Prepared by Ben Silliman, Ph.D., C.F.L.E. Family Life Specialist, University of Wyoming incorporating references researched by Lynn Blinn Pike, Family Life Specialist, University of Missouri, for the National Network for Family Resiliency, part of the National Extension Service Children, Youth and Family Network.
Permission is granted to create and distribute copies of this document for non-commercial purposes provided that the author and MN CYFCEC receive acknowledgement and this notice is included.
For more information: cyf@umn.edu
Individual Resiliency: "...more researchers today prefer the relative concepts of resilience or stress-resistence rather than invulnerability...This usage implies a track record of successful adaptation in the individual who has been exposed to biological risk factors or stressful life events, and it also implies an expectation of continued low susceptibility to future stressors."--Werner & Smith (1992), p. 4
Positives And Negatives Of "At-Risk" Situations: "...risk factors are defined as individual and environmental hazards that increase youngsters' vulnerability to negative developmental oucomes. The presence of risk factors does not guarantee a negative dvelopmental outcome but rather, increases the odds, the probabilities that problem behaviors will occur. Protective factors are individual or environmental safeguards that enhance youngsters' ability to resist risks and foster adaptation and competence. Protective factors are sometimes just the oppositive of risk factors; the main difference, however, is that risk factors lead directly to disorder while protective factors operate only when a risk is present (Rutter, 1987)" --Bogenschneider, et al. (1993), p. 2
Youth Outcomes In Context: "No longer can we compartmentalize youth and isolate the relevance of family, peers, school, work settings, and community."--Bogenschneider, et al. (1993), p. 5
Family Strengths: "...those relationship patterns, interpersonal skills and competencies, and social and psychological characteristics which create a sense of positive family identity, promote satisfying and fulfilling interaction among family members, encourage the development of the potential of the family group and individual family members, and contribute to the family's ability to deal effectively with stress and crisis." --Stinnett (1979)
Family Strengths: "The crucial property of families, and systems in general, is that the whole and its parts must be able to [achieve their aspirations] for both to continue. A family "works" when its members feel good about the family, when their needs are being met, and the development of relationships flow smoothly." --Garbarino (1982), p. 72
Family Resiliency: "...characteristics, dimensions, and properties of families which help families to be resistent to disruption in the face of change and adaptive in the face of crisis situations..." --McCubbin & McCubbin (1988), p. 247
Contextualized/Individualized Approach: "Diverse family challenges are not well served when therapy is driven by an invariant approach or set of techniques for every family and problem--akin to "one size fits all"--despite the lack of evidence to support all-purpose claims for efficacy (Gurman, Kniskern, & Pinsof, 1986)"--Walsh (1993), p. 57
Anthony, E.J.; & B.J. Cohler. (Eds., 1987). The Invulnerable Child. New York, NY: Guilford.
Antonovsky, A. (1987). Unravelling the Mystery of Health: How People Manage Stress and Stay Well. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Arcus, Margaret E.; Jay D. Schvaneveldt; & J. Joel Moss. (Eds.,
1993). Handbook of Family Life Education (Vol. 1 & 2). Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
-History, context, practices, and programs related to prevention.
*Benson, Peter L. (1993). The Troubled Journey. Minneapolis, MN:
The Search Institute.
--Research funded by Lutheran Brotherhood Insurance Co. which
identifies youth/family/community assets and risk factors in
positive and negative outcomes for Sixth to Twelfth graders.
Benson, Peter L.; & Eugene C. Roelkepartain. (1993). Youth in
Single Parent Families. Minneapolis, MN: Search Institute.
--Specialized focus on SP families from overall study by Lutheran
Brotherhood.
*Bogenschneider, Karen; Small, Stephen; & Riley, David. (1993).
"An ecological, risk-focused approach for addressing youth-at-risk." Chevy Chase, MD: National 4-H Center.
--Summary of Werner and Smith (1993) and other research around
impacting risk and protective factors, with applications to
Extension programming.
Bond, Lynne A.; & Barry M. Wagner, (1988). Families in
Transition. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
--Presents a variety of research/theory-based prevention
strategies, program types, target audiences, evaluations.
Broderick, Carlfried. (1993). Understanding family processes.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
--Integration of family dynamics research.
*Blyth, Dale A.; & Eugene C. Roehlkepartain. (1993). Healthy
Communities, Healthy Youth. Minneapolis, MN: Search Institute.
--Specialized focus within Lutheran Brotherhood study on community
factors which promote resiliency.
Constantine, Larry L. (1986). Family paradigms. New York, NY:
Guilford Press.
--Theory/research/therapy practice-based discussion of the
dynamics of families.
Carter, Betty; & Monica McGoldrick. (Eds., 1988). The changing
family life cycle: A framework for family therapy. New York, NY:
Gardner Press.
--Research/therapy insights on cohesion and adaptability themes
through life-cycle transitions from a developmental/systems theory
base.
Curran, Dolores. (1981). Traits of a healthy family. Minneapolis,
MN: Winston Press.
--Research-based summary of attitudes and behaviors which promote
effective family functioning.
Dugan, Timothy F.; & Robert Coles. (1989). The child in our
times. New York, NY: Brunner-Mazel.
--Integration of research on individual resiliency.
*Dunst, Carl A.; Carol Trivette; & Angela Deal. (1988). Enabling
and Empowering Families. Brookline, MA: Brookline Books.
--Review of developmental and family strengths research, integrated
with principles and practices of empowering individuals and
families.
Dryfoos, Joy. (1990). Adolescents at risk: Prevalence and
prevention. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
--Research-based discussion of constitutional and environmental
factors impacting occurrence of and response to a variety of "risk"
outcomes for youth.
Galvin, Kathleen; & Bernard Brommell. (1991). Family
communication: Cohesion and change. New York: Harper and Row.
--Text which integrates theory, research, and therapy insights on
family dynamics.
Garbarino, James. (1992). Children and families in the social environment. Second edition. New York, NY: Aldine deGruyter.
Garmezy, Norman; & Michael Rutter. (Eds., 1983). Stress, coping, and development in children. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Falicov, Ceil. (1988). Family transitions. New York, NY: Guilford
Press.
--Research/therapy practice insights on family dynamics.
Krysan, Maria; Kristin A. Moore; & Nicholas Zill. (1990).
Identifying successful families: An overview of constructs and
selected measures. Washington, DC: Child Trends, Inc.
--Research review paper on approaches to family strengths,
constructs identified across a variety of studies, measures and
measurement strategies overall and for specific factors, life cycle
differences, intercorrelations among traits, and issues relevant to
application. An extensive bibliography and review of concepts
identified in major research projects is included.
Louv, Richard. (1990). Childhood's future. Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin.
Loyer-Carlson, Vicki; & Fern K. Wilits. (Eds., 1993). Youth-at-risk: The research and practice interface. University Park, PA: The Northeast Center for Rural Development.
L'Abate, Luciano. (1990). Building Family Competence. Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
--Presents a behavioral framework for educational and therapeutic
intervention.
*McCubbin, Hamilton I.; Marilyn A. McCubbin; & Anne I. Thompson. (1993). Resiliency in families: The role of family schema and appraisal in family adaptation to crisis. In T.H. Brubaker. (Ed.). Family relations: Challenges for the future. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Olson, David H.; Hamilton I. McCubbin; et al. (1983). Families:
What Makes Them Work. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
--Research study identifying patterns of marital and family
strength and coping across life-cycle.
Olson, David H.; Candyce S. Russell; & Douglas H. Sprenkle.
(1989). Circumplex Model: Systematic Assessment and Treatment of
Families. New York, NY: Haworth Press.
--Theory/research-based discussion of typical and problematic
issues in family dynamics.
Parens, Henri; & Selma Kramer. (Eds., 1993). Prevention in Mental
Health. Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson, Inc.
--Discussion of issues and implications for child development/
services to children with mental disorders.
Pence, Allan. (Ed., 1990). Ecological Research with Children and
Families. New York: Columbia University.
--Reviews of theory/research-based of intervention projects/
evaluations to enhance family and community life.
Pittman, Karen. (Ed. , 1993). "Promoting youth development: Strengthening the role of youth serving and community organizations.
Pitzer, Ron. (1990). Resiliency Bibliography. UM Consortium on
Children, Youth and Families Network.
--Summary list of research studies and books on resiliency
located on CYF Consortium gopher/Univ. of MN.
Reiss, David. (1981). The family's construction of reality.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
--Theory/research-based discussion of family paradigms for
problem solving (around configuration, coordination, closure
criteria) and their implications for family functioning and
intervention.
Roehlkepartain, Eugene C. (Ed., 1993). Working Together for
Youth. Search Institute.
--Discussion of implications of Lutheran Brotherhood study for
community development.
Rhodes, Warren; & Waln Brown. (1991). Why Some Children Succeed
Despite the Odds.
--Summary of research on individual resiliency.
Schumm, Walter R. (1985). Beyond relationship characteristics of
strong families: Constructing a model of family strengths. Family
Perspective, 19, (1), 1-9.
--Theory-based proposal integrating Stinnett & DeFrain's family
strengths model.
Stinnett, Nick; & John DeFrain. (1985). Secrets of Strong
Families. Boston, MA: Little, Brown, & Co.
--Summary of research with a nationwide sample describing traits
of self-identified "strong families" (appreciation, commitment,
time together, communication, faith and values, stress coping).
Walsh, Froma. (1993). Normal Family Processes. Second edition.
New York, NY: Guilford Press.
--Research/therapy practice-based discussion of family diversity
and common elements in "healthy" families.
Werner, Emmy E.; & Smith, Ruth S. (1992). Overcoming the odds.
Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
--Update on longitudinal research with "at-risk" children on
Kauai, reviewing the constitutional and environmental risk and
protective factors which influenced a variety of process and
outcome factors.
Werner, Emmy E.; & Smith, Ruth S. (1983). Vulnerable but
invincible: A longitudinal study of resilient children and youth.
New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
--Earlier version of the longitudinal study.
*Wolin, Steven; & Sybil Wolin. (1993). The resilient self. New
York, NY: Villiard Books.
--Theory/therapy-practice study of adult survivors of troubled
families, well-integrated with current resiliency research on the
same themes (insight, independence, relationship, initiative,
ceativity, humor, morality).
-Commitment not just "talking the talk," but Latin origins (com-mitere, send together) involve taking action to "walk it"-Cited by Stinnett, et al. (1979); Olson, et al. (1983)
Research On The Positive Side Of Commitment
Couple commitments involve:
Research On The Negative Side Of Commitment
Effects of alcoholism (sense of loss, distrust due to broken
promises) and child neglect/father absence or negatively-resolved
divorces (abandonment issues) illustrate the "down" side of failed
commitment.
Research on codependence, spouse or child abuse, and on non-egalitarian marriages strongly suggests that lack of accountability has some destructive consequences for individual development, the family unit, and the community.
Research On The Positive Side Of Cohesion
Family cohesion involves issues of:
Research On The Negative Side Of Cohesion
Destructive effects of child neglect and its relation to amoral/ immoral development, adolescent alienation and throwaway/runaway children.
Inappropriate intimacy is also a key issue, as reported in literature on sexual abuse (Gelles & Conte, Nov.'90 JMF), coercive parenting (Baumrind's parenting styles, etc.), and psychological enmeshment which impedes developing self-esteem and launching connection between cohesion and substance abuse. Protinsky (Fam.Therapy'90)
Broderick's (1993) Marriage & Family text has a discussion of attachment across the lifecycle. His discussion of distance regulation in "Understanding Family Process" (1993) is also insightful. Obviously, this issue relates as much to filial responsibility in elders as to attachment and individuation (see K.Rice, Apr.'90 J.Couns.Psych.; L.Bakken, Mar.'89 J.Ado.) issues for children and parents.
Families can be described on the above factors into typologies:
Rhythmic Family (high value and conscious effort on family time, with greater strengths in traditions/celebrations, bonding and flexibility, marital, child, family, and community satisfaction, and well-being)
Regenerative Family (high hardiness-- internal control and meaning, involvment and commitment to learn-- and coherence --emphasis on acceptance, loyalty, pride, faith, trust, respect, caring, shared values-- resulting in strengths around celebrations, family time, bonding and flexibility, satisfactions and well-being).
Some examples of recent research which may be relevant here include Zarski (Spr'90 Contemp.Fam.Therapy) "Family processes, resourcefulness, coping, and stress," Hauser (Feb'93 J.Early Ado.) "Understanding family contexts of adolescent coping." Mountains of research exist linking coping with health, recovery from illness, substance abuse, juvenile delinquency, etc.
Watzlawick, et al. (1969), Miller, Nunnally, & Wackman (1976), Rausch, et al. (1976), and Satir (1972).
-Non-verbal interactions are more frequent and often more critical for relationship maintenance than verbal Gottman & Porterfield (1979).
Fitzpatrick (1987) has a thorough discussion of both styles and processes in marital communication.
Gottman's (1994) work on marital communication tracks positive and negative patterns in detail.
Thomas (Nov'90 JMF) and Abbott, Berry & Meredith (Oct'90 FR) point to positive functions of religious practice and both medicine ("Healing Words") and counseling () are recognizing the significance of spirituality and religious framework in facilitating change. "Intrinsic" (internally-driven) vs. "extrinsic" (group conformity/show) religiosity (Allport, 1956) consistently shows higher correspondence with positive outcomes.
As Edwin Friedman (CH 6, Carter & McGoldrick's "The Changing Family Life Cycle") points out, the family is really the context in which religious or cultural values are played out. Rituals and traditions gain meaning and emphasis in the context of family interaction and participation in community.
In the values sphere, understanding a famly's shared meaning (see McCubbin, "coherence") has always been important. Dilworth-Anderson, Burton, and Turner (Jul'93 FR) discuss such themes in terms of culturally-diverse families. Clearly, social class and gender are key influences on values in marriage and parenting, eldercare and social networks. Miller (Feb'93 JMF) adds somewhat to this discussion.
Garbarino's (1987) work on high-risk neighborhoods suggests that social isolation has negative effects, just as Werner and Smith's (1992) longitudinal study points to the positive effects of social connections. A large body of research on social support and social networks indicates that both having help available and being able to give aid strengthen family systems. Even Riesman's (1981) "helper-principle" suggests that the helper often gets more from contributing to others than the helpee.
Recent research touching on connectedness includes Passero (Jan'91 J.Community Psych.) "Social network utilization as related to family history," Farrell (Feb'93 JMF) "Family systems and social support," Kurdek (Nov'93 JMF) "Social support and psychological distress in first marriages," and Dunst (Jul'89 Early Ed&Dev.) "Family needs, social support, and self-efficacy).
Not much research focuses on family time together, although a number of popular books tout its importance and some time investment is implicit in developing the other strengths. Certainly routine time for mundane activities "defuses" the intensity implicit in brief encounters. Parent involvement is often cited in studies of school success, drug use/non-use, lower sexual promiscuity, and child social support.
Some recent research which may be helpful for understanding the role of time together includes Kurdek (Mar'93 J.Family Psych.) "Nature and prediction of changes in marital quality" and Asmussen (Nov'93 JMF) "The quality of family time among young adults").
My major source here is Reiss' concept of family configuration: Is the world a "safe" and logical place or simply operated by privilege and quirks of fate? This is a central attitude/ behavior to understand in empowering people (i.e., applying a resiliency framework).
In addition to the eight components cited above, two caveats need to be mentioned regarding family strengths:
"It has been argued that prevention efforts would be more effective and would make more efficient use of scarce resources, if they were targeted at high-risk populations (Battjes, 1985). Underlying this argument is the assumption that individuals at elevated risk for school failure, substance use, delinquency, and related problems can be discriminated from those at low risk by some characteristics. Much progress has been made in making such distinctions. The search for risk factors, particularly those that lead to adolescent substance abuse, has been widely studied, and factors that have predictive value have been successfully identified. These include poor academic achievement, lack of social skills, emotional problems, unstable home environment, antisocial behavior, exposure to drug-using models, earlier drug use, stressful life events, inconsistent family management practices, poor bonding with parents, smf demographic fators (including socio-economic status and ethnicity) (Newcomb, et al., 1987; Huba & Bentler, 1979; Kandel, 1982; Mills & Noyes, 1984; among others). Population groups of youths that have been shown to be at high-risk include the economically disadvantaged, school drop-outs, children of substance users, the physically disabled, abused or neglected children, the mentally ill and suicidal, pregnant teenagers, the homeless and runaways, and delinquents (Felner, 1984; Rutter, 1979).
The information from such studies has helped to identify adolescents at risk for substance use and related behaviors. This also has helped tp differentiate between types and levels of risk since these differences may imply unique educational and intervention strategies (Battjes, 1985; Miller, 1983). Unfortunately, this problem- focused approach has been only of limited value to the prevention field, concerned as it is with health-promoting behaviors and the development of social competence. The identification of risks has not necessarily provided prevention educators with a clear sense of just what strategies are needed to reduce risks. Additionally, it is clear from the literature that not all youths are equally affected by the same risk factors and that some youths from high-risk environments fail to develop substance involvement and related problems.
Although research has centered upon factors which place youth at elevated risk for successful transition to adulthood, much less work has been done to detect variables that can offset risk factors or enhance protective mechanisms. This approach more readily fits into a prevention orientation and offers direction to programming efforts that seek to instill resiliency to drug initiation and abuse. "Ultimately," Garmezy and Rutter (1983) believe, the potential for prevention surely lies in increasing our knowledge and understanding of reasons why some children are not damaged by deprivation." (p. 16)
Investigators recently have begun to shift their focus to the identification of protective factors that may inhibit drug use or insulate adolescents from its detrimental effects (Brook, Brook, Gordon, Whiteman, & Cohen, 1990). It is still unclear, however, why some youths from high-risk environments fail to develop substance involvement and related problems. It is also unclear what factors are associated with the nonuse of drugs, although the nonuse and cessation of drugs have direct prevention implications, whether this is based upon legal deterrence or health considerations (Goodstadt & Willett, 1989).
Brook, et al. (1990) found that the individual protective factors (e.g., adolescent conventionality, parent-child attachment) could offset risk factors (e.g., peer drug use) and enhance other protective factors, resulting in less adolescent marijuana use. In a more general sense, research on resilient children has found social competence (Werner & Smith, 1982; Austin & Prendergast, 1991; Demos, 1989), problem-solving skills (Rutter, 1984; Felsman & Davis, 1989) and an internal locus of control (Garmezy, 1991; Werner & Smith, 1982) , and a sense of purpose and future (Bernard, 1991) to be particularly important protective attributes. Bernard (1991) has further identified caring and support, high expectations, and youth participation and involvement as important protective factors within the family, school, and community domains. Special attention has focused on the effects of family management processes (Bennett, Wolin, & Reiss, 1988), social bonding (Brook, Whiteman, & Gordon, 1983), and the possibility that the degree of drug use is associated with the number of risk factors, to which an individual is exposed (Newcomb, et al., 1987; Bry, 1983)..."
The Search Institute's "Healthy Communities, Healthy Youth" (1993) does a great job of outlining these components from an extensive research base.
Return to CYFERNet