The past decade has witnessed an exponential growth in studies that have attempted to identify the genetic polymporphisms that moderate the influence of environmental risks on mental disorders. What tends to be neglected in these Gene × Environment (G × E) interaction studies has been a focus on resilience, which refers to a dynamic pattern of positive adaptation despite the experience of a significant trauma or adversity. In this article, we argue that one step toward advancing the field of developmental psychopathology would be for G × E research to consider resilience instead of focusing almost exclusively on mental disorders. After providing an up-to-date summary on the expanding definitions and models of resilience, and the available evidence regarding measured G × E studies of childhood maltreatment, we discuss why resilience would be a worthwhile phenotype for studies of measured G × E. First, although G × E hypotheses require that there be an environmental risk (e-risk) involved in a causal process that leads to psychopathology, e-risks are typically not included in the diagnostic criteria for most psychiatric disorders. In contrast, resilience by definition includes an e-risk. Second, G × E hypotheses require that there is evidence of variability in response to an environmental stressor, and resilience often represents the positive end on this continuum of adaptation. Third, both resilience and G × E are best understood from a developmental perspective. Fourth, although resilient outcomes are not public health concerns, the types of adversities (e.g., childhood maltreatment, poverty, or exposure to natural disasters) that are often investigated in studies of resilience certainly are. Understanding how some individuals, perhaps because of their genetic makeup, are able to withstand such adversities can inform prevention and intervention efforts to improve mental health.
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 129 citations exist upstream.
Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.