Child Abuse & Neglect 31 (2007) 205209

Commentary
Resilience, competence, and coping
Michael Rutter
PO 80, SGDP Centre, Institute of Psychiatry, Kings College London, De Crespigny Park,
Denmark Hill, London SE5 8AF, UK
Available online 3 April 2007
A universal nding in all studies of both physical and psychosocial adversity is that there is huge
heterogeneity in outcome (Rutter, 2006a, 2006c). This is not just a reection of measurement error, or
even of multifactorial causation, because the marked individual differences in response are found in
experimental, as well as naturalistic, studies and they are evident in controlled animal experiments as
well as in human studies. The awareness that this is so has led to the concept of resilience, meaning
the phenomenon that some individuals have a relatively good outcome despite suffering risk experiences
that would be expected to bring about serious sequelae. In other words, it implies relative resistance to
environmental risk experiences, or the overcoming of stress or adversity (Rutter, 2006a, 2006c). It follows
that the concept differs fundamentally from both social competence (Masten, Burt, & Coatsworth, 2006)
and positive mental health (Layard, 2005). It also follows that resilience involves an inference based on
ndings concerning individual differences in response to stress or adversity. It is not, and cannot be, an
observed trait. People may be resilient in relation to some kinds of environmental hazards but not others.
Equally, they may be resilient with respect to some outcomes, but not all.
Three other considerations alsoneedtoshape studies of resilience. First, it is evident that the overcoming
of stress or adversity may depend on experiences following the risk exposure; this indicates that a life
span perspective is necessary. Resilience cannot be reduced to what is involved in the chemistry of the
moment of exposure. Second, resilience cannot be equated with individual psychological traits, however
conceptualized. The key inuences could lie either in genetic effects on susceptibility to environmental
risk, or more generally to environmental change; or in physiological responses to the environmental
hazard (as reected, for example, in neuroendocrine functioning). Third, the mediating mechanisms
giving rise to resilience might be in personal agency, or coping strategies-that is, what individuals do
in order to deal with the challenges they face. This consideration means that attention needs to be paid
to mental operations as well as to individual traits or experiences. In many respects, the most exciting,
and potentially important, aspect of the shift from risk/protective concepts to resilience is that the latter
requires a move from variables to processes or mechanisms.
0145-2134/$ see front matter 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2007.02.001
206 M. Rutter / Child Abuse & Neglect 31 (2007) 205209
Against that background, attention needs to be turned to the four papers in this special section. Each
contributes important ndings that demand our attention, but it has to be said that none directly addresses
the key issues with respect to the concept of resilience, as outlined here. Perhaps the closest is the paper
by Collishaw et al. (2007), reporting ndings from the Isle of Wight follow-up from adolescence into
middle age. A wide range of measures at both age periods was available, allowing an investigation of
the adult sequelae of physical or sexual abuse which (as retrospectively reported) occurred in some 10%
of the sample. Such abuse was quite strongly associated with prospectively measured other aspects of
psychosocial adversity. The ndings showed that abuse was associated with a markedly increased rate
of psychopathology both in adolescence and in adult life, but, nevertheless, nearly half of the abused
individuals showed no psychopathological sequelae. Attention, therefore, focused on what differentiated
this group of resilient individuals fromthose who experienced abuse but showed no adverse psychopatho-
logical sequelae. Two negative ndings stand out; resilience was not a function of either higher IQ or
gender. By contrast, good interpersonal relationships were signicantly associated with resilience, and
this applied to relationships across the entire life period from childhood to middle age. Conclusions are
necessarily constrained by the fact that abuse had to be determined retrospectively and by the absence of
measures on either cognitive styles or coping.
The paper by Jaffee, Caspi, Moftt, Polo-Tomas, and Taylor (2007) similarly focused on variables
rather than processes. It differed, however, in its concern with outcomes at 57 years of age, rather than
midlife, and in its focus on antisocial behavior. The sample studied was a birth cohort of twins, but,
surprisingly, no use was made of the genetic design in the analysis of ndings. As in the Isle of Wight
study, overall there were no signicant associations between gender, IQ, or a well-adjusted temperament
and resilience (although signicant associations were found in boys). Overall, whether the children lived
in a socially cohesive, lowcrime neighborhood had only a small effect on resilience. The authors suggested
that the ndings argued for a cumulative stress model in which individual strengths distinguished resilient
from nonresilient children under conditions of low, but not high, family and neighborhood stress. Maybe,
but the gender difference should make us cautious about drawing general conclusions. Also, the ndings
do not readily lead to inferences about mediating mechanisms.
The DuMont, Widom, and Czaja (2007) study differed from the rst two in its focus on contem-
poraneously documented abuse or neglect. The sample size was large (n =676), there was a follow-up
into young adulthood, and attrition was relatively low. A further strength lay in the wide range of data
sources available. Almost half of these abused individuals did not show psychopathology in childhood,
and nearly one third were free of mental disorder in adult life. On the whole, resilience in adolescence led
to resilience in adult life, but there were changes over time. As in the rst two studies, cognitive ability
was not signicantly associated with resilience. On the other hand, being African American and being
female were associated with resilience. Resilience that was evident throughout adolescence and early
adult life was associated with a low rate of stressful life events. But, seemingly paradoxically, those who
became resilient only after adolescence had experienced more negative life events. It seems that stressful
life experiences may have either a protective steeling effect or a negative effect that evades psychologi-
cal resources. Stable social relationships were also associated with resilience. Neighborhood advantage
exerted no direct effect on resilience but it did moderate the associations between household stability and
outcome. The authors highlighted the likely importance of sociological factors on outcome, and that is
an important consideration. Nevertheless, although the ndings do indeed draw attention to the probable
importance of the interplay between extrafamilial and intrafamilial factors, they do not identify the causal
mediating mechanisms.
M. Rutter / Child Abuse & Neglect 31 (2007) 205209 207
The fourth paper, by Banyard and Williams (2007), differs from the other three in its main reliance
on qualitative data and in its use of a small unrepresentative sample. Eighty women with documented
hospital records of sexual abuse during childhood were interviewed at two time points 7 years apart
in early adulthood. A subsample of 21 had more extensive interviews focusing on the womens style
of coping with sexual abuse. Not surprisingly, worse functioning at follow-up was associated with fur-
ther retraumatization. Conversely, positive functioning was associated with social role satisfaction and
a positive sense of community. The ndings conrm the positive role of good social relationships,
but mainly draw attention to the impact of experiences long after the childhood abuse in fostering
resilience.
Several general conclusions are possible. First, all four papers document that a substantial proportion
(about half) of all individuals suffering physical or sexual abuse in childhood nevertheless shows unre-
markable positive psychosocial functioning afterwards. The ndings provide further documentation of
the reality of resilience. Second, although numerous studies have found that high intelligence is asso-
ciated with more favorable psychopathological outcomes overall, it does not seem to be an important
predictor of resilience. The ndings underline the fact that variables that have positive associations with
good functioning may not constitute important mediating inuences on resilience. Third, although the
data are limited, the ndings indicate that extrafamilial inuences may moderate the effects of intrafa-
milial features. Fourth, although not studied directly, coping mechanisms may turn out to be important
in the genesis of resilience. Certainly, on their own, neither stable individual characteristics nor endur-
ing environmental features seem likely to provide a sufcient explanation of the processes leading to
resilience.
How do these ndings relate to both the conclusions of earlier research and the challenges that
remain? Five main points stand out. First, it is striking that none of the papers considers the likely
role of geneenvironment interactions, despite the growing, and already substantial, body of evidence on
their importance (Caspi & Moftt, 2006; Moft, Caspi, & Rutter, 2006; Rutter, 2006b; Rutter, Moftt,
& Caspi, 2006). Twin and adoptee study ndings have pointed to the probability that genetic inuences
moderate sensitivity to environmental forces, and molecular genetic ndings from investigations using
identied susceptibility genes and measured risk environments have provided convincing evidence that
such geneenvironment interactions (GE) are operative in the eld of psychopathology. The ndings
carry the potential to identify causal processes and suggest that, in some circumstances, genes and envi-
ronment operate on the same causal pathway. Resilience research in the future is going to have to take
on board the need to study GE and, therefore, to collect DNA and to analyze the effects of genetic
polymorphisms.
Second, bythe same token, the causal processes tobe investigatedmust include physiological pathways,
of which those involving the neuroendocrine system and compensatory neural adaptations may be the
most promising. The resilience research agenda must be broadly biological and not just psychological
and psychosocial (in truth, of course, both of these are part of biology). Structural and functional brain
imaging, together with neuroendocrine measures, must constitute part of the research armamentarium.
Their use in relation to the study of GE provides useful pointers (Hariri & Weinberger, 2003).
Third, the mediating mechanisms to be considered must include study of coping mechanisms, mental
sets and the operation of personal agency. That is, there needs to be a shift from a focus on external (or
for that matter internal) risks to a focus on how these risks are dealt with by the individual. Resilience
research should involve investigation of dynamic mental (as well as brain) processes, and not just static
factors acting in a summative fashion.
208 M. Rutter / Child Abuse & Neglect 31 (2007) 205209
In order to test their role in mediating mechanisms, however, it will be essential to examine their
effect prospectively and not just at the point of assessing outcome. Qualitative research methods
may be valuable in generating hypotheses, but they will be most powerful if yoked with quantitative
strategies. Both the research of Hauser, Allen, and Golden (2006) and of Laub and Sampson (2003)
provide valuable leads on both how this can be done and what some of the key features may turn
out to be. Thus, the former pointed to the importance of personal agency and a concern to overcome
adversity, a self-reective style and a commitment to relationships. The latter also emphasized the
importance of experiences in adult life in transforming a risk trajectory into an adaptive path (see also
Rutter, 1996).
Fourth, experimental studies, as well as parallels with internal medicine, suggest that resistance to envi-
ronmental hazards may come from exposure to risks in controlled circumstances, rather than avoidance
of risk. This is more obviously seen in the acquisition of immunity to infections and in rodent studies of
response to stress (Hennessey & Levine, 1979) but there is also human evidence on coping that points to
the likelihood of psychological parallels to the immunity example (Elder, 1974; Marks, 1987; Rachman,
1990).
Finally, it is necessary to appreciate that protection from environmental hazards may derive from
circumstances that are either neutral or risky in the absence of the environmental hazard. The most
obvious medical example is the protection against malaria provided by heterozygote sickle cell status
(Rotter & Diamond, 1987) but, perhaps, adoption provides a psychological example. Adoption probably
carries some risks (albeit small ones) that stem from it being atypical in all societies. For children from a
low risk background there are no particular advantages to being adopted. On the other hand, for children
exposed in early life to parental abuse or neglect, adoption can be highly advantageous (Duyme, Dumaret,
& Tomkiewicz, 1999; Rutter & the English and Romanian Adoptees Study Team, 1998). The ndings
on the outcome following profound early institutional deprivation, however, also serve to remind us that
childrens resilience has its limits and that there may be enduring biological effects that are difcult to
reverse (Beckett et al., 2006; Kreppner et al., in press; Rutter, 2006a).
This commentary has strayed far from the four papers in this special section but it has done so because
the four papers do such a good job in highlighting the importance of resilience, and because future research
into resilience will need to broaden its horizons. In doing so, too, it will need to pay attention to the need
to use research strategies that can provide rigorous tests of mediating mechanisms (Rutter, submitted for
publication; Rutter, Pickles, Murray, & Eaves, 2001).
References
Banyard, V. L., & Williams, L. M. (2007). Womens voices on recovery: A multi-method study of the complexity of recovery
from child sexual abuse. Child Abuse and Neglect, 31, 275290.
Beckett, C., Maughan, B., Rutter, M., Castle, J., Colvert, E., Groothues, C., Kreppner, J., OConnor, T. G., Stevens, S. E., &
Sonuga-Barke, E. J. S. (2006). Do the effects of early severe deprivation on cognition persist into early adolescence? Findings
from the English and Romanian Adoptees study. Child Development, 77, 696711.
Caspi, A., & Moftt, T. E. (2006). Geneenvironment interactions in psychiatry: Joining forces with neuroscience. Nature
Reviews: Neuroscience, 7, 583590.
Collishaw, S., Pickles, A., Messer, J., Rutter, M., Shearer, C., & Maughan, B. (2007). Resilience to adult psychopathology
following childhood maltreatment: Evidence from a community sample. Child Abuse and Neglect, 31, 211229.
M. Rutter / Child Abuse & Neglect 31 (2007) 205209 209
DuMont, K. A., Widom, C. S., & Czaja, S. J. (2007). Predictors of resilience in abused and neglected children grown-up: The
role of individual and neighborhood characteristics. Child Abuse and Neglect, 31, 255274.
Duyme, M., Dumaret, A.-C., & Tomkiewicz, S. (1999). How can we boost IQs of dull children?: A late adoption study. In
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, Vol. 96 (pp. 87908794).
Elder, G. H. (1974). Children of the great depression. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Hariri, A. R., & Weinberger, D. R. (2003). Imaging genomics. British Medical Bulletin, 65, 259270.
Hauser, S., Allen, J., & Golden, E. (2006). Out of the woods: Tales of resilient teens. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Hennessey, J. W., & Levine, S. (1979). Stress, arousal, and the pituitary-adrenal system: A psychoendocrine hypothesis. In J.
M. Sprague & A. N. Epstein (Eds.), Progress in psychobiology and physiological psychology (pp. 133178). New York:
Academic Press.
Jaffee, S. R., Caspi, A., Moftt, T. E., Polo-Tomas, M., & Taylor, A. (2007). Individual, family, and neighborhood factors
distinguish resilient from non-resilient maltreated children: A cumulative stressors model. Child Abuse and Neglect, 31,
231253.
Kreppner, J. M., Rutter, M., Beckett, C., Castle, J., Colvert, E., Groothues, C., Hawkins, OConnor, T. G., Stevens, S. E., &
Sonuga-Barke, E. J. S. (in press). Normality and impairment following profound early institutional deprivation: Alongitudinal
follow-up into early adolescence. Developmental Psychology.
Laub, J., & Sampson, R. (2003). Shared beginnings, divergent lives: Delinquent boys to age 70. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Layard, R. (2005). Happiness: Lessons from a new science. London: Allen Lane.
Marks, I. M. (1987). Fears, phobias, and rituals: Panic, anxiety and their disorders. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Masten, A. S., Burt, K. B., & Coatsworth, J. D. (2006). Competence and psychopathology in development. In D. Cicchetti & D.
Cohen (Eds.), Developmental psychopathology (2nd Ed.): Vol. 3. Risk, disorder and adaptation (pp. 696738). New York:
Wiley.
Moftt, T. E., Caspi, A., & Rutter, M. (2006a). Measured geneenvironment interactions in sychopathology: Concepts, research
strategies, and implications for research, intervention, and public understanding of genetics. Perspectives on Psychological
Science, 1, 527.
Rachman, S. J. (1990). Fear and courage. New York: W.H. Freeman & Co..
Rotter, J. I., & Diamond, J. M. (1987). What maintains the frequencies of human genetic diseases? Nature, 329, 289290.
Rutter, M. (1996). Transitions and turning points in developmental psychopathology: As applied to the age span between
childhood and mid-adulthood. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 19, 603626.
Rutter, M. (2006a). The promotion of resilience in the face of adversity. In A. Clarke-Stewart & J. Dunn (Eds.), Families count:
Effects on child and adolescent development (pp. 2652). New York & Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rutter, M. (2006b). Genes and behavior: Nature-nurture interplay explained. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Rutter, M. (2006c). Implications of resilience concepts for scientic understanding. Annals of the NewYork Academy of Sciences,
1094, 112.
Rutter, M. (submitted for publication). Proceeding from correlation to causal inference: The use of natural experiments.
Rutter, M., Moftt, T. E., & Caspi, A. (2006). Geneenvironment interplay and psychopathology: Multiple varieties but real
effects. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 47, 226261.
Rutter, M., Pickles, A., Murray, R., &Eaves, L. (2001). Testing hypotheses on specic environmental causal effects on behaviour.
Psychological Bulletin, 127, 291324.
Rutter, M., &the English and Romanian Adoptees Study Team. (1998). Developmental catch-up, and decit, following adoption
after severe global early privation. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 39, 465476.