| Abstract: | In this article the author responds to comments made in this issue (see records 2005-03019-010; 2005-03019-011; 2005-03019-012; 2005-03019-013; and 2005-03019-014) responding to his original article entitled Loss, trauma, and human resilience: Have we underestimated the human capacity to thrive after extremely aversive events? (see record 2004-10043-003). The author notes that in his original article he focused on three crucial points: Resilience among adults represents a distinct and empirically separable outcome trajectory from that normally associated with recovery from trauma; resilience is more prevalent than generally accepted in either the lay or professional literature; and there are multiple and sometimes unexpected factors that inform adult resilience. Owing to the brevity of the article, the author could only touch briefly on many of the more nuanced and complex issues suggested by the resilience construct; this left plenty of room for critique. Fortunately, the comments are generous and insightful and for the most part compatible with the driving goal of the article. As might be expected, of course, there were statements peppered throughout the comments that the author deemed worthy of rebuttal or correction. He considers four points that seemed to beg most urgently for response. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved) |
