For much of psychology’s history, adversity was framed as something to endure or recover from. Resilience is commonly understood as the ability to ‘bounce back’ and restore normality. But over the last few decades, research has been sketching out something different and, in some ways, more hopeful: the idea that challenge, disruption and even trauma can sometimes lead to deeper self-understanding, stronger relationships and new priorities.
Psychologists call this adversarial growth. The term may sound clinical, but in fact speaks to a very human process.
I don’t approach this concept as a detached observer. In my early twenties I was diagnosed with a progressive autoimmune condition, and my life gradually shifted from daily physical activity and independence to using a wheelchair. I have also completed studies in organisational psychology, which has given me frameworks for thinking about how people respond to challenges. Between the two, I’ve been fortunate enough to have the opportunity to consciously explore the link between growth after difficulty and adversity.
What adversarial growth is (and isn’t)
Tedeschi and Calhoun (1996) first described adversarial or post-traumatic growth when studying how people responded to major life crises. Rather than simply recovering, many reported fundamental changes such as a greater appreciation for life, deeper relationships, and a sense of new priorities. It is an idea that refuses to stay confined to the clinical sphere. It points instead to a more universal human capacity: the ability to rework meaning after our basic assumptions about the world no longer hold (Janoff-Bulman, 1992).
This isn’t to say growth is inevitable, or that adversity is desirable. Joseph and Linley (2005) argue that distress and growth can coexist and Zoellner and Maercker (2006) caution that self-reported growth can sometimes mask unresolved trauma. It is therefore more accurate to view growth as a dynamic process; one of ongoing reconstruction and negotiation rather than as a stable endpoint.
Why my thinking changed
Before encountering adversarial growth as an idea, I assumed that resilience, pushing through a difficult situation and making it back to baseline, was the trait that was most important to navigate adversity. My background in organisational psychology began to challenge that.
In organisations, progress rarely comes from perfection; it comes from the space to learn from mistakes. Teams improve when they can reflect without blame, try new ideas and adjust. Translating that mindset into my own life changed how I approached difficulty. Rather than treating adversity as a verdict, one that I can recover from, I began to see it as feedback for the next iteration of myself. Instead of bouncing back, I started thinking in terms of growing: treating identity as a living prototype rather than a finished product. This allowed me to be curious about my own reactions, to experiment with new ways of living and working, and to accept that some days would be about recalibration rather than achievement.
From abstract idea to practice
I now work with students and professionals in a university setting, where I share my lived experience of adjusting to long-term illness and disability. Those conversations give others a more human understanding of change. Talking about growth while still living with ongoing change forces me to hold both the gains and the grief. Over time, I’ve noticed capacities I might not have developed otherwise: patience with ambiguity, a greater openness to different viewpoints, a willingness to live without a fixed blueprint. These aren’t qualities that cancel out loss, they’re qualities that sit alongside loss, slowly reshaping how I work and relate to others.
The implications of adversarial growth reach far beyond individual coping. Psychology is sometimes framed as a tool for remediating symptoms, repairing damage, and restoring function. But a growth-informed approach invites different questions such as What capacities can emerge through struggle? and How can we build environments and relationships that make that growth more likely?
Organisational psychology offers useful clues. Teams thrive when there is psychological safety, when setbacks are treated as information rather than proof of inadequacy. Individuals, too, benefit from this mindset. Seeing difficulty as a space for learning instead of as failure creates a deeper, more sustainable resilience built on curiosity and iteration rather than grit alone. This perspective doesn’t romanticise adversity; it recognises it as a process of sense-making and skill-building. The research on adversarial growth reminds us that growth is rarely a one-off event. It is iterative and requires patience. People who demonstrate growth are often those who have been willing to revisit and revise their self-narratives over time. They do not simply ‘move on’, they work through and rework meaning with each new chapter of life.
This practice lens helps counter a common misconception: that growth equals positivity or acceptance. In reality, growth can coexist with sadness, anger and frustration. In my own life, acknowledging both sides has allowed a more authentic reconstruction of identity. It’s a lesson I try to model in the spaces where I share my story: growth doesn’t just mean you’ve learned to overcome difficulty, it means you’ve learned to keep shaping yourself in its presence.
- Ayad Marhoon is a Patient Educator at the University of Leeds
References
Charmaz, K. (1995). The body, identity, and self: Adapting to impairment. Sociological Quarterly, 36(4), 657–680.
Janoff-Bulman, R. (1992). Shattered assumptions: Towards a new psychology of trauma. Free Press.
Joseph, S., & Linley, P. A. (2005). Positive adjustment to threatening events: An organismic valuing theory of growth through adversity. Review of General Psychology, 9(3), 262–280.
Park, C. L. (2010). Making sense of the meaning literature: An integrative review of meaning making and its effects on adjustment to stressful life events. Psychological Bulletin, 136(2), 257–301.
Prati, G., & Pietrantoni, L. (2009). Optimism, social support, and coping strategies as factors contributing to posttraumatic growth. Journal of Loss and Trauma, 14(5), 364–388.
Tedeschi, R. G., & Calhoun, L. G. (1996). The Posttraumatic Growth Inventory: Measuring the positive legacy of trauma. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 9(3), 455–471.
Tedeschi, R. G., & Calhoun, L. G. (2004). Posttraumatic growth: Conceptual foundations and empirical evidence. Psychological Inquiry, 15(1), 1–18.
Zoellner, T., & Maercker, A. (2006). Posttraumatic growth in clinical psychology — A critical review and introduction of a two-component model. Clinical Psychology Review, 26(5), 626–653.
link
