| 1965 | All children have the same needs for healthy development. |
| 1970 | Some conditions or circumstances—such as “absent father,” “teenage mother,” “working mom,” and “day care”—are harmful for every child. |
| 1975 | All children are not the same. Some children are resilient, coping easily with stressors that cause harm in other children. |
| 1980 | Nothing inevitably causes harm. All the factors thought to be risks in 1970 (e.g., day care) are sometimes beneficial. |
| 1985 | Factors beyond the family, both in the child (low birthweight, prenatal alcohol exposure, aggressive temperament) and in the community (poverty, violence), can harm children. |
| 1990 | Risk–benefit analysis finds that some children are “invulnerable” to, or even benefit from, circumstances that destroy others. |
| 1995 | No child is invincibly resilient. Risks are always harmful—if not in education, then in emotions; if not immediately, then long term. |
| 2000 | Risk–benefit analysis involves the interplay among many biological, cognitive, and social factors, some within the child (genes, disability, temperament), the family (function as well as structure), and the community (including neighborhood, school, church, and culture). |
| 2005 | Focus on strengths, not risks. Assets in child (intelligence, personality), family (secure attachment, warmth), community (schools, after-school programs), and nation (income support, health care) are crucial. |
| 2010 | Strengths vary by culture and national values. Both universal needs and local variations must be recognized and respected. |
| 2012 | Genes, family structures, and cultural practices can be either strengths or weaknesses. Differential sensitivity means identical stressors can benefit one child and harm another. |