Initial research on loss and potentially traumatic events (PTEs) has been dominated by either a psychopathological approach emphasizing individual dysfunction or an event approach emphasizing average differences between exposed and nonexposed groups. We consider the limitations of these approaches and review more recent research that has focused on the heterogeneity of outcomes following aversive events. Using both traditional analytic tools and sophisticated latent trajectory modeling, this research has identified a set of prototypical outcome patterns. Typically, the most common outcome following PTEs is a stable trajectory of healthy functioning or resilience. We review research showing that resilience is not the result of a few dominant factors, but rather that there are multiple independent predictors of resilient outcomes. Finally, we critically evaluate the question of whether resilience-building interventions can actually make people more resilient, and we close with suggestions for future research on resilience.

Bereavement is a severe stressor that typically incites painful and debilitating symptoms of acute grief that commonly progresses to restoration of a satisfactory, if changed, life. Normally grief does not need clinical intervention. However, sometimes acute grief can gain a foothold and become a chronic debilitating condition called complicated grief. Moreover, the stress caused by bereavement, like other stressors, can increase the likelihood of onset or worsening of other physical or mental disorders. Hence some bereaved people need to be diagnosed and treated. A clinician evaluating a bereaved person is at risk for both over-and under-diagnosis, either pathologizing a normal condition or neglecting to treat an impairing disorder. The authors of DSM IV focused primarily on the problem of over-diagnosis, and omitted complicated grief because of insufficient evidence. We revisit bereavement considerations in light of new research findings. This paper focuses primarily on a discussion of possible inclusion of a new diagnosis and dimensional assessment of complicated grief. We also discuss modifications in the bereavement V code and refinement of bereavement exclusions in major depression and other disorders.

Lockdowns to control the spread of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have had profound effects on everyday life worldwide, but their effect on mental health remains unclear because available meta-analyses and reviews rely mostly on cross-sectional studies. We conducted a rapid review and meta-analysis of longitudinal studies and natural experiments investigating the relationship between COVID-19 lockdowns and mental health. A total of 25 studies involving 72 004 participants and 58 effect sizes were analyzed. Using a random effects model, we found that lockdowns had small effects on mental health symptoms, g = 0.17, s.e. = 0.05, 95% CI (0.06–0.24), p = 0.001, but the effects on positive psychological functioning, g = −0.12, s.e. = 0.11, 95% CI (−0.33 to 0.09), p = 0.27, were not significant. Multivariate analysis of effect sizes revealed significant and relatively small effect sizes for anxiety and depression, while those for social support, loneliness, general distress, negative affect, and suicide risk were not significant. The results indicated substantial heterogeneity among studies, but meta-regression analyses found no significant moderation effects for mean age, gender, continent, COVID-19 death rate, days of lockdown, publication status or study design. The psychological impact of COVID-19 lockdowns is small in magnitude and highly heterogeneous, suggesting that lockdowns do not have uniformly detrimental effects on mental health and that most people are psychologically resilient to their effects.

For decades, researchers have documented remarkable levels of resilience in children who were exposed to corrosive early environments, such as those in which poverty or chronic maltreatment were present; however, relatively little research has examined resilience in children or adults who were exposed to isolated and potentially traumatic events. The historical emphasis on psychological and physiologic dysfunction after potentially traumatic events has suggested that such events almost always produce lasting emotional damage. Recent research, however, has consistently shown that across different types of potentially traumatic events, including bereavement, serious illness, and terrorist attack, upward of 50% of people have been found to display resilience. Research has further identified substantial individual variation in response to potentially traumatic events, including 4 prototypical and empirically derived outcome trajectories: chronic dysfunction, recovery, resilience, and delayed reactions. Factors that promote resilience are heterogeneous and include a variety of person-centered variables (eg, temperament of the child, personality, coping strategies), demographic variables (eg, male gender, older age, greater education), and sociocontextual factors (eg, supportive relations, community resources). It is surprising that some factors that promote resilience to potentially traumatic events may be maladaptive in other contexts, whereas other factors are more broadly adaptive. Given the growing evidence that resilience is common, psychotherapeutic treatment should be reserved for those in genuine need.

The formal acceptance of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) as a legitimate diagnostic category in the 1980 Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders stimulated a torrent of research on psychological trauma. Not surprisingly, PTSD and its treatment had dominated that research. Another common approach has been to measure the average impact of different potentially traumatic events, as well as the factors that inform that impact. In this article, we consider the limitations of these perspectives and argue for a broader theoretical approach that takes into account the natural heterogeneity of trauma reactions over time. To that end, we review recent attempts to identify prototypical patterns or trajectories of trauma reaction that include chronic dysfunction, but also delayed reactions, recovery, and psychological resilience. We consider the advantages but also the limitations and ongoing controversies associated with this approach. Finally, we introduce promising new research that uses relative sophisticated advances in latent growth mixture modeling as a means of empirically mapping the heterogeneity of trauma responses and consider some of the implications of this approach for existing trauma theories.