Busso, D. S. (2014). Neurobiological process of
risk and resilience in adolescence: Implications for policy and prevention
science. Mind, Brain, and Education,
8(1), 34-43.
Background:
The teenage years (adolescence) represent a
period of turbulence. Epidemiologists have recorded high numbers of adolescent
depression, anxiety, caregiver maltreatment, low self-esteem, chronic health
problems, and school failure. Little is known about how childhood adversity
manifests itself in adolescence to impact brain development and
psychopathology. A better understanding of how to foster resilience in the face
of these stress-related risks for adolescence is critical for the development
of effective clinical and psycho-educational interventions.
Purpose:
The article aim was to examine concepts of risk
and resilience from the perspectives of both neurobiology and prevention
science; specifically their potential to inform clinical interventions,
school-based prevention programs, and social policies.
Definitions:
Adolescence – a
developmental window that is typically associated with an elevated risk for
psychopathology and represents a period of neurological growth and
reorganization that is second only to early childhood; Resilience – dynamic
process that profiles trajectories or adaptation in spite of risk-potentiating
life experiences; Risks – exposure to a single cataclysmic event, enduring a
prolonged stressor, or experiencing a distressing but commonplace experience
Key Points:
Neuroplasticity, which
refers to the structural and functional reorganization of the brain to
accommodate developmental needs, provides a unique opportunity for adolescent
targeted interventions to strengthen motivation, reasoning, social competency,
and emotion regulation. Neuroplasticity also results in the adolescent brain being
more sensitive to stress, causing the neural networks that support cognition,
emotion, and learning to be more easily compromised by risk-potentiating life
experiences.
Key cognitive
protective factors for childhood adversity include problem solving,
self-regulation, and cognitive flexibility. Educational and clinical
interventions that promote these cognitive skills in at-risk youth, such as
Tools of the Mind, could be extremely beneficial in facilitating resilience.
Also, positive affect has been found to aid in problem solving, learning, and
self-regulation. School-based mindfulness programs show promise in promoting
positive affect and fostering socioemotional competency. Another key protective
factor is social support, which has been linked to positive self-esteem and
academic adjustment. Capacity building programs for caregivers has the
potential for an indirect impact on facilitating resilience in adolescence.
The promotion of
resilience in adolescence has the potential to vastly influence the human
capital formation through the facilitation of positive psychological growth,
academic achievement, reduced criminal activity, and economic productivity.
Conclusion: A better understanding the mechanisms underlying
risk and resilience may contribute to more desirable psychological and
educational outcomes for adolescents. In order to reach this level of
understanding, an interdisciplinary approach that includes genetics,
neurobiology, psychology, and education is necessary.
Implications: Greater understanding about
brain-behavior relationships is necessary for more accurate interpretability
that is useful for the development of policy initiatives. Also, the use of
neurobiological information could be useful in the development of effective
differentiated clinical or educational interventions.
Questions
Raised: How might neuroimaging guide decisions about treatment, and to
whom? How might labeling (or even mislabeling) children affect their treatment
in schools, homes, and hospitals? How might brain imaging alter our perception
of what constitutes “typical” and “atypical” development?
