ms in the clinical range on measures of child adjustment. Features of the other 40%–50% who do not show evidence of psychopathology have not been fully explored.
Yet by studying the processes through which individuals overcome adversity, researchers can learn about both normal and abnormal development. Studies of individuals at risk alert researchers to a number of salient factors that contribute to the detriment or enhancement of adjustment following exposure to negative events. There are key probable risk and protective factors that have generalized influences following a substantial stressor, such as a child’s exposure to interpersonal violence. These factors are used in research studies as predictor variables, correlates, and moderators of both competence and psychopathology.
Children in high-risk families may be protected from negative outcomes by the presence of buffering circumstances. The impact of interpersonal violence may be moderated by a host of protective factors, such as family income, social support, positive peer and sibling relationships, and effective parenting style. In some instances, protective factors may be the opposite of risk or vulnerability factors, for example, having an educated mother who is not depressed, being older, or living in a family with higher income.
There may also be unique elements of protection that can be identified. Protective factors specifically associated with lower levels of psychopathology for children exposed to interpersonal violence have included elements particular to the child, the parent, and the broader environment. Individual protective factors take the form of characteristics such as older age, sociability, or physical attractiveness. Family level protective factors are family cohesion, flexibility, and connections with extended family or the presence of a helpful relative. Community level protective factors are identified as resources such as school programs that address violence or the availability of daycare. In some cases, risk and protective factors may not be mutually exclusive, for example, the child fights with a sibling as well as receives support from the sibling. Further, both risk and protective factors may not necessarily be characteristic of the child or the family across different contexts or settings.
Various models have been developed to explain the impact of risk factors on children exposed to traumatic situations. In the late1970s, Rutter demonstrated that children with a single risk factor were no more likely to exhibit adjustment problems than those with no risk factors. However, the addition of a second risk factor predicted a fourfold increase in the likelihood of negative outcomes. In other studies, the prediction of adjustment problems for children increased exponentially with the number of additional risk factors in the child’s environment. Thus, it appears that risk is related to the quantity as well as to the quality or strength of risk factors. Therefore, additive studies that aggregate risk factors (e.g., the presence of multiple forms of violence) may present the most informative view of risk factors.
Just as with protective factors, elements of risk may exist at each level of the system in which the individual functions, from individual features (e.g., young age, having a physical disability) to family risks (e.g., having a parent with a mental health problem) and community level risks (e.g., living in a violent neighborhood, violence at school). Finally, risks may be trans active or mutually influencing in nature, thus exponentially escalating their effects.
Research On Resilience, Risk, And Protective Factors
Much can be learned from research on children who cope successfully with other forms of adversity. By studying the features of children who appear to adapt in the face of severely distressing circumstances, researchers can develop new ways of promoting strengths and creating change in families where children are abused and maltreated. Therefore, it is essential to evaluate factors that may reduce or ameliorate, as well as c