Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 342

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 32 of the 32 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Conceptual Issues in Studies of Resilience: Past, Present, and Future Research

Open access
LUTHAR, SUNIYA S., SAWYER, JEANETTE A., BROWN, PAMELA J.·2006·Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences

Abstract

Abstract: We begin this article by considering the following critical conceptual issues in research on resilience: (1) distinctions between protective, promotive, and vulnerability factors; (2) the need to unpack underlying processes; (3) the benefits of within‐group experimental designs; and (4) the advantages and potential pitfalls of an overwhelming scientific focus on biological and genetic factors (to the relative exclusion of familial and contextual ones). The next section of the article is focused on guidelines for the selection of vulnerability and protective processes in future research. From a basic science standpoint, it is useful and appropriate to investigate all types of processes that might significantly affect adjustment among at‐risk individuals. If the research is fundamentally applied in nature, however, it would be most expedient to focus on risk modifiers that have high potential to alter individuals' overall life circumstances. The final section of this article considers conceptual differences between contemporary resilience research on children versus adults. Issues include differences in the types and breadth of outcomes (e.g., the tendencies to focus on others' ratings of competence among children and on self‐reports of well‐being among adults respectively).

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1196/annals.1376.009

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 32 references

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Luthar S.S., 2006, Developmental Psychopathology: Risk, disorder, and adaptation, 740
  2. Luthar S.S.&C.C.Sexton. In press.Maternal drug abuse versus maternal depression: Vulnerability and resilience among school‐age and adolescent offspring. Dev. Psychopathol.
  3. Achenbach T.M., 2001, Manual for the ASEBA School‐Age Forms and Profiles
  4. 10.1037/0022-006X.63.3.445 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Garmezy N., 1974, The child in his family: children at psychiatric risk: III, 547
  6. Rutter M., 1979, Primary Prevention in Psychopathology: Vol. 3. Social Competence in Children, 49

Cited by

See all 342

Metadata

Authors
LUTHAR, S. S., SAWYER, J. A., & BROWN, P. J.
Venue
Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2006-12
Volume
1094
Issue
1
Pages
105-115
ISSN
  • 0077-8923 (ISSN-L)
  • 1749-6632
OpenAlex
W1969366972
Cited by
342
References
32
FWCI
7.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Conceptual Issues in Studies of Resilience: Past, Present, and Future Research. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1196/annals.1376.009
The paper
LUTHAR, S. S., SAWYER, J. A., & BROWN, P. J. (2006). Conceptual Issues in Studies of Resilience: Past, Present, and Future Research. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1196/annals.1376.009

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.