Competence and Resilience in Development
Abstract
The first three waves of research on resilience in development, largely behavioral in focus, contributed a compelling set of concepts and methods, a surprisingly consistent body of findings, provocative issues and controversies, and clues to promising areas for the next wave of resilience research linking biology and neuroscience to behavioral adaptation in development. Behavioral investigators honed the definitions and assessments of risk, adversity, competence, developmental tasks, protective factors, and other key aspects of resilience, as they sought to understand how some children overcome adversity to do well in life. Their findings implicate fundamental adaptive systems, which in turn suggest hot spots for the rising fourth wave of integrative research on resilience in children, focused on processes studied at multiple levels of analysis and across species.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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 best understood as a multilevel, biopsychosocial-ecological process wherein promotive internal and external systems integrate to facilitate the potential for positive outcomes.
“Whether of a person, group, or larger system, resilience is best understood as a multilevel, biopsychosocialecological process wherein promotive internal and external systems integrate to facilitate the potential for positive outcomes (e.g., Masten & Obradović, 2006).”
From Malleability, plasticity, and individuality: How children learn and develop in context<sup>1</sup> (2019) · cites this paper as Masten & Obradović, 2006
The core areas typically affirmed-relationships, family, and spiritual and religious values-dovetail with the hot spots for intervention in resilience research.
“The core areas typically affirmed-relationships, family, and spiritual and religious values-dovetail with the hot spots for intervention in resilience research (Masten & Obradović 2006).”
From The Psychology of Change: Self-Affirmation and Social Psychological Intervention (2014) · cites this paper as Masten & Obradović 2006
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 57 · Cited by 946
- Authors
- MASTEN, A. S., & OBRADOVIĆ, J.
- Affiliations
- University of Minnesota (US)
- Corresponding author
- MASTEN, ANN S.
- Venue
- Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2006-12
- Volume
- 1094
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 13-27
- ISSN
- 0077-8923 (ISSN-L)
- 1749-6632
- OpenAlex
- W1990005991
- Cited by
- 946
- References
- 57
- Citations by year
- 2026: 32 · 2025: 46 · 2024: 59 · 2023: 52 · 2022: 87 · 2021: 60 · 2020: 50 · 2019: 58 · 2018: 42 · 2017: 60 · 2016: 56 · 2015: 60 · 2014: 58 · 2013: 47 · 2012: 49
- FWCI
- 2.21
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- William T. Grant Foundation
- University of Minnesota
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Resilience and Mental Health
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Child and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Child Abuse and Trauma
- Keywords
- resilience, competence, child development, adversity, protective factors, developmental tasks, risk assessment, behavioral adaptation, integrated studies, multiple levels of analysis
- MeSH terms
- Adaptation, Psychological, Child, Child Development, Humans, Models, Psychological, Risk Factors, Mental Competency, Biomedical Research
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
