Objective: Guided by the resilience portfolio model, we examined associations between resilience profiles (defined by adversity exposure and psychological strengths) and well-being-related outcomes across 2 years during the COVID-19 pandemic.Method: A longitudinal, representative, probability-based sample of U.S. residents (N = 4,248) completed four surveys between March 2020 and May 2022.K-means clustering identified distinct profiles based on lifetime adversity exposure and psychological strengths, operationalized as four internal assets (i.e., positive affect, awe, cognitive reappraisal, and benefit finding).Sociodemographic indicators were explored as predictors of profile membership.Mixed-effects modeling evaluated how profiles correlated with well-being-related outcomes (global distress, functional impairment, emotional exhaustion) over time, adjusting for preexisting mental health conditions and pandemic-specific stressors.Results: Four profiles were identified: Profile 1: Lowest-Adversity/Mixed-Strengths (31.5%);Profile 2: Low-Adversity/ High-Strengths (24.0%);Profile 3: Moderate-Adversity/Low-Strengths (26.0%); and Profile 4: High-Adversity/High-Strengths (18.5%).Compared to the reference group (Lowest-Adversity/Mixed-Strengths), Moderate-Adversity/Low-Strengths profile members reported higher global distress ( p < .001),emotional exhaustion ( p < .001),and functional impairment ( p < .001).Low-Adversity/High-Strengths profile members showed comparable or slightly better well-being ( p < .01 on emotional exhaustion) than the reference group.Despite higher adversity exposure, High-Adversity/High-Strengths profile members reported lower global distress ( p < .001)and emotional exhaustion ( p < .001)than the Moderate-Adversity/ Low-Strengths profile.Female and Black respondents were more likely to belong to High-Strengths profiles (i.e., Low-Adversity/High-Strengths and High-Adversity/High-Strengths, ps < .05)than male and White respondents.Conclusions: Combinations of psychological strengths and adversity exposure correlated with well-being-related outcomes during collective trauma.Results underscore the value of including strengthsbased, person-centered approaches in multidimensional resilience research and interventions, highlighting the need to foster multiple, complementary psychological strengths. Clinical Impact StatementFindings reveal that resilience-related profiles depend on the combination of past adversity exposure and psychological strengths (conceptualized as internal assets) within broader social and ecological contexts.We found that individuals reporting high levels of positive emotions and cognitive coping strengths demonstrated better well-being, despite varying levels of past adversity.Cognitive coping strengths were particularly important for those with high adversity exposure.These findings challenge the notion that certain demographic groups are inherently more resilient and suggest practitioners should focus on enhancing individuals' existing psychological strengths while accounting for their unique adversity experiences.Person-centered, multidimensional approaches that consider individuals' specific adversity-strengths profiles may be more effective than one-size-fits-all interventions.
Yan et al. (Thu,) studied this question.