Resilience is another word for a particular type of strength.  It means being able to draw on inner reserves, to ‘dig deep’ in order to overcome traumatic or distressing events and emerge intact and, in some ways, a stronger person than you might have been if your life had been trauma-free. Research on resilience suggests that it is possible to overcome early trauma experienced in childhood through a combination of specific dispositional and situational factors. Each of the two studies considered in this essay highlights the extent to which resilience might mitigate the effects of trauma in childhood.

A clear introduction that identifies what resilience is and how it can benefit children who have experienced trauma.

One study which investigated the impact of different stressors and traumatic events was conducted by Werner (2005). This was a longitudinal study that monitored the development of one cohort of 698 children born on the Hawaiian island of Kauai, USA.  The investigation into their development was carried out by their doctors and other health workers. The children were studied at ages 1, 2, 10, 18, 32, and 40 years. 30% of the sample had experienced trauma in their early years. These negative life events were termed ‘risk factors’ by Werner as they presented a definite threat to the children’s physical, psychological and emotional development. The researchers distinguished between two types of participants in their sample: the ‘survivors’ (those who withstood early childhood trauma and emerged positively) and the ‘victims’ (those whose early negative experiences impacted on them in equally negative ways).  

Werner found some distinctive differences in life outcomes between survivors and victims in terms of how well they overcame risk factors in their lives. One-third of the sample (the ‘survivors’) showed no developmental delays or behavioural problems compared to the ‘victims’; they had better physical health, fewer divorces and a lower death rate. Werner identified specific ‘protective factors’ that contributed to the resilience of the survivors: a ‘sunny’ disposition; having an adult who took an interest in them; education; religion – this was especially true for late-blooming survivors, particularly those who had struggled with alcohol addiction or substance abuse. 

The findings of the study are outlined.

Werner concluded that early childhood trauma can be overcome if one or more protective factors are in place to encourage resilience, so to this extent (i.e. having access to one or more protective factors) it would seem that resilience can mitigate the effects of childhood trauma. However, this sample does not represent children from other states in the USA or around the world, and therefore its usefulness may only apply to children from Kauai, a remote and highly unique Hawaiian island that lacks the urbanisation and population density of other parts of the USA. The findings are therefore of limited generalisability although it does not unreasonable to argue that, for example, having an interested adult in the life of a child at risk could enable that child to overcome some of the effects of childhood trauma or adversity. Therefore, Werner’s findings could be said to have inferential generalisability as they may well apply to other populations outside of the study.

The findings are considered in the light of the command term.

Much earlier, Koluchova (1976) documented a case involving identical twin boys who had endured terrible treatment from a very young age; they had been kept in complete isolation in a cellar by their psychopathic stepmother, who beat them regularly. They were discovered by the authorities at the age of seven and taken to a children’s home. Their mental age was deemed to be that of a three-year-old and they had barely any speech, communicating mainly via gestures. The boys were then adopted by two sisters under whose care they made massive progress. By the age of 14, they had improved so far that they were at the same level as other 14 year-olds. By the time they were 20 they displayed above-average intelligence (they went to university) and they had many friends. 

The case of the Czech twins as an example of resilience in extreme circumstances.

Koluchova concluded that an environment that provides a child with love and care can contribute to the resilience of traumatised children. However, the boys endured at least five years (probably more) in total isolation, extremely malnourished and regularly beaten – conditions that are very rare and which may be difficult to generalise to other traumatised children, as their experience had unique features. The findings may demonstrate that a loving family – even after such early abuse has been experienced - can help to mitigate trauma but the case of the Czech twins is somewhat specialised. It could be argued that each twin provided a source of resilience for the other: offering solace, comfort, companionship and, possibly, hope for the future. It may well be that if there had only been one child locked in the cellar then resilience may not have developed as seemingly easily as it did for the twins.

Critical thinking is applied to the study.

Thus, Koluchova’s findings may be difficult to apply to traumatised children generally. It may also be the case that each twin possessed a naturally robust and resilient disposition which would mean that they were equipped via nature to be able to resist the effects of trauma. Some research indicates that this could even be a genetic disposition, influencing the regulation of their stress response. The findings of this study are therefore limited in terms of their application and the study stands as an interesting case of survival against the odds but can offer little in the way of real insight into resilience.

More critical thinking applied to the study.

In conclusion, there appear to be particular factors that give some children an advantage when it comes to mitigating the effects of trauma: a disposition which is robust and positive; adults who are prepared to nurture and look out for the child. However, as the circumstances and experience of trauma differ for each child it is difficult to be confident about a universal solution for mitigating the effects of childhood trauma. It could be argued, therefore, that if the special factors that contribute to resilience are present, then resilience appears, in cases such as Werner (2005) and Koluchova (1976), to mitigate the effects of childhood trauma to a very great extent. It is not easy to be more certain than this because of the difficulties of generalising from these cases.