Regarding brain development and the Neurobiology of Resilience, Cicchetti (2013) ; Hughes (2012); Karatoreos & McEwen (2013); Kim-Cohen & Turkewitz (2012); Masten (2013); and Russo, Murrough, Han, Charney, & Nestler (2012) explain that the “Research on the neurobiology of resilience has surged with advances in methodology that make it possible to measure genes and epigenetic change, examine the status of stress-response systems and immune system function, and see the brain in action through various imaging techniques”(as cited in Masten, 2013, pp.11-12). Similarly, to illustrate, Ungar (2013) reviews a Beckett et al. (2006) study with Romanian orphans showing that “there is little about individuals that is so fixed that a facilitative environment cannot be a positive influence for change”(p.257), so even though neurophysiology changes have occurred, we understand that as Anda et al. (2006) argue, “what we know about the damaging long-term effects on neurophysiology that result from traumatic neglect or exposure to violence” parallels this resilience principle (as cited in Ungar, 2013, p.257).
Masten reports studies where “DNA, salivary cortisol, and blood spots, for example, have been collected in remote and high-stress contexts…conducted with diverse samples of children from developing and developed nations plays an important role in the neurobiological wave of research on risk and resilience”(p.12). Results from Gunnar & Herrera (2013) and Matthews & Phillips (2012)show exposure effects… [of]…cortisol using various assessment methodologies in diverse contexts of adversity has yielded a complex picture of how the stress regulation systems may be affected by trauma experiences over the life course and over generations”(as cited in Masten, p.12), but also notes a strong interest in developmental “timing effects of physical and psychological stressors on human development…implicated for protective processes as well as vulnerability”(p.11). For example, Mariott et al. (2014) found that “younger age at onset was found to be associated with more negative outcomes…supported by Moran and Eckenrode (1992) and Feinauer et al. (2003) who found that “neglect or abuse before an individual was 11-years old was associated with lower self-esteem, increased depression and a more external locus of control for good events… reflect[ing] early abuse, severe abuse…and the lack of a supportive parent being indicative of greater family dysfunction, likely to be more chronic and, as a result, more likely to interfere with development”(as cited in Marriott et al., p.26), illustrating the power of environment and connection as mediating factors yielding positive functioning in those who receive support from various systems. Additionally, longitudinal studies since 1989 evidence increased risk of co-occurring mental health disorders from depression and anxiety to substance abuse, delinquency and crime, and regrettably, future perpetuation of the abuse cycle, but though these life-time effects are also financially costly “exceeding $210,000 a year per victim”, researchers observe that “child victims are not destined to lives of hardship” (Klika & Herrenkohl, 2013, p.222).
However, researchers note the limitations of past research with those who experienced childhood sexual abuse focusing primarily on detrimental impacts absent of a strengths based perspective (Marriott, Hamilton-Giachritsis, & Harrop, p.17). While they concede the negative outcomes of many who survive maltreatment, including “revictimization… sexual difficulties… dissociation… suicidal behavior and increased risk of developing psychopathology” p.18), they also acknowledge alternative futures after abuse, what they term, resilience. For instance, Collishaw et al. (2007) and Luthar (2003) observe that “a considerable number of people exposed to a variety of risks demonstrate positive [not negative] outcomes or show few long-term negative outcomes as a result of early adverse experiences” (as cited in Marriott, Hamilton-Giachritsis & Harrop, p.18).