Résilience et croissance post-traumatique : enjeux théoriques et cliniques

ObjectiveThis article discusses the theoretical and clinical links between the concepts of resilience and post-traumatic growth (PTC). These two concepts are so closely related that they are often, but wrongly, confused. Yet, they both offer interesting perspectives when distinguished epistemologically. The main objective of this article is to define these two entities and to discuss their complementarity and differences at the theoretical and clinical levels.MethodA review of the international literature on these concepts was conducted to identify similarities and differences.ResultsIt appears that resilience is a well-known and useful concept in psychology, but its definitional variability has consequences at the theoretical, clinical, and psychometric levels. It sometimes refers to the construct of post-traumatic growth that is, nevertheless, complementary and different: post-traumatic growth is described as “positive psychological changes ...] following exposure to a major trauma” and resilience, in its strict definition, refers to a return to pre-traumatic status (i.e. prior to the adverse event). Resilience and growth are two distinct and complementary entities, as they share a number of common processes but have different expressions and purposes.DiscussionThe notions of resilience and post-traumatic growth do not reflect the same phenomena and trajectories in subjects who have experienced adverse events. Resilience refers to a return to a pre-event level of functioning, whereas post-traumatic growth refers to the benefits and positive changes following a trauma with no opposition to suffering, as it would be the root cause of post-traumatic growth.ConclusionFrom a theoretical and clinical point of view, it is important to integrate post-traumatic growth into clinical psychology and psychiatry, in order to better understand the life paths of subjects struggling with psychotraumatic consequences. It would lead to a larger vision of “resistance and overcoming trauma processes” that would not oppose suffering and recovery, but that would study both constructs.