Carolyn S. Henry, Amanda Sheffield Morris, and Amanda W.
Harrist
Oklahoma State University
Family Resilience: Moving into the Third Wave
Family resilience has progressed through two
waves and is poised for Wave 3. During Waves
1 and 2, family resilience perspectives were
conceptualized, researched, and applied as a
strengths-based approach focused on positive
family adaptation despite significant risk using
an integration of concepts from individual
resilience, general systems perspectives on
families, and family stress theory. For Wave
3, the authors advocate for increased consis-
tency in terminology and present the family
resilience model (FRM) within which existing
models interface with family adaptive systems
(meaning systems, emotion systems, control sys-
tems, maintenance systems, and family stress-
response systems). The authors also argue for
increased focus on trajectories and cascades,
and enhanced prevention, intervention, and
policy. The authors provide a hypothetical case
study applying the FRM.
When families face significant risk, what helps
them resist, successfully navigate, or recover
from the challenges? This is the fundamental
question of family resilience that provides a
lens through which theorists, researchers, and
practitioners approach understanding or helping
families promote positive adaptation to adver-
sity. The family resilience approach utilizes
concepts from individual resilience and general
Oklahoma State University, Department of Human Develop-
ment and Family Science, 233 Human Sciences, Stillwater,
OK 74078-6122 (carolyn.henry@okstate.edu).
Key Words: family resilience, family adaptive systems, emo-
tion systems, family adaptation, family protective processes.
22 Family Relations 64 (February 2015): 22 – 43
DOI:10.1111/fare.12106
systems perspectives, recognizes the impor-
tance of ecosystems, and views families (a) as
one of several proximal contexts (e.g., peers,
communities) that increase the vulnerability or
protection of individual development, or (b) as
systems with functions, goals, and interaction
patterns that regulate day-to-day life at mul-
tiple family system levels (Cowan & Cowan,
2006; Patterson, 2002). Families-as-context
approaches are often guided by individual
resilience perspectives which evolved from
(Wave 1) describing children who were compe-
tent despite adversity into (Wave 2) uncovering
basic processes of individual resilience, then
into (Wave 3) intervention/prevention studies
and identified mediators and protective moder-
ators of risk-maladaptation linkages (Wave 3;
Masten, 2007). Currently, Wave 4 of individual
resilience involves multidisciplinary approaches
examining how protective mechanisms at mul-
tiple levels of ecosystems (molecular to broader
social-psychological-biological-physical) work
together in resilience (Masten, 2007).
We conceptualize family resilience as having
progressed through two waves and as poised for
a third wave (see Figure 1). Family resilience ini-
tially identified the strengths of resilient families
(Wave 1; e.g., H. I. McCubbin & McCubbin,
1988; Patterson, 1988) and progressed into
conceptual-research-application approaches
emphasizing a process-oriented definition
of resilience in family systems (Wave 2;
Hawley & DeHaan, 1996; Patterson, 2002;
Walsh, 1998). We employ a families-as-systems
approach to family resilience and highlight key
developments in Waves 1 and 2 and make
recommendations for Wave 3. First, we
consolidate and propose family resilience
Family Resilience
terminology characterized by increased consis-
tency, scope, and depth. Second, we advocate
for increased consistency, scope, and depth in
family resilience and provide definitions for
family resilience (see Table 1) and relevant
systems (see Table 2) terminology. Third, we
develop and propose the family resilience model
(FRM) as a model for understanding family
risk, protection, vulnerability, and adaptation
at multiple system levels (i.e., overall family
system, subsystem, or individual family member
level, family-ecosystem fit) and interface with
family situational meanings, family adaptive
systems (FAS), and ecosystems. Fourth, within
the FRM, we advocate for considering family
protection and adaptation as occurring within
FAS, and for increased distinctions between
family promotive and protective processes as
well as family protection and family adaptation.
Fifth, we advocate for expanded approaches to
family resilience prevention, intervention, and
policy. We provide an example of applying the
FRM. Although not addressed in this article,
we acknowledge the exciting advances and
potential of research on the biological aspects
of family resilience (see Masten & Monn, 2015,
this issue).
The First Two Waves of Family Resilience
Wave 1: Resilient Families. Wave 1 extended
family stress theory by identifying the strengths
resilient families call upon during times of
stress (H. I. McCubbin & McCubbin, 1988).
Family stress scholars laid the foundation for
family resilience through a gradual refinement
of Hill’s (1958) ABCX model of family stress.
In the ABCX model, the combination of specific
circumstances of a family stressor (A) combined
with the family’s social-psychological resources
(B) and perceptions of the situation (C) explain
the crisis or initial disruption in family dynam-
ics (X; see also Nichols, 2013). The contextual
model added internal and external contexts to
the ABCX model (Boss, 2001); the double
ABCX model accounted for progression over
time (H. I. McCubbin & Patterson, 1983); and
the family adjustment and adaptation response
model (FAAR) proposed multiple periods of
relative stability (adjustment) across the family
life cycle when perceived demands and capa-
bilities are balanced, and periods of imbalance
(also known as a crisis or significant risk) when
demands are perceived to outweigh capabilities
23
and create a crisis (or significant risk,
Patterson, 2002). Patterson (1988) concep-
tualized “resilient” families (pp. 216, 227) as
capable of restoring balance through substantive
changes to family demands, capabilities, or
meanings.
Another model of family dynamics contribut-
ing to the initial conceptualization of resilient
families was the circumplex model of family
systems (Olson et al., 1983), involving family
typologies based on combinations of family
cohesion and family adaptability that could
be used to identify how well families might
address stress. H. I. McCubbin, Thompson,
Pirner, and McCubbin (1987) conceptualized
family strengths in resilient families as including
family typologies such as rhythmic or families
high in the regularity of/valuing of family time
and routines, as well as regenerative families
with family world views characterized by fam-
ily coherence (e.g., acceptance, loyalty, trust,
respect, shared values, and finding meaning
together through adversity; Antonovsky &
Sourani, 1988) and family hardiness (i.e., a
sense of control over life and confidence in
family perseverance, commitment to the family,
and learning from challenges; H. I. McCubbin
& McCubbin, 1988). Together, these lines of
research led to Wave 1 of family resilience,
as scholars proposed that family systems can
be resilient (see Figure 1). In other words,
resilience was viewed as a family characteristic.
Wave 2: Family Resilience. Wave 2 was char-
acterized by an emphasis on family resilience
as process defined in concert with the notion of
resilient families. Hawley and DeHaan (1996)
provided a seminal definition of family resilience
as
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 con-
text, developmental level, the interactive combina-
tion of risk and protective factors, and the family’s
shared outlook. (p. 293)
These authors integrated ideas from family
stress theory, general systems perspectives, and
individual resilience to emphasize overall fam-
ily system hardships, strengths, and buoyancy
within context. Wave 2 is characterized by
conceptual advances and increasing emphasis on
protection, ecosystems, and specific risks.
24 Family Relations

Table 1. Family Resilience Terminology

Term Definition Reference(s)

Family Resilience, Adaptation, Ecosystems, and Related Terms

Developmental tasksa– c indicators of progress toward competence Masten & Coatsworth, 1998; Walsh,
defined within ecosystems (e.g., age, time, 1998
culture, and society)
Family functionsa the needs of family members or society Patterson, 2002
generally fulfilled by families as defined
within ecosystems
Family competencec adequate progression in individual and Masten & Coatsworth, 1998;
family life cycles within ecosystems; Patterson, 2002
relational patterns that help families to
fulfill family functions
Family resiliencea processes and outcomes associated with Boss, 2001; Hawley & DeHaan, 1996
resisting, managing, or restoring family
system equilibrium after significant risk
Resistance to stress/adversitya– c the potential of a family to withstand or Rutter, 1987; Walsh, 2012
navigate significant risk
Steeling effectsc strengthening by successfully addressing Rutter, 2012
significant risks
Adaptationa, c the level competence in individuals, family Patterson, 2002, Masten &
subsystems, and family-ecosystem fit after Coatsworth, 1998
addressing significant risk
Bonadaptationa, c adequate family system functioning and H. I. McCubbin & Patterson, 1983
(positive adaptation) individual competence after significant
risk; generally at or above precrisis level
Maladaptationa, c (negative low family system functioning within the H. I. McCubbin & Patterson, 1983
adaptation) ecosystem after significant risk
Trajectoriesc pathways of competence before, during, and Rutter, 1987
after (short- and long-term) significant risk
Turning pointsc or tipping points when a trajectory changes Rutter, 1987
direction in regard to risk and adaptation
Cascadesc the flow of competence, risk, resilience, Masten & Cicchetti, 2010
protection, or vulnerability across
domains and time; involves three or more
domains or times
Ecosystem the social-psychological-biological-physical Boss, 2001; Masten, 2007; Walsh,
contexts of family systems 1998
Family adaptive systems emerge from family interactions to develop
and regulate key domains of day-to-day
family life including but not limited to
meaning, emotion, control, maintenance,
and responses to stress

Family Risk, Family Vulnerability, and Related Terms

Family vulnerabilityb, c
Family stressora, b
conditions under which family systems are Boss, 2001; Rutter, 1987
more likely to experience hardships
associated with family risks
family adaptational challenges such as Hill, 1958; Boss, 2001; Walsh, 1998
family daily hassles, strains, hardships,
ambiguity, or demands
Family Resilience 25

Table 1. Continued

Term Definition Reference(s)

Vertical stressorsb chronic strains such as physical or mental McGoldrick & Shibusawa, 2012
conditions, maladaptive family emotion
systems, poverty, work – family conflicts,
status, or societal “isms”
Horizontal stressorsb acute hardships such as historical events; McGoldrick & Shibusawa, 2012
adversity or trauma; family life cycle
transitions; family composition change,
structure, or organization
Daily hassles day-to-day activities or inconveniences that Patterson, 2002
may increase family stress
Family riska– c the combination of family stressors or Hawley & DeHaan, 1996
catalysts for family stressors, resources,
and perceptions increase the potential for
negative outcomes
Family stressa pressure on a family system based on the Hill, 1958; Boss, 2001
interaction of family stressors, resources,
and perceptions
Significant riskb, c family stressor(s), resources, and perceptions Boss, 2001; Patterson, 2002; Masten
(family crisis or family adversity)a combining to disrupt family functioning; et al., 2009; Rutter, 1987
family risks generally associated with
negative adaptation; or three or more
co-occurring family risks co-occur
Pile-upa cumulative risk based on one or more family Hill, 1958; H. I. McCubbin &
stressors and the efforts to manage the Patterson, 1983
resulting demands
Risk chainc heightened vulnerability to two or more risks Rutter, 1987
following a focal significant risk; a type of
cascade

Family Protection and Promotion of Competence

Family protectionc family resources, processes, or mechanisms Rutter, 1987

Family resourcesa
Family promotive processes (asset)c
Family protective factorc
Family protective processesb, c
that counter family risks that might
normally yield maladaptation
social, psychological, biological, and other Boss, 2001; Hill, 1958; Patterson;
capabilities that hold potential to foster 2002
family competence and family resilience
with significant risk
family resources that facilitate family Masten et al., 2009
competence functions
relatively stable family resources (family Rutter, 1987; Masten, Cutuli,
member adoption status, genetics); Herbers, & Reed, 2009
specific variables in research reflecting
family protection
family resources mobilized or developed to Masten et al., 2009; Rutter, 1987
modify risk, reduce risk chains or
cascades, and foster competence despite
significant risk
26 Family Relations

FIGURE 1. Three Waves in the Development of the Concept of Family Resilience.

Family as
Individual Resilience Family as
System Context

General Systems Theory

Family Stress Theory

Wave 1 - Resilient
Families: Family adaptation
to stressors -strengths,
meanings, and contexts

Protective Processes

Resilient Processes

Specific Risks, Ecosystems

Wave 2 - Family
Resilience:
Conceptualization, research,
and application Emotion System

Family Control System

Adaptive
Systems Meaning System

Maintenance System
Trajectories, Cascades
Stress Response System
Wave 3 - Multi - Level,
-System,- Disciplinary:
Conceptual clarity; Family
Resilience Model (FRM);
prevention & intervention

Conceptual Advances. Patterson (2002) pro-
posed that family demands (or stressors), capa-
bilities (or resources), and adaptation could be
conceptualized within individual family mem-
bers, family systems or subsystems, and com-
munities (e.g., resources such as health and edu-
cation systems, stigmas). Patterson integrated
family stress theory and individual resilience
terminology noting several approximate paral-
lels: family stressors or demands = risk; family
resources or capabilities = protective factors;
family crisis = significant risk; and family
adaptation = adaptation. The salience of family
meanings in understanding family demands,
capabilities, crises, and adaptation emerged as
a key difference between individual and family
resilience perspectives (Patterson, 2002). Also,
Patterson (2002) identified a two-fold approach
to family resilience: (a) life as risk, which sug-
gest work with specific families would focus
on restoring “balance reducing demands,
increasing capabilities, and/or changing
Family Resilience 27

Table 1. Continued

Term Definition Reference(s)

Family Meanings

Family meanings
Family situational meaninga
Family identitya, b
Family world viewa, b (family schema
or family belief system)
perceptions shared by family members Patterson, 2002; Patterson &
emerging through family interactions Garwick, 1994
serving as the basis for addressing risk
family definitions of situations based on Hill, 1958
family experiences and interpretations;
families often redefine as part of resilience
processes
families perceptions of their uniqueness Patterson & Garwick, 1994
within their ecosystems (e.g., family
themes and legacies)
abstract beliefs of the world and how things Patterson & Garwick, 1994
work within families and ecosystems;
often reconciled with family responses to
stressors and the pile-up as part of
resilience

Conceptual heritage: a family stress theory, b family systems, c individual resilience.

meanings” during current or future risk (p. 351)
and (b) significant risk, with a focus on
identifying protective variables or processes
in groups of families who displayed adequate
family adaptation despite adversity.
Consistent with the family stress theory
conceptualization of families as "interacting
personalities" that are "intricately organized"
(Hill, 1958, p. 140), Wave 2 placed increased
emphasis on family systems (Boss, 2001;
Cowan & Cowan, 2006) involving (a) complex
interactional patterns that that are qualitatively
greater than a combination of individual family
members’ characteristics; (b) structures associ-
ated with fulfilling family goals and functions;
and (c) interdependence where individuals,
family subsystems, and family systems mutu-
ally influence each other within ecosystems
(Walsh, 1998; Whitchurch & Constantine,
1993). Changes in one family member (e.g.,
job loss), a subsystem (e.g., the couple rela-
tionship), or the overall system (e.g., home
destroyed by a tornado) reverberate across the
family system (Whitchurch & Constantine,
1993). Specific families navigate vulnerabilities
and protections in association with risk in ways
that yield variation in adaptation or multifinality
(Cicchetti, 2011). Each family follows a unique
trajectory to address risk, yielding equifinality
(or multiple pathways) toward positive adapta-
tion (Whitchurch & Constantine, 1993). Family
resilience involves ongoing reciprocal relations
at multiple levels, ranging from the biological to
social-historical level within individuals (e.g.,
emotional, cognitive, self-regulatory, biologi-
cal), subsystems (e.g., parenting styles), family
systems (e.g., family developmental transitions,
emotional systems, meanings), and transactions
with ecosystems (e.g., community, cultural,
physical environment, social structure; Boss,
2001; Masten, 2007; Walsh, 2012).
A distinguishing feature of family resilience
is the emphasis on family system – level mean-
ing. Based upon family meaning systems
(described below) and perceptions of specific
risks, protection, and vulnerabilities, specific
families collectively define situations in ways
that interface with their responses to significant
risk (family situational meanings; Patterson
& Garwick, 1994). Such definitions emerge
through family interaction and new situational
meanings (or redefinitions) often emerge as
family members address adversity over time.
Family meaning is a distinguishing feature of
family resilience approaches (Patterson, 2002).
Protection and Vulnerability. In Wave 2, family
protective factors and processes served as a
primary focus. Family protection was con-
ceptualized as family strengths or capabilities
that could be applied to any family stressor
ranging from day-to-day hassles to significant
risk (Patterson, 2002; Walsh, 1998). The term
28 Family Relations

Table 2. Selected Family Resilience Terminology from Systems Perspectives

Term Definition Reference(s)

Attractorb states to which family systems or subsystems are drawn Kunnen & van Geert, 2011
toward
Bifurcationb when a family system is drawn toward one attractor Kunnen & van Geert, 2011
rather than another at a specific time
Boundariesa define who is in the system, how family members relate Whitchurch & Constantine, 1993
to each other, and interactions with others outside
families; range from diffuse to clear to rigid
Equifinalitya in open systems there are multiple paths to the same end Whitchurch & Constantine, 1993
Equilibriuma the steady state of organization and dynamics in a Whitchurch & Constantine, 1993
family system
Family systema relational patterns among family members and in Whitchurch & Constantine, 1993
relation to ecosystems; composed of the overall
family unit, family subsystems, individual family
members, and ecosystems (or suprasystems)
Family subsystema smaller units within family systems (e.g., sibling, Whitchurch & Constantine, 1993
marital, parent – child)
Iterativityb the unfolding of family developmental processes after Kunnen & van Geert, 2011
addressing earlier challenges with the assumption
that positive or negative adaptation after a prior
challenge serves as the starting point for addressing a
current family stressor
Multifinalitya, b the same starting point can yield different outcomes Cicchetti, 2011; Whitchurch &
Constantine, 1993
Negative feedbacka deviation dampening responses of family systems to Whitchurch & Constantine, 1993
perturbations
Pertubationsa, b disturbances (or family stressors) of sufficient Kunnen & van Geert, 2011
magnitude to disrupt family equilibrium
Positive feedbacka deviation amplifying or variety enhancing responses of Whitchurch & Constantine, 1993
family systems to perturbations
Repellorb states to which systems or parts of systems steer away Kunnen & van Geert, 2011
from
Statec conditions or interaction patterns to which families are Kunnen & van Geert, 2011
drawn (e.g., mutual support vs. mutual hostility);
when multiple parts of a family system are drawn to
two states, one state tends to dominate leaving one
attractor and one repellor
Wholenessa family members are connected to each other such that von Bertalanffy, 1968
the whole is greater than the sum of the parts; families
are relational systems where vulnerability, protection,
and adaptation can occur at any system level

Conceptual heritage: a family stress theory, b family systems, c individual resilience.

family protective factors was applied to static
qualities (e.g., adequate housing) and fam-
ily processes at the individual (e.g., locus of
control), family (e.g., supportive parent – child
interaction), and community levels (Benzies
& Mychasiuk, 2009). Alternatively, the terms
family resilience factors (Black & Lobo, 2008),
family adaptational processes (Walsh, 1998),
and family relational processes (Patterson,
2002) described family strengths that protect
families against the potential detrimental effects
of significant risk. Examples of such qualities
Family Resilience
include a "positive outlook, spirituality, family
member accord, flexibility, communication,
financial management, time together, mutual
recreational interests, routines and rituals, and
social support" (Black & Lobo, p. 37); as well
as identifying, mobilizing, or building new
strengths, such as family belief systems (making
meaning of adversity, positive outlook, transcen-
dence and spirituality), family organizational
patterns (flexibility, connectedness, social and
economic resources), and family communica-
tion patterns (clarity, open emotional sharing,
collaborative problem solving; Walsh, 1998).
The term family vulnerability was often over-
shadowed by the term pile-up in Wave 2. Pile-up
of stressors is a classic family stress theory
term (Patterson, 2002) describing the combi-
nation of families’ efforts to cope with stress
and other stressors (e.g., family developmen-
tal change) that contribute to cumulative fam-
ily stress. Because the specific family risk rarely
occurs in isolation, family vulnerabilities allow
for consideration of the pile-up of preexisting
and co-occurring stressors, or demands occur-
ring as families address specific risk (Rutter,
1987; Patterson, 2002).
Specific Risks and Ecosystems. Wave 2 also
addressed family resilience and specific risks
and ecosystems. Family risks may be (a) ver-
tical risks (or ongoing stressors) including
risk statuses (e.g., ethnicity, immigrant sta-
tus, unmarried fathers – mothers relationships)
and risks in ongoing family interaction patterns
(e.g., poor communication or conflict resolution,
family violence, addiction), or (b) horizontal
risks that serve as time-specific perturbations
to ongoing family interaction patterns (e.g.,
military deployment, challenges to physical
and mental well-being, mass trauma, family
violence, economic stress, work – family fit,
reunification of children and families, childhood
cancer, terrorism, and war; Becvar, 2013; Con-
ger & Conger, 2002; Fagan & Palkovitz, 2007;
Grzywacz & Bass, 2003; Lietz & Strength,
2011; L. D. McCubbin & McCubbin, 2013;
McGoldrick & Shibusawa, 2012; Raffaelli &
Wiley, 2013; Wadsworth, 2010). During Wave
2, family scholars acknowledged the interface
of family risk and resilience with family ecosys-
tems including social, psychological, economic,
biological, and historic contexts (Boss, 2001;
Hawley & DeHaan, 1996; Patterson, 2002;
Walsh, 1998). L. D. McCubbin and McCubbin
29
(2013), for example, emphasized culture as a
key component of family resilience by devel-
oping and testing the relational and resilience
theory of ethnic family systems (R&RTEFS).
Opportunities for Wave 3 of Family Resilience
There are early signs that a third wave of family
resilience is emerging as a multidisciplinary
framework unified by the view that when fam-
ily risk significantly disrupts ongoing family
dynamics, families have the potential for posi-
tive adaptation based upon protection available
through multiple family levels and adaptive sys-
tems as well as the interface with ecosystems.
For example, based on focus group data from
adolescents with the ecosystem risk of par-
ental military deployment, Huebner, Mancini,
Wilcox, Grass, and Grass (2007) identified
common issues at multiple family systems levels
including individual mental health (depression
and anxiety), subsystem changes (relationships
with parents and others), and overall family
system changes (boundary ambiguity or unclear
family roles; routines; and parental reintegration
associated with the parent’s deployment); and
ambiguous loss (incongruence between the psy-
chological and physical presence of a person;
Boss, 2001).
Building on earlier waves of family resilience,
for Wave 3 we consolidate and refine family
resilience terminology, propose the FRM, and
introduce FAS as a central way of examin-
ing promotive and protective processes and
outcomes within broader family interaction
patterns. Also, we recommend increased con-
ceptual clarity between family promotive and
family protective processes as well as family
protection and family adaptation; increased
emphasis on cascades and trajectories of risk,
protection, vulnerability, and adaptation over
time; developing multidisciplinary, multilevel
approaches; and advancing prevention and
intervention designs and efforts.
Family Resilience Model and Key Concepts.
Family resilience occurs when a family risk
interacts with family protection and vulnerabil-
ity in ways that positive, rather than negative,
short-term and long-term family adaptation
occur at multiple family system levels. A critical
step in advancing family resilience into Wave
3 involves the establishment of a basic model
30
of family resilience at a level of abstraction that
allows for the continued use of valuable existing
models (e.g., L. D. McCubbin & McCubbin,
2013; Patterson, 2002) and the emergence of
new models of family resilience. Thus, we
developed the FRM (see Figure 2) that inte-
grates key concepts from individual and family
resilience (see Table 1) and systems perspec-
tives to families (see Table 2). The FRM is
designed for multilevel (overall family systems,
subsystems, individual family members, and
family – ecosystem fit), multisystem (human
adaptive systems, FAS), and multidisciplinary
research and application.
The FRM identifies four basic elements: (a)
the presence of family risk, (b) family protec-
tion that facilitates families’ abilities to restore
balance between demands and capabilities after
risk and may protect against future risks, (c)
family vulnerability that heightens potential of
significant risk or a pile-up of risks, and (d)
short adjustment and long-term adaptation (i.e.,
competence outcomes; DeHaan, Hawley, &
Deal, 2013; Masten, Cutuli, Herbers, & Reed,
2009; Patterson, 2002). Family risk, protection,
vulnerability, and adaptation emerge in concert
with family situational meanings that arise
within FAS and ecosystems (e.g., historical,
social, economic, political, biological, physical,
extended family). The concepts of family risk,
protection, vulnerability, and adaptation were
widely used in Wave 2. Additional recommen-
dations for development in Wave 3 are described
below.
During Wave 2, researchers and practitioners
sought to understand what affords protection
to families experiencing risk. Yet two critical
conceptualization gaps have limited the poten-
tial of family resilience – a lack of distinction
between (a) family promotive processes and
family protective processes and (b) family
protective processes and family adaptation.
Although mainstream in individual resilience
(Masten & Coatsworth, 1998), family resilience
perspectives have not clearly distinguished
between family promotive (fostering compe-
tence when significant risk is not present) and
family protective (fostering competence despite
significant risk) processes. Research is needed
to distinguish the family capabilities that gen-
erally facilitate family functioning (promotive
processes) from those empirically or clinically
significant to protecting against specific family
risks (protective processes) to target areas for
Family Relations
intervention. Further, family resilience can
be limited by the assumption that a variable
affording protection under one condition can
be generalized to other situations. The FRM
adopts a fundamental principle of individual
resilience – protective variables in one circum-
stance may be risks or vulnerabilities in other
circumstances (Rutter, 1987). L. D. McCubbin
and McCubbin (2013), for example, challenged
assumptions of generalizability across ethnic
and cultural groups.
Masten et al. (2009) emphasized the impor-
tance of outcomes after exposure to risk
contexts or specific risks. By definition, sig-
nificant risk means elevated probability of
negative outcomes (maladaptation). Family
adaptation requires competent functioning in
individual family members, family subsys-
tems, and the overall family system; family –
ecosystem fit demonstrates competence. Thus,
positive adaptation for one family member or
one subsystem (e.g., parent – child) does not
generalize to other family members without
empirical verification. And, negative adapta-
tion in one family member, subsystem, or area
of family – ecosystem fit after significant risk
signals potential family maladaptation.
Family Adaptive Systems. Inherent in earlier
conceptualizations of family resilience, we
move FAS into the forefront in the FRM. FAS
emerge from family interactions within specific
ecosystems to develop and regulate key domains
of day-to-day family life and family responses to
stressors. Analogous to the individual resilience
concept of human adaptive systems (health and
stress, information processing, and problem
solving, attachment, self-regulation, mastery,
motivation, family, peer, school, community,
and work systems; Wright, Masten, & Narayan,
2013), FAS work together to foster competent
family functioning and, in the presence of sig-
nificant risk, the “ordinary magic” of resilience
(Masten, 2001).
FAS involve relationship patterns rather than
a combination of human adaptive systems of
individual family members (Whitchurch &
Constantine, 1993). FAS provide the structure
for addressing the functions that families are
expected to fulfill such as providing member-
ship and family formation; economic support;
nurturance, education, and socialization; and
protection of family members who are vul-
nerable based on age, health, ability, or other
Family Resilience 31

FIGURE 2. Family Resilience Model.

Ecosystem
Family Adaptive Systems
Family Situational Meanings

Family
Protection

Family Risk Family

Adaptation

Family
Vulnerability

Notes: Ecosystems range from the molecular to the broad context; the model can be applied to either short-term or long-term
family adaptation to family risk.

conditions (Patterson, 2002). Within FAS, pat-
terns of behavior emerge involving rules or
expectations for behavior and an acceptable
range of variation (Whitchurch & Constantine,
1993). FAS can be viewed as a synergy of
overall family systems, subsystems, and indi-
vidual family members available to accomplish
specific family tasks relating to basic family
functions within ecosystems.
Although not an exhaustive set of FAS, we
posit that family meaning, emotional, control,
and maintenance systems emerge as basic sys-
tems within families that develop and regulate
family goals, structures, and interaction patterns
designed and modified to accomplish the essen-
tial tasks necessary to fulfill family functions
within ecosystems (e.g., community, healthcare
systems). The family stress response system
emerges and orchestrates regulatory processes
balancing stability and change in the family pro-
cesses (see Table 3). Each FAS functions on a
continuum with positive and negative adapta-
tion as anchors indicating the ability of family
systems to address key tasks necessary to fulfill
family functions.
FAS are dynamic and multilevel (i.e., may
be modified in response to stressors or because
of developmental changes affecting roles and
responsibilities, or as family members leave or
join the family system; Hill, 1958), and often are
fairly stable (Holden & Miller, 1999). FAS vary
considerably from family to family in terms
of efficacy of fostering competence at multiple
system levels. We conceptualize FAS in relation
to the primary goal, promotive or protective
processes, and the nature of family adaptation
which might emerge in the face of significant
risk (see Table 3). Family adaptation ranges
from a positive anchor of positive adaptation to
a negative anchor of maladaptation. To illustrate
the integration of multiple levels of family
systems in FAS, we provide in-depth consid-
eration of family emotion systems followed by
an overview of family meaning, control, and
maintenance response systems.
Family emotion systems involve an over-
all emotion system (or climate) defining and
regulating family members’ connections with
each other and others outside of the family
and encompassing individuals’ sense of self
and connectedness to their families (Kerr &
Bowen, 1988; Olson et al., 1983). Developmen-
tal scientists emphasize the role of emotions
in families focusing on emotion regulation and
the socialization of emotion (e.g., Morris, Silk,
Steinberg, Myers, & Robinson, 2007; Valiente
32 Family Relations

Table 3. Family Adaptive Systems: Processes and Outcomes

Basic Family Goal: To Develop Promotive or Outcomes: Outcomes:

Adaptive System and Regulate Protective Processes Positive Anchor Negative Anchor

Emotion system the family emotional interactions among balance of enmeshed or disengaged
climate that family members connectedness and cohesion, ineffective
regulates emotions showing support, separateness, communication and
and connections encouragement, effective conflict skills, hostility,
with others commitment, and communication and inhibited emotional
cooperation; conflict skills, safe expressiveness in an
emotion coaching and secure milieu unsafe or insecure
for emotional milieu, emotional
expressiveness, reactivity,
emotion regulation, dysregulation of
supportive emotions, competitive
sequences and or coercive sequences
cycles of emotions and cycles of emotions
Control system the family control mutual respect among adult executive permissive (low behavior
climate of family members, a control of child regulation) or
authority, power, clear authority behavior (e.g., authoritarian
boundaries, roles, structure and monitoring, (psychological control,
rules, and behavior family rules (with behavior regulation, harsh) control of child
acceptable ranges reasoning), rhythm behavior, low rhythm
of variation), in family time and in family time and
effective problem routines, clear roles routines, unclear roles
solving and and boundaries and boundaries
decision making
processes
Meaning system the family world view making meaning of clear ethnic or cultural diffuse ethnic or cultural
and identity; how the family fits identity, integrated identity, unclear gender
integral to into the broader gender expectations, limited
understanding scheme of life, and expectations, high coherence or hardiness
families’ specific situations; coherence and
perceptions and positive hardiness
situations strengths-based
outlook
Maintenance system processes for meeting family interaction adequate food, shelter, inadequate food, shelter,
basic needs in patterns and clothing, education, clothing, education and
families and for responsibilities are and health; health; inadequate
protecting organized such that adequate economic economic support
vulnerable basic needs are met support
members

Meta-Level Family Goal: To Develop and Promotive or Outcomes: Positive Outcomes: Negative
Adaptive System Regulate Protective Anchor Anchor
Processes

Stress response promoting balance feedback amplifies or openness to change, resistance to change,
system between stability dampens changes, flexibility chaotic
and change in the allowing families to
basic FAS over address their first
time order tasks
Note: This table is based on an integration of ideas from Anderson and Sabatelli (2011), Masten, Cutuli, Herbers, & Reed
(2009), Morris, Cui, & Steinberg (2013), Patterson (2002), and Walsh (2012).
Family Resilience
& Eisenberg, 2006). By bringing together the
family and developmental literatures, we argue
that family emotion systems are evidenced by
the combination of emotion-related processes
and emotion regulation/coregulation among
family members at multiple levels within family
systems.
Family emotion-related processes are evident
through variables such as family cohesion (or
emotional bonding); communication patterns
(e.g., supportive vs. defensive); emotional
reactivity; emotion regulation; scapegoating
(e.g., assigning blame to one or more family
members for overall family system challenges);
triangulation (i.e., developing alliances against
one or more family members to avoid directly
addressing challenges; Kerr & Bowen, 1978);
and emotional cycles (e.g., marital demand-
withdraw patterns; Caughlin & Huston, 2002);
as well as parenting styles and attachment rela-
tionship patterns (Morris et al., 2007). Individ-
uals learn about emotions, in part, by observing
family members’ emotions and responses to
emotions, participating in family emotion
dynamics, and through emotion socialization
efforts. Patterns of emotional expressiveness or
how emotions are expressed and responded to
by family members (Gottman, Katz, & Hooven,
1997; Katz, Wilson, & Gottman, 1999) provide a
foundation for emotion socialization. Positive
emotional expression is associated with multi-
ple positive outcomes in children and couples
(Gottman et al., 1997; Halberstadt & Eaton,
2002); whereas negative emotional expression
is associated with less family and couple satis-
faction and poor child adjustment (Carstensen,
Gottman, & Levenson, 1995; Cummings,
Goeke-Morey, & Papp, 2004).
Emotion regulation, or the internal and
external processes involved in the expression,
regulation, and maintenance of emotions to
thrive in a given context, is another central aspect
of family emotion systems (Eisenberg & Morris,
2002). Within families, individual members’
emotion regulation, as well as their experience
of coregulation with family members, serve as
reference points for how family members learn
about and practice emotion regulation (Morris
et al., 2007). Research supports the premise that
families are the primary socialization influence
on the development of children’s emotion reg-
ulation and emotion-related skills (Eisenberg,
Cumberland, & Spinrad, 1998; Morris et al.,
2007), though much of this research is at the
33
individual and dyadic level rather than involving
overall family system.
Clearly, it is optimal if overall family sys-
tems, family subsystems, and individual family
members utilize emotion regulation strategies
to help manage emotions in successful, adap-
tive ways. Moreover, in a supportive family,
family members often aid others in regulating
their own emotions. Research on parenting, for
example, indicates that how parents react to and
socialize their children’s expression/regulation
of emotions is critical to children’s development
of emotion regulation skills (Katz et al., 1999).
Specifically, research (Gottman et al., 1997)
suggests that some parents serve as “emotion
coaches” by guiding their children through the
process of emotion regulation (i.e., labeling
and accepting emotions, solving problems in
the face of emotional difficulties), reflecting
a view that the expression of emotions is a
learning opportunity for children that fosters
effective emotion regulation and well-being
in children. Indeed, parents who are effective
emotion coaches act as an important emotional
resource and such families engage in support-
ive sequences and cycles of emotions, laying
the foundation for a more positive emotional
climate. In contrast, parents may be dismissive
of or respond negatively to children’s emotions
(e.g., punitiveness), thus contributing little to
a youth’s emotion management. Parents may
even magnify or exacerbate a negative emotion
by responding to a child’s emotional display
in the same or a more extreme manner. Such
approaches are associated with poor emotion
regulation among children and adolescents, and
within a family, may contribute to a negative
emotional climate (Morris et al., 2007). Thus,
aspects of family emotion systems also can
be family vertical stressors and, in the face of
adversity, further heighten family vulnerability.
Family control systems are a focus of sub-
stantial developmental and family science
theory and research. Using a range of terminol-
ogy used to describe aspects of family control
systems (e.g., control, power, power structure,
authority, decision making; Safilios-Rothschild,
1970), the development and regulation of
patterns of influence in overall family systems
and subsystems (e.g., couple relationships,
parent – child relationships, sibling relation-
ships) is salient to family resilience. Family
control involves outcomes (who influences
whom), bases (recognition of potential influence
34
by one family member with regard to others),
and techniques (seeking gain control; Olson &
Cromwell, 1975), and is central to how families
adapt to daily hassles and significant risk. In
short, family control systems establish and reg-
ulate authority, power, boundaries, roles, rules,
and behavior patterns within families.
Adaptive family control systems involve
clear (neither laxn or overly restrictive) family
structure involving rules, limits, and bound-
aries, mutual respect, rhythm, and routine;
where all family members have a voice when
developmentally appropriate (e.g., parents make
decisions regarding finances, whereas children
have input on family rules and activities), yet
adults make final decisions. Families with clear
authority structures that involve mutual respect
tend to be high functioning (Minuchin, 1974)
and to be good at problem solving and decision
making, and work to maintain family routines
and boundaries, promoting resilience when
stressors occur.
Adaptive family control systems are evident,
in part, through parental control. Analogous to
authoritative parenting, adaptive parental control
is characterized by clear rules, roles, and limits
and firm control that is flexible and not overly
intrusive (Baumrind, 2013). Parents might use
control techniques such as parental monitoring
(e.g., listening to children’s disclosure of infor-
mation, soliciting information directly from chil-
dren), as well as more active control attempts
(i.e., setting rules and requirements for behav-
ior; Kerr & Stattin, 2000). Monitoring is linked
to better child and adolescent adjustment and
self-esteem, and less antisocial behavior and
depression (e.g., Kerr, Stattin, & Burk, 2010;
Laird, Criss, Pettit, Dodge, & Bates, 2008).
Maladaptive family control systems lack
clear authority or are overly rigid and hierarchi-
cal. Authoritarian parenting tends to be chaotic
or rigid, resulting in low levels of child auton-
omy, self-esteem, and academic achievement;
low family satisfaction; as well as greater child
anxiety, depression, delinquency, aggression,
and antisocial behavior (Barber, 1996; Morris,
Cui, & Steinberg, 2013; Olson et al., 1983; Silk,
Morris, Kanaya, & Steinberg, 2003); this con-
tributes to distress during adversity. Analogous
to authoritarian parenting, one form of maladap-
tive family control systems is likely to maintain
routine, rules, and family roles, but decisions
are made in a top-down fashion, without input
from family members. These parents often
Family Relations
enact firm control with little flexibility such as
physical punishment or other harsh strategies
to gain children’s compliance (Morris et al.,
2013), increasing the risk of negative outcomes
(Bugental & Grusec, 2006; Gershoff, 2013).
Also, parents may use psychological control
or emotionally manipulative strategies such
as love withdrawal, guilt induction, shaming,
inhibiting autonomy, and invalidating feelings.
These practices are intrusive and overprotective
(Barber & Xia, 2013) and communicate that
love and acceptance are contingent on behavior.
Further, inconsistent parental control or when
children are in control results in a lack of family
structure, routines, rules, boundaries, decision
making, and a chaotic environment (Baumrind,
2013). Maladaptive family control systems may
limit the mobilization of family strengths toward
resilience in the face of adversity.
Family meaning systems are critical to
understanding family resilience (Patterson &
Garwick, 1994; Walsh, 1998). Family meaning
systems emerge from within families to regulate
shared meaning at three interrelated levels of
abstraction: family worldviews; family identity;
and perceptions of family stressors, resources,
and options during specific challenging situ-
ations (Patterson & Garwick, 1994). Family
worldviews hold potential to foster family adap-
tation within the broader ecosystem including
the cultural and family generational heritage
as well as a sense of connection to something
greater than the family (Patterson, 1988; Walsh,
1998). Examples include sharing ideology and
purpose, seeing the family as part of a larger
collective (e.g., family – health care system
interface), having a strengths-based outlook on
life, recognizing present realities including con-
straints, and recognizing the balance of family
autonomy and trust in others (Patterson, 1988).
Other aspects of family worldviews expected to
offer family promotive and protective potential
include a positive outlook (e.g., hope, optimism,
hardiness, coherence) and transcendence or
spirituality (e.g., beliefs and faith that the family
and their experiences fit into the larger scope
of life; belief that learning and growth emerge
from adversity; H. I. McCubbin & McCubbin,
1988; Walsh, 2012).
A type of family meaning, family identity
describes the shared themes serving as the “or-
ganizing principles of family life” (Anderson
& Sabatelli, 2011, p. 12) that, along with fam-
ily worldviews, provide a context for situational
Family Resilience
meanings of family stressors, stress, and crises.
Family themes reflect shared values, expecta-
tions, and practices integrating individual, sub-
system, or contextual ideals and experiences.
Some family themes represent legacies from
families of origin or earlier generations that are
integrated into families and may represent val-
ues (e.g., “We help each other out when there
is a need” or “Our family is committed to our
cultural heritage through traditions and cele-
brations”; Boszormenyi-Nagy & Sparks, 1973),
social identity (Byrd & Garwick, 2006), or fam-
ily rituals (Bossard & Boll, 1950).
Family situational meanings, or perceptions
of specific situations, emerge in the context of
the family meaning system and involve family
worldviews and identities (Patterson & Garwick,
1994). When family stressors occur, through
interactions among family members over time,
family systems engage in a process of construct-
ing shared meaning about the stressor, avail-
able resources, and capabilities to navigate the
specific situation. Adaptive family meaning sys-
tems empower families to approach challenges
with qualities such as coherence and hardiness,
whereas negative family meaning systems can
make it difficult for families to develop or mobi-
lize strengths during adversity and thus heighten
the risk for negative outcomes and pathways.
Family maintenance systems are the internal
family processes that emerge and are regulated
to address expectations within specific families
as a social institution expected to fulfill specific
functions for the broader society (Patterson,
2002). In turn, norms and social sanctions arise
to focus families upon fulfilling functions (e.g.,
economic support; protecting against vulnerabil-
ity). Societies vary regarding the acceptance in
variability in how families fulfill these functions
accompanied by laws and societal subsystems
who administer consequences to families who
do not fulfill their functions at an acceptable
level. For example, rather than addressing infant
neglect (or inadequate maintenance of the basic
infant needs as defined by law) after it occurs,
based upon research using the Fragile Families
Child and Wellbeing data, Nicklas and Macken-
zie (2013) concluded that addressing coercive
interpartner violence toward mothers during
the prenatal period may have the potential to
change a trajectory and decrease the risk for
infant neglect. In contrast, families that establish
and regulate patterns of interaction in ways that
reflect competence in fulfilling basic family
35
functions within a culture or subculture will
be able to call upon this strength or make the
modifications necessary to fulfill their functions
when family stressors occur.
Family stress response systems establish and
regulate existing equilibrium represented by the
family rules, laws, and strategies of the basic
FAS to ensure that they are carried out within the
acceptable ranges of variation. Stability helps
family systems maintain consistent routines,
structures, and interaction patterns that help
families function on a day-to-day basis (Olson
et al., 1983). Minor perturbations in family
interactions (e.g., daily hassles, such as a family
car is unavailable due to routine maintenance)
create temporary imbalances between family
demands and capabilities. Families often restore
equilibrium after minor perturbations by return-
ing to their existing family dynamics (negative
feedback; Whitchurch & Constantine, 1993).
Despite the benefits of stability, the ongoing
nature of family systems require change as fam-
ily stressors emerge that alter family demands,
capabilities, and meanings (McCubbin & Pat-
terson, 1983). Family stress response systems
regulate family responses to ongoing vertical
stressors (e.g., limited problem-solving skills,
addiction), time-specific horizontal stressors
(e.g., developmental changes in individuals or
family systems, or significant risk), and the
pile-up of stress (Hawley & DeHaan, 1996;
McCubbin & Patterson, 1983; McGoldrick
& Shibusawa, 2012). When families perceive
significant risk that generates stress of suffi-
cient magnitude that the system can no longer
absorb, it reaches a “turning point” where they
are drawn toward alternative attractors. Posi-
tive feedback occurs within the system such
that change becomes contagious and a new
equilibrium emerges representing a change in
family trajectories toward positive adaptation
or maladaptation (Kunnen & van Geert, 2011;
Rutter, 1987; Whitchurch & Constantine, 1993).
Cascades and trajectories are a prominent
focus in individual resilience (Cox, Mills-
Koonce, Propper, & Gariépy, 2010; Masten &
Cicchetti, 2010; Rutter, 1987). Further, the her-
itage of family system trajectories and pathways
frequently uses the analogy of a roller coaster to
describe how families in crisis progress through
disorganization, recovery, and reorganization
(Hill, 1958). Research has identified family
pathways before and after family stressors,
including roller coaster, increased functioning,
36
decreased functioning, inconsistent changes,
and consistency before and after the stressor
(Burr, Klein, & Associates, 1994). Such path-
ways recognize the uniqueness in each family’s
experiences with specific family risks as well
as the common pathways of family resilience
(Hawley, 2000). Family resilience involves
cycles of relative stability and change over time
as families develop and mobilize their unique
protective factors and processes to withstand and
rebound from specific adversities (Patterson,
2002; Walsh, 1998).
Trajectories describe pathways of adaptation
through stages and life cycles, whereas cascades
describe the flow of patterns of risk, protection,
and adaptation across domains and over time.
Despite advocates for an emphasis on family
trajectories and cascades of risk, protection,
and adaptation during Wave 2 (e.g., Hawley,
2000; Patterson, 2002), the potential of these
concepts for family resilience process- and
outcome-focused research and practice remains
underdeveloped. Individual resilience trajecto-
ries include initial negative reactions to crises
and later paths potentially involving adaptive
(e.g., normal response and recovery, posi-
tive transformation) and/or maladaptive (e.g.,
delayed breakdown, unresponsive maladap-
tive) trajectories for individuals experiencing
acute-onset disasters (Bonanno, 2005; Masten
& Obradović, 2008). Adapting these ideas to
family systems involves variables representing
multiple family system levels with potential for
complex models (Cowan & Cowan, 2006) and
further development of strategies for measuring
and analyzing relationships with family-level
data (e.g., difference scores, additive scores,
ratio scores, dispersion scores, dyadic corre-
lations, social relations models, or covariance
based techniques; DeHaan et al., 2013).
Whether enhancing vulnerability or afford-
ing protection, developmental cascades hold
substantial potential for understanding family
resilience focused on the “cumulative conseque-
nces for development” (p. 491) of transactions
occurring within and across domains and levels
of family systems (Masten & Cicchetti, 2010).
Cascades allow for examining within- and
across-time processes, as well as showing
opportunities for protection or breaking risk
chains (Blandon, Calkins, Grimm, Keane, &
O’Brien, 2010). Concepts from dynamic sys-
tems theory may be particularly useful for
considering the iterative processes of family
Family Relations
resilience within time (Kunnen & van Geert,
2011, see Table 2). Risk chains, a form of
cascade, are illustrated by progression of risks
from early childhood maltreatment to late ado-
lescent cannabis abuse/dependence symptoms
(Rogosch, Oshri, & Cicchetti, 2010).
Family cascades may occur at multiple sys-
tem levels. For example, a family’s new expe-
rience of poverty might begin a cascade of risk
processes within overall family systems, sub-
systems (e.g., marital, parent – child, sibling), or
family – ecosystem fit. Protection in one subsys-
tem may prevent risk chains in other subsystems.
The interface with aspects of ecosystems might
afford protection to prevent negative cascades
from beginning, stop them once they have begun,
or “prime” family-level positive cascades. Cas-
cade models hold promise for guiding theoreti-
cal and empirical study as well as applications
guided by family resilience.
Implications for Professional Practice
and Policy
Waves 1 and 2 of family resilience provided the
basis for theory, research, and practice in fam-
ily intervention. For Wave 3, we propose the
FRM as a unifying framework through which
family risk, protection, vulnerability, and adap-
tation can be conceptualized within the context
of family meaning, FAS, and ecosystems. In
this section, we provide an example of apply-
ing the FRM and family resilience terminology
in professional practice and highlight strategies
for family resilience prevention and intervention
while briefly addressing policy.
Applying the Family Resilience Model and
Related Concepts: An Example
To illustrate the application of the FRM and
terminology for professional practice, we offer
this family situation. The family lives away
from extended family in a suburb and comprises
two college-educated and employed parents
married 15 years and their three children:
a 4-year-old girl who attends a preschool
program, a 9-year-old boy with an anxiety
disorder, and 13-year-old girl. The family has
health insurance through the mother’s employer.
The family is involved in parent-teacher asso-
ciation (PTA) and a local religious organization
and have neighborhood friends.
Family Resilience
Introducing New Family Risk. Imagine that the
preschooler is diagnosed with severe anaphylac-
tic allergies to several common foods. The fam-
ily decides that the father will quit his job to
care for the child at home, because their insur-
ance is from the mother’s employer. The child’s
chronic illness could be considered an individ-
ual risk factor occurring at the biological level,
with implications for the child’s socioemotional
development, as her social interactions now need
to be monitored. From a family resilience per-
spective, the preschooler’s chronic illness is a
family risk yielding positive feedback to the
family system as the family system modifies
roles and responsibilities, including the father’s
employment and child care arrangements. Thus,
how the family is affected by this new risk is
a function of how the family engages in the
meta-level family processes of regulating stabil-
ity and change via their stress response system as
it is played out in the family meaning, emotion,
control, and maintenance systems.
Family Protection and Vulnerability. The fam-
ily system’s protective factors and processes
include the long-term marriage; a consolidated
sense of family identity; financial resources and
parents’ education; and potential social support
from friends, coworkers, and members of their
religious community. The family system’s vul-
nerability factors and processes include reliance
on insurance via only one parent’s job, distance
from extended family, the son’s anxiety disor-
der, and limited child care options. Some of these
resources and risks are relatively static character-
istics (e.g., education level) and others are pro-
cess oriented (e.g., family identity). Some family
characteristics might be considered promotive
rather than protective (e.g., conflict management
skills). The family’s perception of demands ver-
sus capabilities helps define the level of stress or
crisis the family experiences when faced with a
new risk (Patterson, 2002).
Potential Maladaptive Family Processes. Fam-
ily system maladaptation might involve multiple
interacting FAS at multiple family system levels.
Maladaptation involving the family meaning
system might involve adopting a family schema
of victimization, an overarching perspective
that “bad things happen to us” or “life is too
hard.” If gender expectations were not congru-
ent between the parents, they might experience
conflict around the decision about which one of
37
them should stay home. After the decision, if the
father had traditional gender expectations, he
might become embarrassed about not providing
financially for the family. If the mother’s expec-
tations were traditional, she might feel guilty
about not caring for the child at home. The
older children might have trouble interpreting
the gender aspect of the decision if their parents
send mixed messages.
Maladaptation involving the family emotional
system might include the father – preschooler
dyad becoming disconnected from the other
family subsystems, which could increase the
risk of the other children feeling separate and
unsupported and the marital subsystem not
getting the attention it needs. Each family
member experiences fear. Maladaptive system
responses to these fear reactions could include
development of a family climate of fear or
chaos (growing from a sense of loss of control);
overprotection of the preschooler by isolating
the family (also an example of rigidity or low
openness in the control system), magnifying
the fear; enmeshment between the parents and
preschooler, ignoring the son’s anxiety (or the
daughter’s everyday “issues”) by focusing on
the preschooler; the parents’ redirecting their
fear by expressing it as anger within the mari-
tal system, without communicating about this
redirection; and/or disallowing or minimiz-
ing of expression negative emotion (e.g., fear,
resentment, or anger).
Maladaptation involving the family control
system might involve unclear boundaries. For
example, the mother may take authority from the
father because she is the breadwinner, the father
may take authority from the mother because
he is home more than she is, or the adolescent
daughter might be “parentified” by taking on
excessive responsibility for her sister’s safety.
The parents might relinquish too much behav-
ioral control to the preschooler (e.g., they might
“baby” her and become permissive), allowing
inappropriate behavior because they feel sorry
for her, or may overuse psychological control to
manipulate her behavior. Family routines might
be disrupted because of perceived limitations on
the preschooler’s activities. The parents might
disengage from activities because of keeping the
child at home. Or, holiday rituals or vacations
might be dropped instead of altered in a way
that still meets the family’s needs.
The family maintenance system would be
stressed because of the need to garner economic
38
support, given the loss of the father’s income.
Maladaptive family maintenance processes
might include a focus on provision of the basic
health needs of the preschooler without attend-
ing to the needs of the rest of the family. For
example, the older siblings might be expected to
drop their extracurricular activities, which could
negatively affect their social/physical/emotional
development. If the family becomes disengaged
from the PTA and communal religious activities,
the children’s education might be compro-
mised and the family’s spiritual needs might
go unmet.
These potential family maladaptive processes
are interactive within and across levels of the
family and external systems. For example, a risk
chain might be set off if the son’s anxiety esca-
lates and he begins to fail at school, necessitating
the father to attend a parent – teacher conference
during the day accompanied by the preschooler,
who then becomes exposed to an allergen at the
school. Or the family may be able to adapt pos-
itively until it reaches a tipping point (e.g., one
too many stressors), and then risk chains become
set in motion.
Potential Adaptive Family Processes. Positive
family system adaptation, or “bonadaptation,”
can occur at multiple, interacting family sys-
tem levels as it engages in the meta-level pro-
cess of regulating change and reaching a new
level of stability or equilibrium. Returning to
the example, adaptation involving the family
meaning system might involve embracing a fam-
ily identity of optimism, or one that conveys a
message such as, “We are strong,” “We can be
happy even in the face of challenges,” or “We
are in this together.” The family’s ethnic, reli-
gious, or family heritage might provide strength
via identity processes (e.g., “We come from a
long line of survivors” or “We find meaning
in struggles”). Gender expectations also might
be adaptive, if they match across parents. If
they believe that caring for a child at home
is a valuable parental role, both parents are
likely to see themselves as fulfilling family func-
tions without resentment as the father is able
to quit work to manage the child’s illness with-
out resentment while the mother serves as fam-
ily breadwinner. By focusing family cooperation
toward long-term goals rather than short-term
adjustment, the parents could emphasize a theme
of cooperation in the family system that pro-
vides lessons to children about sacrifice and
Family Relations
teamwork, which will bode well for their future
close relationships (Fincham, Stanley, & Beach,
2007).
Positive adaptation involving the family emo-
tion system is likely to occur in an existing fam-
ily emotional climate that is warm, supportive,
cohesive, predictable, and responsive to the
needs of family members. Ideally, this support-
iveness and responsiveness would be exhibited
in the marital dyad as well as in each parent –
child and sibling subsystem, facilitated by
existing interpersonal skills (effective com-
munication, conflict management, emotion
coaching, and problem solving). This would
allow the risk chains described earlier to be
averted or minimized. For example, if the father
was embarrassed or the mother felt guilty about
their new arrangement, the spouse would attune
to this and together they would address the
problem. If the son’s anxiety escalated, the
parents would respond quickly and sensitively.
Family coherence and predictability would need
to be reestablished, but the parents would do
so overtly and by modeling to give the children
the message that the family can find a new
balance that will be satisfying. From a dynamic
systems perspective, this adaptation task would
be impacted by the family’s particular attrac-
tors and repellors. For example, if “peaceful
resolution of conflict” (Dishion, Forgatch, Van
Ryzin, & Winter, 2012) is an attractor state for
the family, they are likely to return to that state
more easily and more often when the conflicts
arise.
Adaptation involving the family control sys-
tem could involve clarifying expectations and
boundaries, as well as the rules and ranges of
acceptable variation within the adjusting family
system. Despite their changing work roles, the
couple would need to maintain a functional and
satisfying balance of power (e.g., who is respon-
sible for household care might change, the older
children might take on new age-appropriate
chores). Boundaries of the family system and
external ecosystems might become more flex-
ible, as the family interacts more with health
professionals and perhaps accepts instrumen-
tal support from friends, coworkers, and their
religious community. If any of the three chil-
dren “act out,” due perhaps to fear or need
for attention, the parents would respond with
an authoritative style, clarifying and enforcing
boundaries while letting the children know
they understand what is driving their negative
Family Resilience
behavior. The parents and older siblings might
guard against babying the preschooler, provid-
ing instead clear expectations for behavior and
emotion regulation. Although the parents retain
executive control of the family system, when
new family-level decisions are to be made, each
member of the family will be given a chance
to voice an opinion. Existing iterative family
processes might facilitate the balance between
flexibility and stability. For example, the family
may engage in family rituals such as weekly
“family meetings” or daily “high/low” reports at
the dinner table that facilitate systemic feedback
to help steer the family’s trajectory toward
short-term adjustment and long-term positive
adaptation.
Positive family adaptation also occurs within
the family maintenance system. Because of the
loss of the father’s income, the family will need
to develop a workable budget that is (eventually)
acceptable to all family members. For example,
the family might eat out less often and the older
daughter might need to watch the preschooler
after school while the father goes to the grocery
store. These changes might be challenging, but
would ensure that the family’s basic needs for
food, safety, and health are met.
In family resilience, a variety of trajectories
(or pathways) were possible for this family. In
this case, the family was able to mobilize their
strengths to protect against adversity and yield
adaptation among individual family members,
family subsystems, and the overall family sys-
tem and family – ecosystem fit. Because fami-
lies progress through periods of relative stabil-
ity and change, a primary goal of intervention
with families experiencing risk is to cultivate
strengths (promotive or protective) at multiple
levels of the family system within ecosystems
that can be activated to empower families to suc-
cessfully navigate future developmental or unex-
pected challenges.
Prevention, Intervention, and Policy
Considerations
An important challenge in Wave 3 is to con-
solidate and test prevention and intervention
strategies associated with family resilience.
Insights can be gained from individual resilience
where substantial progress has been made in
testing strategies for disrupting the potential
negative outcomes of significant risk (Wright
et al., 2013). At a conceptual level, family
39
resilience perspectives emphasize prevention
and intervention (Becvar, 2013; Boss, 2001;
Hawley, 2000; Walsh, 2012). Yet empirical stud-
ies of the effectiveness of resilience approaches
in prevention and intervention are dominated by
individual rather than family resilience. Wave
3 provides the opportunity to further develop
and test five fundamental family protection
strategies emerging from individual and family
resilience. First, risk-focused strategies involve
altering risk (e.g., inoculating to low levels of
the risk through success with family develop-
mental transitions such as marriage or the birth
of a child to prepare for resilience during future
risks) and reducing risk exposure (e.g., parental
monitoring of child activities to reduce the risk
for delinquency) or chain reactions (e.g., pre-
natal care to prevent future child health risks).
Second, resource-focused strategies mobilize
family strengths to protect against the potential
negative consequences of risk (e.g., internal
family capabilities such as family adaptability
or coherence). Third, process-focused strategies
involve one or more system levels of adaptive
systems at multiple system levels (e.g., overall
family systems, subsystems, individual family
members, family-ecosystem fit levels) or ongo-
ing processes associated with competence (e.g.,
self-regulation). Fourth, family resilience strate-
gies can focus on facilitating family progression
through turning points that change trajectories
away from vulnerability toward protection
and resilience. Finally, family resilience often
involves reframing family situational meanings
such that family members redefine adversity in
ways that allow them to mobilize or develop
protection that empowers trajectories toward
positive adaptation (Hawley & DeHaan, 1996;
Masten & Coatsworth, 1998; Patterson, 2002;
Rutter, 1987).
A critical issue in application is that pre-
vention and intervention policies and programs
that initially appear to foster family resilience
may generate other challenges. For example,
prevention or intervention efforts may inad-
vertently encourage dependence rather than
empowerment within families, adaptation for
one family member while creating problems for
other family members, or short-term adaptation
that yields long-term maladaptation. Thus,
family prevention, intervention, and policy
will require a solid multilevel, multisystem,
multidisciplinary research foundation and out-
come evaluations emphasizing trajectories and
40
cascades of family risk, protection, vulnerability,
and long-term adaptation.
Conclusions
The family resilience perspective is an impor-
tant approach to understanding how families
as systems navigate family risk, protection,
and vulnerability resulting in short-term and
long-term adaptation. In Wave 1, resilience was
established as a construct at the family system
level, identifying typologies of family strengths
associated with resilient families. This work
identified overall family system processes char-
acterizing resilient families, including family
cohesion, family adaptability, family coher-
ence, family hardiness, and valuing of family
time and routines. In Wave 2, the emphasis
on family protective processes expanded and
became integrated into practitioner approaches
while researchers integrated aspects of fam-
ily stress theory, general systems theory,
and individual resilience to examine family
resilience in relation to specific family risks and
ecosystems.
We propose that Wave 3 of family resilience
be guided by conceptual clarity that is repre-
sented by increased consistency in terminology
and clarity regarding the distinctions between
family promotive processes versus family pro-
tective processes as well as family protective
processes versus family adaptation; the FRM as
a unifying approach to family resilience incor-
porating fundamental elements of resilience
(risk, protection, vulnerabilities, and adaptation)
with family situational meanings, naturally
occurring FAS (e.g., emotion, control, meaning
maintenance, and stress-response), and ecosys-
tems that can be applied in a multilevel,
multisystem, and multidisciplinary manner;
an increased focus on trajectories and cascades
of family risk, protection, vulnerability, and
adaptation; and enhanced prevention, interven-
tion, and policy approaches to family resilience.
An example of applying family resilience was
provided to encourage researchers and practi-
tioners to increase their portfolio of terminology
and approaches to promoting family adaptation.
In short, family resilience holds potential to con-
tinue to identify and intervene in building the
capacity and enactment of family strengths that
identify or build capacity for protecting fam-
ily systems against the potentially deleterious
effects of significant risk.
Family Relations
References
Anderson, S. A., & Sabatelli, R. M. (2011). Fam-
ily interaction: A multigenerational developmental
perspective (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Antonovsky, A., & Sourani, T. (1988). Family
sense of coherence and family adaptation. Jour-
nal of Marriage and the Family, 50, 79 – 92.
doi:10.2307/352429
Barber, B. K. (1996). Parental psychological control:
Revisiting a neglected construct. Child Develop-
ment, 67, 3296 – 3319. doi:10.2307/1131780
Barber, B. K., & Xia, M. (2013). The centrality of con-
trol to parenting and its effects. In R. E. Larzelere,
A. S. Morris, & A. W. Harrist (Eds.), Authoritative
parenting: Synthesizing nurturance and discipline
for optimal child development (pp. 61 – 87). Wash-
ington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Baumrind, D. (2013). Authoritative parenting revis-
ited: History and current status. In R. E. Larzelere,
A. S. Morris, & A. W. Harrist (Eds.), Authoritative
parenting: Synthesizing nurturance and discipline
for optimal child development (pp. 11 – 34). Wash-
ington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Becvar, D. S. (Ed.). (2013). Handbook of family
resilience. New York, NY: Springer.
Benzies, K., & Mychasiuk, R. (2009). Fostering fam-
ily resiliency: A review of the key protective fac-
tors. Child & Family Social Work, 14, 103 – 114.
doi:10.1111/j.1365-2206.2008.00586.x
Blandon, A. Y., Calkins, S. D., Grimm, K. J., Keane,
S. P., & O’Brien, M. (2010). Testing a developmen-
tal cascade model of emotional and social com-
petence and early peer acceptance. Development
and Psychopathology, 22, 737 – 748. doi:10.1017/
S0954579410000428
Black, K., & Lobo, M. (2008). A conceptual review of
family resilience factors. Journal of Family Nurs-
ing, 14, 33 – 55. doi:10.1177/1074840707312237.
Bonanno, G. A. (2005). Clarifying and extending
the construct of adult resilience. American Psy-
chologist, 60, 265 – 267. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.
60.3.265b
Boss, P. (2001). Family stress management: A con-
textual approach (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Bossard, J. H. S., & Boll, E. S. (1950). Rituals in fam-
ily living. Oxford, England: University of Pennsyl-
vania Press.
Boszormenyi-Nagy, I., & Sparks, G. (1973). Invisible
loyalties. New York, NY: Harper & Rowe.
Bugental, D. B., & Grusec, J. E. (2006). Socialization
processes. In W. Damon & R. M. Lerner (Series
Eds.) & N. Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of
child psychology: Vol. 3, Social, emotional, and
personality development (6th ed., pp. 366 – 428).
Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
Burr, W. R., Klein, S. R., & Associates. (1994). Reex-
amining family stress: New theory and research.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Family Resilience
Byrd, M., & Garwick, A. (2006). Family identity:
Black-white interracial family health experi-
ence. Journal of Family Nursing, 12, 22 – 37.
doi:10.1177/1074840705285213
Carstensen, L. L., Gottman, J. M., & Levenson,
R. W. (1995). Emotional behavior in long-term
marriage. Psychology and Aging, 10, 140 – 149.
doi:10.1037/0882-7974.10.1.140
Caughlin, J. P., & Huston, T. L. (2002). A contextual
analysis of the association between demand/
withdraw and marital satisfaction. Personal Rela-
tionships, 9, 95 – 119. doi:10.1111/1475-6811.
00007
Cicchetti, D. (2011). Pathways to resilient function-
ing in maltreated children: From single-level to
multilevel investigations. In D. Cicchetti & G. I.
Rosiman (Eds.), The origins and organization of
adaption and maladaptation (pp. 423 – 459).
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Conger, R. D., & Conger, K. J. (2002). Resilience
in midwestern families: Selected findings from the
first decade of a prospective, longitudinal study.
Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 361 – 373.
doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2002.00361.x
Cowan, P. A., & Cowan, C. P. (2006). Developmental
psychopathology from family systems and family
risk factors perspectives: Implications for family
research, practice, and policy. In D. Cicchetti & D.
J. Cohen (Eds.), Developmental psychopathology.
Vol. 1 (2nd ed., pp. 530 – 587). New York: John
Wiley.
Cox, M. J., Mills-Koonce, R., Propper, C., & Gariépy,
J. L. (2010). Systems theory and cascades in devel-
opmental psychopathology. Developmental Psy-
chopathology, 22, 497 – 506. doi:10.1017/S095
4579410000234
Cummings, E. M., Goeke-Morey, M. C., & Papp,
L. M. (2004). Everyday marital conflict and child
aggression. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychol-
ogy, 32, 191 – 202. doi:10.1023/B:JACP.0000019
770.13216.be
DeHaan, L. G., Hawley, D. R., & Deal, J. E. (2013).
Operationalizing family resilience as process:
Proposed methodological strategies. In D. Becvar
(Ed.), Handbook of family resilience (pp. 17 – 29).
New York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-
4614-3917-2_2
Dishion, T. J., Forgatch, M., Van Ryzin, M., & Win-
ter, C. (2012). The nonlinear dynamics of fam-
ily problem solving in adolescence: The predictive
validity of a peaceful resolution attractor. Nonlin-
ear Dynamics, Psychology, and Life Sciences, 16,
331 – 352. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.
nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3547648/
Eisenberg, N., Cumberland, A., & Spinrad, T. L.
(1998). Parental socialization of emotion. Psycho-
logical Inquiry, 9, 241 – 273. doi:10.1207/s15327
965pli0904_1
41
Eisenberg, N., & Morris, A. S. (2002). Children’s
emotion-related regulation. In H. Reese & R. Kail
(Eds.), Advances in child development and behav-
ior (Vol. 30, pp. 189 – 229). San Diego, CA: Aca-
demic Press.
Fagan, J., & Palkovitz, R. (2007). Unmarried non-
resident fathers’ involvement with their infants: A
risk and resilience perspective. Journal of Family
Psychology, 3, 479 – 489. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.
21.3.479
Fincham, F. D., Stanley, S. M., & Beach, S. R. (2007).
Transformative processes in marriage: An analy-
sis of emerging trends. Journal of Marriage and
Family, 69, 275 – 292. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.
2007.00362.x
Gershoff, E. T. (2013). Spanking and child develop-
ment: We know enough now to stop hitting our
children. Child Development Perspectives, 7(3),
133 – 137. doi:10.1111/cdep.12038
Gottman, J. M., Katz, L. F., & Hooven, C. (1997).
Meta-emotion: How families communicate emo-
tionally. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Asso-
ciates.
Grzywacz, J. G., & Bass, B. L. (2003). Work, fam-
ily, and mental health: Testing different mod-
els of work-family fit. Journal of Marriage and
Family, 65, 248 – 261. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.
2003.00248.x
Halberstadt, A. G., & Eaton, K. L. (2002). A meta-
analysis of family expressiveness and children’s
emotion expressiveness and understanding. Mar-
riage & Family Review, 34, 35 – 62. doi:10.
1300/J002v34n01_03
Hawley, D. R. (2000). Clinical implications of family
resilience. American Journal of Family Therapy,
28, 101 – 116. doi:10.1080/019261800261699
Hawley, D. R., & DeHaan, L. (1996). Toward a defini-
tion of family resilience: Integrating life-span and
family perspectives. Family Process, 35, 283 – 298.
doi:10.1111/j.1545-5300.1996.00283.x.
Huebner, A. J., Mancini, J. A., Wilcox, R. M., Grass,
S. R., & Grass, G. A. (2007). Parental deployment
and youth in military families: Exploring uncer-
tainty and ambiguous loss. Family Relations, 56,
112 – 122. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3729.2007.00445.x
Hill, R. (1958). Social stress and the family: 1.
Generic features of families under stress. Social
Casework, 49, 139 – 150.
Holden, G. W., & Miller, P. C. (1999). Enduring
and different: A meta-analysis of the similarity in
parents’ child rearing. Psychological Bulletin, 125,
223 – 254. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.125.2.223
Katz, L. F., Wilson, B., & Gottman, J. M. (1999).
Meta-emotion philosophy and family adjustment:
Making an emotional connection. In M. J. Cox & J.
Brooks-Gunn (Eds.), Conflict and cohesion in fam-
ilies: Causes and consequences (pp. 131 – 165).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
42
Kerr, M. E., & Bowen, M. (1988). Family evaluation:
An approach based on Bowen theory. New York,
NY: Norton.
Kerr, M., & Stattin, H. (2000). What parents know,
how they know it, and several forms of adoles-
cent adjustment: Further evidence for a reinterpre-
tation of monitoring. Developmental Psychology,
36, 366 – 380. doi:10.1037//0012-1649.36.3.366
Kerr, M., Stattin, H, &. Burk, W. J. (2010). A rein-
terpretation of parental monitoring in longitudi-
nal perspective. Journal of Research on Adoles-
cence, 20, 39 – 64. doi:10.1111/j.1532-7795.2009.
00623.x
Kunnen, S., & van Geert, P. (2011). General character-
istics of a dynamic systems approach. In S. Kunnen
(Ed.), A dynamic systems approach to adolescent
development (pp. 15 – 34). New York, NY: Psy-
chology Press.
Laird, R. D., Criss, M. M., Pettit, G. S., Dodge, K.
A., & Bates, J. E. (2008). Parents’ monitoring
knowledge attenuates the link between antisocial
friends and adolescent delinquent behavior. Jour-
nal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 36, 299 – 310.
doi:10.1007/s10802-007-9178-4
Lietz, C. A., & Strength, M. (2011). Stories of suc-
cessful reunification: A narrative study of family
resilience in child welfare. Families in Society, 92,
203 – 210.
Masten, A. S. (2001). Ordinary magic: Resilience
processes in development. American Psychologist,
56, 227 – 238. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.56.3.227
Masten, A. S. (2007). Resilience in developing sys-
tems: Progress and promise as the fourth wave
rises. Development and Psychopathology, 19(3),
921 – 930. doi:10.1017/S0954579407000442
Masten, A. S., & Cicchetti, D. (2010). Developmental
cascades. Development and Psychopathology, 22,
491 – 495. doi:10.1017/S0954579410000222
Masten, A. S., & Coatsworth, J. D. (1998). The
development of competence in favorable and unfa-
vorable environments: Lessons from research on
successful children. American Psychologist, 53,
205 – 220. doi:10.1037//0003-066X.53.2.205
Masten, A. S., Cutuli, J. J., Herbers, J. E., & Reed,
M. J. (2009). Resilience in development. In S. J.
Lopez & C. R. Snyder (Ed.), Oxford handbook of
positive psychology (2nd ed., pp. 117 – 131). New
York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Masten, A. S., & Monn, A. R. (2015). Child and fam-
ily resilience: Parallels and multilevel dynamics.
Family Relations, 64, 5 – 21.
Masten, A. S., & Obradović, J. (2008). Disaster prepa-
ration and recovery: Lessons from research on
resilience in human development. Ecology and
Society, 13(1). Retrieved from http://www.ecology
andsociety.org/vol13/iss1/art9/
McCubbin, L. D., & McCubbin, H. I. (2013).
Resilience in ethnic family systems: A rela-
tional theory for research and practice. In D. S.
Family Relations
Becvar (Ed.), Handbook of family resilience (pp.
175 – 195). New York, NY: Springer. doi:10.
1007/978-1-4614-3917-2_11
McCubbin, H. I., & McCubbin, M. A. (1988).
Typologies of resilient families: Emerging roles
of social class and ethnicity. Family Relations, 37,
247 – 254. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/
stable/584557
McCubbin, H. I., & Patterson, J. M. (1983). Family
transitions: Adaptation to stress. In H. I. McCubbin
& C. R. Figley (Eds.), Stress and the family: Cop-
ing with normative transitions (Vol. 2, pp. 5 – 25).
New York, NY: Brunner/Mazel.
McCubbin, H. I., Thompson, A., Pirner, P., & McCub-
bin, M. A. (1987). Family types and strengths: A
life cycle and ecological perspective. Edina, MI:
Burgess International.
McGoldrick, M., & Shibusawa, T. (2012). The family
life cycle. In F. Walsh (Ed.), Normal family pro-
cesses: Growing diversity and complexity (4th ed.,
pp. 375 – 398). New York, NY: Guilford.
Minuchin, S. (1974). Families and family therapy.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Morris, A. S., Cui, L., & Steinberg, L. (2013). Par-
enting research and themes: What we have learned
and where to go next. In R. E. Larzelere, A.
S. Morris, & A. W. Harrist (Eds.), Authorita-
tive parenting: Synthesizing nurturance and disci-
pline for optimal child development (pp. 35 – 58).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Associ-
ation.
Morris, A. S., Silk, J. S., Steinberg, L., Myers, S.
S., & Robinson, L. R. (2007). The role of the
family context in the development of emotion
regulation. Social Development, 16, 361 – 388.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-9507.2007.00389.x
Nichols, W. C. (2013). Roads to understanding fam-
ily resilience: From the 1920s to the twenty-first
century. In D. S. Becvar (Ed.), Handbook of fam-
ily resilience (pp. 3 – 16). New York, NY: Springer.
doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-3917-2_11
Nicklas, E., & Mackenzie, M. J. (2013). Intimate
partner violence and risk for child neglect during
early childhood in a community sample of fragile
families. Journal of Family Violence, 28, 17 – 29.
doi:10.1007/s10896-012-9491-8
Olson, D. H., & Cromwell, R. (1975). Power in fam-
ilies. In R. E. Cromwell & D. H. Olson (Eds.),
Power in families (pp. 3 – 11). New York, NY: Hal-
stead.
Olson, D. H., McCubbin, H. I., Barnes, H. L., Larsen,
A. S., Muxen, M. J., & Wilson, M. A. (1983). Fam-
ilies: What makes them work. Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage.
Patterson, J. M. (1988). Family experiencing stress.
Family Systems Medicine, 6, 202 – 237. doi:10.
1037/h0089739
Patterson, J. M. (2002). Integrating family resilience
and family stress theory. Journal of Marriage
Family Resilience
and the Family, 64, 349 – 360. doi:10.1111/j.1741-
3737.2002.00349.x
Patterson, J. M., & Garwick, A. W. (1994). Lev-
els of meaning in family stress theory. Family
Process, 33, 287 – 304. doi:10.1111/j.1545-5300.
1994.00287.x
Raffaelli, M., & Wiley, A. R. (2013). Challenges and
strengths of immigrant Latino families in the rural
midwest. Journal of Family Issues, 34, 347 – 372.
doi:10.1177/0192513X11432422
Rogosch, F. A., Oshri, A., & Cicchetti, D. (2010).
From child maltreatment to adolescent cannabis
abuse and dependence: A developmental cascade
model. Development and Psychopathology, 22,
883 – 897. doi:10.1017/S0954579410000520
Rutter, M. (1987). Psychosocial resilience and protec-
tive mechanisms. American Journal of Orthopsy-
chiatry, 57, 316 – 331. doi:10.1111/j.1939-0025.
1987.tb03541.x
Rutter, M. (2012). Resilience: Causal pathways and
social ecology. In M. Unger (Ed.), The social
ecology of resilience: A handbook of theory and
practice (pp. 33 – 42). New York, NY: Springer.
doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-0586-3_3
Safilios-Rothschild, C. (1970). The study of fam-
ily power structure: A review 1960 – 1969. Jour-
nal of Marriage and the Family, 32, 539 – 552.
doi:10.2307/350250
Silk, J. S., Morris, A. S., Kanaya, T., & Steinberg,
L. (2003). Psychological control and autonomy
granting: Opposite ends of a continuum or distinct
constructs? Journal of Research on Adolescence,
13, 113 – 128. doi:10.1111/1532-7795.1301004
43
Valiente, C., & Eisenberg, N. (2006). Parenting and
children’s adjustment: The role of children’s emo-
tion regulation. In D. K. Snyder, J. Simpson, & J.
N. Hughes (Eds.), Emotion regulation in couples
and families: Pathways to dysfunction and health
(pp. 123 – 142). Washington, DC: American Psy-
chological Association.
von Bertalanffy, L. (1968). General systems theory.
New York, NY: George Braziller.
Wadsworth, S. M. (2010). Family risk and resilience
in the context of war and terrorism. Journal of Mar-
riage and Family, 72, 537 – 556. doi:10.1111/j.
1741-3737.2010.00717.x
Walsh, F. (1998). Strengthening family resilience.
New York, NY: Norton.
Walsh, F. (2012). Family resilience: Strengths forged
through adversity. In F. Walsh (Ed.), Normal family
processes: Growing diversity and complexity (4th
ed., pp. 399 – 427). New York, NY: Guilford.
Whitchurch, G. G., & Constantine, L. L. (1993).
Systems theory. In P. G. Boss, W. J. Dougherty,
R. LaRossa, W. R. Schumm, & S. K. Steinmetz
(Eds.), Sourcebook of family theory and methods:
A contextual approach (pp. 325 – 352). New York,
NY: Plenum.
Wright, M. O., Masten, A. S, & Narayan, A. J. (2013).
Resilience processes in development: Four waves
of research on positive adaptation in the context of
adversity. In S. Goldstein & R. B. Brooks (Eds.),
Handbook of resilience in children (2nd ed., pp.
15 – 37). New York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/
978-1-4614-3661-4_2