Age, severity
and known abuser play a powerful role in outcome. In one study, those who
experienced abuse at a younger age, pre-teen, and less often, exhibited poorer
fuctioning as did those who were older and knew their abuser. For example, Marriott
et al. (2014) found that “…older children were more likely to be resilient” (p.26),
illustrating the power of environment and connection as mediating factors
yielding positive functioning in those who receive support from various
systems. In contrast, Feinauer et al. (2003) argues that those who experience
trauma at a “younger age may also reflect the fact that developmentally younger
children are less equipped to ‘make sense’ of the abuse [or] to spend time in
the company of more positive influences, be they peers, friends’ families or at
some social group” (as cited in Marriott et al., p.26). Furthermore, Ungar
(2013) identifies three principles to explain the influence of environment:
nurture trumps nature, differential impact, meaning the quality of environment
following trauma with availability and access to resources, and cultural
variation to what is meaningful (p.258-260), as well as inner resources and
other environmental and cultural considerations such as family, friendships,
adult relationships, education, religion and the larger community.
In
support, Marriott et al. concludes that “contradictory findings in many aspects
reviewed suggest that resilience is linked to a combination of factors…that a
multiplicity of events may be an important factor in outcome, in particular,
the impact of family abuse in terms of reducing support and positive
experiences”(p.26). Thus, resilience can be viewed epigenetically, where the
environment factors can create gene expression in an individual, but this
microsystem in reciprocal relationship with wider factors of meso or family
systems as well as the greater macro community and societal systems. Masten (2013) contends that the timing of the
trauma during particular stages of development as well as the help or support
received following the trauma plays a role in the outcome (p.11). However, temperament and other personality
characteristics coupled with cultural beliefs and values could create
variability of outcome as well.
