Initial research on loss and potentially traumatic events (PTEs) has been dominated by either a psychopathological approach emphasizing individual dysfunction or an event approach emphasizing average differences between exposed and nonexposed groups. We consider the limitations of these approaches and review more recent research that has focused on the heterogeneity of outcomes following aversive events. Using both traditional analytic tools and sophisticated latent trajectory modeling, this research has identified a set of prototypical outcome patterns. Typically, the most common outcome following PTEs is a stable trajectory of healthy functioning or resilience. We review research showing that resilience is not the result of a few dominant factors, but rather that there are multiple independent predictors of resilient outcomes. Finally, we critically evaluate the question of whether resilience-building interventions can actually make people more resilient, and we close with suggestions for future research on resilience.

Researchers have documented the consequences of both expressing and suppressing emotion using between-subjects designs. It may be argued, however, that successful adaptation depends not so much on any one regulatory process, but on the ability to flexibly enhance or suppress emotional expression in accord with situational demands. We tested this hypothesis among New York City college students in the aftermath of the September 11th terrorist attacks. Subjects' performance in a laboratory task in which they enhanced emotional expression, suppressed emotional expression, and behaved normally on different trials was examined as a prospective predictor of their adjustment across the first two years of college. Results supported the flexibility hypothesis. A regression analysis controlling for initial distress and motivation and cognitive resources found that subjects who were better able to enhance and suppress the expression of emotion evidenced less distress by the end of the second year. Memory deficits were also observed for both the enhancement and the suppression tasks, suggesting that both processes require cognitive resources.

Previous research has examined the consequences of either expressing or suppressing emotion using between-subjects designs. However, emotion theorists have argued that adaptation depends not so much on one regulatory process but rather on the ability to flexibly regulate emotion in accord with situational demands. To test this idea, Bonanno, Papa, Lalande, Westphal, and Coifman (2004) developed a within-subjects experimental paradigm to measure expressive flexibility (EF) and showed that EF predicted better self-reported adjustment over a 2-year period. The current investigation extends this research by (1) demonstrating the stability of EF across a 3-year period, (2) replicating the association between EF and positive adjustment using a more objective measure of adjustment (obtained from participants' close friends rather than based on self-report), and (3) by showing that the positive relation between EF and adjustment was particularly salient in the context of high levels of cumulative life stress when EF was measured under conditions of immediate threat (presence of a subliminal threat prime).

Posttraumatic growth (PTG) is an appealing but poorly understood construct. Hobfoll, Hall, Canetti-Nisim, Galea, Johnson, and Palmieri's (2007) insightful paper highlights important weaknesses in existing theory and data. Although we commend Hobfoll et al. for offering a provocative new way to conceptualise PTG in terms of action-focused growth, we also find a number of limitations in their approach. In this article, we attempt to place PTG within a broader framework of individual differences in response to potential trauma. As in most of the literature on PTG, Hobfoll et al. implicitly equate growth with resilience or view it as superior to resilient outcomes. We argue, however, that many if not most people are resilient in the face of trauma and that resilient outcomes typically provide little need or opportunity for PTG. We close by exploring the literature on resilience for possible mechanisms underlying a link between PTG and adaptation. For example, Hobfoll et al. dismiss some forms of reported growth as illusory. In contrast, we review evidence for the adaptive value of self-enhancing illusions in coping with adversity.Le développement post-traumatique (PTG) est un concept attrayant mais insuffisamment approfondi. L'article stimulant de Hobfoll & al. met en relief des carences significatives dans les données et théories existantes. Bien que nous approuvions Hobfoll & al. quand ils présentent une conception aussi nouvelle que provocante du PTG en terme de développement centré sur l'action, nous estimons aussi que cette approche a ses limites. On essaie, dans cet article, de replacer le PTG dans le cadre plus vaste des différences individuelles en réponse au traumatisme potentiel. Comme souvent dans la littérature sur le PTG, Hobfoll & al. assimilent le développement à la résilience ou le considèrent comme supérieur aux conséquences de la résilience. Nous défendons au contraire l'idée que beaucoup de gens, voire la plupart, sont résilients face au traumatisme et que les apports de la résilience peuvent se passer ou n'offrent habituellement que peu d'opportunités au PTG. On termine en examinant la littérature sur la résilience à la recherche d'éventuels processus sous-tendant un lien entre PTG et adaptation. Par exemple, Hobfoll

The identification of psychosocial factors associated with resistance to severe trauma can inform future studies of preventive and treatment interventions for high-risk populations. Further study is needed to determine which psychosocial factors are consistently associated with resilience and to what extent they can be modified through clinical intervention.