Exposure to adverse life events typically predicts subsequent negative effects on mental health and well-being, such that more adversity predicts worse outcomes. However, adverse experiences may also foster subsequent resilience, with resulting advantages for mental health and well-being. In a multiyear longitudinal study of a national sample, people with a history of some lifetime adversity reported better mental health and well-being outcomes than not only people with a high history of adversity but also than people with no history of adversity. Specifically, U-shaped quadratic relationships indicated that a history of some but nonzero lifetime adversity predicted relatively lower global distress, lower self-rated functional impairment, fewer posttraumatic stress symptoms, and higher life satisfaction over time. Furthermore, people with some prior lifetime adversity were the least affected by recent adverse events. These results suggest that, in moderation, whatever does not kill us may indeed make us stronger.

Previous research has demonstrated an association between lifetime exposure to adverse events and chronic back pain (CBP), but the nature of this relationship has not been fully specified. Adversity exposure typically predicts undesirable outcomes, suggesting that lack of all adversity is optimal. However, we hypothesized that among individuals faced with CBP, a history of a low level of lifetime adversity would yield protective effects, manifested as lower impairment and healthcare utilization. Adult members of a national panel (N=396) endorsed a history of CBP when reporting their physical health status in an online survey; they further reported their functional impairment and healthcare utilization. Respondents had previously completed a survey of lifetime exposure to adverse events. Significant U-shaped quadratic relationships emerged between adversity and self-rated functional impairment (p<0.001), disabled employment status (p<0.001), frequency of physician/clinic visits for CBP (p<0.01), prescription (but not over-the-counter) analgesic use (p<0.01), and comorbid depression treatment seeking (p<0.01). Specifically, people with some lifetime adversity reported less impairment and healthcare utilization than people who had experienced either no adversity or a high level of adversity. Additional analyses failed to support alternative explanations of the findings. Implications for understanding and promoting resilience in the context of CBP are discussed.

Collective traumas can negatively affect large numbers of people who ostensibly did not experience events directly, making it particularly important to identify which people are most vulnerable to developing mental and physical health problems as a result of such events. It is commonly believed that successful coping with a traumatic event requires expressing one's thoughts and feelings about the experience, suggesting that people who choose not to do so would be at high risk for poor adjustment. To test this idea in the context of collective trauma, 2,138 members of a nationally representative Web-enabled survey panel were given the opportunity to express their reactions to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, on that day and those following. Follow-up surveys assessing mental and physical health outcomes were completed over the next 2 years. Contrary to common belief, participants who chose not to express any initial reaction reported better outcomes over time than did those who expressed an initial reaction. Among those who chose to express their immediate reactions, longer responses predicted worse outcomes over time. Implications for myths of coping, posttrauma interventions, and psychology in the media are discussed.