Learning New Ways to Do Good.

Susan Nolen-Hoeksema
{"title":"Learning New Ways to Do Good.","authors":"Susan Nolen-Hoeksema","doi":"10.1177/1529100610389558","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Bonanno, Brewin, Kaniasty, and LaGreca (2010, this issue) provide a comprehensive and authoritative review of research on risk and resilience following disaster, including the authors’ own ground-breaking work in this area. This review seems particularly timely given the apparent excess of natural and human-made disasters in the news in recent years. Images of hurricane victims in New Orleans, tsunami victims in Southeast Asia, earthquake victims in Haiti, and flood victims in Pakistan, as well as those who lost their livelihoods due to the Deep Horizon oil spill in the Gulf Coast, haunt us, moving us to want to do something. Bonanno et al. caution that some well-motivated attempts to prevent psychological harm in disaster victims may backfire, undermining the natural coping and healing processes that characterize the majority of victims. The authors persuasively demonstrate that the strong majority of victims are resilient, showing little evidence of long-term psychological harm. Still, there is a minority of individuals who suffer long-term distress—manifested in many ways in addition to posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD)—who could benefit from empirically informed interventions such as cognitive-behavioral therapy. Sadly, few of these individuals will have access to such interventions, particularly when their whole community has been ravaged by a disaster. The aspect of the review by Bonanno et al. that is probably most novel to many psychologists is their discussion of the impact of disasters on families and communities. We are accustomed to thinking about both risk factors and interventions at the level of the individual. The authors make clear, however, that some of the most potent risk factors for postdisaster psychological distress may be at the family and community level, such as decreased instrumental and emotional support. Further, some of the most potent (and safe) interventions may be to restore community and family resources and cohesion as soon as possible after the disaster. This suggests that psychologists should work with sociologists, political scientists, and economists, among other professionals, to study communityand family-level factors that most strongly impact individuals’ well-being after a disaster and to design new interventions to restore factors promoting resilience.","PeriodicalId":37882,"journal":{"name":"Psychological science in the public interest : a journal of the American Psychological Society","volume":"11 1","pages":"i"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2010-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1529100610389558","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychological science in the public interest : a journal of the American Psychological Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100610389558","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Psychology","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Bonanno, Brewin, Kaniasty, and LaGreca (2010, this issue) provide a comprehensive and authoritative review of research on risk and resilience following disaster, including the authors’ own ground-breaking work in this area. This review seems particularly timely given the apparent excess of natural and human-made disasters in the news in recent years. Images of hurricane victims in New Orleans, tsunami victims in Southeast Asia, earthquake victims in Haiti, and flood victims in Pakistan, as well as those who lost their livelihoods due to the Deep Horizon oil spill in the Gulf Coast, haunt us, moving us to want to do something. Bonanno et al. caution that some well-motivated attempts to prevent psychological harm in disaster victims may backfire, undermining the natural coping and healing processes that characterize the majority of victims. The authors persuasively demonstrate that the strong majority of victims are resilient, showing little evidence of long-term psychological harm. Still, there is a minority of individuals who suffer long-term distress—manifested in many ways in addition to posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD)—who could benefit from empirically informed interventions such as cognitive-behavioral therapy. Sadly, few of these individuals will have access to such interventions, particularly when their whole community has been ravaged by a disaster. The aspect of the review by Bonanno et al. that is probably most novel to many psychologists is their discussion of the impact of disasters on families and communities. We are accustomed to thinking about both risk factors and interventions at the level of the individual. The authors make clear, however, that some of the most potent risk factors for postdisaster psychological distress may be at the family and community level, such as decreased instrumental and emotional support. Further, some of the most potent (and safe) interventions may be to restore community and family resources and cohesion as soon as possible after the disaster. This suggests that psychologists should work with sociologists, political scientists, and economists, among other professionals, to study communityand family-level factors that most strongly impact individuals’ well-being after a disaster and to design new interventions to restore factors promoting resilience.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
学习做好事的新方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
68.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Psychological Science in the Public Interest (PSPI) is a unique journal featuring comprehensive and compelling reviews of issues that are of direct relevance to the general public. These reviews are written by blue ribbon teams of specialists representing a range of viewpoints, and are intended to assess the current state-of-the-science with regard to the topic. Among other things, PSPI reports have challenged the validity of the Rorschach and other projective tests; have explored how to keep the aging brain sharp; and have documented problems with the current state of clinical psychology. PSPI reports are regularly featured in Scientific American Mind and are typically covered in a variety of other major media outlets.
期刊最新文献
About the Authors. Addiction: Where Framing Can Be a Matter of Life and Death: Response to Flusberg et al. (2024). How Frames Can Promote Agency: Response to Flusberg et al. (2024). The Psychology of Framing: How Everyday Language Shapes the Way We Think, Feel, and Act. About the Authors.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1