The scientific study of the role of resilience across the spectrums of human experience has become an international and multidisciplinary effort since its origin in the 1970s (Slater & Quinn, 2012). An individual’s ability to recover adaptively from adversity is vital to their ability to navigate adulthood effectively. As the topic becomes more popular, more research is emerging on how resilience is impacted by formative experiences from early life (Woods-Jaeger et al., 2018). Resilience levels have been shown to act as a buffer against the development of depression and other negative outcomes in adulthood despite earlier adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) (Poole et al., 2017). Children who have been involved in bullying or who have had ACEs are significantly more likely to be disengaged from school (Baiden et al., 2020). Research has demonstrated individuals who have experienced frequent bullying are at a greater risk of experiencing suicidality, diagnoses of depression, anxiety disorders, alcohol use disorder, psychological distress, decreased general health, cognitive functioning, socioeconomic status, social relationships, and general well-being for nearly four decades following the event (Takizawa et al., 2014). Additionally, individuals who have experienced ACEs are even at risk for premature death (Brown et al., 2009). Despite these concerning trends, there are protective factors present within some individuals that contribute to resilience (defined below), and resilience tends to positively predict psychological well-being (Mayordomo et al., 2016).
ACEs are major risk factors that impact long term physical (Monnat & Chandler, 2015; Vig et al., 2020) and mental (Sheffler et al., 2020) health outcomes, particularly when there are multiple ACES present within an individual (Madigan et al., 2023). Some of the most concerning risks, including violence, substance use, and mental illness directly affect the next generation (Hughes et al., 2017; Madigan et al., 2023). Studies have demonstrated that ACEs can contribute to increased risk of negative health outcomes or chronic health problems, and increased risk of school disengagement (Bethell et al., 2014). Understanding how ACEs impact an individual’s long-term physical and mental health and resilience is important for future scientific understanding and for developing interventions within school and healthcare systems. This study examines the impact of ACES and bullying, another important risk factor with negative outcomes, on resilience in adulthood.
Resilience
The role resilience plays in an individual’s ability to rebound from both physically and emotionally traumatic experiences is one that has gained deserved attention as research is highlighting its importance and relevance in reducing suffering overall. There is much speculation on the definition of resilience and little operational consensus (Denckla et al., 2020; Troy et al., 2023). Pooley and Cohen (2010) framed the concept as context-based. Resilience as a research topic has undergone multiple “waves” of conceptual approaches; the first focused on definition and description of resilience, the second on the variables associated with resilience, the third tested potential resilience interventions, and the fourth and most current wave seeks to better understand the “complex process that leads to resilience” (Masten & Wright, 2010, p. 214 as cited in Pooley & Cohen, 2010). Pooley and Cohen addressed the debate on whether to view resilience as a process, a personality trait, or an outcome, which would each result in varying definitions and limitations. For example, resilience as a trait has recently been criticized as putting too much onus and blame on the individual (Aksoy et al., 2023). While previous researchers defined resilience as a bouncing back, it is more likely to be an ongoing process (Jay, 2019). The primary consensus within the field is that resilience is multisystemic and complex; moreover, it involves the experience of adversity, and successful dynamic adaptation to that adversity that mitigates, at least to some extent, negative outcomes (Chmitorz et al., 2018; Denckla et al., 2020; Kalisch et al., 2019; Pooley & Cohen, 2010). Some people even have improved outcomes from the resilience that developed via adversity (Jay, 2019). Understanding resilience from a multidisciplinary perspective is important for arriving at operational consensus when undergoing future research. For the sake of this study, a commonly used definition of resilience is the positive adaptation or the ability to maintain or regain mental health despite experiencing adversity (Herrman et al., 2011).
Cultivation of basic levels of resilience during developmental stages in children is vital in how they will face increasing challenges and levels of adversity as they grow (Masten & Barnes, 2018; Masten & Cicchetti, 2016). Professionals are aware of the harmful effects stress can have on the body and mind but are still building awareness of the impact that prolonged or egregious adversity during developmental periods can have on the brain and other various organ system functioning (Herrman et al., 2011). These present typically in two manners: the cumulative wear and tear from stress on the body and biological changes that can occur in an individual when stress is experienced during key developmental periods. Though resilience is a multidimensional concept, three factors typically examined within resilience as a trait are hardiness, benefit-finding, and thriving (Herrman et al., 2011).
As one of the multiple pathways to resilience (Maddi, 2005), understanding hardiness is vital when building a well-rounded understanding of resilience. Hardiness presents within individuals as ongoing efforts to operate effectively or “continuing as normal” after experiencing adversity (Maddi, 2005). Key aspects of hardiness include attitudes of commitment versus alienation, control rather than powerlessness, and challenge versus threat (Maddi, 2005). However, Maddi (2005) notes that understanding has evolved as research has further developed. He asserts that hardiness is courage and motivation to face stressors head on, as opposed to avoidance or denial of stressors. Courage and motivation allow an individual to cope through problem solving and through relying on others for aid as opposed to isolating or exhibiting aggression. Ultimately, Maddi (2005) asserts hardiness presents as a behavioral pattern that allows an individual to overcome stressors and provides opportunities for growth.
Benefit-finding is another facet of resilience that studies suggest improve an individual’s ability to cope by coming to recognize some positive or benefit gained from a traumatic or severely adverse experience. Fraccaro (2014) examined resilience and benefit-finding relating to the experience of school bullying in a group of 200 students. The results suggested that trait-resilience significantly predicted both individual well-being and benefit-finding (Fraccaro, 2014). The results also suggest that there may be a difference between coping strategies or behavioral resilience and benefit finding.
Thriving is the third facet of resilience as mentioned by Herrman et al. (2011) and relates to an individual’s ability to recover more quickly from stressors to reach a higher level of functioning. Carver (1998) wrote on this concept in detail, addressing the four common responses to adverse events. He suggested first, especially with more severe events, the individual “succumbs” to the event in a downward slide; second “survival with impairment” occurs as a weaker version of “succumbing”; third would be “resilience” when the individual returns to the homeostatic level of functioning they had prior to the adverse event; fourth and finally would be an individual “thriving” and achieving a higher level of functioning in response to the adverse event. Carver (1998) asserts that thriving individuals can become desensitized to the stressor itself and achieve an enhanced recovery potential in how they respond to future stressors, or by reaching higher levels of functioning than existed prior to the event through their skills and knowledge, confidence levels, or strengthened personal relations. Others also support the idea that adversity might help some individuals experience post-traumatic growth and thrive (Bonanno, 2004; Brooks et al., 2018; Jay, 2019), possibly even helping them become “supernormal” (Jay, 2019).
Adverse Childhood Experiences and their Impact
There is a breadth of data available examining how ACEs negatively impact health outcomes across cultures (Madigan et al., 2023). A recent meta-analysis with over a half a million participants from 22 countries represented found that the majority (just over 60%) had experienced at least one ACE in their lifetime with many experiencing more than one. (Madigan et al., 2023). This study found that low-income, being unhoused, mental illness, addiction or substance misuse, or coming from a minoritized group (especially Indigenous) predicted a greater chance of an individual having four or more ACEs. From how it impacts school children to individuals in middle age or later, research has repeatedly demonstrated worrisome outcomes that so frequently accompany individuals who have higher levels of ACEs. Brown et al. (2018) conducted a longitudinal study, collecting data on ACEs from 17,337 adults and found that on average individuals who had experienced six or more ACEs were likely to die nearly 20 years earlier than those without ACEs. Their expected years of life lost was nearly three times that of individuals without ACEs. Those with ACEs were 1.7 times more likely to die under age 75 and 2.4 times more likely to die under age 65 than individuals who did not experience ACEs (Brown et al., 2018). The link to premature death alone is concerning, and unfortunately ACEs affect several facets of life that contribute to related variables.
Another related study conducted by Goldenson et al. (2020) examined 40 teenagers in San Diego and found a positive relationship between ACEs and trauma symptomatology. Individuals with four or more ACEs tended to be far more vulnerable to mental health conditions and had lower resilience in comparison to individuals with less than four ACEs. However, Goldenson et al. additionally found that resilience functioned protectively; individuals with higher resilience scores experienced less depression and physical symptoms even when co-occurring with a high number of ACEs (Goldenson et al., 2020). Resilience has been found to be a protective factor for individuals experiencing or perpetrating bullying (Caridade & Braga, 2020; Chen et al., 2023; Donnon & Hammond, 2007), for interpersonal violence (Lachapelle et al., 2022) and can help reduce suicidality (Chen et al., 2023; Hajian et al., 2018).
Bethell et al. (2014) examined the prevalence of ACEs, resilience, and how the two can relate to specific factors affecting lifelong health and development, specifically school engagement and rates of chronic disease. Their data indicated that 48% of children in their representative sample had experienced at least one ACE, with older children and children in lower income households being at a higher risk for additional ACEs. They found that 22.6% of the children had experienced two or more ACEs, with significant variation between age groups (30.5% of youth 12-17 years of age experienced 2 or more ACEs) and location (23% of individuals 12-17 years of age experienced two or more ACEs in New Jersey, whereas 44.4% of the same aged youth in Arizona experienced 2 or more) (Bethell et al., 2014). Their data displayed a strong relationship between a child’s experience of ACEs and chronic conditions or special needs, lower levels of resilience, grade repetition, lower quality access to medical facilities, and lower maternal health rates. Similar to many prior studies, their findings demonstrate the need for further research on how ACEs may play a role in the development of chronic health problems and developmental problems or delays. The authors recommended a rapid coordinated effort to further assess these problems and develop policy and practice that reflects awareness with an aim of prevention of these issues in the future. In sum, ACEs are major threats to wellbeing globally and need to be addressed (Madigan et al., 2023). Resilience might function as a mitigating factor and be one way to combat the negative consequences of ACEs (Ortiz, 2019; Sciaraffa et al., 2018).
Bullying as a Predictive Variable
The experience of bullying is also a clear risk to resilience and an individual’s ability to recover from stress or trauma in adulthood. One commonly held definition of bullying is systematic aggressive behavior or intentional harm-doing by peers that is carried out repeatedly and characterized by a power imbalance (Wolke & Lereya, 2015). Children and adolescents who experience bullying victimization display adjustment problems and have higher distress levels (Arseneault et al., 2009). They are also more likely to perpetuate bullying themselves (Lauritsen, & Laub, 2007). Some researchers consider bullying itself to be an additional adverse childhood experience (Finkelhor, 2020; Kalmakis & Chandler, 2014; Urbanski, 2019) worthy of noting and addressing when measuring individual experience of ACEs. Bullying has been demonstrated to have negative effects on young adult mental health including self-esteem, self-harm, and academic failure (Arseneault, 2017).
Similar to ACEs, the experience of, participation in, and witnessing of bullying can have significant lifelong implications relating to both physical and mental health (Rigby, 2003; Vanderbilt & Augustyn, 2010; Zarate-Garza, 2017). Brown et al. (2018) examined the occurrence of chronic pain and its relationship with bullying and ACEs. They hypothesized that a diverse number of traumatic events from childhood, including bullying, can directly influence the amount of chronic pain experienced by an individual later in life. They observed a significant correlation between the experience of childhood trauma and experience of chronic pain later in life, with a significant but more moderate correlation between experience of bullying and experience of chronic pain.
The combination of bullying and ACEs was also assessed by Baiden et al. (2020) with respect to its impact on school disengagement. Their findings indicated that, in total, about 33% of children displayed school disengagement, 23% were involved in bullying, and 49.5% experienced at least one ACE. Children who were victims of bullying, were bullies, or both were more likely to display school disengagement. Their likelihood of experiencing school disengagement was 1.32 times higher for children with one ACE, 1.5 times higher for children with two ACEs, and 1.77 times higher for children with three or more ACEs (Baiden et al., 2020). This study points to a possible link between the experience of bullying victimization and ACEs as they relate to school disengagement. This is relevant as school disengagement has been associated with early school dropout, problematic drug and alcohol use, violent crime, property crime, and arrests in adolescence (Henry et al., 2011), which can each be impacted by experience of bullying victimization and ACEs.
A number of studies have demonstrated the negative effects of bullying on mental health. Lereya et al. (2013) conducted a study of individuals who were bullied between the ages 7 and 10 and the extent to which they exhibited higher levels of self-harm between the ages of 16 and 17 in adolescence, while controlling for ACEs, psychopathology, and internalizing versus externalizing behaviors. Their data demonstrated individuals who were bullied were at an increased risk of self-harm (Lereya et al., 2013). Herba et al. (2008) examined a Dutch cohort of 1525 children to assess the link between suicidal ideation and bullying victimization. Their findings indicated that victims reported higher experience of suicidal ideation moderated by paternal internalizing disorders and rejection within the home, indicating a specific vulnerability (Herba et al., 2008).
The long-term mental health implications of bullying are perhaps the most concerning, and these were examined in a five-decade longitudinal study conducted by Takizawa et al. (2014). Takizawa et al. assessed the adverse effects of bullying on individuals into mid-to-later (45-55 years old) life as opposed to early adulthood, which is more commonly studied. Takizawa et al. reported that experiencing bullying resulted in higher stress scores, poor general health and poor cognitive functioning at both early adulthood and midlife, and increased anxiety and depression scores in midlife when compared to cohort members who were not bullied. Individuals who had been bullied had lower educational levels, were more likely to be unemployed and earn less than their peers, and they were less likely to have met with friends in the recent past or live with a spouse or partner in midlife (Takizawa et al., 2014). The authors' interpretation was explicit and three-pronged. First, they asserted that the experience of bullying has a negative impact, over and beyond the impact of other negative events, which was controlled for in the study. Second, this impact can have long term effects on an individual, even 40 years after the fact. Third, their findings demonstrate how pervasive the long-term consequences of experiencing bullying can be on an individual’s life, including economic status, general health, stress levels, and social relationships.
Purpose of the Current Study
ACEs and bullying are arguably some of the most substantial and formative factors relating to interpersonal relationships and personality development in adulthood. The current researchers separate these concepts in an attempt to understand their specific significance and the nuance of their effects, but these negative experiences have similar consequences for individuals resulting in greater struggles in navigating adulthood. Studies have shown that experiencing one or more ACE increases the likelihood of experiencing bullying and experiencing bullying increases the risk of negative health and mental health effects later in life. There is a gap in our understanding of how bullying and ACEs can co-occur as a “toxic duo” (Baiden et al., 2020) impacting individual resiliency and causing greater health risks decades into adulthood.
This study examined how ACEs and bullying can impact resilience scores when examined both independently and in conjunction with each other. There were two primary hypotheses. First, higher levels of ACEs and the experience of bullying victimization would lead to lower resilience scores. Second, the negative effect on resilience scores would be impacted by the combined effects of the experience of bullying victimization and the existence of ACEs. That is, it was anticipated that bullying would additionally moderate the relationship between ACEs and resilience, further strengthening the effect when present. This information will help fill a gap in our understanding of how bullying and ACEs can co-occur and how the combination may more strongly inhibit the development and retention of resiliency as an adaptive trait. Understanding the relationships among these three factors may inform future interventions and prevention programs for youth at risk.