Adolescents’ adaptive outcomes and resilience. The importance of a comprehensive, multidimensional assessment of assets and competencies. Giovanna Gianesini, MFT, PhD

Today strength-based assessment of adolescents is an important emerging area as the measurement of assets, resources and factors increasing positive outcomes offer the advantage of empowering individuals and families & promote optimism while enhancing resilience (Merrel, Felver-Gant & Tom, 2011)

Social-emotional assessment has been historically tied to adolescents psychopathology, often neglecting the assessment of positive social-emotional assets or competencies (Merrell & Bailey 2012).

The aim of this empirical research was a better understanding of the actual relationship between life events and dysfunctional outcomes weighting both the potential stress derived from the events and their perceived subjective impact. We investigated the influence of resilience, emotion regulation (positive and negative) and coping flexibility on substance abuse and its characteristics (onset, latency, gravity) and treatment (type, length, outcome) in a clinical sample of 180 drug addicts under treatment, age 16-30 (M = 23; SD = 2.97) recruited at an Italian drug treatment center (Ser.T) and a control group of 249 participants, age 14-30 (M = 22; SD = 3.19) recruited in high schools.

THEORETICAL MODEL

RESILIENCE DEFINITION Predictor of good outcome in high-risk groups Moderator able to enhance or reduce the effect of adversity Pattern of recovery from trauma Giovanna Gianesini

Drug addiction & Treatment EMPIRICAL STUDIES Parenting Style N=324 parents age 26-66 Marriage Quality N=159 couples age 23-78 Drug addiction & Treatment N=429, age 14-30 Social Network Dynamics N=180 , students Adult prosocial behavior N=339 adults age 17-74 Giovanna Gianesini

SAMPLE N=429 age 14-30 Control N=249 Age: M = 22 SD = 3.19 SCALES: PANAS (Watson, Clark, and Tellegen ,1988) [α=.75-.85] CD-RISC, Connor and Davidson, 2003 [α=.94] RS-14 ( Wagnild & Young, 1993) [α=.92] PTSD Checklist (Weathers et al, 1993) [α=.94] PACT (Perceived ability to cope with trauma) (Bonanno, Pat-Horenzcyk, & Noll, 2011) [α=.90;78-.89] LIFE EVENTS SCALE (Holmes and Rahe’s ,1967) SAMPLE N=429 age 14-30 Control N=249 Age: M = 22 SD = 3.19 Gender: 94male -155female Clinical N= 180 Age: M = 23 SD =2.97 Gender: 80 male-100female

Do the clinical and control group differ on life events? CLINICAL GROUP LCU n % F p Drug or alchool use M=-.01, SD=.58 M=-1.1, SD=1.57 50 222 51.7 228.599 .001 Outstanding personal achievement M=.0000,SD=.00 M=.0056, SD=.32 46 176 41 7.433 .007 Breaking up with partner M=-.27, SD=1.13 M=-.46, SD=1.45 53 157 36.6 20.113 Change in health 44 146 34 .017 Change in peers acceptance 67 126 29.4 2.092 Change in parents financial status  M=-.11, SD=.95 M=-.33,SD=.93 45 107 24.9 5.293 .022 Sexual difficulties M=-.17, SD=.73 M=-.51,SD=1.01 39 105 24.5 49.194 Failing a grade or exam 59 102 23.8 3.415 Increased arguments with parents 47 89 20.7 2.306 . .

Do the clinical and control group differ on other variables? CLINICAL GROUP F p Resilience RS-14 M = 58.10 SD = 7.17 M = 41.97 SD = 8.24 CD-RISC M = 91.46 SD = 12.55 M = 65.25 SD = 12.99 Coping Trauma Focus PACT M = 10.23 SD = 0.55 M = 9.56 SD = 0.57 Coping Forward Focus M = 3.37 SD = 0.65 M = 2.53 SD = 0.63 Positive Affect PANAS M = 35.47 SD = 36 M = 31.03 SD = 31 10.81 0.00 Negative Affect PANAS M = 26.38 SD = 27 M = 32.25 SD = 32 Post Traumatic Checklist PSTD M = 40.5 SD = 13.47 M = 62.13 SD = 11.10 12.45 VARIABLE CONTROL GROUP CLINICAL GROUP F p Total Life Change Unit (LCU) M = 205.66 SD = 153.20 M = 348.16 SD = 200.75 9.11 0.01 Impact M = 0.06 SD = 7.66 M = -4.87 SD = 9.88 11.55 Life Events NOT reported M = 32.93 SD = 3.01 M = 30.36 SD = 3.71 Number of Life Events M = 5.07 M = 7.64 Life Events with NO impact M = 0.34 SD = 0.73 M = 0.54 SD = 0.92 Positive Life Events M = 1.78 SD = 2 M = 1.93 SD = 2.28 Negative M = 1.94 SD = 2.38 M = 4.16 SD = 3.34 20.84 LCU 22: drug use M = 0.23 SD = 1.41 M = -0.76 SD =.1.81 29.90

What moderates the negative impact of life events in the two groups? .

Results showed that the most frequent life events reported in both clinical and control sample were not the most traumatic in term of change unit and mostly referred to what are considered normative life events in late adolescence and young adulthood, such as breaking up with partner, failing a grade, or increased arguments with parents.

Nevertheless, the clinical and control group differed in terms of life events appraisal, coping flexibility, emotion regulation, and resilience. In fact, in the control group, both negative and positive events were handled with positive emotions and a forward focus coping style, which decreased post-traumatic symptoms. In the clinical group, on the other hand, the use of negative emotions and a trauma focus coping style were prevalent, further facilitated by family risk factors. .

This study confirmed the importance of simultaneously assessing actual, subjectively evaluated, not only potential, age relevant stressors and traumatic events, as well as assets such as emotion regulation skills, coping flexibility, generational and relational processes and competences (Hooper et al, in press). None of these components, in fact, alone could explain the complex process that lead adolescents and young adults to adaptive outcomes and resilience.   .

It implies the ability to flexibly regulate emotional expression CONCLUSIONS RESILIENCE It’s a process that varies across gender lines and changes throughout particular lifespan stages Its relational and contextual dimensions explain both functional and dysfunctional behavior It is defined by positive and negative emotions and positive and negative life events It implies the ability to flexibly regulate emotional expression Within the heterogeneity of Responses to Potentially Traumatic events, it represents a stable trajectory of healthy adjustment over time Giovanna Gianesini

Bonanno, G. Pat-Horenczyk, R. , Noll, J Bonanno, G. Pat-Horenczyk, R., Noll, J. (2011) ―Coping Flexibility and Trauma: The Perceived Ability to Cope with Trauma (PACT) Scale. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice and Policy, 3(2), 117-129. L‘Abate, L. (2010). Resilience: a construct in search of a theory. Interdisciplinary Journal of Family Studies, 2, 1-20.   L‘Abate, L. (2011). Hurth feelings: Theory, research, and application in intimate relationships. New York: Cambridg University Press. L’Abate L. & Cusinato M. (2012). Advances in Relational Competence Theory. New York: Nova Publishers. Hooper, L., L’Abate, L., Sweeney, L. G., Gianesini, G., & Jankowsli, P. (in press). Models of psychopathology: Generational and relational process. New York: Springer-Science.   Merrel, K. M., Felver-Gant, J. C and Tom K. M. (2011). Development and Validation of a Parent Report Measure for Assessing Social-Emotional Competencies of Children and Adolescents, Journal of Child and Family Studies, 20: 529-540 Merrell, C. & Bailey, K. (2012). Predicting achievement in the Early Years: How important is personal, social and emotional development? On-line Educational Research Journal 3(6). Tugade, M. M., & Fredrickson, B. L. (2007). Regulation of positive emotions: Emotion regulation strategies that promote resilience. Journal of Happiness Studies, 8, 311-333. Zautra Z.J, Guarnaccia C.A, Dohrenwend B.P (1986). Measuring small life events. American Journal of Community Psychology 14:629–655 Zautra, A. J., Berkhof, J., & Nicolson, N. A. (2002). Changes in affect interrelations as a function of stressful events. Cognition & Emotion, 16, 309-318. Zautra A.J, Johnson L, and Davis M.E (2005). The role of positive affect in chronic pain: Applications of a dynamic affect model. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 73(2), 212–220.  

Giovanna Gianesini , Ph.D giovanna.gianesini@unipd.it THANK YOU ! Giovanna Gianesini , Ph.D giovanna.gianesini@unipd.it