Luthar Suniya S, Sawyer Jeanette A, Brown Pamela J
Teachers College, Columbia University, 525 West 120th Street, Box 133, New York, NY 10027, USA.
Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2006 Dec;1094:105-15. doi: 10.1196/annals.1376.009.
We begin this article by considering the following critical conceptual issues in research on resilience: (1) distinctions between protective, promotive, and vulnerability factors; (2) the need to unpack underlying processes; (3) the benefits of within-group experimental designs; and (4) the advantages and potential pitfalls of an overwhelming scientific focus on biological and genetic factors (to the relative exclusion of familial and contextual ones). The next section of the article is focused on guidelines for the selection of vulnerability and protective processes in future research. From a basic science standpoint, it is useful and appropriate to investigate all types of processes that might significantly affect adjustment among at-risk individuals. If the research is fundamentally applied in nature, however, it would be most expedient to focus on risk modifiers that have high potential to alter individuals' overall life circumstances. The final section of this article considers conceptual differences between contemporary resilience research on children versus adults. Issues include differences in the types and breadth of outcomes (e.g., the tendencies to focus on others' ratings of competence among children and on self-reports of well-being among adults respectively).
（1）保护因素、促进因素和脆弱性因素之间的区别；（2）剖析潜在过程的必要性；（3）组内实验设计的益处；以及（4）科学研究过度聚焦生物和遗传因素（相对忽视家庭和环境因素）的优点和潜在陷阱。本文的下一部分聚焦于未来研究中脆弱性和保护过程选择的指导方针。从基础科学的角度来看，研究所有可能显著影响高危个体适应能力的各类过程是有用且恰当的。然而，如果研究本质上是应用型的，那么聚焦于极有可能改变个体整体生活状况的风险调节因素将最为便利。本文的最后一部分探讨了当代儿童与成人复原力研究之间的概念差异。问题包括结果类型和广度的差异（例如，分别倾向于关注他人对儿童能力的评价以及成人对幸福感的自我报告）。
