ATOLER Group_5_LiteratureReviewFinal-1

A Unified Literature Review of the Origins of Resilience: Risks and Protective Factors for
Families Facing Socioeconomic Deprivation, Separation, and Parental Bereavement
Shamus Cassidy, Moon Prayer Rainbow, Susanna Rhodes, Katarzyna Sliwinska, Tom Teeters,
Amber Toler
The Evergreen State College 2013

Families Facing Socioeconomic Deprivation, Separation, and ParentalBereavement
2
Table of Contents
Origins of Resilience 3
Socioeconomic Status 4
Parenting Amber Toler 4
Attachment Katarzyna Sliwinska 5
Marital Relationships Moon Prayer Rainbow 6
Separation in Families Tom Teeters & Shamus Cassidy 9
ParentalBereavement Susanna Rhodes 12
Discussion 14
Interventions 14
References 17
Appendix 22

3
Origins of Resilience
Resilience is typically regarded in terms of
the reciprocal relationship between risk and
protective processes. Resilience has been
defined as the ability to cope, persevere, and
recover in the face of adversity. Further
more, emotional intelligence, a quality of
resilient individuals, is the ability to
distinguish, incorporate, and comprehend
emotions (Schneider, Lyons, & Khazon,
2013). Hardships, such as socioeconomic
deprivation, divorce, and the loss of a loved
one, hold the potential of creating tension
within families, unsuccessful attempts to
cope with such overwhelming experiences,
and can increase the negative effects of
adversity. The goal of this review is to
identify potential risks and protective factors
involved in familial resilience.
The results of building high familial
resiliency are healthy coping mechanisms,
flexibility, adaptability, emotional growth,
and stronger relationships between
individuals within a household (Walsh,
2002). Walsh (2002) categorizes the
processes of building familial resilience into
three categories; belief systems: positive
outlook, and transcendence and spirituality
fall under, organized patterns: flexibility,
connectedness, and social and economic
support, and communication processes:
clarity, open emotional sharing, and
collaborative problem solving.
Resiliency keeps a family system together.
The stronger the resilience in the family the
more hardships they can withstand and stay
together through. Families that stay together
are strong support to the individuals in them,
without family systems in place they would
have a lack of emotional and, developmental
support, physical support. This is especially
devastating when a system breaks apart as
the individuals feel a severe lack of control
and support, as they were accustomed to the
system that was in place. Resiliency is what
allows families to stay together through
hardships, and allows individuals to be
content and supported in their life.

4
Socioeconomic Deprivation
In order to identify the protective factors
that buffer against the risks associated with
low socioeconomic status, forty-five articles,
pertaining to three factors of interests, were
examined. Healthy parenting styles, secure
child-adult attachment, and strong between
parent relationships were identified as
protective factors against socioeconomic
deprivation and had significant influences
on resilience of families. Elements found to
negatively correlate with the resilience of
parents- such as depression, anxiety and
stress, fewer resources, dangerous living
environments, lower levels of education,
unemployment, unsatisfactory or
unsubstantial employment, and single
parenthood- are common risk factors lower-
income families face (Pinderhughes, Nix,
Foster, & Jones, 2001). These risks tend to
correlate with negative parenting styles that
may decrease the resilience of children due
to the direct impact of parenting styles on
attachment security in children (Hopkins,
Gouze, & Lavigne, 2013).
Parenting Styles
Baumrind’s parenting typology is most
commonly used in research to classify an
individual’s parenting style. Baumrind’s
theory focuses on three distinct parenting
styles: authoritative parenting (parents
express clear boundaries and consistent
punishment, but are also warm and allow
room for discussion), authoritarian parenting
(parents are highly demanding,
unresponsive, and express strict rules),
permissive parenting (parents are warm and
nurturing, however they do not express any
clear boundaries or form of discipline), and
Baumrind’s research suggests that
permissive and authoritarian parenting are
undesired methods for raising children and
lead to maladjustments, whereas,
authoritative parenting has been shown to
increase a child’s self-regulation and lead to
emotional well-being in adulthood.
(Baumrind, Larzelere, & Owens,2010).
Risks and Protective Factors
Research suggests that parents with low-
socioeconomic status (SES) are at a higher
risk of practicing undesired methods of
parenting such as authoritarian and
permissive (Aunola, Nurmi, Onatsu-
Arvilommi, & Pulkkinen, 1999, Lindsay,
2011) and their children are at risk of
internalizing the stress associated with low-
SES (Rodriguez, 2011). Some families are at
greater risk than others of adopting negative
parenting styles depending on the number of
risk factors they experience in their daily
lives (Deater-Deckard, Chen, Wang, & Bell,
2012).
Mothers enduring higher amounts of stress
and depression are more likely to adopt
permissive and authoritarian parenting styles
(Hoffman & Youngblade, 1998) and levels
of depression correlate with education,
economic circumstances, age, and the
quality of environment (Mathiesen, Tambs,
& Dalgard, 1999). The children of teenage
mothers, living in poverty and receiving
little social support, are at a higher risk of
maltreatment, abuse, and developing
maladjusted emotional practices (Whitson,
Martinez, Ayala, & Kaufman, 2011).
Though it is unfortunate that maladjusted
parenting styles may continue through
generations, regardless of SES, due to
intergenerational continuity of parenting,
well-adjusted parenting styles are also
capable of intergenerational continuity and
could possibly create a buffering effect on
negative side effects of low-SES in families
(Chen, & Kaplan, 2001). Though adults
living in socioeconomic deprivation are at
greater risk of lower levels of resilience and
maladjusted parenting methods, there are
protective factors that are able to bolster
resilience (Okech, Howard, & Kim, 2013).
Parents are capable of increasing their
resilience through religiosity and spirituality
(Wiley, Warren, & Montanelli, 2002),
accessing public resources and education,
and most of all, social support (Foucault &

5
Schneider, 2009). Religion in African
American communities has actually been
found to positively correlate with positive,
child-centered parenting practices (Wiley et
al, 2002). In order to develop healthy self-
regulation, emotional resilience, and secure
attachment, children must receive warmth
and stimulating activities from their parents
(Kim-Cohen, Moffit, Caspi, & Taylor,
2004).
Attachment
As suggested by Bowlby and Ainsworth
(Goldberg, 2000), the type of attachment a
child exhibits may contribute to the health
and success of the individual later in life.
Since the development of the Attachment
Theory in the 1940s various longitudinal
studies focused on measuring resilience
through attachment and its consequences on
children’s well-being. For example, the
Devereux Early Childhood Assessment
included “mutual, strong and long-lasting
attachment” as part of the evaluation
of children’s resilience (Nesheiwat &
Brandwein, 2011, p. 15). As a result of the
link between attachment and resilience,
many studies analyzed the direct impact of
positive attachment and/or parent-child
relationship on individuals faced with high
risk factors related to low-SES.
Measures ofAttachment
Throughout the literature, the researchers
examined different aspects related to secure
attachment. Main themes, which emerged
with the analysis of the fifteen articles,
included parent-child communication,
maternal warmth and nurturance, and time
spent together (e.g. teaching, reading, family
cohesion, involvement, and interactions).
Positive parent-child relationships have a
great impact on a child’s behavioral and
emotional health, regardless of the type of
measurement used to define attachment.
In a study conducted by Ackard, Neumark-
Sztainer, Story, and Perry (2006) good
communication practices between parents
and their children coincided with lower rates
of bad health regulation behaviors, whereas
youth who reported low communication
and perceived care reported a significantly
higher (p<0.01) amount of health risk
behaviors. Another case (Wadsworth &
Santiago, 2008), that highlighted the
importance of attachment within
economically deprived families focused on
family-based coping mechanisms, and their
impact on resilience. Primary and Secondary
Coping mechanisms rely on such strategies
as acceptance, positive thinking,
communication, and family support. The
results from Wadsworth and Santiago’s
correlational study, confirm that high
primary and secondary coping act as a
valuable resource for family members
experiencing poverty related stress (PRS).
The presence or absence of these systems in
the face of PRS can determine parenting
styles and in turn child attachment, which
leads to individual as well as family
resilience. A strong interpersonal
relationship with caregivers can lead to
positive outcomes in adulthood, and, as
shown in Black-Hughes and Stacy’s (2013)
comparative analysis, a weak parental
attachment may contribute to negative
outcomes, including delinquency. This study
replicated the results of previous research,
executed by Stacy in 2004 on resilient and
non-resilient siblings. Other adults, such as
natural mentors can play an important role
in the development of resilience in
adolescents. The positive factors derived
from a healthy relationship with an adult, a
mentor, or caretaker, are believed to
neutralize the risk factors attributed to low
SES. By studying urban youth, Zimmerman
and Bingenheimer (2002) reinforced
attachment theory and its impact on
adolescent outcomes. Securely attached
children are more apt to develop trusting
relationships later in life and seek out social
support (Goldberg, 2000), which increases
the potential of obtaining a natural mentor,
likely resulting in lower levels of social,
behavioral, and academic problems. Another
component of attachment seen in a couple of
the articles examined was maternal
nurturance and warmth, which played the

6
role of a buffer against socioeconomic
deprivation and the linked health risks.
Miller et al. (2011) found that high levels of
maternal nurturance counteracted the
consequences of childhood socioeconomic
disadvantages, specifically affecting the
rates of metabolic syndrome at midlife.
Maternal nurturance and secure
attachment may promote beneficial emotion-
regulation strategies that would mitigate the
negative health consequences of stress
otherwise unattended (Miller et al., 2011).
However, physical health is not the only
consequence of proper emotion-regulation,
socioemotional functioning becomes a
visible part of resilience among youths. The
findings of Eisenberg et al. suggest that
parental positive emotional expressivity
directed at the child is positively related to
the child’s social competence (p<.01,
p<.05). Mental health resilience was also the
concern of two quantitative studies, which
measured the effects of maternal warmth on
functioning outcomes of young adults.
Establishing a firm foundation in childhood
was made easier by the presence of a
positive nurturing child-adult relationship
(Miller-Lewis, Searle, Sawyer, Baghurst, &
Hedley, 2013), while high maternal warmth
served as “both a resource and a protective
factor for young adult outcomes” (Malvar
Pargas, Hammen, Brocque, 2010, p. 812).
Activities that create rhythm in the family,
for example reading or playing together,
rituals, and routines are crucial to the
development of secure attachment and the
intellectual and emotional growth of the
child (Knestrict & Kuchey, 2009; Luster,
Bates, Fitzgerald, & Vandenbelt, 2000;
Salem, Zimmerman & Notaro, 1998).
Positive interactions between family
members tend to increase family cohesion
and the resulting attachment between
children and their caretakers. For those
experiencing multiple risk factors associated
with low SES, family cohesion becomes a
significant protective factor (Carbonell et
al., 2002; Gutman, Sameroff, & Eccles,
2002).
Even though all of the studies mentioned
previously show attachment as having a
beneficial effect on the multifaceted
resilience, one study (Chen, 2013) found no
significant connection between parent-child
relationships and youths’ outcomes. The
researcher suggested the use of different
measures yielded the inconsistent results as
compared to previous studies. This
inconsistency indicates the necessity of
further research to determine if the findings
of Chen’s research were due to
circumstances and therefore erroneous or if
the correlation yielded new insight into
existing field of research.
Cohabiting & Marital Relationships
The direction of the arrow of causality in the
association of marriage with increased SES
has been an issue of academic and public
debate, with some believing that public
promotion of marriage can be a means to lift
impoverished and unmarried individuals,
along with their children, out of poverty. In
an attempt to strengthen the link between
childhood poverty and single-motherhood,
Thomas and Sawhill (2002), created a
marriage simulation using surveyed census
data from 1970 to 1998. Their model
improved upon standardizations (estimates
assuming a constant rate), by accounting for
the pool of matchable pairs based on a set
range of income, education, age, and race,
and showed a decrease in childhood poverty
rates by 4.4 percent. Data on real-world
couples, rather than simulated ones, show
important differences between married and
unmarried couples, with implications for the
role of SES.
In a review of twenty-one studies, all
drawing from national surveys, 85% show a
statistically significant correlation with
economic factors in the transition to
marriage, especially men's earnings and
education (Smock, Manning & Porter,
2013). A correlational study included in the
aforementioned review, by Carlson,
McLanahan and England (2004), used data
from the Fragile Families and Child

7
Wellbeing Study (N=3,712) to examine
cultural and interpersonal factors, self report
of drug use, and women's report of violence,
in the transition to marriage one year after
their child’s birth. The study found that the
father's use of physical violence, substance
abuse and the presence of former children of
the father harm the likelihood of marriage.
Another study by Rushton and MacLanahan
(2002), used the same data to create models
exploring how SES would change if
unmarried couples were married. The study
found that marriage would leave 58% of
women from the unmarried sample in
poverty, due to differences in wages,
education, and a two fold increase in father's
inability to work due to mental or physical
conditions. Neither study specified
demographics of race in the populations
providing necessary income data. Although
these observational studies are limited in
their ability to show causation, they can
demonstrate that significant barriers to
marriage exist for the unmarried that cannot
be resolved through a change in marriage
status as a single factor.
Qualitative studies can provide a stronger
understanding for the reasons why fewer
individuals and couples may see marriage as
a viable option. Three studies employing
content analysis to structured interviews are
here elucidated. A study by Gibson et al.
(2005) used a subset of 47 couples from
Fragile Families, all of who used medicaid
to pay for births and had combined incomes
below 30,000. The study found that financial
concerns, relationship quality, and fears of
divorce contributed to prerequisite
conditions perceived necessary to marriage.
Smock, Manning and Porter (2005) found
72% named one or more economic criteria
and 50% named economic and relationship
criteria for marriage, in their study of 115
middle class cohabitors in Toledo, Ohio. In
Edin and Kefalas (2005) study of
disadvantaged unmarried mothers, they
found that while 70% aspire to marriage,
they named fears of infidelity, drug use, and
work instability amongst their past or
present male partners as reasons for delaying
marriage. For these women, marriage
followed by divorce was perceived as a
greater failure than not having been married
at all. All three aforementioned studies
included ample subjects from African
American, Hispanic and White racial
categories, demonstrating transferability
amongst these racial groups.
Even if marriage is seen as a way to boost
SES, is it efficacious to promote marriage
amongst cohabitors through policies
supporting marriage education? The
Building Strong Families Project (Wood et
al., 2010), studied over 5,000 couples in a
quasi-experimental design, collecting data at
a 15 month follow-up to completion of one
of eight federally sponsored programs
distributed nationally. Race by percentage
was: African American 50, Hispanic 20,
White 12, Other 16. The study found no
significant difference in marriage status
between the control and treatment groups by
the follow-up time.
SES, Relationship Quality & Resilience
At least since the great depression, research
has generally confirmed the suffering
incurred by families as a result of facing
economic hardship (e.g. Angell, 1936). In
looking at couples in particular, many
studies use correlational data to research
how SES moderates effects between
stressful events in the recent life course and
other factors, such as vulnerability to mental
health problems and relationship satisfaction
(Maisel & Karney 2012, Wikrama et al.,
2012), variation in relationship satisfaction
between the married and cohabitors (Hardie
and Lucas, 2010), or even SES as a predictor
of positive adjustment after divorce (Wang
& Amatto, 200). To attempt to account for
differences between families, and thus
differences in the resilience of a familial
response to economic stress, more complex
research has tested associations amongst
specific mediated pathways, such as in the
“family stress model” of economic hardship
articulated and researched by Dr. Rand

8
Conger and his colleagues (Institute for
Social & Behavioral Research,2013).
This model predicts that a family’s response
to economic hardship is mediated primarily
by the responses to economic stress amongst
married parental couples, which in turn
transmit effects to the children. Through
tests of the model, the couple’s emotional
response to relationship interactions is
confirmed to moderate negative impacts due
to economic stress on marital satisfaction,
which in turn increases actions or thoughts
related to divorce. The researchers predict
that the irritable and hostile response of
husband's to economic hardship, was the
determining factor in wives emotional
response, due to the husband's behavior
being more strongly linked with economic
hardship than that of wives (Conger et al.,
1990). In a further study focusing on couples
resilience, survey data as well as observer
ratings of couple interaction were used to
show that marital support and effective
couple problem solving, acted as buffers to
the harmful effects of the marital conflict,
which in turn reduced marital distress. Both
studies had populations of over 400 rural
midwestern families of European American
decent, with married heterosexual parents,
and at least one middle school student.
Further research has supported the family
stress model in rural and suburban
population of African American families
with two caregivers (Conger et al., 2002),
and in a study of recently divorced single-
mothers (Simons et al., 1993). Although the
latter does not attempt to measure effects of
the parental relationship on the family, both
studies show an association with increased
negative response to economic hardship
amongst parents and an increase in poor
outcomes for their children, thus suggesting
interventions which support the parent's
well-being when looking to increase familial
resilience.
Familial Relations & Regulation
Our focus revolved around the relationship
of parent to child, child to parent, and parent
to parent in hopes of capturing the basic
range of relationships among immediate
members of a family. The research
suggested religiosity and spirituality, public
resources, education, and social support are
beneficial factors, which might lead to
stronger resiliency skills in adults and
healthier relationships with their children
and with one another. In regards to children
parental warmth, stimulation, acceptance,
positive thinking, communication, and
family support lead to healthy attachment
styles and thus increased resilience.
Though much of the literature attempted to
observe diverse samples of people (Mainly
White, African American, and Hispanic
individuals) a limitation arose in regards to
the perspective of First Nations people and
the potentially different experience with
poverty on reservations. There is also the
potential that First Nations use different
methods of coping and utilize different
family functioning processes.
Another limitation to the literature is a
solution for those who, experiencing
extreme risk factors of poverty, struggle to
obtain the protective resources necessary. It
is important that this issue be addressed due
to the fact that those experiencing greater
risks are at greater need for such facilities.

9
Separation in Families
Today over 45 percent of marriages in the
United States end in divorce and about 40
percent of children will experience their
parents’ divorce, with about 80 percent of
them placed primarily in physical custody of
their biological mother (Beck, O’Hara,
Benjamin, Anderson, 2013, Devine,
Forehand, 1996, Hetherington, Stanley-
Hagan, Anderson, 1989). Divorce represents
one of the most stressful life events for both
children and their parents. Many educators,
politicians, mental health workers, family
theorists, and the media portray divorced
families as unfit for the successful
upbringing of children. They believe that
only married families can provide a warm
and nurturing environment in which children
can thrive. Some family scholars even argue
that the breakdown of the traditional family
destroys the basic fabric of American
society and contribute to many social
problems that will carry on into future
generations (Schindler, Levine, 2012).
Effects ofDivorce
Studies have come up with some important
findings about the effects of divorce or
separation on children. Exploring these
negative effects can help to better
understand the behavior of those affected by
family separations. Many studies have
shown that, on average, children of divorce
have more behavioral problems than
children growing up with two parents (Beck,
O’Hara, Benjamin, Anderson, 2013). This
brings up the question of whether the
problems seen in the children of divorced
parents were caused by the divorce, or
whether something else caused both the
divorce and the children's behavior
problems. Several recent studies, which use
more sophisticated and advanced research
methods, present a powerful challenge to the
old consensus that the average impact of
divorce on children is negative. These
studies are able to eliminate the impact of
both "observable" and "unobservable"
family differences that result in variations in
child outcome, independent of divorce, and
this provides a more accurate estimate of the
"true" impact of divorce (Wallerstein,
Rosenthal, Lewis, 2013, Schick, 2011).
Most children will experience stress in the
beginning of their parents’ separation,
however the effect of the separation on
children is diverse. Some children will
exhibit great resiliency and through time
may be enhanced by coping with the
separation, while others may experience
sustained developmental delays or
disruptions. Others will appear to adapt well
in the beginning of their parents separation,
however delayed effects may emerge later,
especially in adolescence. The long term
effects are related more to the child’s sex,
temperament, developmental status, home
and parenting environment, resources and
support systems to children and parents,
than they are to separation (Anderson,
Greene, 2011, Mustonen, Kiviruusu,
Haukkula, Hillevi, 2011).
Parents who are more likely to divorce may
also be more likely to be less educated, to be
poor, to live in disadvantaged
neighborhoods, to have been raised in
divorced families themselves, or have more
children than an average family. These
factors may have a negative effect on a
child's wellbeing whether the parents stay
together or not, but also be more likely to
produce a divorce.
There are also unique characteristics of each
individual family that we must take into
account with children’s behavior. Parenting
technique, personality, and detailed aspects
of a person's biography all affect children,
but researchers have not been able to
measure many of these factors, far less to
include them in large-scale studies. The
proper test of the impact of divorce on
children is not to compare the children of
divorced parents to the children of married
families, and thus risk ignoring all the
unobservable factors that may lead both to
greater behavioral problems and to higher
chances of divorce. It works better to

10
compare the behavior problems of the same
child before and after divorce. Traditional
methods often do not adequately estimate
the impact on children of being in a family
that is headed for divorce (Devine,
Forehand, 1996, Kenny, 2000).
Various divorce researchers have wondered
whether parents should stay together for the
sake of their children despite a high-conflict
marriage. Divorce represents the better
option if it can lessen the amount of conflict
and negativity in the children’s environment.
Conflict between parents during and
following separation and divorce represents
a major stressor for children and can lead to
difficulties in these children’s adjustment.
Between 20 and 25 percent of children
experience high conflict during the marriage
of their parents (Wallerstein, Rosenthal,
Lewis, 2013). Some families are able to
reduce conflict whereas others continue to
fight after divorce. High conflict that
involves the child, conflict that is physically
violent, threatening or abusive, and conflict
in which the child feels caught in the
middle, has the most adverse consequences
for the well-being of children (Pett, Turner,
Wampold, Vaughn, 1999). In addition,
mothers and fathers involved in high conflict
marriages often practice poor parenting,
because they use harsher discipline and
express reduced warmth towards their
children. Parents also have to cope with
emotional problems resulting from the
divorce and therefore take less time to
support their children through effective
parenting. Some children become the only
emotional support of their parents, which
puts additional stress on children’s shoulders
(Pruett, Williams, Insabella, Little, 2003,
Anderson, Greene, 2011).
Resilient Outcomes
Despite the significant stressors associated
with divorce, approximately 75-80 percent
of children develop into well-adjusted adults
with no lasting psychological or behavioral
problems. They achieve their education and
career goals and have the ability to build
close relationships. One study I researched
even estimated that 42 percent of young
adults from divorced families received
higher well-being scores as compared to
young adults from nondivorced families
(Wochik, et al, 2013). Hardship and pain
associated with their parents’ divorce made
them stronger individuals. Children from
high conflict families oftentimes benefit the
most from the divorce of their parents as it
represents an opportunity for a better life.
Separation within Families
A family’s nature is to break apart. If there
were no calamitous changes or events to
affect a family, it would still naturally fall
apart as members died or aged and left to
form their own family. What becomes a
focal point for researchers is why family
dynamics break apart early and what are the
long-term effects to development. Children
become an area of focus when studying
divorce since they experience the most
severe stages of development during the
ages where they would under guidance of
their parents. The most common time for a
family to become separated is a child
turning into an emerging adult. Part of the
American social norm is for the child to
move out on their own as they become of
the right age, generally between twenty and
twenty-five. This can be a source of anxiety
for both the parents and their children, one
that can affect different individuals to
different extents, depending on the
individual characteristics of the individual.
Members of the family who have a higher
resilience will be less affected by the
separation and therefore have less
attachment anxiety.
Adaptation
Once a divorce occurs the way a parent
mentors their child is affected. Adaptation
and resilience are required from both parties
in order to cope with the demands of a post
divorce environment in a healthy manner.
The family is completely changed after a
divorce, there are new emotional
attachments, environments, and economic

11
situations that both the child and parent
figure most become accommodated to.
Because of these new situations only half
the mothers in a twenty five year
longitudinal study were able continue the
nurturing relationship they had with the
child during their marriage. Children whose
mother was unable to care for them tended
to become involved in drugs, alcohol, early
sexual promiscuity, and school drop out.
Families need to be resilient through divorce
to move past the hardships that will occur as
the dynamics go through
When a family becomes separated the child
will no longer spend equal amounts of time
with both parents. In most cases of child
custody, the child will become partnered
with the mother based on the conception of
the mother being the most nurturing and
caring. However it holds truth, once divorce
occurs a child will make contact with their
biological fathers much less. 17.8% of
children under the age of 18 of a divorce
never see their father; they are without half
of their parental guidance and upbringing.
They are at a loss of support in the world
they are starting to grasp an understanding
of.

12
Parental Bereavement
The death of a child has a profound impact
on parents. Though the loss of any family
member is devastating, the grief associated
with parental bereavement often exceeds
that of the loss of a parent or a spouse. This
can be attributed to the common conception
of the “natural cycle of life”. When carrying
or raising a child, there is an expectation that
the child will outlive the parent as well as
continue the family line. With the death of
the child, parents struggle with reconciling
the natural order with what has occurred.
(Cohen-Mansfield, Shmotkin, Malkinson,
Bartur, Hazan, 2013). There are several
prominent factors that influence the ability
of the parent to come to this reconciliation.
These factors are the age of the child upon
death, the circumstances of the child’s death,
and the life circumstances of the parent at
the time of the death (Wijngaards-de Meij,
Stroebe, Schut, Stoebe, van den Bout, van
der Heijden, et. al., 2004) All of these
factors, the final one in particular, contribute
to the resilience of a parent after the loss of a
child.
The Age Factor
There are three age phases that impact the
intensity of grief experienced after the loss
of a child. These phases are generally
categorized as perinatal, adolescent, and
adult.
Perinatal death is the death of a child during
pregnancy or that occurs at or within seven
days of birth. Though deaths of this type are
often looked as a lesser loss by society, a
number of longitudinal studies have shown
that the level of grief experienced by the
parent upon perinatal death is the same as
that experienced on the death of a close
loved one (Forrest, Standish, Baum, 1987).
One factor that influences grief in perinatal
death is if the mother is able to have contact
with the dead child. Without the opportunity
the make this contact, either through visual
or physical means, the process of accepting
the child has died can be hindered by
disbelief, delaying the bereavement
process. (Leon, 1987). The difference in
grief intensity between perinatal loss and the
loss of a mature child is in the long-term
effects. Though parents experience the
typical distress symptoms associated with
loss within the first six months of their
child’s death, a twelve to fifteen year follow
study showed less depressive symptoms
than typically seen after the death of an
older child (Dyregrov, Dyregrov, 1999).
The death of an adolescent child puts
parents at greater risk of moving into long-
term depression after the initial experience
of grief. This differs from perinatal death in
that more time and emotional energy were
invested in the child, creating a greater
absence upon death. With the raising of
adolescent children also comes a greater
expectation of working towards continuing
the family line. The level of grief upon a
child’s death intensifies based on age up to
seventeen, after which it decreases, as the
parent perceives that they have done their
job in terms of continuing the family
(Wijngaards-de Meij, Stroebe, Schut,
Stoebe, van den Bout, van der Heijden, et.
al., 2005).
Death of an adult child provides the lowest
amount of grief intensity in parental
bereavement. This is due in large part to the
increased absence of the child in the parent’s
life. A large source of grief that
accompanies the death of a child is the
disruption of daily life tasks. In general,
parents whose child has left the house have
had time to adjust their lives meaning
outside of the context of being a parent. This
makes for an easier time in reconciling the
loss of a parental role. (Floyd, Seltzer,
Greenberg, Song, 2013).
Type ofDeath
Though the death of a child is always
traumatic, the circumstances surrounding the
death may increase grief experienced by the
parent. This is illustrated in the comparison
of grief experienced upon the violent death
of a child (by means of accident, homicide,

13
suicide, overdose) with that experienced
when the death is expected, such as in a
terminally ill child.
Violent death accounts for 80 percent of all
mortality in youth and young adults within
the United States. The most common effect
upon parents after the violent death of their
child is post-traumatic stress disorder. In the
case of homicide or accident, many parents
experience a sense of panic that may last
long-term, eventually manifesting as PTSD.
Increased protectiveness of remaining
family members is also symptomatic of
parents who lose their children to homicide
or an accident. (Murphy, Braun, Tillery,
Cain, Johnson, Beaton, 1999). When suicide
or drug overdose are responsible for a
child’s death, the parent often times
struggles with the idea that the death could
have been prevented if they had taken
action. These causes of death can be
especially detrimental to the parent’s well
being as suicide and fatal overdose are
stigmatized within society, creating either
societal or self imposed isolation after a
child dies by these means (Feigelman,
Jordan, Gorman, 2011).
Losing a child to long-term illness is less
common than to a violent death, but it
presents a unique form of grief for a parent.
The grief begins before the death of the
child, and though the parent may vacillate
between hope and despair, some level of
acceptance occurs before the actual death.
There is also the factor of pain associated
with a terminal illness. Though the child’s
death is grieved, many parents take comfort
in the fact that their child is no longer
suffering (Alam, Barrera, D’Agostino,
Nicholas, Schneiderman, 2012).
Life-Circumstances of the Parent and
their Contribution to Resilience
A number of factors affect a parent’s
resilience after the death of a child.
Personality plays a large part in a parent’s
long-term well being after the death of a
child. Those who are extroverted generally
adapt better after grief than those who had
neurotic tendencies before the death
occurred. Coping methods also play an
important role in building resilience. Those
who react to the death with task-oriented
coping (seeing a problem and looking for a
solution) have an easier time dealing with
grief than those who use emotion oriented
coping by dwelling on the event (Robinson,
Marwit, 2006).
Remaining children is another protective
factor in dealing with the loss of a child. As
a number of difficulties surrounding the
death of a child revolve around losing the
parental role, having others children to care
for can aid in maintaining a parent’s sense of
purpose (Barrera, D’Agostino,
Schneiderman, Tallett, Spencer, Jovcevska,
2007).
Spousal and social relations are perhaps the
most important protective factors after the
death of a child. Though parental
bereavement creates an emotional challenge
for a couple, those who have a strong
relationship are able to rely heavily upon
each other. As the couple is experiencing the
same loss, they can provide each other the
greatest amount of understanding and
comfort (Essakow, Miller, 2013). Social
support is also necessary after the loss of a
child, as it provides the parent with an outlet
to discuss their grief and the child as they
were in life (Rogers, Floyd, Seltzer,
Greenberg, Hong, 2008).
Personality, coping methods, remaining
children, and emotional support all influence
the final step of the grieving process. This
step is making meaning after the death. This
applies both to the reason for the child’s
death, as well as the purpose for the parent’s
continuing in life. If the parents can explain
these two questions to themselves, they have
a higher chance of passing out of the grief
stage without acquiring long-term
psychological consequences (Braun, Berg,
2001).

14
Discussion
The existing research presents resilience as a
multilayer quality within individuals. Family
resilience is influenced by the complex
interactions between ever-changing risk and
protective factors. Further research into
resilience can lead to understanding in
individuals on how to use resiliency in times
of suffering and to build on the positive
aspects of their lives. There is a potential for
research on resilience to guide the
development of effective interventions for
the diverse at-risk populations.
Proposed Intervention Methods To Increase Familial Resilience
Resilience is necessary for the healthy
functioning and growth of a family unit.
With the numerous risk factors associated
with socioeconomic deprivation,
experiences of grief and loss, and stress
associated with adversity, it is important to
detect potential protective factors in order to
increase familial resilience. Several
protective factors have been identified in the
literature review, however, there has been no
concrete method defined that assists
individual families in obtaining the
resources necessary to increase resilience
and practice healthy coping mechanisms. In
order to determine a feasible solution to this
dilemma we have proposed two
interventions.
Intervention I
In this intervention we explore the effects of
The White Bison Project on familial
resilience in First Nations communities
when experiencing grief and loss, as well as
the side effects of socioeconomic
deprivation. Seeing as prior research has
failed to include First Nations populations
living on reservations, we believe it is
important to conduct a qualitative research
model that includes this sample population
in order to expand the literature on this
subject. Individuals living on reservations
are at a higher risk of socioeconomic
deprivation. It is important that First Nations
cultural perspective be taken into account
when considering the utilization of coping
mechanisms and protective factors involved
in these specific communities. The White
Bison Project is a nonprofit organization in
Colorado managed by Don Coyhis (of the
Mohican Nation). Coyhis travels to
reservations and invites members
of the community, including non-native
individuals, to participate in his month-long
workshops, twice a week. The workshops
are grounded in traditional practices and
focus on community-based strengths in
order to foster communal support and
healing.
Participants. Participants for this
study would be chosen according to the two
main criteria: (a) voluntary participation in
The White Bison Project; and (b) willingness
to take part in the research. The participants
involved in the study would be
predominantly First Nations individuals. By
conducting purposive, or nonprobability,
sampling we will be able to understand the
dynamics of the target population, in this
case the at-risk First Nations people, who
are aiming to increase their wellbeing,
through the participation in The White Bison
Project. The communities, studied through
our intervention will include Crow Indian
Reservation (Montana), Colville
Confederated Tribes (Washington), Pine
Ridge Indian Reservation (South Dakota),
and the Hopi (Arizona).
Data gathering. The data gathering
will be divided into four stages. These stages
will help with data triangulation, which will
be implemented in order to decrease the
possible observational errors and increase
the accuracy of the observation and
transferability. We identified the expected
themes to be an increase in community
and familial support, healthy coping
mechanisms, positivity, a perceived decrease

15
in depression and anxiety, and in unhealthy
coping mechanisms.
Stage 1. The first stage of data
collection includes a 1-hour long audiotaped
interview with each participant prior to the
workshop, addressing questions from the
resilience and family based questionnaire.
The developed questions will focus on
establishing the different facets of resiliency
already present within the individual, the
risks surrounding the individual, and the
social support received by the individual
prior to joining the project.
Stage 2. Stage 2 involves
observation of the participants during
workshops and focus groups. The four
observers will take detailed notes of the
encounters witnessed.
Stage 3. This stage takes place on
the last day of the workshop and is an
opportunity for reflection amongst the
participants. The community will discuss
their experience with the White Bison
Project and observers will take detailed
notes.
Stage 4. In this stage, participants
will be interviewed once more for an hour
long. The interview will be recorded on
audiotape and will pertain to similar
questions to stage 1.
Stage 5. In this stage, resilience and
family-based questionnaires will be mailed
out to participants 2 months and then 4
months after the completion of the program.
The questions are open-ended, and take
about 30 minutes to complete. This stage is
focused primarily on learning about the
development of the individuals during and
after The White Bison project.
Data Analysis. By analyzing the
meanings individuals make of experiences,
we will gain better insight into resilience
and how it takes form in multiple ways for
different individuals. Four observers in each
four locations will be trained to take proper
detailed notes of the workshops by means of
instruction in participant observation as a
data collection method. Each interviewer
will receive training in (a) how to conduct a
proper interview and (b) how to use
audiotape-recording technology during an
interview.
In order to analyze the descriptions we are
compiling, we will take certain measures to
code resilience, familial functioning, and
positivity and if the individual participants
consistently display evidence that coordinate
with specific codes we will transfer the
evidence.
Intervention II
All families are touched by loss of a family
member during the life cycle. This loss can
occur in a number of ways, namely through
separation or death. Loss provides families
with the unique challenge of a shared grief
experience. Our study will focus on aiding
family reformation through the teaching of
non-violent communication skills, placing a
special emphasis on healthy coping
mechanisms.
Methodology. Participants in this
study will be chosen based on two criteria:
(a) the family’s socioeconomic status,
focusing primarily on recruiting participants
of low-income, and (b) the loss of at least
one family member prior to the past year,
either through separation or death. This
study will be advertised in low-income
urban and rural communities.
Data Gathering. Participants will
undergo a six-week training program on
non-violent communication, focusing on the
use of the optimal skills needed for
addressing grief. Participants’ capacity for
self-empathy would be addressed through
developing their self-awareness in relation
to thoughts, feelings, and needs.
There will be three groups observed in the
study. The treatment group will participate
in weekly workshops, focusing on
developing basic NVC coping skills, both in
large groups and dyadic partnerships.
Control group 1 will participate in weekly,
lightly facilitated groups, discussing
emotional issues and concerns without the
addition of taught NVC skills. Control group

16
2 will not participate in-group meetings and
will be permitted to seek other support. They
will be paid for their continued participation
in the study.
Stage 1. Prior to the beginning of
the program, all participants will be given a
pre-test reflective survey on their past
experiences of coping with grief.
Stage 2. Upon completion of the
program, participants will be given a post-
test reflective survey on grief, similar to the
one administered at the beginning of the
program.
Stage 3. Participants will continue to
complete surveys every 6 months for a 5-
year span, addressing self-reported
competence in coping skills.
Data Analysis. All administered
surveys will be evaluated based on a Likert
scale, providing statistics on improvement.
Self-reported changes reported in coping
abilities will be contrasted between the 3
groups over the 5-year follow up period. The
study will conclude with a statistical
comparison of each groups coping abilities,
measuring the effectiveness of the provided
treatment.
Participants’ attendance of workshops and
group meetings will be monitored. If
participants show a significant pattern of
absence by missing more than an average of
one meeting per 2 months of the supervised
meetings, they will be dropped from the
study. The supervised portion of the study
will take place over a 6-week time span, and
will be followed by a 5-year follow up
period. A small monetary incentive will be
offered to all participants after the
completion of the study, so as to maintain
retention.

17
References
Alam, R., Barrera,M.,D’Agostino, N.,Nicholas, D. B., & Schneiderman, G. (2012).
Bereavement Experiences of Mothers and Fathers Over Time After the Death of a Child
Due to Cancer. Death Studies, 36(1), 1–22.
Anderson, E. R.,Greene, S. M. (2011). “ My child and I are a package deal “: Balancing adult
and child concerns in repartnering after divorce. American Psychological Association,
Vol. 25 (Issue 5),p.p. 741-750. Academic search complete.
Angell, R. C. (1936). The family encountersthe depression. NewYork:Scribner’s.
Aunola, K.,Nurmi, J.-E.,Onatsu-Arvilommi, T., & Pulkkinen, L. (1999). The role of parents’
self-esteem,mastery-orientation and social background in their parenting styles.
Scandinavian Journal of Psychology,40(4). Retrieved from
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=4335909
&site=ehost-live
Barrera,M.,D’Agostino, N. M., Schneiderman, G., Tallett, S., Spencer,L., & Jovcevska, V.
(2007). Patterns of parental bereavement following the loss of a child and related factors.
Omega, 55(2), 145–167.Braun, M. J., & Berg, D. H. (1994). Meaning reconstruction in
the experience of parental bereavement. Death Studies, 18(2), 105–129.
Baumrind, D., Larzelere,R. E., & Owens,E. B. (2010). Effects of PreschoolParents’ Power
Assertive Patterns and Practices on Adolescent Development. Parenting: Science &
Practice,10(3),157–201. doi:10.1080/15295190903290790
Beck,A. L., O’Hara, E. R., Benjamin, K. L., Andrew, G. (2013). Patterns of intimate partner
violence in large, epidemiological sample of divorcing couples. Journal of Family
Psychology, Vol 27 (Issue 5), p.p. 743-753. Academic search complete.
Black-Hughes, C., & Stacy, P. D. (2013). Early Childhood Attachment and Its Impact on Later
Life Resilience: A Comparison of Resilient and Non-Resilient Female Siblings. Journal
Of Evidence-Based Social Work, 10(5), 410-420. doi:10.1080/15433714.2012.759456
Burt, B., McGue, S. A., Iacono, A. R., Willam, G. (2008). Parentaldivorce and adolescent
delinquency: Ruling out the impact of common genes. Developmental Psychology, Vol.
44 (Issue 6), p.p. 1668-1667, Academic search complete.
Carbonell, D. M., Reinherz, H. Z., Giaconia, R. M., Stashwick, C. K.,Paradis, A. D.,&
Beardslee,W. R. (2002). Adolescent Protective Factors Promoting Resilience in Young
Adults at Risk for Depression. Child & Adolescent Social Work Journal, 19(5), 393-412.
Carlson, M., McLanahan,S., & England, P. (2004). Union Formation in Fragile
Families. Demography,41(2),237–261.
Chen, H.-J., 1, 0. (2013). Robust Protective Factors for African American Youths Who Have a
Parent with Depression. Social Work Research,37(2), 121-134.
Chen, Z., & Kaplan, H. B. (2001). Intergenerational Transmission of Constructive Parenting.
Journal of Marriage and Family,63(1),17–31.
Cohen-Mansfield, J., Shmotkin, D., Malkinson, R., Bartur,L., & Hazan,H. (2013). Parental
bereavement increases mortality in older persons.Psychological Trauma: Theory,
Research,Practice,and Policy, 5(1), 84–92.
Conger, R. D.,Elder Jr.,G. H., Lorenz, F. O., Conger, K. J., Simons, R. L.,Whitbeck, L.
B., Huck, S. Melby, J. N. (1990). Linking Economic Hardship to Marital Quality and
Instability. Journal of Marriage & Family,52(3),643–656.
Conger, R. D.,Wallace, L. E., Sun, Y., Simons, R. L., McLoyd, V. C., & Brody, G. H. (2002).
Economic pressure in African American families: A replication and extension of the
family stress model. Developmental Psychology,38(2),179–193. doi:10.1037/0012-
1649.38.2.179
Conger, R.D.,Rueter,M.A.,Elder, G.H. (1999). Couple resilience to economic pressure. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 76. No. 1,54-57.

18
Deater–Deckard,K.,Chen,N., Wang, Z., & Bell, M. A. (2012). Socioeconomic risk moderates
the link between household chaos and maternal executive function. Journal of Family
Psychology,26(3),391–399. doi:10.1037/a0028331
Devine, F., Rex, D.,(1996). Cascading toward divorce: The roles of marital and child factors.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, Vol. 64, (Issue 6), p.p. 424-427,
Academic search complete.
Diann M. Ackard, Dianne Neumark-Sztainer, Mary Story, Cheryl Perry,Parent–Child
Connectedness and Behavioral and Emotional Health Among Adolescents, American
Journal of Preventive Medicine, Volume 30, Issue 1, January 2006, Pages 59-66, ISSN
0749-3797, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2005.09.013.
Dyregrov, A.,& Dyregrov, K. (1999). Long-term impact of sudden infant death: a 12- to 15-year
follow-up. Death studies, 23(7), 635–661. Essakow,K. L., & Miller, M. M. (2013).
Piecing Together the Shattered Heirloom: Parents’ Experiences of Relationship
Resilience After the Violent Death of a Child. American Journal of Family Therapy,
41(4), 299–310.
Edin, K., & Kefalas,M. (2005). Promises I can keep: why poor women put motherhood before
marriage.Berkeley:University of California Press.
Eisenberg, N., Valiente, C.,Morris, A.,Fabes, R. A., Cumberland, A.,Reiser, M., & ... Losoya,
S. (2003). Longitudinal relations among parental emotional expressivity, children's
regulation, and quality of socioemotional functioning. Developmental Psychology, 39(1),
3-19. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.39.1.3
Feigelman, W., Jordan, J. R.,& Gorman, B. S. (2011). Parentalgrief after a child’s drug death
compared to other death causes:investigating a greatly neglected bereavement
population. Omega, 63(4), 291–316.
Floyd, F. J., Mailick Seltzer, M., Greenberg, J. S., & Song, J. (2013). Parentalbereavement
during mid-to-later life: Pre- to postbereavement functioning and intrapersonal resources
for coping. Psychology and Aging, 28(2), 402–413.
Forrest, G. C., Standish, E.,& Baum, J. D. (1982). Support after perinatal death: a study of
support and counselling after perinatal bereavement. British medical journal (Clinical
research ed.),285(6353), 1475–1479.
Foucault, D. C. and Schneider, B. H. (2009). Parenting values and parenting stress among
impoverished village and middle-class small city mothers in the Dominican Republic.
International Journal of Behavioral Development,33(5),440-450.
doi:10.1177/0165025409340094
Gibson-Davis, C.M.,Edin, K., McLanahan,S. (2005) High Hopes but Even Higher Expectations:
The Retreat from Marriage among Low-Income Couples. Journal of Marriage and
Family, Vol. 67,No. 5 (Dec.,2005), pp. 1301-1312
Goldberg, S. (2000). Attachment and Development. NewYork:Oxford University Press.
Gutman, L., Sameroff, A. J.,& Eccles, J. S. (2002). The Academic Achievement of African
American Students During Early Adolescence: An Examination of Multiple Risk,
Promotive, and Protective Factors. American Journal Of Community Psychology, 30(3),
367-399.
Hardie, J.H.,Lucas, A.(2010) Economic Factors and Relationship Quality Among Young
Couples: Comparing Cohabitation and Marriage. Journal of Marriage and Family,
72, 1141-1154.
Hartley, B., Seltzer, S. L., Floyd, M. M., Greenberg, F., Orsmond, J., (2010). The relative risk and
timing of divorce in families of children with an autism spectrum disorder. Journal of
Family Psychology, Vol. 24 (Issue 4), p.p. 449-457. Academic search complete.

19
Hetherington, E. M., Stanley-Hagan, M., Anderson, E. R., (1989). Marital transitions: A
childsperspective. The American Psychologist Association,Vol. 44, (Issue 2),p.p. 303-
312. Academic search complete.
Hoffman, L. W.,& Youngblade, L. M. (1998). Maternalemployment, morale and parenting style:
Social class comparisons. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology,19(3),389–
413. doi:10.1016/S0193-3973(99)80047-1
Hopkins, J., Gouze, K. R., & Lavigne, J. V. (2013). Direct and indirect effects of contextual
factors,caregiver depression, and parenting on attachment security in preschoolers.
Attachment & Human Development,15(2),155–173.
doi:10.1080/14616734.2013.750702
Institute for Social and Behavioral Research. Retrieved December 6,2013,
from http://www.isbr.iastate.edu/staff/Personals/rdconger/
Keesee,N. J.,Currier, J. M., & Neimeyer, R. A. (2008). Predictors of grief following the death of
one’s child: the contribution of finding meaning. Journal of clinical psychology, 64(10),
1145–1163.
Kenny, M. C., (2000). Working with children of divorce and their families. American
Psychological Association, Vol. 37 (Issue 3),p.p. 288-239. Academic search complete.
Kim-Cohen, J.,Moffitt, T. E., Caspi, A., & Taylor, A. (2004). Genetic and Environmental
Processes in Young Children’s Resilience and Vulnerability to Socioeconomic
Deprivation. Child Development,75(3),651–668.
Knestrict, T., & Kuchey, D. (2009). Welcome to Holland: Characteristics of resilient families
raising children with severe disabilities. Journal Of Family Studies, 15(3), 227-244.
Leon, I. G. (1987). Short-term psychotherapy for perinatal loss. Psychotherapy: Theory,
Research,Practice,Training, 24(2), 186–195.
Lindsay, C. A. (2011). All middle-class families are not created equal: Explaining the contexts
that black and white families face and the implications for adolescent achievement.
Social Science Quarterly (Wiley-Blackwell),92(3),761–781. doi:10.1111/j.1540-
6237.2011.00791.x
Luster, T., Bates,L., Fitzgerald, H.,Vandenbelt, M., & Key, J. (2000). Factors Related to
SuccessfulOutcomes Among Preschool Children Born to Low-Income Adolescent
Mothers. Journal Of Marriage & Family, 62(1), 133.
Maisel, N. C., & Karney, B. R. (2012). Socioeconomic status moderates associations among
stressful events,mental health, and relationship satisfaction. Journal Of Family
Psychology,26(4),654-660. doi:10.1037/a0028901
Mathiesen, K. S., Tambs, K.,& Dalgard, O. S. (1999). The influence of social class,strain and
social support on symptoms of anxiety and depression in mothers of toddlers. Social
Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology,34(2),61–72. doi:10.1007/s001270050113
Miller-Lewis, L. R., Searle, A. K.,Sawyer, M. G., Baghurst, P. A.,& Hedley, D. (2013).
Resource factors for mental health resilience in early childhood: An analysis with
multiple methodologies. Child & Adolescent Psychiatry & Mental Health, 7(1), 1-23.
doi:10.1186/1753-2000-7-6
Miller, G., Lachman, M., Chen, E., Gruenewald, T., Karlamangla, A., & Seeman,T. (2011).
Pathways to Resilience: MaternalNurturance as a Buffer Against the Effects of
Childhood Poverty on Metabolic Syndrome at Midlife. Psychological Science (Sage
Publications Inc.), 22(12), 1591-1599.
Murphy, S. A., Braun, T., Tillery, L., Cain, K. C., Johnson, L. C.,& Beaton,R. D. (1999). PTSD
among bereaved parents following the violent deaths of their 12- to 28-year-old children:
a longitudinal prospective analysis. Journal of traumatic stress,12(2), 273–291.
Mustonen, U. H., Kiviruusu, T., Haukkala, O., Hillevi, A. A. (2011). Long-term impact of
parental divorce on intimate relationship in adulthood and the mediating role of

20
psychosocial resources. Journal of Family Psychology, Vol. 25 (Issue 4),p.p. 615-619.
Academic search complete.
Nesheiwat,K. M., & Brandwein, D. (2011). Factors Related to Resilience in Preschooland
Kindergarten Students. Child Welfare, 90(1), 7-24.
Okech, D.,Howard, W. J., & Kim, J. (2013). Efficacy and agency among poor families with and
without children. Child & Family Social Work,18(4),417–428. doi:10.1111/j.1365-
2206.2012.00861.x
Pargas,R.,Brennan, P. A.,Hammen, C.,& Le Brocque, R. (2010). Resilience to maternal
depression in young adulthood. Developmental Psychology, 46(4), 805-814.
doi:10.1037/a0019817
Pett,W., Turner, M. A.,Turner, B. E., Vaughn-Cole, C. W., (1999). Paths of influence of divorce
on preschool children’s psychosocial adjustment. Journal of Family Psychology, Vol. 13
(Issue2), p.p. 145-164. Academic search complete.
Pinderhughes, E. E.,Nix, R., Foster, E. M., & Jones, D. (2001). Parenting in Context: Impact of
Neighborhood Poverty, Residential Stability, Public Services, Social Networks,and
Danger on ParentalBehaviors. Journal of Marriage and Family,63(4),941–953.
Pruett,W., Insabella, M. K., Little, G., Todd, D. (2003). Family and legal indicators of child
adjustment of divorce among families with young children. Journal of Family
Psychology, Vol. 17 (Issue170), p. p. 169-180. Academic search complete.
Robinson, T., & Marwit, S. J. (2006). An Investigation of the Relationship of Personality,
Coping, and Grief Intensity Among Bereaved Mothers. Death Studies, 30(7), 677–696.
Rodriguez, C. (2011). Association Between Independent Reports of Maternal Parenting Stress
and Children’s Internalizing Symptomatology. Journal of Child & Family Studies,20(5),
631–639. doi:10.1007/s10826-010-9438-8
Rogers, C. H., Floyd, F. J.,Seltzer, M. M., Greenberg, J., & Hong, J. (2008). Long-term effects of
the death of a child on parents’ adjustment in midlife. Journal of family psychology: JFP:
journal of the Division of Family Psychology of the American Psychological Association
(Division 43), 22(2), 203–211.
Salem, D. A., Zimmerman, M. A.,Notaro, P. C. Effects of family structure, family process,and
father involvement on psychosocial outcomes among African American adolescents.
Family Relations , Vol. 47, No. 4, The Family as a Context for Health and Well-Being
(Oct.,1998), pp. 331-341
Schick, A. (2002). Behavioral and emotional differences between children of divorce and from
intact families: Clinical significance and mediating processes. Swiss Journal of
Psychology,Vol. 61 (Issue 1),p.p. 5-14. Academic search complete.
Schindler, C.,Levine, R. (2012). Predicting marital separation: Do parent-child relationships
matter? Journal of Family Psychology, Vol. 26 (Issue 4), p. p. 499-508. Academic search
complete.
Sigle-Rushton, W., & McLanahan, S. (2002). For Richer or Poorer? Marriage as an Anti-Poverty
Strategy in the United States. Population (English Edition,2002-), 57(3), 509–526.
doi:10.2307/3246637
Simons, R. L., Conger, R. D., & Wet Chao. (1993). Stress,Support, and Antisocial Behaviour
Trait as Determinants of Emotional Well-Being and Parenting Practices Among Single
Mothers. Journal of Marriage & Family,55(2),385–398.
Smock, P. J.,Manning, W. D.,& Porter,M. (2005). Everything’s There except Money: How
Money Shapes Decisions to Marry among Cohabitors. Journal of Marriage and Family,
67(3),680–696.
Tein, J. S., Braver, I. N., Wolchik, S. A. (2013). Development of a brief parent-report risk index
for children following parental divorce. American Psychological Association, Vol. 1,
(Issue 1) doi: 10.1037/a0034571. Academic search complete.

21
Thomas, A. and Sawhill, I. (2002). For Richer of for Poorer: Marriage as an Antipoverty
Strategy. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management,Vol. 21(No. 4),587–599.
Wadsworth, M. E., & Santiago, C. (2008). Risk and resiliency processes in ethnically diverse
families in poverty. Journal Of Family Psychology, 22(3), 399-410. doi:10.1037/0893-
3200.22.3.399
Wallerstein, J. L., Rosenthal, J. P. (2013). Mothers and their children after divorce: Report from a
25 year longitudinal study. Pscychoanalytic Pscychology, Vol. 24 (Issue 2), p. p. 167-
187. Academic search complete.
Wang, H., Amato, P.R. (2000) Resources as predictors of divorce adjustment: stressors,resources
and definitions. Journal of Marriage and the Family,62,65-68.
Whitson, M. L., Martinez, A.,Ayala, C.,& Kaufman,J. S. (2011). Predictors of Parenting and
Infant Outcomes for Impoverished Adolescent Parents. Journal of Family Social Work,
14(4),284–297. doi:10.1080/10522158.2011.587173
Wickrama, K.A.S.,Surjadi, F.F., Lorenz, F.O.,Conger, R.D. (2012). Family Economic Hardship
and Progression of Poor Mental Health in Middle-Age Husbands and Wives. Family
Relations, 61, 297-312.
Wijngaards-de Meij, L., Stroebe, M., Schut, H., Stroebe, W., van den Bout, J., van der Heijden,
P.,& Dijkstra, I. (2005). Couples at Risk Following the Death of Their Child: Predictors
of Grief Versus Depression. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73(4), 617–
623.
Wiley, A. R., Warren,H. B., & Montanelli, D. S. (2002). Shelter in a Time of Storm: Parenting in
Poor Rural African American Communities. Family Relations,51(3),265–273.
Williams, V. F., Luecken, L. J. (2007). Post-divorce living arrangement,parent conflicts, and
long-term psysical health correlates for children of divorce. Journal of Family
Psychology, Vol. 21 (Issue 2), p.p. 195-205. Academic search complete.
Wochik, S., Irwin, N. T., Mahrer,J. Y.,Millsap, N. E., Winslow, R. E. (2013). Fifteen-year
follow-up of a randomized trial of a preventive intervention for divorced families: Effects
on mental health and substance use outcomes in young adulthood. Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology, Vol. 81 (Issue 4), p.p. 660-673. Academic search complete.
Wood, McConnell, Moore, Clarkwest, Hsueh (2010) BSF (Building Strong Families) Project:
Effectiveness of marriage promotion programs. Retrieved
from http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/opre/15_impact_main_rpt.pdf
Zimmerman, M. A., Bingenheimer, J. B., & Notaro, P. C. (2002). Natural Mentors and
Adolescent Resiliency: A Study With Urban Youth. American Journal Of Community
Psychology, 30(2), 221.

22
Appendix
This appendix contains the informed consent forms used for the proposed interventions, White
Bison Philosophy retrieved from www.whitebison.org, the proposed open-ended questions used
in Intervention I, tools presented at the interviewer training, and an example Likert scale.
Informed Consent Form for Intervention I
I, _________________________ , hereby agree to serve as a subject in the research project titled
“Origins of Resilience.” It has been explained to me that its purpose is to gather information
about coping mechanisms, as well as risk and protective factors and their impact on resilience.
The research activity I will participate in is a long-term ethnographic study, involving 1-hour
interview, 20-minute questionnaires, and observation during The White Bison Project workshops
and activities.
I have been informed that the information I provide will only be listened to and used for a
research paper and presentation by the research group for a class at The Evergreen State College.
I also understand that my responses may be reported in the paper and presentation, and my
identity will be kept confidential and no identifying information about me will be included. The
group has agreed to provide, at my request, a copy of the final draft of their paper.
I understand that the risks to me are minimal. I agree to be interviewed, and to have that interview
audio recorded for this project. I have been told the recording will only be heard by the
researchers and will be destroyed when the project is finished.
There will be no compensation of any kind available for my participation. I have been told that I
can skip any question or stop the interview and withdraw my full participation from the study at
any time without penalty. If I have any questions about this project or my participation in it, I can
email the group at big.sky.mind@greenmail.com. Likewise, the person to contact if I experience
problems as a result of my participation in this project is John McLain, IRB administrator at The
Evergreen State College, Library 2211, Olympia, WA 98505; Phone 360.867.6045.
I understand that my participation in this project is completely voluntary, and that my choice of
whether to participate in this project will not jeopardize my relationship with The Evergreen State
College. I am free to withdraw at any point before or during the interview. I have read and agree
to the foregoing.
Signature_______________________________________ Date__________________

23
Informed Consent Form for Intervention II
I, _________________________ , hereby agree to serve as a subject in the research project titled
“Non-Violent Communication and Coping.” It has been explained to me that its purpose is to
gather information about non-violent coping mechanisms, as well as the development of self-
awareness. The research activity I will participate in a 5 year study, involving 1-hour workshops
every week for 6 weeks, and self-report follow up questionnaires once every 6 month for the
duration of the study .
I have been informed that the information I provide will only be listened to and used for a
research paper and presentation by the research group for a class at The Evergreen State College.
I also understand that my responses may be reported in the paper and presentation, and my
identity will be kept confidential and no identifying information about me will be included. The
group has agreed to provide, at my request, a copy of the final draft of their paper.
I understand that the risks to me are minimal. I agree to be interviewed, and to have that interview
audio recorded for this project. I have been told the recording will only be heard by the
researchers and will be destroyed when the project is finished.
There will be no compensation of any kind available for my participation. I have been told that I
can skip any question or stop the interview and withdraw my full participation from the study at
any time without penalty. If I have any questions about this project or my participation in it, I can
email the group at big.sky.mind@greenmail.com. Likewise, the person to contact if I experience
problems as a result of my participation in this project is John McLain, IRB administrator at The
Evergreen State College, Library 2211, Olympia, WA 98505; Phone 360.867.6045.
I understand that my participation in this project is completely voluntary, and that my choice of
whether to participate in this project will not jeopardize my relationship with The Evergreen State
College. I am free to withdraw at any point before or during the interview. I have read and agree
to the foregoing.
Signature_______________________________________ Date__________________

24
White Bison Philosophy
We believe...
 Mother Earth is governed by a set of Principles, Laws and Values
 Leadership exists to serve the people first
 Leadership existence is to ensure that information (Truth) is given to the people
 Changes are the result of implementing Naturallaws
 All Native people believe in a Supreme Being
 In the Elders and teachings as a guiding force to direct ourselves, families and
communities
 That there is a natural order running the universe
 That our traditional ways were knowledgeable about the natural order
 When the community leads, the leaders will follow
 Alcohol and drugs are destroying us and we want to recover
 That change comes from within the individual, the family and the community
 That within each person, family and community is the innate knowledge for well being
 The solution resides within each community
 Interconnectedness - it takes everyone to heal the community
 Healing will take place through he application of cultural and spiritual knowledge
 Alcohol is a symptom...not the cause,drugs are a symptom...not the cause,Domestic
Violence is a symptom...not the cause. To "heal a community" it needs to deal with the
cause
 That the Circle and the Four Directions are the Teachers
 In the Four Laws of Change
1. Change is from within
2. In order for development to occur, it must be preceded by a vision
3. A great learning must take place
4. You must create a Healing Forest
 OUR CULTURE IS PREVENTION

25
Building Blocks ofOpen-Ended Questions
 Tell me about…
 What do you think about…?
 What can you tell me about…?
 What would happen if…?
 What did you notice about…?
 How did you…?
 How could you…?
Sample Questions for Starting Dialog
 Catch me up on your Family?
 How have you been spending your time?
 What is a typical day like?
 What kind of work are you doing?
 What are you doing to take care of yourself? How is that going?
 How would you describe your household in terms of roles and responsibilities? Are these
roles traditional or nontraditional?
 How have family members responded to the role changes within the family?
 Describe how your family has dealt with the changes within the home. How has [child]
responded to the changes?
 How would you describe your family’s communication style?
 How do you make decisions within the family? Why have you chosen this approach of
decision-making?
 What are some of the strengths of your family? What are some of the struggles? Is there one
person who is considered to be the strength of your family?
 Describe the sense of closeness or cohesion within your family.
 What creates stress within your family? How does your family generally deal with stress?
 How flexible or adaptable are family members to change? Does change seem to create stress
in your family? If so, how?
 Do you have a social support network? What are some of the supports that you use?
 What forms of social support do you feel have been most helpful during this time? How so?
 How would you describe the support that you have received from your family members, your
community, and the church?
 What are sources of strength for your family during times of crisis?
 There are severaltypes of support. [Explain instrumental and emotional support.] Which do
you think is most helpful?
 Describe how your family uses social supports on a daily basis.
 How would you describe your family structure or makeup?
 Where do you get your inspiration or encouragement?
 What keeps your family together?
 What are some of your family values?
 How do you feel about your relationship with [birth parent]?
 If you could change something about this situation, what would it be?
 If you had one wish today, what would that wish be?

26
The 10 Commandments ofInterviewing
1. Never begin an interview cold.
o Chat and make small talk with interviewee (IE). The goal is to put IE at ease and
establish a warm and comfortable rapport.
2. Remember your purpose.
o You want to obtain information. Try to keep the IE on track. Always have a copy of
the interview schedule in front of you—even though you should have your questions
memorized.
3. Present a naturalfront.
o Even though your questions are memorized, you should be able to ask each one as if it
popped into your head. Be relaxed, affirmative, and as natural as you can.
4. Demonstrate aware hearing (active listening).
o Offer IE appropriate nonverbal responses. If they describe something funny, smile. If
they tell you something sad, look sad. Do not present yourself as uninterested or unaware.
5. Think about appearance.
o Dress appropriately. Convey the message that this interview is important to you.
6. Interview in a comfortable, non-threatening place.
o Somewhere the IE feels comfortable expressing herself and free of distractions.
Also a place where the IE will know that the interview is to be taken seriously.
For these reasons,don’t conduct interviews in your dorm room or the IE’s dorm room.
7. Don’t be satisfied with monosyllabic answers.
o Be aware when subjects begin giving yes-and-no answers. When this does occur, be
sure to probe.
8. Be respectful.
o Make sure the IE feels that he or she is an integral part of your research and that any
answer is appreciated and wonderful. Often IEs will say things like, “You don’t really
want to know how I feel about that.” Assure them that you really do!
9. Practice,practice,and practice some more.
o The only way to get really good at interviewing—establishing rapport, making smooth
transitions from one question to the next, eliciting in-depth responses,making good use
of probes, etc.—is to practice. Be patient with your “mistakes” and missed opportunities
for follow-ups—your interviewing skills will improve over time.
10. Be cordial and appreciative.
o Remember to thank the subject when you finish and answer any questions he or she
might have about the research.
From Berg, B. L. (2004). Qualitative Research Methods forthe Social Sciences (5th ed,pp. 110–
111.) Boston: Pearson.

27
HowDoes One KnowWhat to Observe?
MERRIAM (1998) suggests that the most important factor in determining what a researcher
should observe is the researcher's purpose for conducting the study in the first place. "Where to
begin looking depends on the research question, but where to focus or stop action cannot be
determined ahead of time" (MERRIAM, 1998, p.97). [26]
To help the researcher know what to observe, DeWALT and DeWALT (2002) suggest that he/she
study what is happening and why; sort out the regular from the irregular activities; look for
variation to view the event in its entirety from a variety of viewpoints; look for the negative cases
or exceptions; and, when behaviors exemplify the theoretical purposes for the observation, seek
similar opportunities for observation and plan systematic observations of those events/behaviors.
Over time, such events may change, with the season, for example, so persistent observation of
activities or events that one has already observed may be necessary. [27]
WOLCOTT (2001) suggests that fieldworkers ask themselves if they are making good use of the
opportunity to learn what it is they want to know. He further advises that fieldworkers ask
themselves if what they want to learn makes the best use of the opportunity presented. [28]
HowDoes One Conductan Observation?
WHYTE (1979) notes that, while there is no one way that is best for conducting research using
participant observation, the most effective work is done by researchers who view informants as
collaborators; to do otherwise, he adds, is a waste of human resources. His emphasis is on the
relationship between the researcher and informants as collaborative researchers who,through
building solid relationships, improve the research process and improve the skills of the researcher
to conduct research. [29]
Conducting observations involves a variety of activities and considerations for the researcher,
which include ethics, establishing rapport, selecting key informants, the processes for conducting
observations, deciding what and when to observe, keeping field notes, and writing up one's
findings. In this section, these aspects of the research activities are discussed in more detail. [30]
Kawulich, B. B. (2005). Participant Observation as a Data Collection Method. ForumQualitative
Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research,6(2). Retrieved from
http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/466

28
Likert Scale Example

ATOLER Group_5_LiteratureReviewFinal-1

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (19)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (8)

Similar to ATOLER Group_5_LiteratureReviewFinal-1

Similar to ATOLER Group_5_LiteratureReviewFinal-1 (20)

ATOLER Group_5_LiteratureReviewFinal-1