Family resilience describes the path a family follows as it adapts and prospers in the face of stress, both in the present and over time. Resilient families respond positively to these conditions in unique ways, depending on the context, developmental level, the interactive combination of risk and protective factors, and the family’s shared outlook. (Hawley & De Haan,1996).
A great deal has been written on individual resilience; indeed, the very notion of resilience emerged within the context of the individual. Family researchers have begun to address the family as a context for the resilience of the individual and even as a unit of analysis in itself (Frankel, Snowden, & Nelson, 1992). This shift has not, however, been easy. Research on resilience in children demonstrates that although it is conceptualized as a quality of the child him/herself, it is located within the systems of the nuclear family, the extended family and even the broader community. Unfortunately, the relationships and causal patterns between individual, family and community levels are not clear – they appear independent and interdependent and complementary of each other.
There is some debate around whether it is valid to conceive of resilience as a family-level construct. In fact, family stress research which dates back to the 1930s and the family strengths literature which dates back to the 1970s both addressed the family as a unit, although the focus of family stress research was somewhat pathogenic and family strengths research lacked a theoretical frame. More recent theories, such as those of McCubbin and his colleagues, have developed and refined the theory of family-level resilience and have introduced new concepts, such as family schema, which strongly take the family as a unit (Walsh, 1996).
The biggest problem in researching family-level resilience remains measurement (Walsh, 1996). Reiss’ work on “shared constructs” (in Sagy & Antonovsky, 1998) has been assessed through direct observations of family interactions. There is, however, some doubt as to whether there is a direct relationship between an intangible construct such as family resilience and the family’s actual behavioral patterns. Furthermore, such methods of measuring family constructs are costly. Most researchers make use of self-reports and scales to measure family constructs. The problem then is how to “build a collective measure on the basis of the interrelations of individual perceptions” (Sagy & Antonovsky, 1998). Sagy and Antonovsky propose four alternatives:
Aggregation Model. The aggregation model, which is the most common method of creating a collective measure of a family construct, involves taking the average or mean of the individual family member scores. The McMaster Model Family Assessment Device is scored using such a model. This approach, however, ignores the systems theory notion of the whole being more than the sum of its parts, and Sagy and Antonovsky find no theoretically based justification for this practice. ™
Pathogenic Model. The pathogenic model is based on family systems theory and within the pathogenic paradigm. Here the family score on a construct is taken as the lowest individual family member’s score. “This measure, though it seems an individual one, actually takes into account the entire family by ‘choosing’ the score of only one member according to the relative scores” (Sagy & Antonovsky, 1998). This approach to the measurement of family constructs is rare. The approach may, however, be common in clinical work where a family’s overall level of functionality is defined in terms of the worst functioning individual. ™
Salutogenic Model. The salutogenic model is also based on family system theory, but within the salutogenic paradigm. Here the highest individual family member score defines the family’s level on a construct. Again, this approach to measurement of family constructs is rare. ™
Consensus Model. Lastly, the consensus model, which “is based on the assumption that agreement among family members improves its coping and resistance ability” (Sagy & Antonovsky, 1998, p. 210). In this model, the family measurement is the absolute gap between family member scores on the measure. This approach is used quite frequently, in both research and clinical practice.
There has been considerable progress in family resilience research over the past seventy years, since 1930: There has been a move from considering only individual resilience, to also considering family resilience. There has been a move from considering the family as only a source of dysfunction over which individuals must rise, to considering families as a source of resilience and strength. ™There has been a move from considering the family only as a context for the development of individual resilience, to considering the family as a unit, in terms of relational resilience. There has been a development in the understanding of family-level constructs that are not easily identifiable from individual family members. ™There has been progress in various conceptions of how to measure family-level constructs. Such developments are particularly important given the many changes in and challenges facing contemporary families): The median age at first marriage has risen. More people cohabit outside of marriage. ™The birth rate has declined, resulting in smaller families. More women now work outside the home for pay. An increasing number of marriages end in divorce.
ABCX Model laid the foundation for all subsequent family stress research and family resilience models. Hill describes the model briefly: A (the event) – interacting with B (the family’s crisis-meeting resources) – interacting with C (the definition the family makes of the event) – produces X (the crisis). The second and third determinants – the family resources and definition of the event – lie within the family itself and must be seen in terms of the family’s structures and values. The hardships of the event, which go to make up the first determinant, lies outside the family and are an attribute of the event itself.
The A factor in Hill’s model, the stressor, can be defined as “a life event (e.g death, purchase of a home, parenthood, etc) impacting upon the family unit which produces, or has the potential of producing, change in the family social system” (McCubbin & Patterson, 1983). According to Hill, there are four main categories of stressors (in McCubbin & Patterson, 1983b): Accession – changed family structure by adding a member (eg birth of a child), Dismemberment – changed family structure by losing a member (eg child’s death), Loss of family morale and unity (eg alcoholism, substance abuse), Changed structure and morale (eg desertion, divorce)
Research indicates that “in nonclinical families, [across the lifespan,] family cohesion level accounts for level of family strain and well-being. In other words, ‘connected’ (more cohesive) families have lower levels of strain and higher levels of well-being than do ‘separated’ (less cohesive) families”. Good communication has long been hailed as the cornerstone of a strong family. “These families communicate with a great deal of shorthand, are very spontaneous, and tend to interrupt each other frequently” (Lewis, 1979, in Lee & Brage, 1989, p. 350). “The ability to engage in problem-solving activities designed to evaluate options for meeting needs and procuring resources” is an important characteristic of strong families (Beavers, 1977, in Lee & Brage, 1989). Lee & Brage (1989) notes that strong families are able to “identify problems sooner than dysfunctional families” and are able to follow a concerted problem solving process without blaming each other. Conger and Elder (1999) were able to test the strengthening properties of effective problem solving with couples exposed to economic stress. They measured marital conflict and marital distress on three occasions at yearly intervals. Marital conflict was operationalised as “criticism, defensiveness, escalations in negativity, angry withdrawal, and insensitivity” and marital distress as “negative evaluations of the relationship, including thoughts of or even actions related to divorce or separation”
Gunn (1980, p. 18) argues that family identity “lies at the very heart of what it means to have family strengths as distinct from strengths accruing to the individuals who happen to be living in families”. He then identifies four activities that assist in the formation and maintenance of family identity : Telling the Family Story. Modern, Western families have tended to neglect the ‘family story’. There is a need to piece together and transmit the story of each family to other members of the family, so that the entire system shares the common oral tradition of where the family came from. Photographing the Events of the Family. Like paintings in a museum, photographs of family activities and members serve to preserve the history of a family. Unless these photographs are linked with the family story, however, they are meaningless and of little value in developing family identity. Families with strong family identity preserve photographs, along with stories, for future generations. Preserving and Perpetuating Traditions, Rituals and Distinctive Ways of Doing Things. When a new family is formed through marriage, two sets of traditions are also merged. In the process, some must be discarded and others adopted. This process should be a conscious process and ways of honouring both sets of traditions built in. “Of course, these efforts can also mire the family down in endless functions and meaningless repetitions if they become separated from the family story or if they merely become a burden upon one or a few members of the family” (Gunn, 1980, p. 28). Preserving Mementos of the Past. As with photographs, mementos from the past need to be preserved and linked with the family story to ensure their vitality. Lewis (1979, in Lee & Brage, 1989, p. 351) indicates that “the basic mood of healthy families contains elements of warmth, humor, and concern for each other”. Strong families are able to share their feelings honestly and openly with each other, and respond to the expression of feelings with empathy and acceptance. In particular, feelings of loss in response to the inevitable losses of life can be expressed and dealt with in healthy families. The B factor in the ABCX model refers to the crisis-meeting resources at the family’s disposal. Resources refer to the family’s ability to prevent a stressor event or transition in the family from creating a crisis (McCubbin & Patterson, 1982). Resources, then, refer to the capacity of a family to resist the development of a crisis in the face of stress. Burr following on from Hansen who worked with Hill on later developments of the ABCX model, indicates that the B factor can also be called ‘vulnerability’. Although this term is more pathogenic in orientation, it is important in that it is incorporated as a separate component into later family resilience models.
References
Brage, D., & Meredith, W. (1994). A causal model of adolescent depression.The Journal of psychology, 128(4), 455-468.
Conger, R. D., Rueter, M. A., & Elder Jr, G. H. (1999). Couple resilience to economic pressure. Journal of personality and social psychology, 76(1), 54.
Gent, I. P., MacIntyre, E., Prosser, P., & Walsh, T. (1996,). The constrainedness of search. In AAAI/IAAI, Vol. 1 (pp. 246-252).
Graber, J. A., Lewinsohn, P. M., Seeley, J. R., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (1997). Is psychopathology associated with the timing of pubertal development?. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 36(12), 1768-1776.
Hawley, D. R., & DeHaan, L. (1996). Toward a definition of family resilience: Integrating life‐span and family perspectives. Family process, 35(3), 283-298.
Kelsey-Smith, M., & Beavers, W. R. (1981). Family assessment: Centripetal and centrifugal family systems. American Journal of Family Therapy, 9(4), 3-12.
McCubbin, H. I., & Patterson, J. M. (1983). The family stress process: The double ABCX model of adjustment and adaptation. Marriage & Family Review,6(1-2), 7-37.
Sagy, S. (1998). Effects of Personal, Family, and Community Characteristics on Emotional Reactions in a Stress Situation The Golan Heights Negotiations.Youth & Society, 29(3), 311-329.
Last Completed Projects
| topic title | academic level | Writer | delivered |
|---|