Resilence to major life stressors is not as common as thought

Abstract

We attempted to replicate findings that “most people are resilient” following three events: spousal loss, divorce, and unemployment. We applied growth mixture models to the same longitudinal data set that has previously been used to assert that resilience is ubiquitous. When using identical model specifications as in prior studies, we found that resilient trajectories were most common, but the number of trajectories identified was different. When we relaxed the assumptions that (a) all classes have similar variability in levels of post-adversity adjustment and (b) there is no variability in changes within classes (as in prior studies), we found that a resilience class was least common. Methodologically, our results demonstrate how findings on trajectories of change following major life stressors vary substantially depending on statistical model specifications. Conceptually, they underscore the errors inherent in any categorical statements about “rates of resilience” among individuals confronted with major life stressors. Pragmatically, they underscore the dangers in recommending against prophylactic interventions -- based on one method of analyzing longitudinal data -- for individuals who have experienced major life stressors.