Lastly,
it should be understood that children are not necessarily innately able to
thrive after experiencing trauma, especially in an acute episodic context. In a study criticizing the exclusion of “the
crippling effect of trauma”, Perry et al. (1995) argued “that brain functioning
and behavioral outcomes could not be explained as the result of resilience.
They showed that while children are ‘‘malleable,’’ they are not able to
independently overcome adversity. Surrender or fight responses are adaptations
by children to the contexts in which they live” (as cited in Ungar, 2013, p.
258). Ungar reports how the Perry et al.
study challenge[s] “the persistence of the myth of the resilient child that has
us overlook the crippling effect of trauma and the loss of children’s capacity
to realize their potential [and that] [c]hildren adapt to their environments
and grow up psychologically healthy if they are provided with the resources
necessary to modify neurological functioning.at the level of neuroplasticity,
the same argument can be made” (p 258).
Despite
how people perceive trauma, convinced that the likelihood of “normalcy” is out
of reach, the research observes interpersonal resilience traits, and the
process by which one adapts to adversity, where “features were repeatedly identified;
but importantly, so were familial support and stability, peer friendships, appropriately
timed social support, academic success, spirituality and a sense of community”
(Marriott et al., p.17). Ultimately, according to the research overall, from a
bio psychosocial perspective, it would seem that throughout the lifespan, it is
the quality and availability of external resources in one’s life, and ones
interaction with these resources following adversity, that contributes to
greater likelihood of functioning and well-being later in life. More
consistency in how researchers define and measure resilience in various
populations with cultural considerations will determine how various systems of
care best ensure a positive result.