J Fritz1, J Stochl2,3, E I Fried4, I M Goodyer2, C D van Borkulo5, P O Wilkinson2, A-L van Harmelen2. 1. Department of Psychiatry, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. jf585@cam.ac.uk. 2. Department of Psychiatry, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. 3. Department of Kinanthropology, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic. 4. Department of Clinical Psychology, Leiden University, Leiden, the Netherlands. 5. Department of Psychological Methods, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Childhood adversity (CA) is strongly associated with mental health problems. Resilience factors (RFs) reduce mental health problems following CA. Yet, knowledge on the nature of RFs is scarce. Therefore, we examined RF mean levels, RF interrelations, RF-distress pathways, and their changes between early (age 14) and later adolescence (age 17). METHODS: We studied 10 empirically supported RFs in adolescents with (CA+; n = 631) and without CA (CA-; n = 499), using network psychometrics. RESULTS: All inter-personal RFs (e.g. friendships) showed stable mean levels between age 14 and 17, and three of seven intra-personal RFs (e.g. distress tolerance) changed in a similar manner in the two groups. The CA+ group had lower RFs and higher distress at both ages. Thus, CA does not seem to inhibit RF changes, but to increase the risk of persistently lower RFs. At age 14, but not 17, the RF network of the CA+ group was less positively connected, suggesting that RFs are less likely to enhance each other than in the CA- group. Those findings underpin the notion that CA has a predominantly strong proximal effect. RF-distress pathways did not differ in strength between the CA+ and the CA- group, which suggests that RFs have a similarly protective strength in the two groups. Yet, as RFs are lower and distress is higher, RF-distress pathways may overall be less advantageous in the CA+ group. Most RF interrelations and RF-distress pathways were stable between age 14 and 17, which may help explain why exposure to CA is frequently found to have a lasting impact on mental health. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings not only shed light on the nature and changes of RFs between early and later adolescence, but also offer some accounts for why exposure to CA has stronger proximal effects and is often found to have a lasting impact on mental health.
BACKGROUND: Childhood adversity (CA) is strongly associated with mental health problems. Resilience factors (RFs) reduce mental health problems following CA. Yet, knowledge on the nature of RFs is scarce. Therefore, we examined RF mean levels, RF interrelations, RF-distress pathways, and their changes between early (age 14) and later adolescence (age 17). METHODS: We studied 10 empirically supported RFs in adolescents with (CA+; n = 631) and without CA (CA-; n = 499), using network psychometrics. RESULTS: All inter-personal RFs (e.g. friendships) showed stable mean levels between age 14 and 17, and three of seven intra-personal RFs (e.g. distress tolerance) changed in a similar manner in the two groups. The CA+ group had lower RFs and higher distress at both ages. Thus, CA does not seem to inhibit RF changes, but to increase the risk of persistently lower RFs. At age 14, but not 17, the RF network of the CA+ group was less positively connected, suggesting that RFs are less likely to enhance each other than in the CA- group. Those findings underpin the notion that CA has a predominantly strong proximal effect. RF-distress pathways did not differ in strength between the CA+ and the CA- group, which suggests that RFs have a similarly protective strength in the two groups. Yet, as RFs are lower and distress is higher, RF-distress pathways may overall be less advantageous in the CA+ group. Most RF interrelations and RF-distress pathways were stable between age 14 and 17, which may help explain why exposure to CA is frequently found to have a lasting impact on mental health. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings not only shed light on the nature and changes of RFs between early and later adolescence, but also offer some accounts for why exposure to CA has stronger proximal effects and is often found to have a lasting impact on mental health.
Authors: J Kaufman; B Birmaher; D Brent; U Rao; C Flynn; P Moreci; D Williamson; N Ryan Journal: J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry Date: 1997-07 Impact factor: 8.829
Authors: Stefano Battiston; J Doyne Farmer; Andreas Flache; Diego Garlaschelli; Andrew G Haldane; Hans Heesterbeek; Cars Hommes; Carlo Jaeger; Robert May; Marten Scheffer Journal: Science Date: 2016-02-18 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Jennifer Greif Green; Katie A McLaughlin; Patricia A Berglund; Michael J Gruber; Nancy A Sampson; Alan M Zaslavsky; Ronald C Kessler Journal: Arch Gen Psychiatry Date: 2010-02
Authors: Jessica Fritz; Anne M de Graaff; Helen Caisley; Anne-Laura van Harmelen; Paul O Wilkinson Journal: Front Psychiatry Date: 2018-06-19 Impact factor: 4.157
Authors: J Stochl; G M Khandaker; G Lewis; J Perez; I M Goodyer; S Zammit; S Sullivan; T J Croudace; P B Jones Journal: Psychol Med Date: 2014-11-14 Impact factor: 7.723
Authors: Desiree Y Phua; Helen Chen; Yap Seng Chong; Peter D Gluckman; Birit F P Broekman; Michael J Meaney Journal: Front Psychiatry Date: 2020-08-06 Impact factor: 4.157
Authors: Victoria Guazzelli Williamson; Estelle L Berger; Marjolein E A Barendse; Jennifer H Pfeifer; Ronald E Dahl; Lucía Magis-Weinberg Journal: Res Child Adolesc Psychopathol Date: 2022-06-08
Authors: Anna Wiedemann; Jan Stochl; Sharon A S Neufeld; Jessica Fritz; Junaid Bhatti; Roxanne W Hook; Ian M Goodyer; Raymond J Dolan; Edward T Bullmore; Samuel R Chamberlain; Peter Fonagy; Jesus Perez; Peter B Jones Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2022-10-05 Impact factor: 4.996