Resilience: Safety in the Aftermath of Traumatic Stressor Experiences

Abstract

The relationship between adverse experiences and the emergence of pathology has often focused on characteristics of the stressor or of the individual (stressor appraisals, coping strategies). These features are thought to influence multiple biological processes that favor the development of mental and physical illnesses. Less often has attention focused on the aftermath of traumatic experiences, and the importance of safety and reassurance that is necessary for longer-term well-being. In some cases (e.g., post-traumatic stress disorder) this may be reflected by a failure of fear extinction, whereas in other instances (e.g., historical trauma), the uncertainty about the future might foster continued anxiety. In essence, the question becomes one of how individuals attain feelings of safety when it is fully understood that the world is not necessarily a safe place, uncertainties abound, and feelings of agency are often illusory. We consider how individuals acquire resilience in the aftermath of traumatic and chronic stressors. In this respect, we review characteristics of stressors that may trigger particular biological and behavioral coping responses, as well as factors that undermine their efficacy. To this end, we explore stressor dynamics and social processes that foster resilience in response to specific traumatic, chronic, and uncontrollable stressor contexts (intimate partner abuse; refugee migration; collective historical trauma). We point to resilience factors that may comprise neurobiological changes, such as those related to various stressor-provoked hormones, neurotrophins, inflammatory immune, microbial, and epigenetic processes. These behavioral and biological stress responses may influence, and be influenced by, feelings of safety that come about through relationships with others, spiritual and place-based connections.

The Role of Spirituality and Religiosity in Healthcare During the COVID-19 Pandemic: An Integrative Review of the Scientific Literature

“…First, in studies that evaluate healthcare professionals, our findings revealed that spiritual and religious issues are important aspects for these professionals and can influence their health and clinical practice. Some articles have emphasized that the mental health of professionals has been affected by the pandemic and identified spirituality and good family functioning (Kim et al, 2021 ), as well as religious or spiritual beliefs and practices (Sierra Leguía & Montalvo Prieto, 2012 ) and faith (Matheson et al, 2020 ) as coping strategies. This is fully supported by previous studies before the pandemic, which have also found that religiosity and spirituality were significantly associated with a reduction in anxiety levels and an improvement in depressive symptoms (Gonçalves et al, 2015 ; Hook et al, 2010 ; Peselow et al, 2014 ).…”

Living with parents with problematic substance use: Impacts and turning points

“…Despite early traumatic experiences that most participants experienced, participants exhibited remarkable resiliency that allowed them to turn their lives around toward a path of recovery and healing. Resiliency provides positive adaptations regardless of previous negative and traumatic experiences (Matheson et al., 2020). This post‐traumatic growth (Jayawickreme & Blackie, 2014) proved to be the turning point for many participants, altering their lives positively, lends itself to resilience and skill development needed to survive in the world as they get older.…”

Refugees, asylum seekers, and practitioners’ perspectives of embodied trauma: A comprehensive scoping review.

“…It is therefore suggested that these cultural, spiritual, and existential aspects of individuals seeking refuge and asylum, should be formulated, and explored as part of culturally informed care. More research is needed into the therapeutic nature of these protective factors and strengths, which can support resilience and recovery in the aftermath of migration related trauma experienced by these vulnerable individuals (Lusk et al, 2021;Matheson et al, 2020).…”