Untitled

38 BIOLOGICAL AND SOCIAL UNIVERSALSof mental health problems (Cicchetti, Rappaport, Sandler, & Weissberg, 2000;Greenberg, Riggs, & Blair, this volume; Masten, 2001; Masten & Coatsworth,1998; Masten et al., 2006; Weissberg, Kumpfer, & Seligman, 2003).Similarly, it would be possible to design an intervention strategically to interrupta developmental cascade or progression before the initial problem underminesdevelopment in other domains. Late in a progression, even “curing” the originalproblem may not produce improvements in the other domains that have been affected.Thus, late interventions to help young people regulate affect, attention, orbehavior more effectively cannot be expected to undue all the damage to socialrelationships, cumulative academic achievement, financial ruin, or one’s recordin the legal system. Accurately delineating a progressive or cascade causal chainof effects could make it possible to act early in a sequence, treating one problemto prevent a different problem further along a developmental cascade. The timingand nature of preventive interventions would benefit from knowledge about cascadesand consideration of spreading effects over time, as well as the developmentallevel and contexts of the young people involved.Resilience in Development: Competencein the Context of High Risk or AdversityMore than 3 decades ago, resilience research pioneers were inspired by the possibilitythat studying resilience would inform prevention and intervention efforts,arguing that we had lessons to learn from understanding how young people overcameadversity or high cumulative risk conditions to succeed in life or how goodmental health outcomes are achieved among youth who start down unhealthy roads(Luthar & Cicchetti, 2000; Masten, 1989, 2001, 2004; Masten, Best, & Garmezy,1990). This section briefly describes progress to date in reaching that goal, with afocus on implications for prevention science and the future integration of neurosciencewith behavior in the study of resilience.Inferring Resilience: Judging Risk and Positive AdaptationIf one is asked to think of a real adolescent who is “resilient,” two judgments wouldneed to be made: (1) that the adolescent is doing okay by some criteria and (2)that the adolescent has overcome significant threat to adaptation or development(Luthar, 2006; Masten, 2001; Masten & Coatsworth, 1998). Similarly, before aninvestigator can study resilience, that scientist must define resilience in terms ofrisks and positive outcomes. Resilience is inferential because it refers to goodfunctioning during or following conditions that would be expected to disrupt or,in fact, have already disrupted the lives of typical individuals. This means definingthe criteria for risk and positive adaptation.