“How can resilience be enhanced in children and adolescents living in poverty? Critically discuss with reference to empirical evidence.”

Imagine you live in a rural village in Rwanda. One afternoon, shots ring through the air and you witness the shooting of your parents. To save yourself, you have no choice but to hide under a dead body. This exemplifies true events that genocide survivors have encountered in Rwanda,41% have witnessed the death of parents; 35% have hidden under dead bodies, and 88% have been victims of attack (Schnal & Elbert, 2006).The truly remarkable thing is that some individuals encounter such trauma with minimal impact on developmental outcomes. This is called resilience, defined as “positive adaptation in the face of adversity” (Schoon & Bynner, 2003). Datta and Singh (2016) found being in deprived conditions induces hazards like malnutrition, and limited education. These can threaten healthy development, individuals will lack physical and mental strength, meaning they will struggle to recover from stressful events. This argues that poverty could negatively impact well-being, which was supported by Shamblin, Graham and Bianco (2016) who argued that poverty is a risk factor for resilience.This issue is worsened by the fact children and adolescents are in a critical period of development, thus in a vulnerable position to adverse living conditions. Therefore, analysing the extent to which children and adolescents can build resilience in poverty is especially important. One of the main characteristics of resilient people is strong social support (Werner, 1992). Therefore, it may follow that social support enhances resilience of young people in poverty. This essay will argue that in order for the social support provided to fully enhance resilience, it has to demonstrate positive long-term impacts for the young people in poverty. This will be measured through observing developmental outcomes of young people, after having received social support. Impact of parenting will be assessed, evaluating the impact of warm parenting on emotional and mood disorders, when children are faced with poverty. Then, one will consider the influence of insensitive parenting on such disorders, and the effect on resilience. Secondly, one will consider how the population of young people without parents engage with social support, with a particular emphasis on schools. The developmental outcomes to be analysed are emotional and behavioural disorders, as well as career prospects.Certain parenting styles can enhance resilience; such as those that are socially supportive, warm and affectionate. This has been demonstrated through neurobiological evidence. Brody et al. (2017) conducted a longitudinal study, which observed low socio-economic status African American children. MRI results showed that children who lived in greater poverty, had smaller amygdala and hippocampus regions as adults. This is part of the temporal lobe, which directly impacts resilience. Its function is to reduce stress reactivity through better emotional regulation. Therefore, those who live in greater poverty are less able to process traumatic stimuli efficiently, due to reduced emotional capacity. However, when children experience same degree of poverty, but receive sufficient support from parents, the size of their temporal lobe as adults remains normal. Increased lobe size results in better capacity to handle stress, meaning a strengthened resilience. The impact of parenting is clear here. In circumstances where corrective emotional and social support is available, there is negligible impact on lobe size and resilience. In addition, this was a longitudinal study, which found a consistent linear relationship between decline of brain region growth and increase in poverty, in the developmental stage of childhood to adolescence. This indicates the generalisability of the study to both children and adolescents. Secondly, it is important to utilise longitudinal studies, as one needs to measure the long-term impacts of the social support. Moreover, the high test-retest reliability increases assurance that the developmental outcomes were long term, which reiterates the evidence that sensitive parenting has a strong impact on functioning of the child- as this brain impairment can have severe developmental impacts.For example, children with poor emotional regulation are more likely to develop mood and behavioural disorders (Gross 1998), suggesting that reduced lobe size could lead to anti-social behaviour and inhibit functioning in adulthood. These individuals have restricted emotional competence, and their disorders reflect alternate coping mechanisms which are maladaptive. This illustrates the impact that poverty can have as risk factor for developmental outcomes like disorders, but also the extent to which parenting can be correcting of this, even in deprived conditions. This strengthens the argument that social support is essential. It has been demonstrated that appropriate parenting treats the issue of emotional response to stress, additionally reducing likelihood of mood disorders. This enhances resilience, through social support specifically addressing the impact of poverty on the developmental outcome for the child. On the other hand, such social support can be insufficient if parenting is not sensitive, and does not acknowledge the consequential impact of this on emotional development. Klingman (2001) found that children who viewed their parents as anxious were more likely to demonstrate stress under missile attacks. Therefore, parents need to be aware of how their emotional response can impact their children, and utilise sensitive strategies for engaging with their children, such as showing them healthy positive responses. This can act as a starting point for strong emotional resilience in children, and parental insightfulness will reduce potential for inadequate lobe growth.One argues that parenting is essential for providing a foundation for emotional resilience, but parenting must be a conscious process to be constructive in youth development. This further supports the argument not all parenting styles induce resilience, and that only those which are attuned to the emotional development of their children will enhance it. Although, a methodological limitation of this study is that anxiety of children was reported by their parents, and this could have reflected their own distress rather than that of their children. This decreases the validity of the study. On the other hand, Skeat, Eadie, Ukoumunne and Reilly (2010) found that parents can reliably predict the distress of their child, reassuring that parental reports are a valid measure. Moreover, this allows the study to support the argument that only parenting specific to developmental outcomes, through reducing likelihood of disorders, will enhance resilience. However, this research on support of parenting shows sampling bias, for it has not considered the social support that enhances resilience in orphans; as they lack the authentic family network to begin with. Social support can still increase resilience of orphans in poverty. For example, schools can prevent orphans feeling desolate in isolation, which is often exacerbated by hostile treatment in the community. In low socio-economic status countries, orphans are often stereotyped as delinquent within society (Muller, Munslow & O’Dempsey, 2015). This can reduce resilience through increasing distress, as orphans are likely to isolate themselves further to avoid hostility, demonstrating how poverty can reduce resilience. There is great potential for schooling to increase resilience in orphans with acceptance and validation.Orphans completed self-reports at school, and described their collective comfort in being able to relate to the problems of each another. This suggests opportunity to expel their problems allows them to release stress, which again strengthens their resilience. Moreover, strong emotional support given to orphans by their teachers is important. Attending school stimulates positive interactions with older people, which would arguably not occur otherwise for orphans. Therefore, restoring the trust lacking in relationships with authority figures. In addition, it allows them to learn from their elders how best to deal with emotions. This is further reinforced by the fact that orphans who attended school showed increased emotional regulation, and reported better ability to tolerate the anger caused by events in their life. This identifies an important developmental outcome. Concluding that schooling can have a direct impact on emotional outcomes for orphans, in relation to resilience and mood disorders. Improved outcomes were also reflected in adolescents, Eggerman and Panter Brick (2010)found that following natural disasters, this age group showed most distress when their access to education was potentially inhibited. Having gained an education, adolescents felt they had something to offer society. Schooling moreover stimulates career aspirations, and increases access to employment. This has a clear developmental outcome also, as young individuals are likely to achieve a higher quality of life. Moreover, education allows and encourages orphans to re-integrate into society, through enhanced intellect and restored trust in adults. Therefore, giving children and adolescents schooling is proven to be beneficial in enhancing resilience to poverty-stricken conditions, through enhancing developmental outcomes within career opportunities, as well as improved emotional maturation. On the other hand, one must be careful not to adopt a determinist view, as not all social support from schools provides the same developmental outcome. It is important that the social support responds to the needs of the children, in the same way that parenting should. The social support within schools needs to be warm and personal, to induce the same healthy behavioural outcomes. It must also encourage independence in the children. Wolf and Fesseha (1999) compared two orphanages. The first had strict rules which involved minimum contact between teachers and children. In the second school, teachers respected the individuality of children, and allowed them to be self-sufficient. Results showed greater number of behavioural issues in the former, than latter. This shows that provision of education does not ensure positive impacts on development. In order to increase likelihood of healthy development, social support within schools must act in co-operation rather than coercion. Furthermore, this may be explained by the fact that children feel anxiety when they do not perceive control over their life. Rawson (1992) found the more children believed in external locus of control, the greater the manifestation of anxiety. This anxiety could cause a decrease in resilience: pre-occupation with a negative emotion may mean they cannot concentrate energy elsewhere, reducing likelihood of recovery should a traumatic event occur. A possible solution that schools could implement is using problem-focused coping, which showed positively correlation with perceived internal control in both children, (Ledoux et al., 1991)and adolescents(Compas, Malcame, & Fondacaro, 1988).This would increase feeling of control, by having adaptive coping mechanisms they can use unassisted. This reduces their dependence on others in times of trauma, and is particularly relevant for young people in poverty, who as mentioned often experience adverse factors. Other suggestions for future interventions within schools could be to involve children in decisions that affect them, to further increase their sense of agency. Therefore, rather than simply using schools as a general vessel for social support, interventions within schools need to be tailored to the children’s needs. Through focusing on their sense of independence, this will positively impact their conduct both behaviourally and emotionally, and show strong developmental outcomes. This illustrates how schooling can have a significant influence on resilience, however it revolves around the restriction of pupils and their relationship with teachers. In conclusion, one would argue that social and emotional support is essential in improving resilience, among children and adolescents. However, in both parenting and schooling, it appears that this support fully enhances resilience when it considers the developmental outcomes of the young individual. This refers to the careful attention of the needs required by children and adolescents. For example, the benefits of warm parenting is tailored to developmental outcomes, as without this, young individuals develop disorders later in life; as demonstrated through neurobiological evidence. The argument that social support from parents enhances resilience when it decreases likelihood of negative development, is further supported by the fact that insensitive parenting will enhance likelihood of mood and behavioural disorders. However, not all children have parents which increases sampling bias of these studies. One must also focus on school, which is an alternate source of social support. School has the potential to enhance resilience through friendships, ambition, and sense of independence. This potential is only reached in schools which allow children and adolescents to have a sense of control, enhancing resilience through decreased anxiety. The school which considered the emotional well-being of the child showed a lower rating of behavioural problems. This supports the argument that social support targeting developmental consequences enhances resilience to negative events.