Paper details:

Attached is the article, directions, and this chapter’s notes if needed.
Assignments
There will be
2
QRS Discussion Assignments, worth 10 points each. These will coincide with the
2 research
articles (A & B
) that I will provide in the Content section of D2L. See grading rubric
below.
QRS stands for Question, Reaction, Summary. Through QRS, you will en
gage in higher order thinking skills by
(1)
Reading a research article
; (2) Extracting central concepts; (3) Recognizing areas where your understanding
of the reading is weak; (4) Formulating specific questions; (5) Critically analyzing the data supporting
central
concepts in the research article; and (6) Relating content from the article to previous knowledge learned in class.
Q stands for Questions
. These are questions that occur to you when you’re reading the research article. You
should write these ques
tions down as they arise.
R represents Reaction
.
This is your emotional response to the reading. Did you like it or dislike it? Was it
confusing or easy to understand? There is a documented link between emotion and memory. Thus, by thinking
about your emo
tional reaction to the research article you are promoting retention of the information.
S signifies Summary
. You will write a brief summary of what you think are the most important points for you
to acquire upon reading the research article. What is the t
akeaway?
For each QRS Discussion Assignment, you will start by reading the assigned research article. You will likely
need to read the article more than one time to fully comprehend it. Then, you will identify questions that occur
to you while reading th
e article. Then, you will prepare an emotional reaction to the research article. Lastly, you
will prepare a brief but thorough summary of what you think are the most important points of the research
article. All parts of this assignment should be typed int
o a Microsoft Word document that is no less than one
page long, single
–
spaced, but no more than two pages long, single
–
spaced. After running spell and grammar
check, and proofreading, then copy and paste your assignment into the appropriate D2L discussion
forum. Your
response will be visible to your classmates.
You will not be able to view your classmates’ QRS Discussion
Assignments until you submit your posting.
After submitting your QRS Discussion Assignment into the D2L
discussion forum, take the opportu
nity to view your classmates’ responses.
Grading
Rubric for
QRS
D
is
cussion
Assignments
Points
10
8
6
Quality
And
Content
Insightful questions, a thorough
and honest description of
student’s emotional reaction to
the reading, and a detailed
summary in which
the most
salient points of the reading are
identified
Excellent questions, but the
reaction section lacks depth of
self
–
evaluation or the summary
section does not include one or
more major ideas from the
reading
Cursory questions that clearly
represent a l
ack of depth of
thought, reactions and
summaries are weak or absent
Format
No less than one page,
and
no
more than two pa
ges, single
spaced, no grammar or
spelling
errors
, all words/ideas borrowed
from sources accurately
paraphrased and cited in APA
style
No less than one page, no more
than two pages, single spaced,
few grammar or
spelling
errors
, all words/ideas
borrowed from sources
accurately paraphrased, but not
cited in APA style
Close to one page,
single
spaced, several grammar or
spelling erro
rs
, all words/ideas
borrowed from sources not
accurately paraphrased or cited
in APA style

Journal of Traumatic Stress
, Vol. 23, No. 2, April 2010, pp. 215–222 (
C
©
2010)
Resilience and Crime Victimization
Mary Ann Dutton and Rebecca Greene
Georgetown University Medical Center
What do we know about resilience in crime victimization? In this article, the authors discuss resilience defined
as protective factors (e.g., personality characteristics, biological characteristics, social and cultural factors, and
community characteristics); as a process of adaptation (e.g., self-enhancement, positive cognitive appraisals, coping
styles, and spirituality), including an iterative perspective on resilience as a cascade of protective processes; and as
positive outcomes (e.g., lack of symptoms) following exposure to adverse events. Within each of these definitional
frameworks, they consider general conceptual issues pertaining to resilience and then the small body of research
that has focused specifically on resilience and some type of crime victimization. Research and clinical implications
are discussed.
What does resilience mean in the face of crime victimization?
Why do some people seem to rebound after being robbed, mugged,
or even sexually assaulted, whereas others experience a downward
spiral of adverse mental and physical health? Efforts to understand
the aftermath of adversity such as crime victimization, and trauma
exposure in general, have focused largely on psychopathology. Lit-
tle attention has been paid to the fact that many people adjust
quite well despite crime victimization and to understanding the re-
silience that this suggests. These individual differences in the ways
people are affected by crime victimization further underscore the
need to expand our understanding of resilience. Better knowledge
of resilience can inform new approaches for enhancing pathways
to positive outcomes following victimization by crime. Specifically,
what resources might be integrated into both the criminal justice
and health care systems—institutions that victims already navigate
in the aftermath of crime—that might enhance resilience in both
the short- and the long-term?
There is, as yet, no single coherent conceptual framework to
guide resilience research. As Masten pointed out (2007),
There is a long history of controversy about the meaning of
resilience and how to operationalize it. . . including debates
about whether resilience is best defined as a trait, a process,
an outcome, a pattern of life course development, narrow or
broad, multifaceted or unidimensional, short- or long-term,
and whether resilience should encompass recovery as well as
resistance, internal as well as external adaptive functioning,
and external as well as internal resources. (p. 924)
We consider three different approaches to the definition of re-
silience. We discuss resilience defined as protective factors (e.g.,
Mary Ann Dutton, Rebecca Greene, Georgetown Medical Center.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Mary Ann Dutton, 620 Kober
Cogan Hall, Washington, DC. E-mail: mad27@georgetown.edu.
C
©
2010 International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies. Published online in Wiley Inter-
Science (www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/jts.20510
personality characteristics, biological characteristics, social and
cultural factors, and community characteristics); as a process of
adaptation (e.g., self-enhancement, positive cognitive appraisals,
coping styles, and spirituality), including an iterative perspective
on resilience as a cascade of protective processes; and as positive
outcomes (e.g., lack of symptoms) following exposure to adverse
events. Within each of these definitional frameworks defining re-
silience, we consider first generalization of conceptual issues and
then the small body of research that has focused specifically on
some type of crime victimization.
We included studies in this review that measured resilience
in some way. We also focused on resilience following crime
victimization involving individual perpetrator(s) against individ-
ual victims. The literature involving torture, terrorism, or other
mass trauma and combat are beyond the scope of this article.
We searched PubMed (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PubMed/),
PsycINFO (http://www.apa.org/psycinfo/), and the PILOTS
database (Published International Literature on Traumatic Stress;
http://www.ptsd.va.gov) and selected articles with the word “re-
silience” or “resiliency” associated with some form of crime vic-
timization. We included in the review those articles that met the
following criteria: (1) empirical research with adults who had been
a victim of a crime, (2) at least one research question that explicitly
considered resilience or resiliency in relation to crime victimiza-
tion, (3) research that included at least one standardized mea-
sure defining resilience or resiliency and (4) research published in
English.
RESILIENCE AS PROTECTIVE FACTORS
Resilience has been understood as a matter of character, dispo-
sition, or endowment that is protective in the face of exposure
to adverse or traumatic events. From this perspective, resilience
consists of a set of factors that exist—in some dynamic or static
manner—prior to crime victimization and that enhances positive
215
216
Dutton and Greene
adaptation and protects against adverse outcomes. Here we con-
sider not only individual (e.g., personality, biological, and so-
cial/cultural characteristics, prior trauma history), but also com-
munity characteristics that contribute to resilience.
A number of individual personality factors have been identified
as protective in the face of both acute and chronic adverse situ-
ations. Many of these are linked to extroverted personality char-
acteristics, for example, hardiness (Kobasa, 1979). According to a
recent review (Agaibi & Wilson, 2005), hardiness leads to better
outcomes following exposure to stress because hardy individuals
appraise threatening situations as less distressing, are more confi-
dent, and thus, better able to use active coping and engage social
support. Other personality characteristics that are associated with
resilience include internal locus of control, self-esteem, altruism,
and ego defense (Agaibi & Wilson, 2005).
Resiliency has also been associated with an individual’s biologi-
cal characteristics. The potential links between biological processes
and resilience are many. Broad domains of biological processes that
are potentially related to resilience include (1) neural plasticity of
brain structure and function, (2) emotional reactivity (e.g., star-
tle reflex, hemispheric electroencephalogram reactivity), (3) hemi-
spheric asymmetry, (4) neuroendocrine systems, and (5) immuno-
logical systems focused extensively on the role of dysregulation in
the hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal axis, especially in the devel-
opment of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and depression.
Further, preliminary studies have shown several compounds to
be related to resilience following exposure to extreme stress. Neu-
ropeptide Y, a peptide that is thought to function as an anxiolytic in
stressful situations (Yehuda, Flory, Southwick, & Charney, 2006),
is one example. Allopregnanolone is a also a potential resiliency fac-
tor that has been associated with PTSD (Hoge, Austin, & Pollack,
2007), known to counteract the effects of reduced y-amino-butyric
acid A following stress.
Genetic markers are another factor to be considered in the com-
plex array of resiliency. Stein, Campbell-Sills, and Gelernter (2009)
defined emotional resilience as the ability to maintain healthy and
stable levels of psychological functioning in the wake of stress and
trauma, and they hypothesize that genetic factors confer protec-
tion in the face of adversity, although no specific genetic factors
for resilience have been identified definitively. However, in a study
of 423 college students (Stein et al., 2009), resilience measured
by the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (Connor & Davidson,
2003) was associated with the short variant of a polymorphism
in the promoter of the serotonin transporter gene (gene,
SLC6A4
;
variant, 5HTTLPR) and, thus, is a prime candidate for a resilience
gene. That is, variation in 5HTTLPR is associated with individ-
ual differences in emotional resilience, an individual’s ability to
withstand and bounce back from stress.
A range of social and cultural factors have been associated with
resilience, including gender, age, race and ethnicity, social support
networks, and prior trauma history. These factors may operate in
different ways, either directly or moderating the effects of crime
victimization by interacting with various other mechanisms of
action. Research on gender has shown inconsistent associations
with resilience, with women shown to be at greater risk than men
(Breslau, Chilcoat, Kessler, Peterson, & Lucia, 1999; Mancini &
Bonanno, 2006), although in a study of child abuse and neglect,
Widom and her colleagues (DuMont, Widom, & Czaja, 2007)
found that women were more likely to be resilient across multiple
domains of functioning in both adolescence and young adulthood.
The results for ethnicity and race are also mixed. An Israeli study
found Arabs to be almost six times less likely to be trauma stress
resilient compared to Israeli citizens (Bleich, Gelkopf, Melamed,
& Solomon, 2006). DuMont and colleagues (2007) found that
non-Hispanic Whites were less likely to be classified as resilient
adolescence, but no effect was found in young adulthood.
Social support has widely been recognized as important for re-
silience in studies of depressed mothers who were survivors of child
sexual abuse (Wright, Fopma-Loy, & Fischer, 2005), firefighters
(North et al., 2002; Regehr, Hill, & Glancy, 2000), canine rescue
handlers after the 9/11 terrorist attack (Alvarez & Hunt, 2005),
and adults who were abused and neglected as children (DuMont
et al., 2007).
Resiliency has not only been attributed to individuals, but to
communities and social networks that can promote resilience in
individuals (Harvey, 2007). Community characteristics may be
particularly relevant when crime victimization affects large com-
munities, such as in the 2003 sniper shooting in the Washington,
DC area involving John Muhammad and John Lee Malvo, where
victims appeared to be targeted at random within a relatively
large geographic area. Another, more recent, example are the Ft.
Hood shootings where the military community and the Iraq and
Afghanistan wars provide a unique context that contributes to the
resilience of family members who lost a loved one in the shootings,
as well as to other members of the military community at Ft. Hood
and elsewhere.
Norris and Stevens (2007) discuss the adaptive community ca-
pacities underlying “community resilience”, (1) trusted sources of
information and effective communication; (2) community com-
petence, economic development, and collective communication
about the trauma; and (3) mechanisms to augment natural social
supports of family and friends (to promote connectedness). Five
elements described by Hobfoll et al. (2007) that are thought neces-
sary for effective mass trauma intervention are safety and calmness
(derived from trust), efficacy and hope (derived from community
competence, economic development, and collective communica-
tion), and connectedness (derived from mechanisms to augment
natural social supports). These elements identified by both Hobfoll
et al. and Norris and Stevens can also provide some direction for
understanding resilience among crime victims, especially those
involving community violence and other forms of violence vic-
timization that have broad community impact. The ability of in-
dividuals to adapt successfully following a crime victimization that
occurs in a community context, that is observed by many innocent
Journal of Traumatic Stress
DOI 10.1002/jts. Published on behalf of the International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies.