Description
Please critically evaluate this case study.
Darcy has been a gymnast since she was 5 years old. She is now 12 years old and is competing at the highest level possible. Throughout her career, she has struggled with long hours of training, missing routines due to injuries, parents separating, a family member who is an alcoholic, and body image issues. She has several friends who support her as she struggles including her mom, her two best friends on the team, her grandmother, and her coach. She is a perfectionist and feels that everything she does needs to be done well. Both her mom and her grandmother suffer from anxiety about social gatherings, and she struggles with this as well. The family culture and norms are to “suck it up” when things get tough. “Complaining is for losers”. She is reluctant to see the team sports medicine staff when she gets injured. A new counselor has joined the coaching staff and she was wondering if the counselor may help her learn new skills.
Please review this case study in resiliency and determine the following:
What factors contributed to the individual’s resiliency?
What factors eroded her resilience?
What theory is best applied to her case?
How can resiliency training be applied to her life given her current struggles?
This assignment should be between
500-750 words,
conform to APA format,
12-point, times new roman font
Include references and citations.
Unformatted Attachment Preview
doi:10.1111/j.1365-2206.2008.00586.x
Fostering family resiliency: a review of the key
protective factors
Karen Benzies* and Richelle Mychasiuk†
*Associate Professor, Faculty of Nursing, †Research Associate, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Correspondence:
Karen Benzies,
Faculty of Nursing,
University of Calgary,
2500 University Drive N.W.,
Calgary, Alberta T2N 1N4,
Canada
E-mail: [email protected]
Keywords: children, family, protective
factors, resiliency, review
Accepted for publication: August 2008
Published online: November 2008
A B S T R AC T
The aim of this integrative review was to identify the protective
factors that contribute to family resiliency. Families are comprised of
individuals who interact across levels in a socio-ecological system.
Family resiliency does not develop through evasion of risk, but
through successful application of protective factors to engage in
adverse situations and emerge from them stronger. In an effort
to move away from pathological labelling, this review provides a
foundation for strength-based family interventions. Thirteen peerreviewed databases were searched for articles and information
regarding family resiliency. Careful review yielded 24 protective
factors that foster resiliency across three distinct but interactive
levels: individual, family and community. The protective factors identified in this review of the literature offer an excellent starting point
for development of clinical interventions to support family resiliency.
INTRODUCTION
There is extensive literature about the risk and protective factors that contribute to family resiliency.
However, it is far from complete and it remains
unclear why some families thrive while others flounder. One of the obstacles to a comprehensive understanding of family resiliency is the lack of integration
and synthesis of the main risk and protective factors
that influence outcomes. The aim of this integrative
review was to highlight the recent empirical (experimental and non-experimental research) and theoretical literature about the protective factors that
contribute to family resiliency. A comprehensive
understanding of the factors that foster family resiliency may serve to inform the development of more
holistic policies and programmes to support optimal
outcomes for families with children.
Protective factors are the focus of this review for
two main reasons. First, families are diverse with multiple domains of competent functioning in spite of
specific problem areas. Greater diversity in family
structure is the result of increased rates of divorce,
re-marriage, single-parent households and commonlaw relationships (Vanier Institute of the Family
103
Child and Family Social Work 2009, 14, pp 103–114
2004). In 30 of the richest countries in the world,
between 7% and 21% of children live in lone-parent
households and between 2% and 16% live in stepfamilies (United Nations Children’s Fund 2007).
With increased diversity, there is an increasing recognition of the complex pathways that influence human
development and its outcomes. Simple cause and
effect theories are insufficient to explain families
with problems (Simon et al. 2005). Second, policy
decision-makers recognize that health promotion and
illness prevention are more cost-effective than treating
families already in crisis (Kamerman 2000). Subsequently, there is an increasing appreciation of
strength-based intervention models that focus on fostering family-protective factors in order to promote
family resiliency (Simon et al. 2005).
A socio-ecological model (Bronfenbrenner 1979)
with the concepts of interdependence, homeostasis
and feedback was the theoretical framework used to
understand and organize the protective factors across
individual, family and community levels. Family is
broadly defined as any combination of two or more
persons who are brought together over time by ties of
mutual consent, birth and/or adoption who, together,
assume responsibilities for family functions (Vanier
© 2008 The Authors
Journal compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Fostering family resiliency K Benzies and R Mychasiuk
Institute of the Family 2004). Family resiliency is the
ability of a family to respond positively to an adverse
event and emerge strengthened, more resourceful and
more confident (McCubbin & McCubbin 1993;
Hawley & DeHann 1996; Simon et al. 2005). Resilience develops not through the evasion of adverse
events, but through a family’s successful use of protective factors to cope with these events and become
stronger (O’Leary 1998). Given that families are
diverse and reside in dynamic environments, it is
assumed that family resiliency varies over time, and is
a process rather than an outcome (Rutter 1999).
Resiliency is fostered by protective factors and
inhibited by risk factors. Protective factors modify or
transform responses to adverse events so that families
avoid possible negative outcomes. Conversely, risk
factors are circumstances that increase the probability
of poor outcomes. Protective and risk factors are not
static entities; they change in relation to context
(Walsh 2003), which leads to different outcomes.
Family resiliency is optimized when protective factors
are strengthened at all three interactive levels of the
socio-ecological model.
The majority of literature on family resiliency was
developed through the investigation of risk factors.
However, most risk gradients can be inverted to create
protective factors (Masten 2001).That is, most factors
have positive and negative poles allowing them to sit
along a risk-protective continuum. For example, on an
education continuum, lower education is a risk factor
and higher education is a protective factor. Given the
focus on strength-based approaches, this review is
designed to identify protective factors that foster
family resiliency.
promote family resiliency; or (5) description of risk or
protective factors associated with child development
(birth up to 18 years of age) and characteristics of the
family. Merging the search files and eliminating duplicates resulted in a master list, which both authors
reviewed and identified 48 relevant abstracts.
Relevant articles were retrieved manually or electronically, and entered or uploaded to EndNote
(Version 11). Using a data extraction worksheet
designed specifically for the review, both authors read
and analysed each article. Upon detailed analysis, 40
articles met the inclusion criteria. A thorough examination of the reference lists of retrieved articles was
used to identify three additional articles. See Appendix. Through an iterative process, categories of risk
and protective factors were formed at each level of the
socio-ecological model. As new factors were identified, they were compared with already-identified
factors for conceptual similarities and differences.
Through consensus, similar factors were reduced to
the lowest common concept through return to the
primary source in order to verify the meaning.
R E S U LT S
No systematic reviews of protective factors to support
family resiliency were located. Overall, 24 protective
factors were identified and are presented according to
the levels of the socio-ecological model. See Table 1.
Individual protective factors
Strong individuals are the foundation for stable, supportive families (National Scientific Council 2007).
The individual protective factors listed below are
important contributors to family resiliency.
METHOD
The process for this integrative review followed the
recommendations of Whittemore and Knafl (2005).
Thirteen computerized peer-reviewed literature databases were searched. Yields and number of records
selected in each database were recorded on a database
search worksheet. Searches were limited to literature
published from January 2000 onward. The following
keywords were used: child, family, early intervention,
parent*, measurement and resilienc* (asterisks denote
‘wildcard’ search). The searches generated 9057 titles
and abstracts. Four hundred eighty-one met the following criteria and were considered potentially relevant to include in the review: (1) human; (2) Englishlanguage; (3) theoretical article or book about family
resiliency; (4) research report about interventions to
104
Child and Family Social Work 2009, 14, pp 103–114
Locus of control
Locus of control refers to an individual’s perceptions of
where the underlying responsibilities for life events
reside (Battle & Rotter 1963). Those with an internal
locus of control believe that they: (1) control their own
destiny; (2) have the power to change their situation;
and (3) create their own circumstances (Juby & Rycraft
2004). In order to effectively adapt to stressors, individuals needed to believe that they can exert influence
and actively respond to adverse events (Juby & Rycraft
2004). Individuals with an internal locus of control
were less affected by crisis and felt more empowered;
they took charge of their situations and were willing to
put in the effort required to make positive changes
(Juby & Rycraft 2004).
© 2008 The Authors
Journal compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Fostering family resiliency K Benzies and R Mychasiuk
Table 1 Organization of protective factors according to ecological model
Individual
• Internal locus of control
• Emotional regulation
• Belief systems
• Self-efficacy
• Effective coping skills
• Increased education, skills and training
• Health
• Temperament
• Gender
Family
Community
• Family structure
• Intimate partner relationship stability
• Family cohesion
• Supportive parent-child interaction
• Stimulating environment
• Social support
• Family of origin influences
• Stable and adequate income
• Adequate housing
• Involvement in the community
• Peer acceptance
• Supportive mentors
• Safe neighbourhoods
• Access to quality schools, child care
• Access to quality health care
Emotional regulation
As individuals grow and develop, they learn to control
their actions, behaviours and emotional responses
(Eisenberg et al. 2001). The ability to modulate
arousal enables individuals to delay gratification,
increase impulse control and think more clearly
during stressful situations (Shaffer et al. 2005).
Mothers who were able to modulate and control their
emotions had children who exhibited higher verbal
and math achievement scores (Skowron 2005).
Children who were able to modulate their emotions
elicited positive attention, generated positive social
relationships, and exhibited cognitive and socioemotional competence (Alvord & Grados 2005).
Belief systems
Current findings support the notion that many different belief systems can serve as protective factors in the
resiliency process (Patterson 2002b; Black & FordGilboe 2004; Juby & Rycraft 2004; Amatea et al.
2006). For example, in a study that investigated the
protective factors involved in academic achievement,
results indicated that across all socio-economic levels,
high achieving students belonged to families that
demonstrated belief patterns that included a positive
outlook on life, a strong sense of purpose and high
levels of personal efficacy (Amatea et al. 2006). Spirituality has been identified as a factor that can increase
coping and can foster a sense of meaning and purpose
during adverse life situations (Juby & Rycraft 2004).
Self-efficacy
Linked to the concept of self-esteem, self-efficacy
refers to an individual’s judgement of their own ability
to succeed in reaching a specific goal (Bandura 1994).
Being self-reliant, able to think and act independently
105
Child and Family Social Work 2009, 14, pp 103–114
and confidently are valuable individual protective
factors (Place et al. 2002). In a sample of adolescent
mothers, personal strength and self-efficacy were
stronger predictors of family health promotion than
external resources such as social support (Black &
Ford-Gilboe 2004). Resiliency was promoted in
adults with learning disabilities when participants
believed that they could overcome problems on their
own using the skills and talents they already possessed
(Wong 2003).
Effective coping skills
The way in which individuals react to adverse life
events has a direct impact on the resiliency process.
Coping is a response to demands appraised by an
individual as taxing or exceeding their available
resources (McCubbin & McCubbin 1993). Maternal
coping skills were found to mediate the relationship
between maternal depression and child behavioural
problems (Lee 2003). Effective parental coping skills
buffered financial strain, reducing a child’s risk for
poor cognitive development and externalizing behaviour problems (Lloyd & Rosman 2005).
Education, skills and training
Increased skills and training can provide people with
flexibility and more available options to effectively
deal with problems. These factors increased an
individual’s chances of obtaining and maintaining
stable employment and income (Jackson et al. 2000).
Stable, well-paying jobs reduced financial stress
and improved family functioning. In families with a
member with a psychological disorder, there was a
direct relationship between a parent’s education level
and family adaptability (Greeff et al. 2006). Additionally, parental education has consistently been related
© 2008 The Authors
Journal compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Fostering family resiliency K Benzies and R Mychasiuk
to the ability to cognitively stimulate children (Serbin
& Karp 2004).
Health
Family resiliency is promoted when the individual
members are in good health, both mentally and physically. Mothers with stable mental health confer a
major advantage to themselves and their families
(Brennan et al. 2003), were more likely to effectively
resolve conflicts and less likely to engage in angry,
intrusive and hostile behaviours (Papero 2005). Compared with depressed mothers of infants, mothers
without these symptoms spoke to their children more
and were more likely to expose their children to
social and learning opportunities (Van Doesum et al.
2005).
Maintaining family physical health includes regular
health surveillance visits and up-to-date immunizations in order to prevent childhood illnesses. Good
physical health and a low frequency of risk-taking
behaviours have been demonstrated to result in positive outcomes for adolescents (Blum et al. 2002). A
positive correlation was observed between adolescent
mothers’ resiliency and health-promoting lifestyle
practices, which include proper nutrition, physical
activity and stress management (Black & Ford-Gilboe
2004). Healthier individuals were also less susceptible
to disease, are more energetic and consequently are
more productive, which allows them to command
a higher wage and foster their resiliency process
(Thomas & Frankenberg 2002). Family histories of
children considered to demonstrate resiliency characteristics noted minimal occurrences of hereditary or
chronic illness (Mandleco & Peery 2000).
Temperament
Temperament is an individual’s natural predisposition
to respond emotionally and behaviourally to environmental stimuli (Thomas & Chess 1977; Rothbart
et al. 2000). Temperament is relatively stable over the
life course, but can be modified with environmental
influence. Children with easy temperaments were
easier to engage, provided parents with positive
responses and reduced parental anxiety (Sanson &
Rothbart 1995). Among children with learning disabilities, those with easy temperaments elicited positive reactions from parents, teachers and peers (Wong
2003). Children with easy temperaments were also
buffered from the negative effects of poor parenting,
and were less vulnerable to maltreatment and
106
Child and Family Social Work 2009, 14, pp 103–114
unhealthy attachment interactions (Flores et al.
2005).
Gender
Gender is a non-modifiable factor and, under certain
circumstances, being born female is a protective
factor. In a study with kindergarten students, girls
were at lower risk for developing externalizing behaviour problems, possibly because mothers use harsher
discipline with boys (Criss et al. 2002). Girls were
more socially preferred by their peers, while boys
tended to associate with and befriend more aggressive
individuals (Criss et al. 2002). Additionally, females
were found to have significantly lower levels of juvenile
court petitions than males from the same population
(Smokowski et al. 2004).
Family protective factors
Resiliency in individual members is vital to family
resiliency. The family may experience stressors similar to those experienced by individual members.
However, the protective factors that foster resiliency in
the family differ.
Family structure
Certain family characteristics are associated with
protective advantages. For example, smaller families
experience less financial strain, resulting in lower
stress levels. Children from smaller families were more
likely than children from larger families (four or more
children) to have completed high school (Smokowski
et al. 2004).
Mature, older mothers conferred additional protective resources on their children. These mothers were
more likely to have stable employment and provide
resources to support their child’s development (Wu &
MacNeill 2002; Benzies et al. 2006). Children raised
by adolescent mothers were more likely to experience
developmental delays, as well as emotional and behavioural disorders because of the lack of parental skills
and resources (Black & Ford-Gilboe 2004). Furthermore, resiliency is fostered when a family is supported
by dual incomes. Single mothers are disproportionately over-represented among the very poor and those
requiring social assistance (Jackson et al. 2000).
Intimate-partner relationship stability
In two-parent families, a stable relationship and highquality communication between the couple provided a
consistent environment for children and promoted
© 2008 The Authors
Journal compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Fostering family resiliency K Benzies and R Mychasiuk
healthy development (Katz & Gottman 1993). A
secure, loving dyadic relationship demonstrated
appropriate social interactions and acted as a positive
learning environment for children (Spanier 1976).
Children from families with high levels of relationship
conflict were poorly regarded by their peers and had
fewer friends (Criss et al. 2002). In other studies, the
most important source of social support was from a
partner, as it enhanced the ability to cope with social
and economic stressors (Conger & Conger 2002; Van
Doesum et al. 2005).
Stimulating environments
Stimulating environments, along with time spent in
learning activities with children, predicted optimal
cognitive and language outcomes (Yeung et al. 2002).
A parent’s ability to provide cognitive stimulation in
the home environment and the necessary levels of
scaffolding to help their young children acquire new
problem-solving skills was related to favourable
behaviour development (Serbin & Karp 2004).
Social support
Family cohesion
Place et al. (2002) identified that a warm, cohesive,
family interaction pattern was one of the most significant protective factors for families with a parent suffering from depression. When families faced adversity
together, they were more likely to reach their goals.
Resiliency can be strengthened by co-operation,
mutual support and family commitment to tackle
crises together (Walsh 2003). When low-income families exhibited high levels of warmth and cohesion,
children performed much better in school and were
more likely to attend post-secondary education and
improve their life opportunities (Orthner et al. 2004).
Supportive parent-child interaction
Positive parent-child relationships and subsequent
secure parent-child attachment contribute to positive
outcomes for children in high-risk situations (Brennan
et al. 2003). Parents who take part in frequent joint
activities with their children have been shown to
protect their child from externalizing behaviour problems and juvenile delinquency (Hutchings & Lane
2005). Warm mother-child interactions have been
determined to promote cognitive development in preschool children (Papero 2005). Additionally, nurturing, involved parenting predicted positive adjustment
in the areas of school performance, self-confidence
and relationship status with peers, while also being
associated with lower levels of antisocial behaviour
and emotional distress (Conger & Conger 2002).
When a family member had a psychological disorder,
dependable home environments provided families
with a safe haven in which they could grow and
develop (Greeff et al. 2006). Finally, warm, supportive
parenting behaviours have been found to mediate
and protect children from the negative consequences
related to economic distress (Mistry et al. 2002;
Yeung et al. 2002).
107
Child and Family Social Work 2009, 14, pp 103–114
Social support refers to the interpersonal interactions
within the family’s social network, including extended
family, that provides emotional support, actual tangible help or information (Stewart 1993). Social
support is beneficial to the family when it is perceived,
as well as when it is enacted. Cognitive appraisal of
being reliably connected to others promoted resiliency
as effectively as actually accepting assistance from
others (Stewart 1993). Whether social support is
instrumental, emotional or practical, it was vital to
families during times of stress and helped maintain
good physical and mental health (O’Leary 1998;
Walsh 2003; Black & Ford-Gilboe 2004). Social
support has been demonstrated to be a strong protective factor for both single-parent and dual-parent lowincome families (Orthner et al. 2004). Social support
helped buffer the negative effects of economic distress
on their psychological well-being (Orthner et al.
2004). In other studies, single mothers who received
higher levels of social support were more nurturing
towards their children, felt less isolated and no longer
felt overwhelmed (Jackson et al. 2000; Polkki et al.
2004).
Family of origin influences
Through mimicking, copying and reinforcement, it is
possible for children to acquire their parents’ traits
(Chen & Kaplan 2001).There is considerable support
for cross-generational links in cognitive development,
school performance and transmission of risk factors
(Cairns et al. 1998; Bifulco et al. 2002; Serbin & Karp
2004). Protective factors may be transmitted within
the family in the same manner. Children learn about
social relationships through the interactions with their
parents, and this interface contributes to the intergenerational transfer of protective factors (Chen &
Kaplan 2001). Removal of high-risk adolescents from
their family of origin may have eliminated the risk
© 2008 The Authors
Journal compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Fostering family resiliency K Benzies and R Mychasiuk
when the environment was chaotic (Ungar 2004);
however, it may have also removed the valuable protective factors gained through attachment and creation of a personal identity.
Stable and adequate income
Stable employment served as a protective factor for
the mental health of low-income US women (Lloyd &
Rosman 2005). Women reported feelings of accomplishment, increased social networks and were more
positive role models for their children when they had
stable employment (Lloyd & Rosman 2005). Children
of parents who experienced a job loss or extensive
periods of unemployment were more likely to suffer
from depression, be lonely and withdrawn, and be
emotionally sensitive (McLoyd & Wilson 1990).
Stable parental employment was connected to familial
income adequacy.
An adequate income to appropriately support the
family is a very important family protective factor
and is associated with a multitude of beneficial
effects. Low-wage income and financial adversity
indirectly affected the functioning of young children
through the impact on parents’ psychological functioning and in turn, parenting behaviours (Jackson
et al. 2000). In addition, low socio-economic status
has been associated with early parenthood, school
dropout rates, substance abuse, criminality, increased
family stress, child abuse and maltreatment, as well
as cognitive and emotional deficits (Mistry et al.
2002; Lee 2003; Hyjer Dyk 2004; Orthner et al.
2004; Hutchings & Lane 2005; Lloyd & Rosman
2005; Skowron 2005). Conversely, affluence has
been shown to act as a protective factor in the face
of other adversity; it seemed to buffer children from
the negative consequences associated with maternal
depression (Papero 2005).
Adequate housing
One of the most common risks for low-income families is inadequate housing (Orthner et al. 2004). Early
home environments have been found to be related to
later academic achievement in children (Yeung et al.
2002). A child who is often uprooted and moved was
at a disadvantage when compared with children who
grew up and developed in a stable environment (Ou
2005). As the number of times a family moved
increased, a child’s performance in school decreased
(Ou 2005).
108
Child and Family Social Work 2009, 14, pp 103–114
Community protective factors
Families are influenced not only by the characteristics
of individual members and their interactions, but also
by their community and physical environment. Capitalizing on the protective factors in the community is
likely beneficial to family resiliency.
Involvement in the community
Involvement in the community provides individuals
and families with access to larger social networks and
information regarding health care, education and
resources (Gilligan 2000; Browne et al. 2001).
Involvement in neighbourhood activities and spiritual
congregations gave families a sense of belonging and
an appreciation for their community. Community
participation offered individuals companionship, role
models, identity maintenance and the rewards associated with helping others (Gilligan 2000; Voydanoff
2005). After-school enrichment programmes offered
by community associations were reported to be successful in fostering academic achievement in at-risk
children (Bryan 2005).
Peer acceptance
As children grow up, the social network in which they
interact expands. Kindergarten children from adverse
family environments who had high levels of peer
acceptance demonstrated lower levels of externalizing
behaviour problems (Criss et al. 2002). This research
also suggested that peer acceptance was a stronger
protective factor than temperament, friendships or
appropriate interpretation of social cues (Criss et al.
2002).
Supportive mentors
Community-based mentors serve as protective assets
that can improve the resiliency of family members.
When adult mentors showed continued confidence in
children with learning disabilities, the children were
far better adapted when compared with children
without an adult mentor (Wong 2003). Individuals
who were identified as having resilient qualities tended
to attribute a portion of their capabilities to a significant relationship with a mentor, such as a teacher or
coach who supported their efforts, believed in their
potential and encouraged them to strive high (Walsh
2003). Additionally, children were found to benefit
from having a stable, trustworthy, non-familial adult
© 2008 The Authors
Journal compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Fostering family resiliency K Benzies and R Mychasiuk
they could rely on (Werner & Smith 1992; Blum et al.
2002).
Safe neighbourhoods
Families that are forced to deal with high rates of
crime, violence and lack of infrastructure were
described as ‘coping with social toxicity’ (p. 20) and
were at a disadvantage when compared with families
that were located in safe neighbourhoods (Snell-Johns
et al. 2004). Neighbourhood poverty was associated
with poor schools, lack of basic services and environmental health risks; it placed families at high risk by
undermining their ability to meet their core needs
(Patterson 2002a; Papero 2005). Further support for
the protective advantage conferred on individuals
in safe neighbourhoods comes from the strong
relationship between families living in disadvantaged neighbourhoods and child conduct disorders
(Deater-Deckard 1998; Hutchings & Lane 2005).
Access to quality childcare and schools
Quality schooling has been shown to boost resiliency
by allowing children to overcome certain deficits in
their homes (Bennett et al. 2005). Additionally, positive attitudes towards school, involvement in positive
peer groups and increased teacher support contributed to staying in school and high school completion
(Ou 2005; Reynolds 2005).
Access to high quality, early childcare impacts families in a variety of ways. For low income families, these
impacts included improved child outcomes as well as
promotion of parental employability (Mistry et al.
2002). Such childcare, which included stable consistent care providers, also offered a protective advantage
by further developing adult-child attachment. Moreover, it eliminated some of the negative consequences
associated with low socio-economic status (Burchinal
et al. 2000; Papero 2005).
Access to quality health care
The inability of families to capitalize on the benefits
associated with medical care increased family stress
and economic insecurity, while lowering overall family
health (Hyjer Dyk 2004; Orthner et al. 2004). Conversely, the effective utilization of available healthcare
services and mental health care options offered protection to high-risk families and strengthened family
resiliency (Simon et al. 2005).
109
Child and Family Social Work 2009, 14, pp 103–114
CONCLUSIONS
Family resiliency is built upon complex interactions
between risk and protective factors operating at individual, family and community levels. Given that families exist in a dynamic environment and resiliency
involves ever-changing risk and protective factors
(Hawley & DeHann 1996; Conger & Conger 2002),
fostering family resiliency is not simply a matter of
determining whether a family is resilient, but how they
are resilient (Simon et al. 2005). It is difficult to
predict the relative importance of each protective
factor. Just as the interaction among several risk
factors may result in different outcomes for a family at
different stages of their lives, protective factors may be
beneficial at one point in time and detrimental at
another (Hawley & DeHann 1996; Little et al. 2004).
Thus, protective factors need to be assessed in
context, as many influences may moderate or mediate
their functioning. However, the protective factors
identified in this review of the literature offer an excellent starting point for the development of clinical
interventions to support family resiliency. Each of the
factors can be measured, and concepts can be further
developed to strengthen families and help them to
move out of at-risk situations.
In order to take advantage of the information found
in this review, future research may look at generating a
comprehensive family resiliency model to capture
these protective factors and their interactions. A focus
on interactions across levels in a socio-ecological
system is an important consideration that may serve to
improve family well-being (Voydanoff 2005). It may
be beneficial to devise a study in which these protective factors are weighted, as each factor would be
expected to confer a different protective intensity
depending on the family crisis for which it was mobilized. Preventative interventions that help families
develop strong protective factors were found to be
more cost-effective than the aid for families already in
crisis (Patterson 2002b). Similarly, given that research
has been able to clearly demonstrate that certain protective factors are stronger predictors of outcomes
than any risk factor examined (Smokowski et al.
2004), findings could be used by clinicians to
frame comprehensive, integrated family intervention
programming.
AC K N O W L E D G E M E N T S
The authors thank Sherry Hiebert-Keck, Staff Associate, Calgary Children’s Initiative and Leslie Barker,
© 2008 The Authors
Journal compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Fostering family resiliency K Benzies and R Mychasiuk
3 Cheers Parenting Project Coordinator, Calgary
Health Region for their support of this study.
REFERENCES
Alvord, M.K. & Grados, J.J. (2005) Enhancing resilience in
children: a proactive approach. Professional Psychology: Research
and Practice, 36, 238–245.
Amatea, E.S., Smith-Adock, S. & Villares, E. (2006) From
family deficit to family strength: viewing families’ contributions to children’s learning from a family resilience perspective. Professional School Counseling, 9, 177–189.
Bandura, A. (1994) Self-efficacy. In: Encyclopedia of Human
Behavior (ed. V.S. Ramachaudran), pp. 71–81. Academic
Pres
