Resilience in Mil Families Purdue

8/9/2019 Resilience in Mil Families Purdue

1/28

Understanding and Promoting Resilience in Military Families

InroducionTis review o scientic evidence about resilience inchildren and amilies was compiled at the request o the

Oce o Military Community and Family Policy in the

United States Department o Deense. Te purpose o

the review is to examine research conducted in civilian

and (where available) military settings that may provide

insights about individual and amily resilience in the

ace o events that might have impacts similar to deploy-

ment. Ultimately, such insights may provide guidance

regarding strategies likely to prove successul in mini-

mizing any negative eects o deployment on militaryamilies and children.

Te review begins by considering the denition and key

characteristics o resilience in children, youth, adults

and amilies. Te adverse circumstances that might

particularly apply to military children and amilies are

then considered. Next, the key eatures o resilience

in children, youth, adults, and amilies are considered,

Shlly M. McDrmid

Ri Smp

Ron Schwrz

Jcob Nishid

Dn Nyrong

Suppor Lrn Grow Undrsnd

www.cfs.purdue.edu/mfri

Military FaMily research instituteat Purdue UniversityPurdue West Down Under 1402 West State Street West Lafayette, IN 47907-2062 765.496.3403

Rsilinc

UNDeRStaNDING

IN MILItaRY FaMILIeS

nd

PROMOtING

July 2008

ollowed by a consideration o the strategies that have

proved most eective in supporting the development

and expression o resilience. In the nal section, utureresearch needs regarding the development o resilience

in military children, youth, adults and amilies are

identied.

Wh is Rsilinc?Over the last several decades, resilience has been studied

extensively, especially in children and adolescents. Al-

though much has been learned, a conceptually clear and

commonly accepted denition is still lacking. Most de-nitions however, include two key elements: 1) exposure

to adverse or traumatic circumstances; and 2) successul

adaptation ollowing exposure. For example, Luthar

(2006) states that, Resilience is dened as a phenomenonor process reecting relatively positive adaptation despite ex-periences o signicant adversity or trauma. Resilience is asuperordinate construct subsuming two distinct dimensions signicant adversity and positive adaptation and thus


2/28

2Military FaMily research institute

at Purdue University

A report prepared or the Oce o Military Community and Family Policy in the Oce o the Secretary o Deense. Preparation o this report wassupported by a contract rom the U.S. Department o Deense (W74V8H-06-P-0557, S. MacDermid, principal investigator), and a grant romthe Lilly Endowment (S. MacDermid, principal investigator). We are grateul or assistance rom Mary Ann Remnet and Candace Best.


3/28

3Understanding and Promoting Resilience in Military Families

was infuenced by both genetic actors, such as tempera-

ment or personality, and environmental actors such as

maternal warmth. Te most exciting aspect o this work

is the notion that genetic components can be modied

by the environment. For example, Koenen, Mott,

Caspi, aylor, and Purcell (2003) reported that the IQs

o 5-year-old children exposed to high levels o domestic

violence were 8 points lower than those o children notexposed to violence. Findings such as this and others

(Samero, Seier, Zax, & Barocas, 1987; Murray, 1992;

Sharp et al., 1995; NICHD, 1999; Cicchetti, Rap-

paport, Sandler, & Weissberg, 2000) consistently show

that the environment can and does modiy biological

components. During early childhood, cognitive stimula-

tion is particularly important because it can enhance the

physical structure o the still-developing brain. Tus,

environments that do not provide adequate stimula-

tion can ultimately reduce childrens cognitive capacity

(Luthar, 2006). In contrast, improving the environment

may help to increase young childrens cognitive capacity.

Resilience develops over timeAs models o resilience have shited in ocus rom solely

individuals to the interactions between individuals and

their environments (Teokas et al., 2005), it has become

clear that resilience is not a static trait. While individual

characteristics (e.g., hardiness) play a role in resilience,

they are not the onlyactors to consider. Fergus &

Zimmerman (2005) state that, resilience is dened bythe context, the population, the risk, the promotive actor,and the outcome(p. 404). For example, research hasshown that having positive relationships later in lie can

promote healthy outcomes despite the presence o risk

actors in childhood (Rutter, 1987; Laub & Sampson,

2003; Conger, Rueter, & Elder, 1999; Vaillant & Davis,

2000).

Resilience is inherently strength-based

Research on resilience was initially rooted in a medi-cal or decits model that sought to identiy, reduce,

and prevent actors associated with unhealthy develop-

ment. Such approaches proved limiting, however, and

recent research has ocused on strengths-based models

that emphasize identiying and building upon already

existing strengths to promote healthy developmental

outcomes (Benson, Mannes, Pittman, & Ferber, 2004).

is never directly measured, but is indirectly inerred basedon evidence o the two subsumed constructs(p. 742). Inother words, one cannot be deemed resilient in the

absence o a signicant stressor.

Early research ocused on identiying decits within

individuals and how to best identiy and treat those

decits. Tis approach proved limiting, however, and inrecent years there has been a shit toward assessing as-

sets or individual strengths (edeschi & Kilmer, 2005),

as well as ocusing on the contexts in which individu-

als unction (e.g., communities, schools, etc). aken all

together, this research yields several key insights about

resilience, which are discussed below.

Resilience requires exposure to adversityInherent to most denitions o resilience is that the

individual is aced with an aversive or potentially

traumatic situation. Tereore, an individual cannot be

deemed resilient in the absence o a signicant stressor.

Although positive adjustment, competence and coping

are all conceptually related to resilience, they can all be

exhibited in the absence o adverse or traumatic circum-

stances (Fergus & Zimmerman, 2005) and without

condence that resilience would ollow were an aversive

event to occur.

Resilience has both environmental and

biological components, both of which aredynamicInitially, resilience was conceptualized as a stable per-

sonal trait (e.g., hardiness). Later research made it clear

that actors in the environment support and constrain

resilience (e.g., quality o parenting). oday, new re-

search is revealing complex interactions between in-

dividual and environmental actors that infuence the

likelihood o resilience in the ace o challenge (Walsh,

2003). In the rst study o its kind, Kim-Cohen and

colleagues (2004) used data rom the EnvironmentalRisk Longitudinal win Study (E-Risk Study; a longitu-

dinal study o 1,116 twins born to low socioeconomic

status amilies) to examine the role o both genes and

environment in childrens cognitive and behavioral

resilience) (Kim-Cohen, Mott, Caspi, & aylor,

2004). Results rom the study revealed that cognitive

and behavioral resilience to low socioeconomic status


4/28



Consistent with this model, clinically-oriented research-

ers suggest assessing and promoting strengths in therapy

in order to promote eelings o competence. Terapists

point out areas where the individual has coped success-

ully in the past, and identiy strengths that can be built

upon over the course o therapy (edeschi & Kilmer,

2005).

Resilience is domain-specicAs discussed above, it is now clear that resilience is not

a static personality trait, but rather is part o a dynamic

process that includes individuals interactions with their

surrounding environments. Resilience can be situation-

specic and thereore, it is unlikely that an individual

will demonstrate resilience across all situations (Luthar,

2006). Research has shown, or example, that children

considered to be resilient may be so in one area, or

domain (e.g., school), but not another (e.g., conduct)

(Luthar, Doernberger, & Zigler, 1993). In light o this

growing body o literature, researchers suggest using

specic terms to designate domains in which resilience

is exhibited (Wang & Gordon, 2004; Denny, Clark,

Flemming, & Wall, 2004).

Resilience has been studied differently in chil-dren, youth, and adults.Resilience is conceptualized dierently depending on

the population being examined. In children, resilience

is most oten looked at rom a developmental perspec-tive and seeks to identiy variables most likely to pro-

duce positive outcomes (e.g., healthy development and

adjustment) in the ace o adversity. In contrast, resil-

ience in adults is conceptualized as actors that allow an

individual to successully cope with a traumatic event,

while maintaining a healthy level o unctioning (Bo-

nanno, 2004). Finally, resilience in adolescents appears

to combine these two approaches. Available research

suggests that resilience in youth is determined not only

by their environment, but also by individual dierences.For example, developmental systems theory recognizes

the individual and the context as being dynamically

interactive: youth are seen as active participants in shap-

ing the environment which in turn increase their own

individual competencies (Teokas et al., 2005). Tere-

ore, research in this area usually ocuses on assets and

resources. Assets are conceptualized as intrinsic actors

that promote resilience (e.g., coping skills and sel-

ecacy) while resources are those actors external to the

adolescent that also promote resilience (e.g., supportive

parents and communities) (Fergus & Zimmerman,

2005).

Resilience can be enhanced

Individuals who have poor developmental outcomes aschildren are not doomed to a lie o negative outcomes.

Several studies have shown that the eects o a decient

environment can be reversed by involvement in a posi-

tive environment. For example, Rutter (1993) reported

that Romanian children residing in an orphanage under

extremely harsh conditions and exhibiting both devel-

opmental and cognitive delays showed considerable im-

provement by age 4 ater being adopted into a positive

and nurturing environment. In a longitudinal study o

nearly 700 children born into poverty on the island o

Kauai (Werner, 1993) ndings revealed that one-third

o those considered to be at the highest risk or negative

developmental outcomes went on to overcome the risk

and live ullling and successul lives. At the nal assess-

ment at the age o 40 all but two o these individuals

were still living successul lives. Even more important,

those adolescents who previously had exhibited poor

unctioning turned their lives around in adulthood and

reported positive outcomes, which they credited to hav-

ing developed supportive relationships. Overall, these

ndings suggest that later positive relationships can helpto reduce or cancel the eects o early decits.

There are multiple paths to resilienceNo single or specic actor will determine resilience or

poor unctioning. It is the interaction between numer-

ous actors that ultimately determines whether an indi-

vidual or amily will be resilient in the ace o adversity.

For example, high intelligence and cognitive ability have

consistently been identied as resilience-promoting in

children, as has a warm and supportive amily environ-ment (Condly, 2006) and a relationship with at least

one caring non-parent adult (Benson, 2006). However,

many dierent combinations o these actors have been

observed in children who grow up in negative home

environments but go on to live successul and well-ad-

justed lives (Plomin, 1989; Rende & Plomin; 1993).


5/28


Risk does not accumulate monotonicallyIndividuals who experience an accumulation o risk

actors are at increased risk or negative developmental

outcomes (Masten & Wright, 1998; Rutter, 1979, 1990

as cited in Masten, 2001; Seier & Samero, 1987 as

cited in Masten, 2001). Risk actors oten co-occur, and

the likelihood o negative outcomes rises at an increas-

ing rate as risks accumulate. For example, a study o10-year olds examined the cumulative risk o developing

a psychiatric disorder given the ollowing risk actors:

severe marital distress, low economic status, large amily

size, paternal criminality, maternal psychiatric disorder,

and child entering into oster care. Results revealed that

among amilies with one or less risk actors the risk o

developing a psychiatric disorder was 2%. Te risk o

developing a psychiatric disorder increased to 20% in

amilies with our or more risk actors (Rutter, 1979 as

cited in Samero, 2006). In another study, Samero

and colleagues cluster analyzed data rom the Framing-

ham Study (a study o risk actors or heart disease that

reported that no single risk actor alone was enough to

cause heart disease; Dawber, 1980 as cited in Samero,

2006) and ound that only amilies with multiple risk

actors had negative outcomes (Samero, Seier, Ba-

racos, Zax, & Greenspan, 1987a as cited in Samero,

2006). Results rom these and other studies (Samero,

Seier, Zax, & Barocas, 1987b) suggest that risk actors

should not be considered in isolation rom one another

(Luthar et al., 2000a; Masten, 2001).

th Nur of Srss nd trumfor Miliry Childrn nd FmilisEarly research on resilience was stimulated by observa-

tions o children acing extreme deprivation. In this

section we consider the aspects o military lie that

might expose children or amilies to circumstances or

events that would require them to exercise resilience.

Stressors may be categorized in many ways, but one key

dimension along which stressors vary is the degree to

which they are normative, meaning events that indi-

viduals might reasonably expect to ace based on the ex-

periences o amiliar others. For example, the transition

to high school could be considered a normative stressor

because almost all children experience it. By this logic,

regular separations rom parents can be considered nor-

mative or children in the Navy. Similarly, many o the

other seminal experiences o military lie are normative

or military children, including lengthy parental work

hours, permanent changes o station, deployments or

a variety o purposes, and exposure to combat-related

equipment and activities (e.g., training). Tis character-

ization is more accurate or children o service members

in the active than the reserve components, however,because reserve component children have ewer op-

portunities to observe the experiences o other military

children (o course reserve component children are also

less likely to move or military reasons or to experience

requent deployments).

Even normative or expected stressors may be challeng-

ing, however, and require eorts to cope. Other charac-

teristics o stressors also aect the degree to which they

are challenging. For example, events or circumstances

that are sudden, serious or unwelcome, that cause

traumatic losses o persons or relationships, that are

ambiguous, that involve prolonged suering, that recall

past traumatic experiences, or that pile up are likely

more challenging, especially when the skills and abilities

o the individuals, amilies or communities are poorly

matched to the demands posed by the stressor (Boss,

1988; Walsh, 2007). In those circumstances, individu-

als, amilies or communities will experience crises,

dened as circumstances which exceed the resources

available or coping.

Stressors also vary in the degree to which they consti-

tute single discrete events, such as a tornado, or ongo-

ing continuous circumstances. Continuous stressors,

those emerging rom the demands o daily lie, include

chronic stressors and daily hassles. Chronic stressors

are recurrent lie diculties, such as stressul work,

conficted marriage, or nancial diculties. Tey tend

to be open-ended, ambiguous in nature, and dicult or

impossible to resolve. Daily hassles are relatively minorevents, typically unexpected, irregular, and short-lived,

such as car troubles, breakdowns in child care, or unex-

pected deadlines.

In at least one rigorous study, both chronic stressors

and daily hassles were negatively related to psychologi-

cal well-being. In addition, chronic stressors increased


6/28



the likelihood that daily hassles would occur, and

increased their negative eects on psychological well-

being. Chronic stressors present an ongoing threat to

the individual, the ever-present potentialto erupt in waysboth large and small in an individuals daily lie. Daily

hassles, in contrast, include the vast array o minor

disruptionsthat actually do occur, orcing the individual

to act on them. the combined eect o the two typeso stressors is greater than the additive eects o both

(Serido, Almeida & Wethington, 2004, p. 30).

Although community resilience has not been discussed

in this review, the community context o stressors can

aect the ability o individuals and amilies to respond.

Jerusalem et al. (1995) have classied levels o com-

munity eects, where level 1 represents individual levels

o stress with little community awareness, and level

3 represents high levels o community awareness and

mobilization o resources. Like individuals, communi-

ties may experience stressors that demand more than the

available resources, generating crises at the community

level. Tus, when traumatic stressors occur to too many

individuals in a community, the community may not

be able to oer sucient support. A combat deploy-

ment, or example, is a stressor that is oten externally-

imposed, ambiguous, and can involve a variety o daily,

chronic and traumatic stressors. When a military com-

munity is heavily impacted by a large combat deploy-

ment, so many individuals and amilies may be aectedthat it is dicult or the community to mobilize su-

cient resources to support them.

Te role o experience dealing with stressors is not clear-

cut. On one hand, experience can be considered an

asset in dealing with stressors, in that individuals know

what to expect and have been strengthened by their

past experiences. On the other hand, experience also

can constitute an accumulation o stressors and thus a

risk actor. Tis is especially likely when the intervalsbetween stressors are too small to allow adequate replen-

ishment o resources.

Rsilinc in ChildrnInterest in resilience was sparked decades ago when

clinicians and scholars noticed that many children

whose parents were struggling with mental illness were

themselves well-adjusted (Condly, 2006; Luthar, 2006).

Research gradually expanded to consider a variety o

adverse circumstances including impoverishment, abuse

separation rom parents, and death or injury o a amily

member. In this section, we ocus on the individual

and amily characteristics associated with resilience in

children.

Early studies ocused on identiying the sources o in-

vulnerability, but this notion proved too simplistic and

was replaced by the construct o resilience. Current

models o childrens resilience emphasize three elements:

characteristics o the child (e.g., biological, cognitive,

social attributes), support rom the amily, and support

rom larger contexts, such as neighborhoods, schools,

communities, and societies (Condly, 2006; Luthar,

2006).

Children who display resilience ollowing adversity tend

to share two common characteristics. First, they tend to

have good cognitive ability, which makes it possible or

them to recognize, understand, assess, learn rom, and

react to their experiences (Condly, 2006; Luthar, 2006).

Second, they tend to have temperaments that acilitate

good social relationships by, or example, making it

easier or children to maintain supportive relationships

and successully seek comort or assistance rom others.

Tese characteristics intelligence and temperament

are at least in part genetically determined. However,

most individual characteristics, even those with strong

genetic components, can be altered by interaction with

the environment. For example, a growing body o

research indicates that the anatomy o childrens brains

can be compromised by early experiences o depriva-

according o Condly (p. 219), intelligence

and temperament interact so as to allow

[children] to understand a situation well,

seek out coping mechanisms, not feel sorry

for themselves (and thus incur a paralyzing

emotional effect), and persist in their

attempts to survive and survive well.


7/28


tion (e.g., Cicchetti & Walker, 2003; Koenen, Mott,

Caspi, aylor, & Purcell, 2003).

emperament is a subset o the more general area o

personality. It includes individual dierences in basic

psychological process that underlie the core o person-

ality. For example, Rothbart and Bates (1998) dene

temperament as constitutionally-based individual difer-ences in emotional, motor, and attentional reactivity andsel-regulation(p.109). emperament is biologicallybased, infuenced by genetic inheritance, maturation,

and experience. emperamental characteristics have

demonstrated consistency across situations as well as

relative stability over time (Bates, 1989; Rothbart &

Derryberry, 1981 as cited in Rothbart & Bates, 1998).

Tere is some agreement that the ramework or tem-

perament includes broad dimensions o positive aect

and approach, negative aectivity (which can be urther

divided into earul and irritable distress), eortul con-

trol (e.g., distractibility and persistence), and possibly

social orientation. Tese dimensions share similarities

with our o the Big Five actors o adult personality:

extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroti-

cism, and openness (Costa & McCrae, 1994), but they

are not identical.

Dicult temperaments in childhood are o great con-

cern since temperamental diculty during the early

years has been shown to predict behavioral problems inuture years (Bates, 1987 as cited by Rothbart & Bates,

1998; Caspi et al, 1995 as cited by Rothbart & Bates,

1998). For example, 3-year-olds who are unusually

restless, negative, and prone to emotional overreactions

have a high risk o attention problems and misbehavior

in adolescence. By contrast, children with an easy or

good temperament are less likely to develop behavioral

problems.

In addition, which characteristics are associated withresilience depends to some extent on the t between

the individual childs characteristics and the environ-

mental demands and resources (p. 84, Beardslee, 2002).

Tis goodness-o-t hypothesis was rst described by

Tomas and Chess (1986) who suggested that children

benet when their temperament matches the type that

their parents value and are prepared to handle. For

example, a child who has a highly reactive temperament

is a bad t with an unresponsive parent and may actu-

ally train the parent to respond negatively by escalating

their negative bids or attention (e.g., crying, scream-

ing).

Even when children are born with easy temperaments,

they will ail to benet rom that advantage i they arenot taught to manage how they express their emotions

(Luthar, 2006). Tus, childrens experiences are always

a actor in resilience. In act, as argued by Luthar,

although important, childrens individual attributes

should be considered ateramily and community sup-port due to their malleability by environmental actors.

Genetic actors can also modiy the impact o environ-

ments. For example, there are robust sex dierences in

risk and resilience. Boys have been ound to be more

vulnerable than girls to a variety o environmental stres-

sors (Rutter, 1987). Similarly, in her study o people

on the Hawaiian island o Kauai, Werner (1989) ound

that boys were more vulnerable than girls to caregiver

decits. During adolescence, girls became more vulner-

able but by age 30, the risk o vulnerability had shited

back to men. As explained by Condly (2006), several

actors account or boys vulnerability: the predomi-

nance o mother-headed amilies without male role

models; harsher treatment o boys in school and at

home; and their less mature neurological and biologicaldevelopment.

Childrens early experiences in their relationships with

their parents are undamentally important because they

teach children how to act and what to expect in uture

relationships with others, and maltreatment by parents

is one o the most consistent threats to childrens resil-

ience. Maltreatment may spring rom many sources,

including parents mental illness, marital problems, pov-

erty, or violence at home or in the community (Luthar,2006). Such amilies are oten characterized by lack o

interaction, requent displays o anger and confict, and

general disorganization o the amily system. Parental

sensitivity is key: i parents or caregivers acknowledge

childrens needs or comort, protection, and explora-

tion, children are likely to develop internal working

models o themselves as valued and sel-reliant. Con-


8/28



versely, i parents are insensitive and reject childrens

bids or comort or exploration, children are likely to

construct internal working models o themselves as un-

worthy or incompetent (Bowlby, 1973 as cited by Cic-

chetti, oth, & Lynch, 1995). In this manner, parents

who are unresponsive, inconsistent, or requently hostile

train their children to eel insecure in relationships with

others, to escalate negative interactions, to expect to betreated with hostility, and to experience stress in rela-

tionships.

Te most consistently observed actor or achieving and

sustaining resilient adaptation in children is high-quality

parenting. Parenting has traditionally been measured

along two dimensions: warmth or responsiveness (e.g.,

support, aection, nurturance, and acceptance) and

control or demandingness (e.g., supervision, monitor-

ing, strictness). o promote resilience, there should be

ample warmth and appropriate control (Luthar, 2006;

Walsh, 2003). Positive outcomes or children are as-

sociated with authoritative parenting that combines

love and support with clear standards and rm control,

whereas poor outcomes have been linked to parents who

are permissive and rejecting. For example, children with

authoritative parents tend to have good relationships

with peers and adults. Tey are cheerul and sel-reliant.

In adolescence they show a high level o social com-

petence, achievement, and psychological adjustment

(Lamborn, Mounts, Steinberg, & Dornbusch, 1991).Preschoolers with permissive parents show poorer

psychological adjustment than those with authoritative

parents. Adolescents with permissive parents have high

sel-esteem but are also high in drug use and miscon-

duct at school with misconduct increasing during high

school (Steinberg et al., 1994).

Children with authoritarian parents who are demanding

but not responsive also are less well-adjusted and show

less independence than those with authoritative parents.At age 4, boys have been ound to be somewhat hostile

and resistant to authority. Adolescents tend to be high

in obedience to adults but low in sel-esteem (Lamborn

et al., 1991). Children and adolescents with rejecting-

neglecting parents have the poorest psychological prole

o all. Children exhibit low social competence and in

adolescence are likely to have problems with drug use

and delinquency (Baumrind, 1991; Lamborn et al.,

1991; Steinberg et al., 1994).

Nurturance and support rom parents encourage close-

ness, secure attachments, empathy or others, and good

social skills. Setting expectations or behavior and

consistently enorcing limits teaches children to regulate

their emotional expression and to comply with environ-mental demands (Walsh, 2003). Te balance o warmth

and control will shit over the course o development,

however, so it is important to match the balance to the

developmental level o the child.

One o the reasons that parents are such a powerul pro-

tective actor is that they model attitude they convey a

sense o security and condence that helps their chil-

dren to eel condent and they model eective cop-

ing, which increases their childrens repertoire o coping

behaviors. However, only parents who themselves eel

more able to cope with stressors are likely to transmit

these behaviors to their children (Walsh, 2007).

Although the vast majority o research on parenting o

young children has ocused on mothers, limited avail-

able evidence suggest that other amily members also

promote childrens resilience. Fathers, ather-gures,

and siblings can be especially important to low income

Arican American amilies. Research also indicates that

extended kin such as grandparents can oer critical sup-port to at-risk children, particularly when parenting is

ineective. However, in each o these examples, as with

mothers, these relationships can promote resilience or

vulnerability, depending upon the degree to which they

are supportive (Luthar, 2006).

Outside o the amily, other aspects o the broader

community can provide alternative support and help

shape childrens resilience trajectories both directly and

indirectly. For example, research has shown that highquality child care is particularly helpul or children in

the most at-risk amilies (NICHD, 1997, 2002 as cited

by Luthar, 2006). K-12 schools can also play a major

role as strong supportive relationships with teachers can

be highly benecial or school-age children and adoles-

cents. Peers and social networks can serve as important

resources and contexts. For example, peers may support


9/28


the development o appropriate social skills and com-

petence; social and emotional support; companionship

and intimacy; nurturance; and a sense o sel-worth

(Parker & Gottman, 1989). In contrast, there is power-

ul evidence that aliation with deviant peers can ex-

acerbate vulnerability among at-risk youth (e.g., Moss,

Lynch, Hardie, & Baron, 2002; Scaramella, Conger,

Spoth & Simons, 2002).

Finally, even though children may lack the cognitive ca-

pacity to express the meaning they perceive o the events

around them, they may need to construct this meaning

later in lie, even o very early events. In the example

below, William Beardslee, a clinician and researcher,

describes the meaning constructed by the child o a

depressed mother over a long period o time ollowing

the event.

Promoting Resilience in ChildrenA small set o actors have consistently emerged as

promoting resilience in children: positive and nurturing

relationships with parents and other adults; cognitive

skills; the ability to regulate emotions; and sel- esteem.

According to Samero (2006), the most successul

interventions are those that incorporate a multi-system

approach, are theory driven, and are in place or an ex-

tended period o time. One example o a program that

incorporates all three o these characteristics is the Early

Head Start program. Tis program is an outgrowth othe Head Start Program and targets low SES amilies

with children under 3-years o age. Te purpose o the

program is to promote healthy development in children

and amilies. According to Head Start Program Per-

ormance Standards, the programs are to provide high-quality, comprehensive child development services deliveredthrough home visits, child care, case management, parent-ing education, health care and reerrals, and amily sup-port(USDHHS, 1995 as cited in Love et al., 2005, p.886). Te program is either home-based, center-based,

or a combination o home- and center-based depending

on resources available in, and needs o, the community.

A recent program evaluation by Love and colleagues

(2005) showed that compared to a control group, chil-

dren who were enrolled in the program showed signi-

cantly more cognitive and language development and

more positive social development (e.g., demonstrating

less aggression). Te program also had a positive impact

on parenting (e.g., enrolled parents were more likely

to provide stimulating environments or children and

engage in positive parent-child interactions). Accordingto researchers, the program was most eective when it

used the combination approach and provided support

or amilies both in the centers and at home (Love et al.,

2005).

Without doubt, the single most infuential actor in

promoting resilience in children appears to be the pres-

ence o supportive relationships especially with parents,

but also with adults outside the home. Tereore in-

terventions that target parenting practices, improvingparent-child interactions, and ostering additional adult

relationships may be particularly useul. Programs that

provide high quality child care, which is usually unavail-

able to high risk amilies, as well as school interventions

that oster supportive relationships with teachers, are

especially benecial since research shows that the ben-

ets gained rom these positive and supportive environ-

Jesses understanding taught me how often

understanding is a vital, interactive process.

This is above all what needs to be fostered,

what the long-term aim of breaking the

silence is. Each time Jesse talked about his

experience, it helped him through a par-

ticular stage, and some of what he learned

stayed with him. This eventually led us bothto an understanding that he could go ahead

with his own life. The act of asking questions

and then making sense of things for himself

being the author of his own story gave

him control over what had happened. But it

did not give him control because there was

a nal answer. Making sense for himself

became a process that he could use as he

needed, not just in dealing with his mothersdeath, but in dealing with whatever else life

might hand him (Beardslee, 2002, p. 182).


10/28



ments appear to compensate or lack o quality parental

relationships (Luthar, 2006). It should be noted that

research has also shown that interventions that seek to

reduce specic risk actors are not as eective as inter-

ventions that target the improvement o larger systems,

such as amilies, schools, and communities (Masten,

2001).

Promoting Resilience in Military ChildrenTe empirical literature on child outcomes as a unction

o deployment-related experiences is sparse, with ew

longitudinal studies and little data rom the current war.

However, a study by Gibbs, Martin, Kupper, & John-

son (2007) reported that among military amilies with

children and at least one substantiated report o child

maltreatment, the risk or child maltreatment was 42%

greater (risk or moderate to severe maltreatment was

60% greater) during a combat-related deployment com-

pared to periods o nondeployment. Presumably, this is

the result o increased parental stress experienced by the

nondeployed parent during deployment-induced separa-

tion. Te authors suggest that increased support or the

amilies o combat deployed soldiers may be necessary.

Tese ndings are consistent with the literature and

suggest that along with other major stressors, childrens

outcomes depend a great deal on their parents respons-

es to the stressor. Te most rigorous studies are probably

those by Jensen during the rst Gul War, where he was

able to observe dierences between naturally-occurringgroups o children with deployed and non-deployed

parents. Tese studies and others are summarized in the

Military Family Research Institute annotated bibli-

ography on Family Separation and Deployment, in a

section ocusing on Childrens Outcomes (available at

www.cs.purdue.edu/mri). aken together, results rom

studies o military amilies suggest that interventions to

promote positive parenting practices and parent-child

interactions, along with strategies to help parents to

cope with deployment stresses, are well-advised.

Rsilinc in adolscnsMany aspects o resilience in children apply also to

adolescents (Luthar, 2006), but because adolescents are

involved in larger networks o peers and community

activities, contexts external to the amily eature more

prominently in the resilience o adolescents (Beardslee,

2002). Adolescents also have developed more advanced

cognitive abilities than children, specically more re-

ned abilities to think about the perspectives o others

and to understand time as it relates to the uture, and

thus these abilities also contribute to our understanding

o resilience. As with children, resilience in adolescents

has been examined in relation to personal, parental, and

community actors (Aisenberg & Herrenkohl, 2008).

Research on resilience during adolescence began with

studies o risky behavior, delinquency, and teen preg-

nancy. Early intervention eorts tended to ocus quite

specically on a single orm o problem behavior, but

these strategies also proved to be limited in their impact

More recently, research and intervention have moved to-

ward broader approaches aimed at improving prospects

in multiple domains (Benson et al., 2004).

Adolescents who demonstrate resilience tend to display

certain personal characteristics. Like children, adoles-

cents are more likely to demonstrate resilience when

they are ree rom learning disabilities (Beardslee, 2002)

and have easy temperaments that allow them to be fex-

ible. Because adolescents have more advanced cognitive

abilities, resilience during this period is also associated

with the ability to engage in sel-refection and under-

standing, to consider situations rom multiple perspec-

tives, and to make conscious choices about their actions

(Beardslee, 2002; Allen & Hauser, 1999; Allen, Hauser,Bell, & OConnor, 1994; Allen, Hauser, Borman-

Spurrell, 1996; Hauser, 1999).

For example, Beardslee (2002) observed the ollowing

characteristics in adolescents who had displayed resil-

ience despite living with a depressed parent: a) they had

a well-developed capacity to enter the world o others

and to see things rom others points o view (p. 78); b)

they were realistic about what they were dealing with.

Tey were able to see that the depression would recurand that they could recognize when it did. Tey could

separate themselves rom it and understand that the ill-

ness was not their ault; c) they were aware o and could

articulate strategies and actions they could take to oset

the eects o the illness on them; and d) psychologi-

cally, they believed their actions made a dierence and

they took action based on their understanding. Each


11/28


o these abilities, however, is strongly aected by the

nature o their relationships with parents.

Adolescents who display resilience are also likely to

unction eectively in domains outside the amily. For

example, they tend to have well-developed social skills

and have ormed close relationships with others (Beard-

slee, 2002; Fergus & Zimmerman, 2005). By success-ully ullling their responsibilities in school, jobs, or

community activities, they also demonstrate compe-

tence (Beardslee, 2002, Scales et al., 2000).

As with children, adolescents parents have a great deal

to do with the degree to which their children display

resilience in adverse circumstances (Fergus & Zimmer-

man, 2005). Parental warmth and closeness appears

to support the development o resilience, when com-

bined with reasonable, rm and consistent limit-setting

(Aisenberg & Herrenkohl, 2008; Luthar, 2006). Be-

cause adolescents typically spend less time than children

with their parents, parental knowledge o adolescents

whereabouts and activities becomes particularly impor-

tant during this time. Parental knowledge is the joint

product o adolescents willingness to share inormation

with their parents, and parents persistence and compe-

tence at seeking such inormation, also known as paren-

tal monitoring (Fergus & Zimmerman, 2005; Luthar,

2006; Stattin & Kerr, 2000).

For more than two decades, the Search Institute has

promoted the notion o developmental assets, 40 char-

acteristics o individuals, amilies, schools, and commu-

nities that are thought to support and promote positive

youth development. Developmental assets include

internal characteristics such as social competence and

positive values, and external resources such as social sup-

port and being given boundaries and expectations (Ben-

son, 2006). Using this ramework, Scales et al. (2000)

examined the role o developmental assets in predictingpositive outcomes in a sample o 1000 youth rom six

ethnic groups. In general, youth with more assets had

more positive outcomes. Assets that predicted multiple

positive outcomes were time in youth programs, cul-

tural competence, sel-esteem, personal power, planning

and decision-making, and achievement motivation.

Tere were also age and gender dierences, such that

girls reported more school success, more ability to resist

dangerous situations and more helping behaviors; while

boys reported more leadership activities, and more abil-

ity to overcome diversity.

In a landmark decade-long study o the processes

through which external stressors aect the lives o

adolescents, Conger and Elder (1994) examined theeconomic crisis in Iowas rural economy. A large sample

o adolescents living in intact amilies provided data

or the longitudinal analyses. When economic condi-

tions worsened, parents who themselves as children had

experienced more distress and rejection were less likely

to eel condent in dealing with the new stressor and

in seeking help. As a result, they were more likely to

develop symptoms o depression resulting in hostility

toward their marital partners. Hostility in the marital

relationship led to harsh and inconsistent discipline

o adolescent children. Subsequently, girls displayed

reduced sel-condence and psychological well-being

whereas boys displayed increased antisocial and hos-

tile behavior. Tis negative spiral was interrupted in

amilies when spouses were able to support one another

instead o becoming hostile, and when support rom

older siblings protected younger children rom parents

hostility.

When these arm parents were nurturing and involved,

even under signicant economic pressure, youth werecondent and well-adjusted in terms o their academic

and social competence. Tey developed close relations

with peers and exhibited ewer behavior problems and

emotional distress (Conger & Conger 2002). Youth

whose parents displayed warmth, eective management

and low hostility were less likely to develop conduct

problems and adolescent girls oten at risk or depres-

sion experienced lower rates o depression.

Because adolescents social worlds include both peersand involvement in community activities such as

education, sports, and public service, resources in these

settings also can support the development o resilience

in adolescents. For example, peers, teachers and adult

mentors can provide emotional and instrumental sup-

port. Tese outside sources are, however, distal infu-

ences relative to the proximal infuence o parents and


12/28



thus are likely to have less powerul eects (Teokas et

al., 2005).

Peer support appears to be helpul in three ways. First,

peers may be able to provide needed support that

parents were unable to provide. Second, peers may live

in well-unctioning amilies that can serve as models to

troubled amilies. Tird, peers may strengthen chil-drens and adolescents connections to schools and other

social institutions (Luthar, 2006). However, peers may

also increase risk. While support rom peers can help

children and adolescents to be resilient in the ace o

adverse circumstances (e.g., parental divorce), rejection

by peers leads to worse outcomes in several domains.

Despite the resilience oered by individual assets and

supportive amily and peer relationships, the high risk

associated with living in disadvantaged and violent com-

munities can be dicult or youth to overcome.

Promoting Resilience in AdolescentsEvaluation o interventions or promotion o resilience

in adolescents has produced mixed results. However, the

programs discussed here have shown considerable prom-

ise. Te Lie Skills raining (LS) is a school-based,

individual-level intervention that has been rigorously

evaluated and ound to be eective in increasing inter-

personal and communication skills, decreasing risk-tak-

ing, and decreasing substance abuse among adolescent

participants (Botvin & Grin, 2004). LS refects a

resilience perspective as it ocuses in the development o

integral individual assets or healthy and eective social

interaction (Fergus & Zimmerman, 2005).

Other than individual-level interventions, a number

o programs enhance resiliency through their ocus on

building positive relationships (Fergus & Zimmerman,

2005). Te enhancement o amily relationships is the

ocus o these programs, as they seek to promote the

amily as a primary resource o strength or the ado-

lescent. Preparing or the Drug Free Years (PDFY) as

well as Iowa Strengthening Families (ISF) are examples

o programs that ocus both on parental skills as well

as adolescent prosocial skills. While both are classi-

ed as brie interventions, both were ound to have

treatment-control dierences in delayed initiation o

substance use, current use, and composite use (Spoth,

Redmond, & Shin, 2001a). Signicant eects were also

exhibited 4 years later or both interventions (Spoth et

al., 2001b). Another program that ocuses on building

individual assets and skills is the Resourceul Adolescent

Program (RAP). While considered an individual-level

intervention, the Resourceul Adolescent Program also

addresses the important role that parents and amilies

have on the development o adolescent resiliency. TeRAP includes a three-session parallel program or par-

ents designed to address the risk actors o amily con-

fict and the protective actors o a responsive and warm

parent-adolescent relationship (Shochet et al., 2001).

Te interventions discussed above are examples o the

types o interventions that have been ound to be e-

ective in increasing adolescent resiliency. Teir ocus

on enhancing adolescent assets and resources is in stark

contrast to the more traditional method o ocusingon the reduction o negative actors in adolescents

lives (Fergus & Zimmerman, 2005). In the literature

or adolescent drug prevention, or example, the most

eective research-based interventions have been those

that have ocused on psychosocial risk and protective

actors rather than interventions that provided didactic

presentations o actual inormation about risks (Botvin

adolescents are unlikely to thrive when

they face difcult experiences across mul-

tiple settings of their lives, even if they pos-

sess the personal resources, or resilience,

to deal with a challenging environment.

under the weight of multiple and chronicstressors, including poverty, racism, maternal

depression, and low social cohesion within

neighborhoods, healthy parenting norms and

positive parent-child bonds may become

less protective when considering both the

immediate (proximal) and long-term (distal)

outcomes of community violence exposure.

(aisnbrg & Hrrnkoh, 2008, p. 306).


13/28


& Grin, 2004).

Promoting Resilience in Military AdolescentsHuebner & Mancini (2005) conducted a qualitative

research study o adjustment among adolescents in

military amilies. Results indicated that overall, ado-

lescents were able to adapt to their parents deployment

and exhibited resilience. An interesting nding was that

adolescents varied in regard to seeking social support.

While some chose to conde in parents, riends, teach-

ers, or counselors, others preerred to rerain rom dis-

cussing their eelings about the situation. Not surpris-

ingly, adolescents who elt supported by others seemed to

evidence enhanced resiliency, that is, their personal copingskills were complemented by support(Huebner & Man-cini, 2005; p. 5). Tese results are consistent with nd-

ings rom civilian populations and suggest that the best

interventions are those that provide development o,

and involvement in, social support networks. In addi-

tion, interventions that provide support or the at-home

parent and educate the community and school ocials

are perceived as helpul.

Rsilinc in aduls nd FmilisResearch on resilience in adults has proceeded along a

somewhat dierent course than research on children

and adolescents. One dierence is that research on

adults has ocused more heavily on personal character-

istics. Another dierence is that resilience in adults has

been observed mostly in response to traumatic events or

disasters, while resilience in children and adolescents has

been understood largely in relation to chronic stressors

such as parental illness or neglect, impoverishment, or

community violence (Bonanno, 2005).

Adults have been studied most oten as parents whose

behavior aects the resilience o children or adolescents,

although more recent studies have ocused on adultsas individuals. Research on parents has shown that

children are more likely to display resilience when their

parents model a positive attitude, fexibility, taking ini-

tiative, and eective coping skills (Walsh, 2007).

Research on adults as individuals has ocused heavily

on hardiness, a personality trait thought to predict

resilience in dicult situations. Hardiness comprises

three elements: a sense o purpose in lie, a sense o

personal control over situations, and a welcoming at-

titude toward change (Kobasa, Maddi, & Kahn, 1982).

Other studies have shown ndings similar to studies o

adolescents: relevant personal characteristics or adults

include cognitive ability, fexibility, optimism, eective

social skills, and the ability to complete tasks.

Several studies have ocused on hardiness in military

members as a actor predicting responses to combat

trauma. For example, Bartone (1999) compared six

Army National Guard and Reserve medical units, some

o whom deployed to Operation Desert Storm, some toGermany, and some who remained in the U.S. Stress-

ul lie events and exposure to combat trauma strongly

predicted later psychological symptoms, but hardiness

was also a signicant predictor. Notably, hardiness not

only predicted symptoms by itsel, but also weakened

the power o lie events and combat exposure to pro-

duce later psychological symptoms.

Because resilience ocuses on responses to adverse

events, there is considerable overlap between the studyo resilience in adults and the study o coping. Al-

though it is very common or studies o coping to nd

that active coping strategies that ocus on solving the

problem are more eective than strategies that ocus

on managing emotions, some studies have unexpect-

edly ound that individuals displaying resilience resist

expressing negative emotions in avor o more positive

According to Katz (1997), the key to devel-

oping resiliency in children is opportunities,

both plentiful and meaningful. Opportuni-

ties to rest from resisting a hostile environ-

ment, opportunities to explore in safety

and security, opportunities to believe and to

dream; all these need to be given to at-risk

children if they are to have any chance at all

of making it out of their dire circumstances

successfully (Condly, 2006, p. 228)


14/28



ones. While this behavior would sometimes be labeled

denial and considered problematic, in the atermath o

adverse events it may be adaptive by reducing personal

trauma and isolation rom others (Bonanno, 2005).

Since early studies o resilience ocused on children

growing up in adverse or impoverished amily circum-

stances (Walsh, 2003), researchers initially ocused onamilies as sources o risk rather than resilience. As a

result, there are ewer empirical studies o resilience

within amilies than among children. But as had oc-

curred with children, researchers observed that some

amilies appear to unction eectively despite acing di-

cult circumstances and sought to identiy the dening

eatures o those amilies.

Studies o amily resilience recognize that amilies are

systems, in which all members are aected by what hap-

pens to any individual member or the amily as a unit

(Walsh, 2003). Families are characterized by interaction

patterns that can ramp up or damp down responses to

negative events (Walsh, 2003). Tus, amily resilience

has been dened as, characteristics, dimensions, and

properties o amilies which help amilies to be resilient

to disruption in the ace o change and adaptive in the

ace o crisis situations (p. 247, McCubbin & McCub-

bin, 1988).

Te best-known articulation o resilient processes inamilies is that o Walsh (2002, 2003, 2007), who iden-

tied 9 key processes in the categories o belie systems,

organizational patterns, and communication/problem

solving. In a recent review o existing research, Black &

Lobo (2008) included an additional category o eec-

tive use o external support rom social and community

networks.

Belie systems include the ability to maintain a posi-

tive outlook, a sense o coherence and to nd ways tolearn and grow despite adverse events (Walsh, 2007).

Spirituality can help amily members to have a shared

value system that can help give meaning to challenging

events. Just as with individuals, when amilies approach

challenges with a sense o optimism, condence or

hope, and a positive emotional atmosphere, the evi-

dence suggests that amilies are likely to do better. For

example, positive outcomes have been ound in the

areas o adolescent risky behavior and marital satisac-

tion (Black & Lobo, 2008).

Competent execution o key amily tasks also appears

to be a common characteristic o amilies who display

resilience. For example, amilies are more likely to be

resilient when they have clear allocations o roles, butare also able to adjust those allocations when challeng-

ing circumstances require it. Resilient amilies are also

more likely to communicate and manage behavior and

relationships eectively. Specically, they are able to

share inormation, solve problems together, and manage

behavior with appropriate use o warmth and limit-set-

ting. Another skill more likely to be evident in resilient

amilies is nancial management, comprising sound

practices and the ability to compartmentalize nancial

problems so that they do not reduce warmth in amily

relationships (Black & Lobo, 2008; Walsh, 2007).

Certain amily behaviors are especially likely to be

evident in amilies that display resilience. For example,

resilient amilies are more likely to spend time together,

and to use that time to support and nurture amily

relationships, regardless o whether it is leisure time or

time spent doing tasks. Resilient amilies also tend to

have routines and rituals that promote closeness, and

are maintained even in dicult times (Black & Lobo,

2008).

One o the most notable studies o amily resilience ol-

lowed 451 amilies in rural Iowa or more than a de-

cade as they weathered the economic arm crisis o the

1990s. One o the major goals o the study was to study

resilience as a dynamic process, developing and chang-

ing within amilies over time. Te long period o data

collection allowed the researchers to study true causal

infuences (rather than the correlational relationships to

which most existing studies were limited), and to isolatethe resilience processes that appeared most important

or later outcomes.

Te researchers ound that individuals with a strong

sense o personal mastery and control were less likely to

experience increases in depressive symptoms as a result

o economic strain, and were likely to cope more e-


15/28


ectively. Tey also ound that spouses who understood

and supported one another, and who could solve prob-

lems eectively were less likely to experience increases in

emotional distress (Conger & Conger, 2002).

Promoting Resilience in FamiliesIn general, interventions that aim to promote resilience

on a variety o levels and in multiple contexts have beenshown to be more eective than those that target spe-

cic mechanisms o resilience or seek only to reduce risk

(Masten, 2001). In the context o amilies, this would

indicate interventions that seek to improve not only

parent-child relations (e.g., communication), but also

marital and overall amily relationships. According to

Saltzman and colleagues (under review) parents appear

more likely to participate in interventions where the o-

cus is on children and improving amily relationships, as

opposed to the marital relationship. An example o one

such program is the FOCUS (Families Overcoming and

Coping Under Stress) Program. Te FOCUS program

was rst used with military amilies at Camp Pendle-

ton and has since been used with amilies in Florida

who suered losses during the 2004-2005 hurricane

seasons, as well as with amilies in which a child has su-

ered a medical trauma. Te program has adult/parent,

child(ren), and amily components and is usually deliv-

ered in eight sessions, though the length o treatment is

determined by the needs o the amily. Te goal o the

intervention is to promote healthy development in chil-dren by increasing positive amily relationships and cop-

ing skills through the use o psychoeducation, cognitive-

behavior therapy, and narrative. In addition, in keeping

with a strengths-based model, amily strengths, adaptive

coping responses, and available resources are highlighted

throughout treatment.

Te FOCUS program is based, in part, on several other

programs which have produced avorable results. One

such program is an intervention used with amilies inwhich the mother has been diagnosed with HIV. Tis

intervention program uses three modules. Te rst

module is or the mother only and ocuses on emotion

regulation, promoting a healthy liestyle, and disclosure

o illness. Te second module integrated both the parent

and the adolescents; sometimes the sessions included

both and sometimes sessions were individual. In this

module the ocus was on the reduction o emotional

distress and maintenance o positive amily routines or

the parents and on learning and enhancing coping skills

or the adolescent. Te overarching ocus o this module

was to reduce the risk that adolescents would engage

in high-risk behaviors (e.g., risky sex) as a method o

coping with the parents illness and eventual death. Te

third module was only given to those adolescents whoseparents died during the study period. Results rom the

study showed that adolescents who received the inter-

vention had better developmental outcomes (e.g., more

likely to be employed), were less likely to report somatic

symptoms, better quality intimate relationships, bet-

ter problem-solving skills, and were less likely to have

a child out o wedlock (Rotheram-Borus, Lee, Lin, &

Lester, 2007). Findings such as these show promise or

promoting both individual and amilial resilience using

amily-ocused interventions.

Insighs bou Rsilincin Miliry Fmilis fromMFRI RsrchTe Military Family Research Institute (MFRI) has

studied resiliency as part o its research program on

quality o lie or military members and their amilies.

One aspect o this research program has been a ocus on

transitions. Family transitions create change and callor amily reorganization and adaptation. ransitions

can bring changes in structure, shits in amily roles,

and tensions created by the needs o individual amily

members, all o which can generate stress.

Deployment and reunion are examples o especially de-

manding transitions or military amilies. Unlike other

studies that document return and reunion experience at

one point in time, MFRIs research has ocused on the

reunionprocess how the reunion o amily membersunolds over time. In one project, over seven waves o

semi-structured interviews conducted with Army reserv-

ists and their amilies over a 12-month period ollowing

wartime deployment, MFRI sought to identiy the chal-

lenges amilies aced and the resources they perceived

as promoting their resilience during this period in three

separate studies.


16/28



Te rst study (Faber, Willerton, Clymer, MacDermid

& Weiss, 2008) examined the boundary ambiguity

associated with a amily members presence or absence

or what Boss (2002) reers to as ambiguous loss. De-ployment was characterized by ambiguous absencethe

reservists psychological presence but physical absence

within the amily. During deployment, boundary

ambiguity was mainly associated with saety and theredistribution o roles and responsibilities. Reunion

was characterized by ambiguous presencethe reserv-

ists physical presence but psychological absence. Once

again, boundary ambiguity centered on redistribution

o roles and responsibilities. Reunion was more di-

cult or amilies transitioning rom a closed to an open

communication system. Factors which were perceived

as reducing boundary ambiguity and hastening adjust-

ment included person characteristics (being fexible as

opposed to controlling), and situation characteristics

(returning to civilian work, which normalized routines

and roles).

Te second study (Karakurt, Christiansen, MacDermid

& Weiss (under review) examined romantic relation-

ships and how couples changed over time ollowing

wartime deployment using the lens o amily stress and

attachment theories. Four main themes were identi-

ed: intermittent idealized closeness, transition rom

independence to interdependence, transitions o social

support, and ongoing renegotiation o rules. Intermit-tent idealized closeness was experienced shortly upon re-

turn, fuctuated over time, and was rarely synchronized

within couples. Te transition rom independence

to interdependence also emerged early with partners

reporting more diculty than reservists. Social support

and role renegotiations suraced later in the reunion

process. Participants needed time beore relying on each

other or support; partners reported more support rom

reservists than vice-versa. Role renegotiation occurred

throughout the year oten in response to lie events and/or job transitions. As in previous research (Wiens &

Boss, 2006), fexible gender roles and social support

served as protective actors.

Te third study (Wiegand, Bull, Green, MacDermid,

& Welch, in preparation) explored the return to civilian

employment and how reservist repatriates work adjust-

ment unolded over time. A process model was devel-

oped consisting o our stages: Return Home, Return to

Work, Activation, and Settling In. Factors such as job

expectations (anxiety about orgetting previous work de-

tails, uncertainty about workplace change), infuenced

early reports o adjustment whereas perceived advance-

ment opportunities, and career-orientation were more

important later in the process. Perceived similaritybetween military and civilian jobs, perceived organiza-

tional support rom coworkers and supervisors, com-

munication during deployment, and opportunities or

retraining positively infuenced work adjustment and

enhanced worker re-socialization. A lack o t between

the individual and the organization, and poor amily

adjustment (and work-amily confict) hindered it.

Moving every ew years represents another type o

transition that can pose unique challenges to all amily

members. Similar to deployment and reunion, there

are challenges and stressors beore, during, and ater

the physical relocation. Using a conceptual model o

resilience and risk, MFRI examined the moving experi-

ence (Schwarz, MacDermid, & Weiss, 2007) to under-

stand how opportunities and constraints associated with

schools, workplaces and communities related to chil-

drens and parents ability to navigate transitions.

Pre- and post-move data were gathered rom 1,083

Army and Air Force respondents moving during thesummer and school year via large-scale surveys o

members, spouses, and children. Te model addressed

macro-level aspects o demands, appraisals, responses,

and outcomes. Resilience and risk was measured at

three broad levels (1) the individual (e.g., traits such as

intelligence or social skillulness; (2) the amily (e.g.,

parental warmth or maltreatment); and (3) the commu-

nity (e.g., neighborhoods and social supports).

A variety o resilience actors helped adults and chil-dren/individuals cope with the challenges o relocation

and enhanced psychological well-being. Individuals

with more human capital(positive sel-evaluations, senseo mastery, optimism, good physical and psychologi-

cal health; skills acquired rom education, training, and

experience, high role balance, lie satisaction) and socialcapital(marital satisaction, better amily unctioning,


17/28


responsive and eective parenting, social competence

and involvement in group activities) expected and expe-

rienced easier moves. Our ndings also highlighted the

importance o measuring both person and situation

actors (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984) in evaluating de-

mands or stressors. Persons with external loci o control

or high negative aect seemed to be at risk not only or

the more requent occurrence o negative events, butalso the more negative evaluation o events when they

occurred. For example, members who appraised the

move as dicult also tended to be pessimistic. In this

study, individuals who sought the situation and who

appraised the situation as clear and predictable (Boss,

2001) ound the move easier; whereas those who were

anxious about the move and elt that the situation had

important consequences ound the move more dicult.

Important coping strategies included remaining posi-

tive; balancing work and amily; using inormal (i.e.,

support rom amily, riends, co-workers, unit lead-

ers, childs teachers) and ormal support (i.e., religious

organizations); and being engaged with school. Our

results also indicate that positive adjustment was related

to child age, parental gender, and time o move. For

example, moving with older children was more dicult

than moving with younger children; moving during the

summer was easier or children but more dicult or

parents, and indicators o risk/resilience (e.g., physical

health, amily unctioning, role balance, and anxiety)

were associated with dierent outcomes or membersand spouses.

Fuur Rsrch Ndso date, ew studies have been published that docu-

ment the impact o OIF/OEF deployments on military

amilies and children, in part because the war is ongoing

and there has not yet been time to complete the research

and the manuscripts. Te length o the war and the

required multiple deployments appear to have createdunique and dicult challenges or all amily members.

For example, the recent MHA V (2008) ound that

that multiple deployments exacerbated mental health

and other problems associated with deployment. Tis

suggests that we need to improve our understanding

and knowledge o resources that may help or hinder

resilience in military children, youth, adults, and ami-

lies. Te Department o Deense ask Force on Mental

Health also recommended additional research attention

to military amilies.

Longitudinal ResearchLong-term research is urgently needed on the eects o

multiple wartime deployments on amilies, including

children. o the best o our knowledge, no long-termstudy o the eects o single or multiple deployments on

amilies, including children, has ever been conducted.

Such studies are challenging or many reasons, includ-

ing expense, the burden o such studies on amilies,

the high mobility o military amilies, lack o complete

inormation about which service members have children

(particularly in the reserve component), and protective-

ness o military research boards. However, prospective

longitudinal analyses are necessary i we are to illumi-

nate trajectories o competence and/or maladjustment

o military parents and children.

Critical areas o ocus or such research dier as a

unction o the ages o the children involved. Young

children may be more susceptible than older children

to disruptions in their attachment relationships, which

may have long-term consequences or their ability to

regulate emotions and manage their behavior in the

uture. Te intellectual development o some young

children also may be threatened by parental separation

early in lie. Older children may be at special risk oengaging in risky behavior, increasing their chances o

early pregnancy, drug use, school dropout, or other con-

duct disorder problems. However, deployment also can

present positive opportunities or children to grow and

learn new skills, which are also not well-understood.

Since quality parenting is among the most robust pre-

dictors o resilience adaptation (Luthar, 2006) such re-

search needs to include a ull accounting o those actors

that have the potential to interere with quality parent-ing including individual attributes, objective demands

or stressors, appraisals and response to stress, as well as

amily and relationship unctioning. Although many

ndings rom the civilian literature are likely to apply to

military amilies, it is also true that the proles o stres-

sors and resources among military amilies are distinct

and thus require study.


18/28



Research also needs to pay attention to the characteris-

tics o the wider social environments o military ami-

lies. For example, we currently dont know how many

military children are living in dangerous neighborhoods

or acing other contextual risk actors. Tis is especially

true among reserve component amilies.

iming is also an important actor to consider. Evi-

dence rom the civilian literature indicates that there

is considerable variability in the timing and nature o

individual response to trauma. More research is needed

on how people respond across time (e.g., short-versus

longer-term response with special attention to the early

weeks ollowing challenging events, such as the depar-

ture or return o a parent). Research is also needed

on the timing and duration o exposure to protective

actors in order to ascertain the most opportune times

or intervention (Aisenberg & Herrenkohl, 2008). For

example, ndings on parental supervision and moni-

toring o youths activities has been shown to reduce

or overcome exposure to risk such as peer pressure to

engage in antisocial activity (Patterson & Stouthamer-

Loeber, 1984; Steinberg, 1986).

A promising area or research is identiying best prac-

tices or building resiliency. Although it is generally

thought that many personal attributes among individu-

als exhibiting resiliency may be relatively xed, the latestliterature suggests that those attributes may be opti-

mized that is resilience can be taught. For example,

ndings have shown that that trait sel-enhancement

or the tendency to sel-serving biases may be associated

with positive coping and healthy unctioning ollowing

trauma (Bonanno, 2005). Sel-enhancement is a orm

o pragmatic coping with a particular stressor event.

However resilience has also been linked to fexible cop-

ing or fexible adaptation (Block & Block, 1980; Bon-

nano et al., 2004 as cited in Bonnano, 2005). Sincefexible adaptation can be measured and manipulated

under dierent stressor conditions, it should be possible

to determine how and under what conditions it might

be learned.

Special populations merit attention. For example, our

own research indicates that amily care arrangements are

very dicult to make and execute in time or deploy-

ment or dual-military and single-parent amilies posted

overseas. Individual augmentees and their amilies

are oten orphaned during the deployment cycle,

overlooked or reintegration training, welcome home

ceremonies, and quality o lie supports. Young spouses

in new marriages and oreign spouses are seen as at high

risk or isolation and poor unctioning during deploy-ment. Single service members experience diculty

maintaining social relationships and receiving reliable

logistical assistance during deployment. Tey eel am-

bivalent about welcome home ceremonies. Supervising

children during deployment is complicated not only by

the absence o a parent but also by limited availability

and accessibility o programs or children.

o date little research has ocused on amilies in the

reserve component. Unlike active component amilies,

reserve component amilies have less access to military

social support organizations and ewer connections to

other military amilies. Moreover, as they are less accus-

tomed to adjusting to deployment than their active duty

counterparts, they may struggle to nd support within

their communities. For example, reserve component

members report psychological concerns three months

ollowing deployment at substantially higher rates than

active component members.

Communication has received little attention in the lit-erature. Previous research suggests that service members

vary in the amount o time they are able and willing

to spend communicating with their amilies at home

(MacDermid, Schwarz, Faber, Adkins, Mishkind, &

Weiss, 2005). Anecdotal evidence indicates that new

modes o communication (e.g., e-mail, web cams, in-

ternet telephone, cellular phones, blogs and videos) are

now being used in addition to the old ashioned land

line phones and letters. What role does availability, re-

quency, content, and quality o communication play instrengthening and sustaining the resilience o spouses,

children, siblings, and parenting relationships?

Prehaps most pressing is the urgent need or inorma-

tion on military amilies where members have sustained

physical injury or mental health disorders. Such ami-

lies may incur additional stress rom the point o noti-


19/28


cation, through the period o acute treatment, reha-

bilitation, and recovery (Cozza, Chun & Polo, 2005).

Data indicate that many returning service members may

suer rom unrecognized psychiatric illness, including

post traumatic stress disorder (PSD), depression, sub-

stance use disorders or other conditions (Hoge, Castro,

Messer et al., 2004). Children may not understand

the extent o an injury, particularly one without visiblephysical wounds or they may be rightened by their

parents external wounds. Te nature o the inorma-

tion that parents share with children may or may not

be developmentally appropriate. Te impact o these

conditions on amilies and children is unclear, but is

likely to be signicant.

Materials and Programs for FamiliesResearch on the availability and eectiveness o materi-

als to help amilies respond to extended and multiple

deployments, reunion, and death or injury is lacking.

In searching the websites o OneSource, the military

services, and DoD to look or the availability o materi-

als on these topics, MFRI ound that, in general, there

were more materials available or deployment than

reunion, and more materials regarding reunion than

death or injury. Most deployment materials did not

deal specically, however, with extended or multiple

deployments. Tere was uneven coverage o materials

or amilies with children o dierent ages. Te largest

gaps appeared to be: (a) inormation or pre-teen andteenage children with notable absence o inormation

or blended/step amilies and step siblings who share

a parent, but not a physical household. Major Keith

Lemmons work preparing materials or adolescents and

mobilizing the American Pediatric Association is notable

here. (b) inormation or children o wounded parents,

though the new Sesame Street materials will certainly

be helpul here; and (c) medical discharge due to serious

wound(s), especially when the service member is a single

unmarried person.

Research is also needed on the timing o providing

inormation and support to amilies o deployed mem-

bers. Currently there is no research on this topic. We

are aware, however, o anecdotal suggestions that when

they occur too close to the actual deployment, the

impact o pre-deployment briengs may be limited be-

cause amilies are already anxious and because o limited

time to carry out all o the necessary activities.

Tere is also no research on how the dissemination o

materials to the Armed Forces can be improved. Our

impression is that Status o Forces Survey data, like

surveys o civilian workers, tend to show that large per-

centages o service members and amily members do nothave accurate knowledge o the benets and resources

available to them. Part o the diculty in the military,

o course, is the plethora o resources that are oered by

a complicated patchwork comprising DoD, the services,

civilian support agencies, and state governments. We

are impressed, however, with the degree to which Mili-

tary OneSource has become a well-known brand, and

its accessibility to active and reserve component amilies

around the world. Continued and increased eorts to

grow this brand may be helpul.

Tere is also no quality-controlled research on the e-

ectiveness o the training materials or amily support

proessionals. We also have ound no research on the

eectiveness o transition programs and policies in iden-

tiying signs and symptoms o mental health conditions

or service members and their amilies.

Conclusions nd ImplicionsMost individuals and amilies experience adverse events

and circumstances sometime in their lives, and whenthey do, most respond with resilience , going on to live

well-adjusted lives. Nonetheless, a signicant minority

o individuals and amilies nd it dicult to adjust ol-

lowing adversity and suer a variety o negative out-

comes as a result. Tus, resilience is a relevant concern

or military policy-makers.

Because resilience can only be observed as individuals

and amilies cope with adverse events, it is dicult to be

certain in advance that someone will be resilient. Tereis evidence to suggest that children with certain char-

acteristics may lack the skills and abilities necessary or

resilience, however. In addition, resilience develops over

a long period o time, supported by a variety o person-

al, amily and community actors. Tus, while single

predeployment briengs or written brochures may be

useul, their impact on resilience is likely limited.


20/28



While early researchers thought o resilience as a per-

sonality trait, largely stable and with a large biological

component, subsequent studies have shown that resil-

ience is largely a learned capability that is not necessarily

stable across settings or over time. Te characteristics o

environments around individuals or amilies can make

adjustment harder, such as when community resourcesare depleted by poverty, violence, natural disasters, or

other large-scale events. Tere is evidence that resil-

ience-related skills and abilities can be systematically

improved, and that individual and amily resilience can

be supported in part by community-level action.

Stressors may be classied along a number o dimen-

sions. Military children and amilies regularly experi-

ence several particular types o stressors, including daily

hassles such as long parental work hours; chronic stres-

sors such as being dierent rom civilian children; and

potentially traumatic stressors such as parental absence,

injury or death. Each o these stressors increases the risk

o negative outcomes, and the occurrence o one kind o

stressor may increase the likelihood that others will oc-

cur. Stressors that pile up are more likely to exceed the

resources that individuals, amilies or communities can

marshal to cope. Tus, prior experience with stressors,

instead o being helpul, may contribute to pile-up i

coping resources are inadequate and there is insucient

time or recovery. For example, a combat deploymentpreceded by a lengthy and intensive period o parental

preparation with long work hours and ollowed very

shortly by a PCS move is likely to tax amilies more

than the deployment alone. Given the need or con-

stant readiness among military amilies, ongoin

Resilience in Mil Families Purdue

Documents

Transcript of Resilience in Mil Families Purdue