PSYC 2400: Resilience Lecture

What is stress?

Stress is not just a reaction to external threats, but a biological and psychological state that emerges when safety is absent.

old view - stress triggered by external threat

new view - brains threat system is active by default, stress occurs when safety signals are weak; stress = absence of safety and not just presence of danger

Biological:

• The amygdala (threat detection)

• The prefrontal cortex (regulation and control)

• The parasympathetic nervous system (PNS), especially via the vagus nerve (calms)

physiological — RSA - high RSA - calm, low RSA - stress

depends on perception of safety of social relationships, environment cues

What is adversity?

Adversity is a broad umbrella term referring to events or conditions that threaten health and well-being; normal and common, not rare. it varies across severity, chronic, timing, type, subjective meaning

It includes experiences like:

• Injury, illness

• Bullying or peer victimization

• Moving

• Family dysfunction

Key distinction:

• Adversity = the event or condition

• Stress = the experience/response to it

What are the kinds of life events categorized as childhood adversities?

Threat-related experiences where child safety is at risk - Exposure to violence, Abuse, Dangerous environments

Deprivation-related experiences - Lack of cognitive stimulation, Lack of resources, Neglect, Household dysfunction, Social disadvantage

Ex. Death of loved ones, Divorce, Verbal conflict, Bullying, Witnessing distressing events, Moving

These are extremely common—most children experience multiple.

Early Life Stress Interview

Method:

• Sample: Children ages 9–13, included both highly advantage youth and less advantaged but more on advantage side

• Assessed 30+ types of stressful/adverse experiences

• Follow-up questions captured subjective experience

• Independent raters coded severity

• Included both high SES and lower SES groups

Key Findings:

• 97% reported at least 1 adverse experience

• Most common number = 5–6 experiences per child

• Even privileged children showed high exposure

Conclusion:

• Adversity is nearly universal

• Not limited to “at-risk” populations

Why is it important to study adversity?

Highly prevalent (majority of children experience at least one; many experience several) - more than half in US experience 1 adverse event

• A powerful predictor of mental health - includes internal + external

  • ~50% of childhood psychiatric disorders

  • 1/3 of adult-onset disorders

• Linked to physical health outcomes - immunity dysfunction

  • Diabetes

  • Heart disease

  • Cancer

  • Inflammatory conditions

It also:

• Has long-term effects across the lifespan (affect immediately and years later as it shapes emotional and cognitive functioning)

• Can affect future generations (intergenerational transmission - parenting behaviors, prenatal environment, child develop)

• alters brain development and biological systems (changes in hippocampus, amygdala, prefrontal cortex)

objective v subjective adversity and psychopathology

• Four groups:

  • Objective + Subjective:

    • Documented adversity + self-reported

    • Interpretation: objective history matches memory/report

  • Objective Only:

    • Documented adversity but NOT reported

    • Interpretation: forgetting, repression, denial/unwillingness to disclose, or different interpretation

  • Subjective Only:

    • No documentation but self-reported

    • Interpretation: unrecorded experiences OR perception/interpretation as adverse

    • Highlights limitations of official records

  • Neither Objective nor Subjective:

    • No documentation + no self-report

    • Likely lowest exposure group (NOT guaranteed none)

• Measures (outcomes assessed):

  • Internalizing disorders: Anxiety, depression

  • Externalizing disorders: Behavioral problems, aggression

  • Finding: Same pattern across ALL mental health outcomes

• Key findings:

  • Strongest predictor = subjective recall/report (NOT objective exposure)

  • Individuals who report adversity (subjective groups) → higher psychopathology

  • Individuals with objective records but NO subjective recall → lower psychopathology

    • Similar to those with no documented or reported adversity

  • Individuals in objective-only or neither groups may still have unrecognized/unreported adversity

• Impact / Conclusion:

  • Not just what happened matters — but whether/how it is remembered

  • Subjective experience + memory are critical for mental health outcomes

  • Objective records alone are NOT sufficient to predict risk

  • Many individuals across groups may still have some level of adversity exposure

• Key definitions (explicit):

  • Objective adversity: Court-documented childhood maltreatment

  • Subjective adversity: Adult self-reported childhood maltreatment history

What are different types of adversity and stress studied?

• Toxic stress Chronic, high stress + lack of support - MOST DAMAGING

• Traumatic stress - single severe event (e.g., disaster, assault)

• Chronic vs. acute stress Chronic = repeated over time more harmful biological, Acute = sudden, short-term

• Threat vs. deprivation adversity Threat = danger (violence), Deprivation = lack of resources/stimulation

• Objective vs. subjective adversity, Objective = documented (e.g., court records), Subjective = personal perception/report

• Cumulative adversity - Total number and severity of experiences

• Timing and exposure - When it occurs (prenatal, childhood), Direct vs. indirect exposure

Intergenerational study

Children of mothers with adversity showed:

• Lower vagal tone

  • Indicates reduced parasympathetic regulation

• Behavioral problems

• Reduced intracranial volume (brain size)

• Altered brain connectivity

  • Specifically in emotional regulation networks

Mechanisms:

• Prenatal stress

• Parenting behaviors

• Maternal mental health

Conclusion:

• Adversity can be transmitted across generations, affecting children even before birth

fNIRS study

• Sample: 150 families

• Maternal adversity (risk factors):

  • Measured through maternal self-reports

  • Includes family/environmental stressors (e.g., hardship, stress, contextual risks affecting child)

• Cognitive task (inhibitory control):

  • Children repeatedly touch a screen but must occasionally inhibit/stop their response

  • Measures ability to override automatic behavior and control impulses - Focus on prefrontal cortex (key for cognitive control)

• Child temperament (negative control): Children who are more sensitive, reactive, easily distressed

• Key findings:

  • Prefrontal oxygenation (brain activity) is linked to Maternal risk factors, Child temperament (negative reactivity/control)

  • fNIRS findings across studies:

    • Prefrontal oxygenation increases as task difficulty increases

    • More difficult tasks → greater neural resource recruitment

• Main results:

  • Children with higher maternal adversity + more negative temperament → Show greater prefrontal oxygenation during tasks

  • Indicates increased brain activation during inhibitory control

• Interpretation:

  • Increased activation = more neural effort/resources required — Cognitive control tasks are more effortful at the neural level for these children - Even if behavior looks similar, their brains are working harder

• Conclusion / Impact:

  • Maternal adversity is associated with increased right prefrontal activity in children

  • Children exposed to higher risk are not incapable, but:

    • Must recruit more neural resources

    • Tasks are harder at the neural level to achieve the same performance

  • Demonstrates how early environmental risk influences brain function, not just behavior

What are ways to measure stress and adversity?

1. Reports

• Child self-report

• Parent report

2. Objective records

• Court documents (abuse, neglect)

3. Interviews

• Early Life Stress Interview

  • Captures severity + subjective experience

Key measurement insight:

• Must consider:

  • Severity

  • Chronic vs. acute

  • Timing

  • Direct vs. indirect exposure

What are the two definitions of resilience?

Definition 1 (Panter-Brick & Leckman):

• Resilience is the process of harnessing biological, psychological, social, and cultural resources to sustain well-being

Definition 2 (Masten et al.):

• Resilience is the capacity of a dynamic system to adapt successfully to challenges that threaten function, survival, or development

Key idea:

• Resilience is not a trait, but a process + outcome

• Study design (longitudinal waves):

  • Wave 1: 4½ years

  • Wave 2: 6 years

  • Wave 3: 7½ years

  • Measured growth trajectories over time

• Brain regions examined: Hippocampus Amygdala Intracranial Volume (ICV) → overall brain volume

• Key findings on growth patterns:

  • Brain growth is NOT constant over time

  • Growth is nonlinear (changes in rate across development)

• Age-related growth differences:

  • 4½ → 6 years: Steeper slope → rapid growth period

  • 6 → 7½ years: Less steep slope → slower growth rate

• Individual differences: Significant variability among children

  • Differences in: Starting point (initial brain size) Growth rate over Tim → Not all children develop at the same speed

• Interpretation of variability:

  • Faster/slower growth may reflect: Environmental influences Indicators of risk or adaptation

• Overall conclusion:

  • Growth in hippocampus, amygdala, and ICV is nonlinear and highly variable

  • There is substantial individual variation in both initial size and pace of development across childhood

Trajectory Study of Resilience

• Longitudinal tracking of individuals

• Measured well-being: Before adversity Immediately after Over time

• LEFT GRAPH: Trajectories of well-being over time (before → after adversity) (applies to many events: loss, divorce, military, accidents, etc.)

  • Minimal-impact resilience (35–65%, most common):

    • Stable functioning before, Small, temporary distress afte Quick return to baseline → no long-term disruption

  • Recovery pattern: Functioning well before

    • Significant distress after event Gradual return to baseline over time

  • Chronic dysfunction:

    • High distress after event Symptoms remain elevated long-term

  • Continuous maladjustment:

    • High distress before AND after Reflects ongoing vulnerability, not just the event

  • Post-traumatic growth (less common):

    • Lower functioning before Improved well-being after event Positive psychological change (e.g., new perspective, gratitude, life meaning)

• RIGHT GRAPH: Resilience & protective factors

  • Focus: what protects people, not just what harms them

  • Types of protective factors: Internal: personality traits, coping skills External: supportive family, peers, social connections

  • Moderation model:

    • Protective factors moderate (change) the relationship between adversity and outcomes

    • With protective factors:

      • Reduce or even eliminate negative effects of adversity

    • Without protective factors:

      • Stronger negative impact of adversity

• Bottom line:

  • Adversity ≠ destiny

  • Outcomes depend on access to protective resources

  • Explains why many people exposed to adversity still do well

Internal and external sources of resilience

Internal factors: Personality traits, Coping skills, Emotion regulation, Self-control

External factors: Supportive family, Friends/peers, Social relationships, Community resources

Resilience comes from everyday resources, not rare traits; Resilience factors moderate (change) the relationship between adversity and outcomes: When protective factors are present — The negative impact of adversity is reduced or even eliminated; When protective factors are absent —- The negative impact becomes much stronger

What is Polyvagal Theory?

RSA is a measure of vagus nerve/parasympathetic activity.

High RSA indicates strong vagus nerve activity, supporting the slowing of heart rate and decreased arousal.

High vagus nerve activity is involved in evaluating the environment as safe and supporting social engagement. High vagus nerve activity as indexed by high baseline RSA is often linked to better outcomes.

In contrast, if vagus activity is consistently low (low RSA), this is a sign that your nervous system does not evaluate the environment as safe, and that you're typically in a defensive state that doesn't allow you to effectively interact with others (e.g., misread people, act aggressively, etc.)

Low vagus nerve activity as indexed by low baseline RSA is often linked to worse or less socially desirable outcomes.

• Higher RSA →

  • Better emotional regulation

  • Better social competence

• Adaptive response:

  • RSA decreases during challenges

Conclusion:

• RSA reflects ability to detect safety vs. threat

nonadaptive models of stress/adversity

• Early environment leads to damage vs. optimal development

• Adversity = negative outcomes, supportive environments = positive outcomes

• Key assumptions:

  • Development is linear and cumulative

  • Good early environment → always good outcomes

  • Bad early environment → poor outcomes (unless partially repaired)

• Phenotype concept: Early environment creates a fixed developmental/brain phenotype

  • Supportive environment → “good/optimal” phenotype

  • Adverse environment → “bad/suboptimal” phenotype

• Outcomes:

  • Good early environment → positive functioning regardless of future

  • Bad early environment → maladaptation and poor outcomes

  • If environment improves → possible partial recovery (“catch-up”)

• Connection to toxic stress model:

  • Early stress damages the brain Effects are long-lasting, Continued stress → worse outcomes, Improved environment → some reduction in harm

• Bottom line:

  • Early adversity = damage model

  • Outcomes are largely fixed by early experience

Adaptive models of stress/adversity

• Early environment programs the brain/nervous system for a predicted future environment Development is about adaptation, not just damage

• Key mechanism:

  • Early experiences shape behavioral and neural phenotype

  • This acts as a “prediction” (biological bet) about future conditions

• Match vs. mismatch:

  • Match (early = later environment): Phenotype is adaptive → better functioning + survival advantage

  • Mismatch: Phenotype becomes maladaptive → poor adjustment

• Key principle: Traits are NOT inherently good or bad Their value is context-dependent

• Examples:

  • Supportive early environment:

    • Produces calm, open phenotype

    • Works best in safe, stable future

    • Struggles in harsh/unpredictable environments

  • Adverse/unpredictable early environment:

    • Produces threat-sensitive, hypervigilant phenotype

    • Works best in dangerous/unpredictable future

    • Becomes maladaptive in safe environments (e.g., anxiety)

• Bottom line:

  • Early adversity does not just harm—it prepares

  • Outcomes depend on fit between early and later environments

  • Adaptation ≠ always beneficial (depends on context)

Stress acceleration hypothesis

Harsh/adverse environments → faster development (accelerated maturation)

Leads to earlier independence and “growing up faster”

• Adaptive logic (why this happens):

  • In high-adversity environments:

    • Caregivers may be unreliable/unavailable

    • Children must become self-sufficient earlier

  • Faster development may:

    • Help cope with instability/threat Increase survival + reproductive success

• Key requirements for it to be adaptive:

  1. Adversity → accelerated development (environment shapes faster growth)

  2. Accelerated development → better outcomes (must reduce risk in that context)

  • BOTH must be true

• Findings:

  • In high-adversity environments:

    • Accelerated development → better adjustment, fewer negative outcomes Acts as a protective/buffering factor

  • Without acceleration → Greater vulnerability, worse outcomes

• Important nuance:

  • Context-dependent (NOT universally beneficial)

  • In low-adversity/safe environments:

    • No need to “grow up fast”

    • Acceleration does not occur or provide benefit

• Bottom line:

  • Accelerated development is an adaptive response to adversity

  • Helps individuals function better in high-risk environments, but only in that context

Romanian Orphanages - Institutionalized Children - SAH

Previously institutionalized children (Romanian orphanages = severe deprivation, low social/cognitive input, neglect/abuse)

Control group (raised by biological families)

• Key brain system THIS IS NORMAL:

  • Frontoamygdala connectivity (emotion regulation)

  • Normative development:

    • Childhood → positive connectivity (less mature; co-activation)

    • Adolescence → negative connectivity (mature; prefrontal cortex regulates amygdala)

• Key finding (Step 1: adversity → accelerated development):

  • Institutionalized children show negative connectivity already in childhood → Earlier-than-normal emergence of mature brain pattern → Evidence of accelerated neural development

• Key finding (Step 2: does it improve outcomes?):

  • Institutionalized children overall have higher anxiety risk

  • BUT: Those with negative (mature) connectivity → lower anxiety

    • Those without it → higher anxiety → Acceleration reduces risk (doesn’t eliminate it)

• Control group (low adversity):

  • Connectivity pattern NOT related to anxiety → No added benefit in safe environments

• Putting it together (Adaptive Model):

  • Step 1: Adversity → accelerated development ✔

  • Step 2: Acceleration → better outcomes (in adversity) ✔

  • Step 3: Benefit is context-specific ✔

• Conclusion:

  • Early adversity → earlier maturation of emotion regulation systems

  • This neural pattern is an adaptive response

  • Helps children cope better in high-risk environments

  • Not all children show this, but those who do → better outcomes than peers

Stress inoculation hypothesis

early moderate stress acts like a vaccine, reducing sensitivity to future stress.

• Moderate stress exposure strengthens the stress response system.

• Like a vaccine exposes the body to a mild virus to build immunity, moderate stress “trains” the brain and stress hormones to respond more effectively later.

• Early moderate stress → system learns how to respond

• Later stress → more controlled, regulated response

Outcomes of moderate early stress:

• Increased resilience

• Better emotional regulation

• Lower emotional reactivity

• More adaptive coping

• More flexible stress response system

Important distinctions:

• ❌ Too little stress → lack of preparedness

• ❌ Too much stress → dysregulation & negative outcomes

• ✅ Moderate stress → resilience and adaptive functioning

Monkey Study - SIH

• Stress-inoculated group: Monkeys experienced weekly brief social separations (moderate stress).

• Control group: No separations; stable social environment.

• Later, both groups were exposed to stress-inducing situations.

Key Findings:

1. Response to Novel Objects/Environments

   • Inoculated monkeys → more exploration, less fear, less clinging

   • Control monkeys → more hesitation, more anxiety, more clinging

   (Exploration of novelty = lower anxiety / greater confidence)

2. Stress Hormone Response (Cortisol Test)

   • Inoculated monkeys → lower cortisol response to stress (e.g., restraint)

   • Control monkeys → higher cortisol response

Conclusion:
Moderate early stress “trains” the stress response system, leading to:

• Lower physiological stress reactivity

• Greater exploration

• Reduced anxiety-like behavior

• Better adaptation to future stressors

Moderate early stress → adaptive, controlled resilience.

Biological aging measures

Telomeres

• Shorter telomeres = faster cellular aging

• Linked to adversity

2. Puberty timing

• Adversity → earlier puberty

3. Brain development (pace of growth)

• Changes in:

  • Hippocampus

  • Amygdala

  • Overall brain volume

• Adversity →

  • Faster or altered development

  • Sometimes accelerated brain “age”

Key idea:

• Adversity can speed up biological aging

pandemic brain study + hippocampal growth study

andemic brain study:

• Adolescents showed older brain age than expected

Longitudinal hippocampus study

• Longitudinal (followed children to ~age 15)

• Focus: early adversity (prenatal + early postnatal) → later outcomes

• Perinatal adversity score (cumulative risk):

  • Risk factors: smoking during pregnancy, maternal depression (pre/postnatal), low SES, low maternal education, birth complications (e.g., low birth weight)

  • Protective factors: good maternal mental health, high SES

  • Higher score = more early adversity (even before birth)

• Key mental health finding:

  • Higher adversity → more depressive symptoms at age 8.5

  • Effect is significant but small

• Hippocampus (memory + emotion, stress-sensitive):

  • Higher adversity → Faster hippocampal growth, Smaller overall volume early in life

• Mediation (mechanism):

  • Adversity → hippocampal changes → depression

  • When hippocampus is included → direct adversity–depression link weakens

• Interpretation:

  • Adversity alters brain development, which then affects mental health

  • Faster growth = accelerated/altered development due to stress

• Important nuance:

  • High-adversity kids show faster growth BUT still lag behind peers

  • By ~age 7 → developmental gap remains

• Bottom line:

  • Early adversity (even before birth) → long-term brain + mental health effects

  • Acceleration ≠ advantage (they don’t “catch up”)

What is skin-deep resilience?

• Outward success + internal physiological cost

Individuals may show:

• High achievement

• Good mental health

BUT also:

• High inflammation

• Insulin resistance

• Cardiovascular risk

Why?

• Constant effort and self-regulation under adversity →

  • Chronic stress activation

  • “Wear and tear” on the body

Key idea:

• Resilience is not always free—it can come with hidden biological costs

Skin deep resilience study

Researchers studied Black adolescents in schools that varied in disciplinary bias.

School Context:

• Some schools disproportionately punished Black students (high discrimination).

• Others showed less bias.

Psychological & Academic Findings:

• In high-discrimination schools, high self-control predicted:

  • Greater academic orientation

  • Higher educational attainment

  • Higher income in adulthood

  • Better mental health

→ Self-control functioned as a protective factor in harsh environments.

Physiological Findings (Same Individuals):
Despite outward success, these youth showed:

• Higher insulin resistance

• Higher inflammation

• Increased blood pressure

Interpretation:

• Success required sustained self-regulation in stressful contexts.

• Chronic activation of the stress response led to long-term physiological costs.

• Even with upward mobility, structural inequalities (healthcare access, resource gaps) persisted.

• Moving into higher-status environments may also bring isolation, pressure to fit in, or distance from cultural community.

Conclusion:
In discriminatory environments, self-control promotes achievement — but may increase long-term cardiometabolic risk.