and research on the particular group being targeted. This implies that empirical evidence, both quantitative and qualitative in nature, must be systematically collected on “modifiable modifiers” that are known to affect adjustment outcomes in the presence of the particular adversity under consideration.
3. Efforts should be directed not only toward the reduction of negative outcomes or maladjustment among targeted groups but also toward the promotion of dimensions of positive adaptation or competence. In working with psychiatrically disturbed parents, for example, intervention should strive to reduce negative behaviors such as inconsistent or harsh discipline while promoting positive ones, such as the expression of warmth and affection.
4. Relatedly, interventions must be designed not only to reduce negative influences (vulnerability factors) but also to capitalize on specific resources within particular populations. Building upon strengths of people in the community can promote their own feelings of efficaciousness and competence, and can also foster their investment in ensuring that positive changes endure within their communities.
5. As noted earlier, to the degree possible, interventions should target salient vulnerability and protective processes that operate across multiple levels of influence. These include influences stemming from the community and the family, as well as from the individual (e.g., Bronfenbrenner, 1977; Cicchetti & Lynch, 1993; Sameroff & Chandler, 1975).
6. Interventions must have a strong developmental focus, reflecting attention, for example, to the specific cognitive, social, and emotional capacities associated with the individuals being targeted, as well as the limits to these. Knowledge of developmental domains such as causal reasoning, emotion understanding, and language ability all must be attended to when designing interventions for children and adolescents (see Noam, 1992; Shirk, 1988; Toth & Cicchetti, 1999).
7. Similarly, the contextual relevance of the overall intervention aims, as well as of the specific intervention strategies, must be ensured. This is often effectively achieved via collaborative participation of local community members—leaders in the community, concerned parents, teachers, clinicians, as well children who receive interventions. Input from these individuals can help not only to ensure that identified intervention goals will be viewed as personally meaningful by intended recipients but also to guide staff toward therapeutic techniques likely to be most effective within particular subcultures (see Brody, Stoneman, Flor, McCrary, Hastings, & Conyers, 1994; Cowen et al., 1996; Fantuzzo, Coolahan, & Weiss, 1997; Hawkins & Catalano, 1992, Jensen, Hoagwood, & Trickett, 1999; Lerner, Fisher, & Weinberg, 2000; Seitz & Apfel, 1999).
8. Intervention efforts should aim at fostering services that eventually can become self-sustaining. This once again implies creativity in harnessing existing resources in local communities. A relevant example is Comer and colleagues’ School Development Project, wherein interventionists work with parents, community members, and school personnel to set in place services for healthy child development that can become self-sustaining in schools over time (see Comer, 1988; Haynes & Comer, 1996).
9. Wherever possible, data from intervention groups should be compared with those of appropriate comparison groups, to ascertain effects that are potentially unique to the intervention. For example, in order to demonstrate the effectiveness of a particular intervention for offspring of parents with a major mental illness, a similar risk group receiving a different type of intervention should be recruited and followed longitudinally.
10. There must be careful documentation and evaluation—of the critical components of the intervention via manualization, and of the gains (as well as unanticipated problems) it may engender. Outcome domains assessed must be those centrally targeted in the intervention, which in turn are those likely to be strongly affected by the risk in question. Careful documentation and assessments are helpful for guiding the design of future interventions, for disseminating those of established efficacy, and for ongoing refinements of theory about normative developmental processes.

Applications of resilience research: Randomized clinical trials

In recent years, developmental psychopathologists have increasingly begun to harness findings from resilience research in designing multifaceted interventions that consider the diverse transactions between children and their environmental contexts. Summarized here are three such interventions, all designed for families affected by parental mental illness: depressive disorders in the first two instances and substance abuse in the third.

The first of these interventions is that designed by Beardslee (see Beardslee, 1989; Beardslee & Podorefsky, 1988; Beardslee et al., 1999) to help families in which a parent was affected by depressive illness. Development of this intervention was based in a clear-cut rationale: it was spurred by evidence that (a) depression is a widespread problem, with 10–20% of individuals experiencing at least one depressive episode in their lifetimes (Kessler, McGonagle, Zhao, Nelson, Hughes, Eshleman, Wittchen, & Kendler, 1994; Robins & Regier, 1991); and (b) children of depressed parents are at high risk for various problems, and almost 50% receive a diagnosis of depression themselves by the end of adolescence (Beardslee, 1989; Downey & Coyne, 1990). The second characteristic of this intervention is that its design was anchored in a systematic review of accumulated evidence on potent vulnerability and protective processes that tend to modify the effects of parental depression. Identified mediator (vulnerability) effects, for example, included disturbances in specific parenting behaviors (e.g., decreased attention and lowered intensity of interaction), as well as in the marital relationship and family cohesion. A critical protective factor was high self-understanding among children. This encompassed accurate appraisals of the parent’s affective disorder and of children’s own capacity to act (e.g., not assuming responsibility for the parents’ symptoms). The third intervention characteristic was developed to ameliorate maladaptive patterns as well as to develop strengths, in work with parents as well as children. Attention to developmental issues is reflected in the focus on families of pre- and early adolescent children, youth on the brink of a developmental period of high risk for depressive problems.

Based on available evidence on salient vulnerability and protective processes, a clinician-led intervention was developed with the following treatment goals: development of a therapeutic relationship; provision of accurate information regarding affective illness; integration of cognitive information with the unique illness experience of the family; validation of the children’s experience of the illness; and development of a future-oriented perspective. The intervention entailed 6–10 sessions, and it included separate sessions with parents, children, and whole family and telephone contacts or refresher sessions at 6–9 month intervals. This clinician-led intervention was compared with a lecture-based intervention that pursued goals similar to the clinician-led sessions, except that children did not attend the lectures, and there was no effort to link contents of these sessions to individual families’ experiences.

Finally, there was careful attention to documentation. To ensure treatment fidelity, both interventions were manualized, and audio-taped sessions were rated for adherence to stipulated procedures. Before and after treatment, families completed multimethod, multiple informant assessment batteries that tapped constructs hypothesized to serve vulnerability and protective factors, as well as distal outcomes in children.

Results of this study showed that families in the clinician-led groups reported significantly greater improvement on several hypothesized vulnerability and protective factors (e.g., understanding of illness, marital support, illness-related behaviors). Major benefits of this intervention were found to be sustained even 8 months after the intervention (see Beardslee et al., 1999).

A second intervention for families affected by parental depression, also developed within the resilience framework, is that designed by Cicchetti and colleagues (Cicchetti, Rogosch, & Toth, 2000; Cicchetti, Toth, & Rogosch, 1999). Based on knowledge of the empirical literature on the impact of maternal depression on children’s development, Toddler–Parent Psychotherapy (TPP; Lieberman, 1992) was identified as a potentially important strategy for fostering resilience in young offspring of depressed mothers. Because offspring of depressed mothers have been shown to be at risk for the development of insecure attachment organizations, it is possible that mothers’ insecure representations of their own attachment figures not only influence affective and cognitive features of mothers’ depression but also may contribute to distortions in their perceptions of their child and their ability to form a secure relationship with their child. To intervene in these potential relationship difficulties, TPP, conceptually based in attachment theory, was utilized (Lieberman, 1992). The details of the TPP intervention are presented in Cicchetti, Toth, and Rogosch (in press).

The results of this intervention to date have demonstrated that TPP is effective in promoting resilient adaptation in the face of adversity, as well as in preventing the emergence of maladaptation. Mothers with major depressive disorder and their toddlers were randomly assigned either to TPP (Depressed Intervention [DI] group) or to no intervention (Depressed Control [DC] group). A group of mothers, matched on sociodemographic factors but with no history of mental disorder or current psychopathology, served as the Normal Control (NC) group. Although baseline assessments prior to the implementation of TPP revealed that the toddlers in the DI and DC groups evidenced equivalent rates of insecure attachment and both groups had higher rates of insecure attachment than the NC group, at postintervention assessments the DC group continued to have higher rates of insecure attachment than the NC group. In contrast, the DI group at postintervention follow-up was not significantly different from the NC group in terms of rate of secure attachment. For the DI group, there also had been greater maintenance of secure attachment organization among those who were initially secure, as well as a greater shift from insecure to secure attachment groups (see Cicchetti et al., 1999). In contrast, for the DC group initially secure youngsters became insecurely attached. These findings demonstrate the efficacy of TPP in promoting secure attachment organization among young offspring of depressed mothers.

The effects of the preventive intervention also have been examined in terms of cognitive development (Cicchetti et al., 2000). At baseline, no differences were found among the groups in terms of their mental development. However, at postintervention significant group differences emerged for cognitive abilities, with the DC group evidencing a relative decline in IQ. Both the DI and NC groups evidenced higher WPPSI-R (Wechsler, 1989) Full Scale and Verbal Scale IQ scores as compared to the DC group; a marginal treatment effect in the same direction also was found for Performance IQ. Thus, the preventive intervention appeared to be effective in maintaining normative cognitive advances in the DI group, whereas a decline in cognitive advance was observed in the DC group.

A third exemplar of clinical interventions based in resilience research is the Relational Psychotherapy Mothers’ Group (RPMG), designed by Luthar and colleagues (Luthar & Suchman, 2000; Luthar, Suchman, & Boltas, 1997). An integrative intervention, RPMG entails specific attention to empirically identified vulnerability and protective forces that can affect substance-abusing mothers’ parenting—forces at the level of the individual (e.g., comorbid depression, capacity to acknowledge past mistakes), the family (troubled childhood histories, concern for their welfare of their own children), and the community (e.g., experiences of stigma, potential to benefit from positive interpersonal influences). The psychotherapy entails a confluence of four major therapeutic components, the first of which is a supportive therapists’ stance, which encompasses the Rogerian constructs of acceptance, empathy, and genuineness (Braswell & Seay, 1984). The second is an interpersonal, relational focus, a component with roots in gender-sensitive perspectives on women as well as in Interpersonal Psychotherapy (Klerman, Weissman, Rounsaville, & Chevron, 1984). Third, RPMG is a group treatment, involving only substance-abusing mothers (not mothers and fathers), with groups led by female therapists. The fourth defining feature of RPMG is discovery-based, insight-oriented parenting skill facilitation. Rather than “instructing” the mothers about appropriate parenting, therapists encourage the women to explore the strengths and limitations of their own strategies, and guide them toward developing optimal approaches.

The RPMG intervention is designed to be delivered as an “add-on” to outpatient methadone treatment in weekly group sessions over a period of 6 months. Sessions are structured, with therapeutic strategies for each detailed in a therapists’ manual. The first 12 of the 24 sessions are focused on the women’s own functioning, addressing topics such as coping with anger, depression, and loneliness. The remaining sessions are focused on specific parenting issues, such as fostering warm parenting styles and developing alternatives to corporal punishment. All sessions are videotaped, and therapists are rated on their adherence to the RPMG manual.

Based on the women’s own reports as well as those of their children, mothers who received RPMG were found to demonstrate lower levels of risk for child maltreatment than did comparison mothers (who received treatment as usual), by the end of the 24-week intervention period (Luthar & Suchman, 2000). RPMG recipients also reported greater involvement with their children and more satisfaction in their roles as mothers, and their children reflected fewer problems in several areas. At 6 months posttreatment, RPMG recipients continued to be at a relative advantage, although the magnitude of group differences was often attenuated. Notably, urinalyses indicated that RPMG mothers showed greater improvements in levels of opioid use at follow-up than did comparison mothers, suggesting that working with addicted women on their psychological and parenting needs can have substantial spillover effects on their abstinence. Based on the promise of these initial findings, RPMG is being further evaluated in a larger clinical trials study with methadone-maintained mothers; its effectiveness is also being explored among mothers referred to children’s protective services, in an initiative sponsored by the Connecticut Department of Children and Families.

Independent of these three exemplars of randomized clinical trials that are explicitly grounded in research on resilience, there are several other well-known interventions that are geared at promoting positive child outcomes, even though their initial conceptualization did not specifically entail this construct. Weissberg and Greenberg (1998) review many such multipronged competence-enhancement programs, implemented at different developmental phases (see also Dryfoos, 1994; Durlak, 1997). Exemplary among such interventions is the Prenatal/Early Infancy Project, a long-standing program involving nurse visitation for poor, unmarried, pregnant women (Kitzman et al., 1997; Olds et al., 1998; Olds & Korfmacher, 1997, 1998). Targeting preschoolers in economically disadvantaged neighborhoods, the Chicago Child Parent Center (CPC) Program, begun in the late 1960s, (see Reynolds, 1998, in press), provides comprehensive child education and family support services to promote school readiness as well as other positive adjustment outcomes. Serving kindergarten children at high risk for conduct problems is Fast Track, a multisite randomized clinical trials project aimed at providing a comprehensive longitudinal intervention (Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group, 1992, 1999a, 1999b).

From a developmental psychopathology standpoint, it should be noted that carefully designed, multilevel intervention trials can yield critical benefits not only for vulnerable children and families but also for advancing theories on resilience and psychopathology. Prevention research can be conceptualized as true experiments in altering the course of development, and thus can provide critical insights into the etiology and course of adjustment in the face of known risks (Cicchetti & Toth, 1992; Kellam & Rebok, 1992; Sandler, Wolchik, MacKinnon, Ayers, & Roosa, 1997). To illustrate, Beardslee’s findings that the developmental courses of children of depressed parents were altered as a result of exposure to his intervention yields confirmatory evidence on critical processes involved in the ontogenesis of maladjustment, as well as of resilience among children at risk by virtue of parents’ depressive illness.

Greater interface between science and practice

The interface between basic and applied science concerning resilience warrants greater attention in at least four respects (Luthar, 2000). The first pertains to the development of interventions that effectively harness empirically identified protective processes. As noted earlier, there is converging evidence from several studies indicating that multiple protective factors substantially increase the likelihood of positive outcomes among at-risk groups (e.g., Fergusson & Lynskey, 1996; Furstenberg et al., 1999; Jessor et al., 1995; 1998a, 1998b). Yet, Wyman and colleagues (in press) have noted that several interventions designed to test cumulative protective effects—for example, by combining child and parent components for divorced families (e.g., Stolberg & Mahler, 1994)—have not demonstrated significant additive effects. Similar conclusions were presented by St. Pierre and Layzer (1998) in their review of two-generation programs (i.e., those that simultaneously target parents and children) for families in poverty. There remains much potential, therefore, for developing interventions that are based on empirical understanding of the processes underlying the cumulative effects of multiple, co-occurring protective influences (Werner & Johnson, 1999).

Second, there is a need for greater flexibility in approaches to evaluating promising new intervention approaches. Noting that all too often programs which seem conceptually sound have been evaluated in methodologically weak research designs, St. Pierre and Layzer (1998) argue strongly for the inclusion of appropriate control or comparison groups in ascertaining the effectiveness of future interventions. Proffering an opposing view, Weissberg and Greenberg (1998) provide a thoughtful discussion on the relative contributions of quantitative, randomized clinical trials, as opposed to the multiyear, multicomponent, community-based intervention models called for by practitioners and policymakers. The latter are widely viewed as essential to obtain sustainable changes in both individuals and systems yet are typically evaluated via descriptive, nonexperimental strategies, rather than via the highly controlled, experimentally rigorous approaches favored by academic researchers.

We concur with Weissberg and Greenberg’s (1998) argument that in the long term, effective evaluations—those that are scientifically sound and meet the needs of stakeholders and policymakers—necessitate the integration of quantitative experimental studies with more qualitative, process-oriented approaches. Without question, some minimal level of experimental design is critical for evaluation efforts, lest a false sense of knowledge be derived from severely flawed methodologies. Furthermore, time-limited, randomized trials can be invaluable in illuminating the types of interventions that produce benefits within particular domains of children’s lives. At the same time, it is clear that enduring social, psychological, and health benefits necessitate comprehensive, multifaceted programs that produce substantive changes at the level of environmental systems (Dryfoos, 1994; Hamburg, 1992; Luthar, 1999; Shonkoff & Meisels, 2000; Zigler & Berman, 1983), and such large-scale programs do not lend themselves to controlled experimental evaluations.

In order to maximize lasting effects in future efforts, therefore, controlled experimental studies should provide the foundation for, and be integrated within, relatively comprehensive interventions, which are evaluated by more descriptive approaches. For developmental researchers to be entirely dismissive of the latter types of evaluations is both unwarranted and unwise, for as McCall and Groark (2000, p. 199) have cautioned, if our scholarly pursuits are limited to those issues that can be examined in a scientifically ideal ways, “we risk becoming irrelevant, anachronistic, and expendable. Instead, we must pursue also the best obtainable information on issues of societal need, which evidence may be crude but should never be sloppy.” (For additional discussions on flexible, ecologically valid evaluative approaches, see Jensen et al., 1999, Lerner et al., 2000, and Shonkoff, 2000.)

Related to these directions for applied science are issues related to training. In a commentary on the place of applied studies in the field of developmental psychology, Zigler (1998) underscored the need for appropriate instruction to ensure that intervention and policy studies are held to the same high standards long honored for basic research. Noting that work at the intersect of research and policy is generally undertaken by senior scientists— who have well-established credentials in basic science—Zigler argues for enhanced scientific instruction of young scholars interested primarily in the applications of psychological theory and research in the development of effective interventions and policies. In a related vein, there have been calls for increased cross-disciplinary training within research-oriented graduate programs (e.g., Cicchetti & Toth, 1991, 1998; Knitzer, 1996; Luthar, 1999). To illustrate, for doctoral students whose learning is based largely in the developmental scientific literature, much can be gained from firsthand exposure to professionals from different applied settings: social workers, community mental health workers, teachers, and school administrators, as well as law enforcement officials and policymakers.

Temporal considerations

From a temporal standpoint, a critical message stemming from resilience research (Felsman & Vaillant, 1987; Luthar, 1999; 2000; Rutter, 1990, 2000; Werner, 2000) is that there is value in interventions at all developmental transitions, and not just in the earliest years. Early childhood interventions are of obvious preventive value, yet there is great fallacy in assumptions that once interventions are offered in early childhood nothing further is required, or can make any difference (Zigler & Styfco, 1996). Children have different “sensitive periods” during which they are maximally responsive to different types of interventions, so that educationally based programs, for example, are more likely to benefit preschoolers than toddlers, and interventions targeting attitudes toward deviant behaviors are most likely to be effective with preadolescents and adolescents (Weissberg & Greenberg, 1998).

Two other critical temporal considerations, both commonly noted (see Weissberg & Greenberg, 1998; Zigler & Styfco, 1993), warrant reemphasis here. The first issue is that longer periods of intervention generally have been found to be more effective than shorter ones. Analyses of data from the Chicago Child Parent Center program establish that children who had more than 4 years of experience with quality preschool or kindergarten programs fared far better, at the eighth-grade level, than those with only 1 or 2 years of participation in early intervention programs (Reynolds, 1994, 1995). Zigler and Styfco’s (1993) review of several such programs confirmed that the advantages of preschool programs can be sustained with dovetailed, school-age interventions. Data such as these underscore the substantial limits to relatively brief, one-shot interventions for children facing substantial life adversities (see also Pianta & Walsh, 1998).

The other temporal consideration has to do with intervening during periods of transition, such as entry into school, into adolescence, or into the workforce. Each of these transitions carries normative developmental challenges even for “low-risk” groups (see Eccles, Lord, & Roeser, 1996; Felner, Brand, Adan, Mulhall, Flowers, Sartain, & DuBois, 1993). For youngsters in high-risk life circumstances, threats posed by these normative challenges can be substantially compounded by serious stressors in their everyday lives (Luthar & Burack, 2000). Research-based understanding of resilience can allow practitioners to capitalize on periods of developmental transitions, both within the child as well as in proximal and distal ecologies (e.g., culture or community), as unique opportunities for promoting positive adaptation in adverse situations (Cicchetti, 1993; Cicchetti & Toth, 1992).

Greater attention to mental health

Considering domains of well-being that are typically targeted, current national policies reflect considerable imbalance in the relative neglect of mental health (Cowen, 1994, 1999; Luthar & Burack, 2000). Most existing programs attempt to foster academic or job skills, or to reduce behaviors that are disruptive to others (e.g., conduct or antisocial problems). As Knitzer (2000a) notes, there is little cognizance of the reality “that a child’s emotional state also affects his or her ability to achieve the level of social and cognitive competence necessary to learn” (p. 421).

The value of explicit attention to mental health is evident in several bodies of empirical evidence (Luthar, 2000). First, studies on resilience have shown that even when at-risk individuals reflect exemplary, socially conforming behavioral profiles, many struggle with considerable inner distress (Cohler et al., 1995; Herrenkohl, Herrenkohl, & Egolf, 1994; Luthar, 1991; Luthar, Doernberger, & Zigler, 1993; O’Dougherty–Wright, Masten, Northwood, & Hubbard, 1997; Radke–Yarrow & Brown, 1993).³ Second, unremitting emotional distress can inhibit individuals’ ability to maintain adequate functioning across various everyday roles, including those in the domains of academic and job performance, behavioral conformity, interpersonal relationships, and parenting; there also can be substantial spillover effects into physical health status (e.g., in terms of lowered immunity to illnesses; Beckham & Leber, 1995; Brent & Moritz, 1997; Gjerde & Block, 1996; Hammen, 1997; Salovey, Rothman, Detweiler, & Steward, 2000; von Hecker & Sedek, 1999). Third, although at-risk children may excel in some domains (appearing “resilient” in some respects), many of these children can develop a range of serious difficulties over time, in the absence of appropriate interventions (see Apfel and Seitz, 1997; Egeland et al., 1993; O’Dougherty–Wright, et al., 1997). Fourth, Knitzer (2000a) has noted that for many vulnerable low-income individuals, access to mental health services can be an important pathway to long-term productivity and employability. In support of her thesis, she cites outcome data from a range of recently developed interventions, each of which involves explicit attention to the mental health needs of at-risk children and their parents.

In future policies for children and their families, therefore, there is a critical need for vigilance not only with regard to the inevitably dynamic nature of “resilient” status but also with regard to the ongoing strains induced when emotional distress coexists with manifest competence. In conjunction with promoting the movement of at-risk persons from negative adjustment trajectories to more positive ones, insights on resilience also must be brought to bear in helping those who achieve relatively resilient outcomes to retain their positive adjustment status.