Content area
Full Text
This article presents an overview of a family resilience framework developed for clinical practice, and describes its advantages. Drawing together findings from studies of individual resilience and research on effective family functioning, key processes in family resilience are outlined in three domains: family belief systems, organizational patterns, and communication/problem-solving. Clinical practice applications are described briefly to suggest the broad utility of this conceptual framework for intervention and prevention efforts to strengthen families facing serious life challenges.
A FAMILY RESILIENCE FRAMEWORK
The concept of family resilience extends our understanding of healthy family functioning to situations of adversity. Although some families are shattered by crisis or chronic stresses, what is remarkable is that many others emerge strengthened and more resourceful.
Resilience the ability to withstand and rebound from disruptive life challenges-- has become an important concept in mental health theory and research over the past two decades. It involves dynamic processes fostering positive adaptation within the context of significant adversity (Luthar, Cicchetti, & Becker, 2000). These strengths and resources enable individuals and families to respond successfully to crises and persistent challenges and to recover and grow from those experiences (Cowan, Cowan, & Schultz, 1996). Some who have suffered trauma become blocked from growth or trapped in a victim position. In contrast, resilience involves key processes over time that foster the ability to "struggle well," surmount obstacles, and go on to live and love fully.
The Relational Context of Individual Resilience
Most research to date has focused on individual resilience. In the 1980s, increasing evidence was found that the same adversity may result in different outcomes, which challenged the prevailing deterministic assumption that traumatic experiences, especially in childhood, are inevitably damaging. In surveying these findings, Rutter (1987) noted that no combination of risk factors, regardless of severity, gave rise to disorder in more than half the children exposed. Although many lives were shattered, others overcame similar high-risk conditions and were able to lead loving and productive lives and to raise their children well. Studies found, for instance, that most abused children did not become abusive parents (Kaufman & Ziegler, 1987).
To account for these differences, early studies focused on personal traits for resilience, or hardiness, reflecting the dominant cultural ethos of the "rugged individual" (Luthar & Ziegler,...