CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 256Resilience and Mental HealthChild Abuse and TraumaChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development

Resilience and Adversity

Luthar, Suniya S., Crossman, Elizabeth J., Small, Phillip J.·2015·Handbook of Child Psychology and Developmental Science
DOI 10.1002/9781118963418.childpsy307
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Resilience research involves the study of processes predicting better‐than‐expected adjustment following exposure to adversity, with the central goal of informing effective interventions. This chapter presents a review of accumulated research findings on salient risk‐modifiers across the realms of family, community, and individual characteristics. Cumulatively, findings highlight the power of proximal relationships, particularly with primary caregivers in the family, and with teachers, mentors, and peers in the community. Forces inimical to psychological and physical survival (such as maltreatment and violence) are much more powerful than positive influences (such as affection or support). Children's own “protective attributes” such as self‐efficacy are themselves continually shaped by salient socializing influences. Future research aimed at fostering childhood resilience—and future interventions—must prioritize attention to risk‐modifiers that are broadly deterministic (with large effect sizes, and generative of other assets); to gender‐specific patterns; and to developmental contexts (mores, needs, and existing resources). Understanding the processes underlying salutary salient relationships, and systematically harnessing these in large‐scale, community‐based interventions, is the best hope in maximizing the yield of science on resilience in childhood, adolescence, and subsequently in development.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/9781118963418.childpsy307

Cites

22 of 22 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Resilience is most meaningfully evaluated by comparing outcomes among individuals exposed to comparable adversity.

    “Under a process-oriented definition, resilience is inferred from a better-than-expected adjustment given the level and type of adversity experienced and is most meaningfully evaluated by comparing outcomes among individuals exposed to comparable adversity (Luthar et al., 2000(Luthar et al., , 2015;;Masten, 2001;Rutter, 2012).”

    From Resilience following severe early life neglect: A review of longitudinal evidence from the Bucharest Early Intervention Project (2026) · cites this paper as Luthar et al., 2015

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Luthar, S. S., Crossman, E. J., & Small, P. J.
Affiliations
  • Arizona State University (US)
  • Columbia University (US)
ORCID
Luthar, Suniya S.
Venue
Handbook of Child Psychology and Developmental Science
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2015-03-23
Pages
1-40
DOI
10.1002/9781118963418.childpsy307
OpenAlex
W1564170861
Cited by
256
References
22
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 33 · 2022: 37 · 2021: 40 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 27 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 5
Type
other
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Wiley eBooks (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Resilience and Mental Health
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Child Abuse and Trauma
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Child and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Keywords
resilience, adversity, risk modifiers, protective factors, primary caregivers, peer relationships, mentors, teachers, maltreatment, violence, self-efficacy, child resilience, community-based intervention, gender differences, developmental context, family and community influence

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review