CONTENTS Cover Title page Copyright page Notes on Contributors Acknowledgments 1 Introduction and Conceptual Overview What is a Family Problem? Overview of Book References I: Social Inequality and Marginalization 2 We’re Here, We’re Queer, and We Count Introduction Queer Feminist Ecologies of Same-Sex-Headed Families Queer Lives in Context Queer, but Not Queer Enough: Marginalization in the Queer Community Queer Strengths and Resilience Critical Thinking Questions References 3 The Stigma of Families with Mental Illness What is the Problem of the Stigma of Mental Illness? Types of Stigma What is the Problem of Stigma and Families? Types of Family Stigma Population Perspectives on Family Stigma Family Perspectives on Stigma Factors that Affect Family Members’ Perceptions of and Experience of Family Stigma Changing Stigma Summary Critical Thinking Questions References 4 Inside and Out Family Life Prior to Incarceration Impact on the Family: The Incarceration Years Family Life after Release Summary Critical Thinking Questions References 5 Social Disparities in Family Health The Second Demographic Transition Conceptual Models for Understanding Disparities in Family Health The Central Role of Stressful Experiences Protective Factors and Resilience Contextual Influences Conclusions 2 Critical Thinking Questions References 6 Low-Income Fathers as Resilient Caregivers Marginalization in an Era of Rising Inequality “Be Real with Myself”: Steeling for Inevitable Challenges “Gotta Change Play Groups”: Maturation and Learning from Past Mistakes “Damn, I'm Still Around”: Perseverance in “Being There” for Children Summary Critical Thinking Questions References II: Parenting and Caregiving in Diverse Contexts 7 “Do What You Gotta' Do” Introduction Defining Food Insecurity Demographic Correlates of Food Insecurity: Income, Race, Household Composition, and Context The Consequences of Food Insecurity Qualitative Studies of Coping Strategies against Food Insecurity Discussion Implications Critical Thinking Questions Acknowledgments References 8 The Diverse Family Contexts of Youth in Foster Care Factors that Precipitate Foster Care Placement The Foster Care Process Types of Placement for Children in Out-of-Home Care Common Challenges Associated with the Foster Care Context Factors Associated with Resilience Potential Benefits of Foster Care Placement Foster Care Policy in the United States Conclusion Critical Thinking Questions References 9 Grandparents Raising Grandchildren Influences on the Development of Grandparent-Headed Families A Demographic Profile of Grandparent-Headed Families Ethnicity: A Key Demographic Characteristic Experiences of Grandparent-Headed Families A Resilience Perspective on Grandparent-Headed Families Defining resilience in grandparent-headed families Global Perspectives on Grandparents Raising Grandchildren Summary Critical Thinking Questions References 10 Caring for Older Adults Introduction What is Caregiving? 3 Prevalence of Caregiving Who Provides Care and Why? How do Families Decide on who Provides Elder Care? Family Dynamics that Impact Elder Care Provision Stress, Coping, Burden, and Burnout among Family Caregivers Caregiver Coping Strategies and their Relationship to Depression and Anxiety Caregiver Burden and Influences on Burden The Consequences of Caregiver Burnout Help for Caregivers: Supportive Services Looking Ahead: The Costs and Needs of Current Caregiver Policies Critical Thinking Questions References 11 Childhood Adultification and the Paradox of Parenting Economic Disadvantage and Childhood Adultification Forms of Childhood Adultification Parenting Adultified African American Boys and Teens Summary and Conclusions Critical Thinking Questions Acknowledgments References III: Family Challenges Over the Life Course 12 Family Resilience to Promote Positive Child Development, Strong and Flexible Families, and Intergenerational Vitality Key Biosocial Systems Principles That Characterize Family Units Application of Scientific Evidence about How Parents Promote Positive Development in Their Children: The RPM3 Approach Application of the Applied Biosocial Contextual Development Conceptual Framework for Understanding Promotive and Resilient Factors in Families and Children Conclusion Critical Thinking Questions References 13 Challenges and Changes The State of the Military Family Resiliency Adaptability: Developmental Considerations across the Life Course Military-Developed Programs to Increase Resiliency in Service Members and Families Summary Critical Thinking Questions References 14 Intimate Partner Violence Extent and Nature of Intimate Partner Violence Child Abuse and Exposure to Intimate Partner Violence Intimate Partner Violence and the Process of Resilience Responding to Intimate Partner Violence Conclusion Critical Thinking Questions References 15 Abuse in Late Life 4 Prevalence and Incidence Rates Victims and Perpetrators of Elder Abuse Costs and Consequences of Elder Abuse Theorizing Pathways and Response to Abuse in Late Life Responding to the Challenges of Elder Abuse Conclusion Critical Thinking Questions References 16 Adolescent Development and Romantic Relationships Challenges of Adolescent Romantic Relationships Dating Aggression in Adolescence Challenges: Concluding Points Future Opportunities for Research and Practice Youth-Focused Relationship Education Conclusions Critical Thinking Questions References IV: Policy and Practice Responses to Family Problems 17 Strengthening Family Resilience Introduction: The Road of Life Resilience Community Capacity Policy and Practice Responses to Family Problems Conclusion: Navigating Life's Journey Critical Thinking Questions References 18 Family Policy through a Human Rights Lens Family Policy through a Human Rights Lens Marriage as a Human Right for Some, but Not All? US Health Care: Not Necessarily Equal for All Conclusions Critical Thinking Questions References 19 Multisystemic Therapy as a Strength-Based Model for Working with Multiproblem Families Part 1 Multiple Problem Families: Ecological Overview Part 2 Case Example: MST with Derek and His Family Summary Critical Thinking Questions References 20 Risk and Resilience among Latino Immigrant Families Latino Immigrants in the United States Historical Understanding of Latino Immigration Understanding the Life Experiences of Latino Immigrants in the United States: Risk and Protective Factors Implications for Community-Based Programs: A Model of Services Research with a Cultural Adaptation Focus Conclusion 5 Critical Thinking Questions References 21 Harm Reduction as a Model for Families Responding to Substance Abuse Introduction Vulnerability to Substance Misuse Harm Reduction as a Public Health and Clinical Model Harm-Reduction Psychotherapy: Working with Family Systems Conclusion Critical Thinking Questions References V: Conclusion 22 Responding to Family Problems The Pyramid of Principles Final Words: The Need for Evidence-Informed Practice and Policy Conclusion References Index End User License Agreement 6 List of Tables Chapter 06 Table 6.1 Demographics of total sample and subsamples of low-income fathers Chapter 07 Table 7.1 Demographics Chapter 14 Table 14.1 Theoretical perspectives of intimate partner violence (IPV) Chapter 15 Table 15.1 Types of elder abuse Chapter 19 Table 19.1 Overview of factors that contribute to delinquency Table 19.2 MST treatment principles Chapter 20 Table 20.1 Life experiences and parenting needs Chapter 21 Table 21.1 Major models of substance use disorders 7 List of Illustrations Chapter 03 Figure 3.1 A matrix for understanding stigma: typology by constructs to describe the “what” of stigma. Figure 3.2 A matrix for understanding family stigma: typology by constructs. Chapter 06 Figure 6.1 Steeling and resilient fathering. Chapter 11 Figure 11.1 A conceptual model of childhood adultification in economically disadvantaged families (Burton, 2007). Chapter 12 Figure 12.1 The Applied Biosocial Contextual Development (ABCD) model of human development (adapted from C. Ramey et al., 2006). Chapter 15 Figure 15.1 Ecological framework for elder abuse Chapter 17 Figure 17.1 Social organizational processes, social structure, and individual/family results. Figure 17.2 A typology of community capacity (adapted from Mancini and Bowen, 2009, p. 255). Chapter 19 Figure 19.1 Social-ecological model of influences on youth behavior Chapter 20 Figure 20.1 Proposed model of services research. Chapter 21 Figure 21.1 Drug, set, setting (from Zinberg, 1984). Compiled by Jeannie Little and Patt Denning. Figure 21.2 Risks and benefits associated with possible solutions. Chapter 22 Figure 22.1 The pyramid of principles (from Arditti, 2012). 8 9 10 Family Problems 11 Stress, Risk, and Resilience Edited by Joyce A. Arditti 12 This edition first published 2015 © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Registered Office John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK Editorial Offices 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148-5020, USA 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UK The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK For details of our global editorial offices, for customer services, and for information about how to apply for permission to reuse the copyright material in this book please see our website at www.wiley.com/wiley-blackwell. The right of Joyce A. Arditti to be identified as the author of the editorial material in this work has been asserted in accordance with the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, except as permitted by the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, without the prior permission of the publisher. Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats. Some content that appears in print may not be available in electronic books. Designations used by companies to distinguish their products are often claimed as trademarks. All brand names and product names used in this book are trade names, service marks, trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective owners. The publisher is not associated with any product or vendor mentioned in this book. Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of Warranty: While the publisher and authors have used their best efforts in preparing this book, they make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this book and specifically disclaim any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. It is sold on the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering professional services and neither the publisher nor the author shall be liable for damages arising herefrom. If professional advice or other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional should be sought. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available for this title PB: 9781118348284 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. Cover image: © Yurz Kuzmin / Photos.com 13 Notes on Contributors Elaine A. Anderson is Professor and Chair in the Department of Family Science, School of Public Health, at the University of Maryland. Her work focuses on the impact of policies on the health and well-being of families. She has used her research to inform state and federal legislators about how best to modify programmatic and policy initiatives on behalf of families. She is the former President of the National Council on Family Relations. She earned her Ph.D. from The Pennsylvania State University. Joyce A. Arditti is Professor of Human Development at Virginia Tech. She received her doctorate in Family Studies from the University of North Carolina, Greensboro. Her research interests include family disruption, parent–child relationships in vulnerable families, and public policy. Her scholarship is recognized nationally and internationally and she has published numerous empirical and review articles in therapy, human services, family studies, and criminal justice journals. She is the author of the book Parental incarceration and the family: Psychological and social effects of imprisonment on children, parents, and care-givers published by New York University Press, for which she was the 2014 recipient of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences (ACJS) Outstanding Book Award, an honor awarded to a member of ACJS who has authored a book representing an extraordinary contribution in the field of criminal justice. Joyce recently served as the Editor in Chief of Family Relations: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Applied Family Studies. She is a Fellow of the National Council on Family Relations (NCFR), and Chair of the Research and Theory Section (NCFR). She is an Associate Editor for the Journal of Child and Family Studies, serves on various editorial boards, and is actively involved in research projects dealing with families involved in the criminal justice system. William R. Avison is Professor of Sociology, Paediatrics, and Epidemiology and Biostatistics at the University of Western Ontario and Chair of the Division of Children's Health and Therapeutics at the Children's Health Research Institute. His research focuses on the effects of socio-economic disadvantage and social stressors on the health of families and children. He is the founding editor of Society and Mental Health: The Journal of the Sociology of Mental Health Section of the American Sociological Association. He received the Leonard I. Pearlin Award for Distinguished Contributions to the Sociological Study of Mental Health from the American Sociological Association in 2009. He earned his Ph.D. from the University of Alberta. Ozge Sensoy Bahar is a recent doctoral graduate of University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, School of Social Work. Her research interests include inner-city communities, ethnic families, migration and women, the intersection of race/ethnicity, gender, and class, and resilience. Her dissertation explored how low-income Kurdish migrant/displaced mothers reconstructed their lives in an inner-city neighborhood of Istanbul, Turkey after migrating from the southeast of Turkey. Dr. Sensoy Bahar has co-authored multiple publications and conference presentations on the challenges encountered by inner-city residents both in Turkey and the United States as well as the resilience of female members of these communities in navigating multiple challenges created by structural factors. Kristen Benson is Assistant Professor of Human Development and Family Science at North Dakota State University. A licensed Marriage and Family Therapist and Certified Family Life Educator, her research and clinical focus is on supporting lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer (LGBTQ) people and relationships. She is a clinical fellow of the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy and a member of the National Council on Family Relations. She received her Ph.D. from Virginia Tech. Adrian Blow is Associate Professor in the Department of Human Development and Family Studies at Michigan State University and Program Director of the couple and family therapy program. He is involved with several studies related to military deployment, including post-deployment adjustment of National Guard couples, evaluation of the Buddy-to-Buddy program (a peer-to-peer support program), resiliency processes in National Guard families, and other family-based interventions. He received his Ph.D. from Purdue University. Gary L. Bowen is Kenan Distinguished Professor and serves as Lead Scientist in the Jordan Institute for Military Members, Veterans, and their Families, School of Social Work, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He also co-directs the School Success Profile (SSP) project and is a 14 Fellow of the National Council on Family Relations (NCFR), the Society for Social Work and Research (SSWR), and Armed Forces & Society (AFS). He is past President of NCFR (2009–2011). He received his Ph.D. from the University of North Carolina at Greensboro. Patricia A. Brennan is Professor of Psychology at Emory University. Her primary area of research is developmental psychopathology. She employs longitudinal and treatment research designs to assess biosocial risk factors for aggression, as well as the intergenerational transmission of depression and related disorders. Recently she has been examining the utility of biological factors as predictors of outcome in the context of Multisystemic Therapy. She received her Ph.D. from the University of Southern California. Linda M. Burton is James B. Duke Professor of Sociology at Duke University. She directed the ethnographic component of Welfare, Children, and Families: A Three-City Study and is Principal Investigator of a multi-site team ethnographic study (Family Life Project) of poverty, family processes, and child development in six rural communities. Her research integrates ethnographic and demographic approaches and examines the roles that poverty and intergenerational family dynamics play in the intimate unions of low-income mothers and the accelerated life course transitions of children, adolescents, and adults in urban and rural families. She received her Ph.D. from the University of Southern California. Hans Saint-Eloi Cadely is a doctoral candidate in the Department of Human Development and Family Studies at Auburn University. His research focuses on adolescent identity development and changes in romantic relationships throughout the transitional period of adolescence to adulthood. Hans currently has four refereed journal publications that address adolescent romantic relationships, identity development, and intervention programs. He has also been involved in the implementation of relationship education programs across the state of Alabama such as Relationship Smarts. Jinette Comeau is a doctoral candidate in Sociology at Western University and graduate research fellow at the Children's Health Research Institute. Her dissertation examines the impact of socioeconomic disadvantage, neighborhood context, and family processes on children's mental health over the life course. She is co-author of “The impact of mental illness on the family” in The handbook of the sociology of mental health, 2nd edn. Patrick W. Corrigan is Distinguished Professor of Psychology at the Illinois Institute of Technology and a licensed clinical psychologist for more than 30 years. He is the Director of the National Consortium on Stigma and Empowerment (NCSE), a research center supported by NIMH. Central to NCSE is the Center on Adherence and Self-Determination (CASD), supported as a developing center in services research by NIMH. Corrigan is a prolific researcher, having authored or edited 12 books and more than 300 papers. He received his Psy.D. from the Illinois School of Professional Psychology. Kimberly A. Crossman is a doctoral candidate in the Department of Human and Community Development at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Her research focuses on women's experiences of violent and nonviolent intimate partner abuse in the contexts of marriage, divorce or separation, and co-parenting with a current or former abusive partner. She is particularly interested in the roles of coercive control and the influence of gender in women's experiences of abuse. Phillippe B. Cunningham is Professor in the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Family Services Research Center at the Medical University of South Carolina. He has had a longstanding commitment to addressing the psychosocial needs of children and adolescents, especially those who are disadvantaged and underserved. Much of this work has taken place within the context of federally funded studies aimed at further validating and disseminating Multisystemic Therapy. In 2000, Dr. Cunningham received the Theodore H. Blau Early Career Award from the American Psychological Association's Society of Clinical Psychology. He received his Ph.D. from Virginia Tech. Patt Denning is Director of Clinical Services and Training at the Harm Reduction Therapy Center (HRTC) and has been a primary developer of Harm Reduction Treatments (HTC). She is a Diplomate-Fellow in Psychopharmacology and a certified addiction specialist through the American Psychological Association's College of Professional Psychology. She has worked in public and private treatment settings since 1975. She received her Ph.D. from the San Francisco School of Psychology. Megan L. Dolbin-MacNab is Associate Professor of Human Development, Associate Professor of Health Sciences, and a faculty affiliate of the Center for Gerontology at Virginia Tech. She is also a licensed Marriage and Family Therapist and the Clinical Training Director at the Family Therapy 15 Center of Virginia Tech. Her research on grandfamilies has explored grandchild experiences and well-being, parenting and family dynamics, and best practices for community-based interventions. She is the author of numerous journal articles and book chapters about grandfamilies, and has also developed variety of resources for practitioners working with custodial grandparents and their grandchildren. She received her Ph.D. from Purdue University. Ana Rocío Escobar-Chew is an international Fulbright scholar and a postdoctoral fellow in the program of Couple and Family Therapy at Michigan State University. She is the project manager of various mix-methods studies focused on evidenced-based services for Latinos (including an NIMHfunded study on parenting and a program evaluation study for IPV Latina survivors). Her research experience includes community-based research, cultural adaptation of evidenced-based interventions, gender-based violence, and immigrant families. Her doctoral dissertation explored the life experiences and parenting needs of Guatemalan women exposed to violence. She is a member of the MSU Research Consortium on Gender-Based Violence at MSU. She earned her Ph.D. from Michigan State University. Anne F. Farrell is Assistant Professor in the Department of Human Development and Family Studies at the University of Connecticut. She is a translational scholar whose work encompasses atrisk and underserved populations, including children with special health care needs (CSHCN) and their families. Recent projects and publications address family-centered practices, positive behavior interventions, cross-systems collaboration, family resilience, supportive housing in child welfare, and military families with CSHCN. She serves on the editorial boards of Infants and Young Children, Family Relations, and Early Childhood Research Quarterly. She received her Ph.D. from Hofstra University. Sharon L. Foster is Distinguished Professor at the California School of Professional Psychology at Alliant International University in San Diego. She is the author of numerous articles and book chapters on children's aggression and peer relations, assessment and treatment of parent– adolescent conflict, and research methodology. She also co-authored Helping adolescents at risk (2004) and Negotiating parent–adolescent conflict (1989). She received her Ph.D. from the State University of New York at Stony Brook. Natalie R. Gela is a doctoral candidate in Clinical Psychology at the Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago, Illinois. Her research and clinical interests include working with individuals, couples and families coping with mental illness. Samantha A. Goodrich is Senior Research and Evaluation Scientist in the Office of Health Systems Research and Innovation within the Lehigh Valley Health Network. Her research interests include evaluations of prevention and intervention programs for children and families. In particular, her focus is on the implementation of programs that aim to improve the health and well-being of families and communities, including home visiting, parent education, early education, early intervention, and wrap-around programs. She received her Ph.D. from the University of Connecticut Department of Human Development and Family Studies. Lisa Gorman is Program Director for the Michigan Public Health Institute and a licensed Marriage and Family Therapist. She works collaboratively with families, public health, universities, policy makers, and other community partners on innovative solutions that will improve health outcomes and quality of life for families. Dr. Gorman has been engaged in program development, evaluation, and research activities on behalf of military families since 2005 and is co-principal investigator of Risk, Resiliency, and Coping in National Guard Families, a Department of Defensefunded study. She received her Ph.D. in Family and Child Ecology from Michigan State University. Jennifer L. Hardesty is Associate Professor of Family Studies in the Department of Human and Community Development at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Her research focuses on mothers who separate from violent partners, with specific attention to the separation/divorce process, post-separation violence and coercive control, parenting with violent former partners, and the health and safety of mothers and children after separation. She received her Ph.D. in Human Development and Family Studies from the University of Missouri-Columbia and completed a postdoctoral training fellowship in violence research in the School of Nursing at Johns Hopkins University. Bert Hayslip, Jr. is Regents Professor Emeritus at the University of North Texas. He is a Fellow of the American Psychological Association, the Gerontological Society of America, and the Association for Gerontology in Higher Education. An Associate Editor of Experimental Aging Research and of Developmental Psychology, his co-authored books include Emerging perspectives on resilience in 16 adulthood and later life (Springer, 2012), Resilient grandparent caregivers: A strengths-based perspective (Routledge, 2012), Adult development and aging (Krieger, 2011), and Parenting the custodial grandchild (Springer, 2008). He is Co-principal Investigator on a NINR-funded project exploring interventions to improve the functioning of grandparent caregivers. He received his Ph.D. from the University of Akron. Robin L. Jarrett is Professor of Family Studies in the Department of Human and Community Development, and Professor in the Department of African American Studies at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Her research interests include positive child and adolescent development, African American family functioning and resilience, and building supportive innercity communities. As an urban ethnographer, Dr. Jarrett uses an array of qualitative data collection strategies in her research, including participant observation, neighborhood observation, individual and group interviewing, photo-documentation, and GIS. She has published widely in journals that reflect her interest in child/youth development, families, and neighborhoods, including Journal of Children and Poverty, Journal of Family Issues, Journal of Family Psychology, Journal of Poverty, Journal of Research on Adolescence, and International Journal of the Constructed Environment. She received her Ph.D. from the University of Chicago, Department of Sociology. Jennifer Kerpelman is Professor of Human Development and Family Studies and Associate Dean for Research and Graduate Studies in the College of Human Sciences at Auburn University. Her research focuses on the examination of adolescent development and adolescents' relationships with parents and peers. She has over 50 refereed journal publications that address individual development, close relationship functioning, and adolescent outcomes such as educational goals, sexual health, relationship knowledge and quality, and identity development. She also has created resources designed to promote positive youth development in areas of self-development, civic engagement, parent–adolescent relationships, and adolescent peer and dating relationships. She received her Ph.D. from Auburn University. Robin Gaines Lanzi is Associate Professor and Graduate Program Director of Health Behavior in the School of Public Health at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. She is a developmental psychologist with a maternal and child health background whose research centers on reducing maternal and child health disparities and promoting positive youth development. A central theme throughout her research is “putting research into practice” through multiple pathways, including a focus on community-based participatory research in the design, planning, implementation, and dissemination of findings. She received her Ph.D. from the University of Alabama at Birmingham. Sara Lappan is a doctoral student in the Department of Human Development and Family Studies with a concentration in Couple and Family Therapy at Michigan State University. She is currently involved in program evaluation research. Sara is a student affiliate of the American Association of Marriage and Family Therapy. Her clinical experience includes providing family, couple, and individual therapy working in the Adolescent Partial Hospitalization Program at Borgess Medical Center, at Western Michigan University's Center for Counseling and Psychological Services, Michigan State University's Couple and Family Therapy Clinic, and Perspectives Therapy Services. Bethany L. Letiecq is Associate Professor of Human Development and Family Science at George Mason University. She teaches courses on family relations and family law and social policy. Her community-based and action research focuses on the health and well-being of families marginalized by social, economic, and political forces. Most recently, she has worked in partnership with Mexican migrant families settling in new destinations to ameliorate poor mental health conditions among migrant families and promote migrant justice. She received her Ph.D. from the University of Maryland at College Park. Ann Booker Loper is Professor at the University of Virginia's Curry School of Education. Her research focuses on the mental health and adjustment of prisoners and their family members, with a particular emphasis upon the parent–child relationships in justice-involved families. Dr. Loper has collaborated with prison, jail, and community partners in the development of a parenting program for incarcerated mothers. She has consulted with local and state agencies concerning the rehabilitative needs of returning prisoners, particularly as related to family reunification. She received her Ph.D. from the University of Texas at Austin. Chris Marchiondo is a doctoral student in Human Development and Family Studies, with a specialization in Couple and Family Therapy at Michigan State University. His research focuses on the risk and protective factors facing veterans and their families after combat deployments. Previously, Chris served as an active duty Army officer. 17 Alyssa McElwain is a doctoral candidate in Human Development and Family Studies at Auburn University. Her research focuses on interpersonal and individual factors associated with adolescent sexual development including romantic relationships, parent–adolescent relationships, and identity exploration. She has worked in outreach in the state of Alabama by assisting with the implementation of sexual health and relationship education programs, writing website content, and providing technical assistance and program evaluation. She has also coordinated undergraduate service learning courses that implement positive youth development and relationship education programs targeting adolescents in the local community. Marvin McKinney is Research Fellow at the Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and Co-principal Investigator for Promoting Academic Success for Young Boys of Color. He is also a member of the Research, Policy, and Practice Alliance Supporting Excellence in Black Children and serves as senior consultant to University Outreach and Engagement at Michigan State University. He has over three decades of experience working as a strategist and an advocate for young children in urban communities. He received his Ph.D. from the University of Michigan. Ezella McPherson has expertise in qualitative research, STEM education, mentoring, academic advising, K-20 retention, persistence, and graduation for underserved populations. Her dissertation centered on the persistence of African American women in STEM fields. It examined why some African American women stayed in or departed from STEM majors. Her current research projects focus on college student persistence and success for underrepresented populations in STEM fields at PWIs and HBCUs. Other research interests include: resilience, mentoring, health, neighborhoods, environmental studies, and urban studies. She recently received her Ph.D. in Educational Policy Studies from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Marya C. McPherson is Executive Director at Mental Health America of New River Valley in Blacksburg, Virginia. She has over 20 years' experience working with families, children, and older adults through educational and community-based programs. In recent years, Ms. McPherson has acquired additional credentials and expertise in adult development and aging, research, and grantwriting, with a primary focus on family violence prevention and mental health across the lifespan. Her current role involves advocacy, education, and program development for improved community response to mental health challenges. She received her Master's degree from Virginia Tech. Lenore M. McWey is Professor in the Marriage and Family Therapy Doctoral Program at Florida State University. Her research and clinical interests involve working with families at high risk for child maltreatment. She is particularly interested in systemic interventions aimed to improve outcomes of families involved with the child welfare system. She received her Ph.D. from Florida State University. Rob Palkovitz is Professor of Human Development and Family Studies at the University of Delaware. His research interests are in fathering and intergenerational relationships and development, with a particular emphasis on the relationships between patterns of father involvement and developmental outcomes for men and their children. His teaching, research, and community service focus on applied systems perspectives for facilitating life opportunities for persons at risk. He received his Ph.D. from Rutgers University. José Rubén Parra-Cardona is Associate Professor in the program of Couple and Family Therapy at Michigan State University (MSU), Department of Human Development and Family Studies. He is also Associate Director of the MSU Research Consortium on Gender-Based Violence. His NIMHfunded research is focused on the prevention of child abuse and neglect through the cultural adaptation of evidence-based parenting interventions for Latino immigrant populations. His violence research is focused on: (a) investigating the cultural relevance of services for Latina survivors and Latino men who abuse, and (b) understanding intervention processes associated with men's elimination of abusive behaviors. He received his Ph.D. from Texas Tech University. Kathleen W. Piercy is Professor in the Department of Family, Consumer, and Human Development at Utah State University. She teaches undergraduate and graduate student courses in family policy, and graduate courses in personal relationships and in qualitative methods. Dr. Piercy's primary research focus is on the dynamics of family care of older adults. Her first book, Working with aging families: Therapeutic solutions for caregivers, spouses, and adult children, was published by W. W. Norton in 2010. She has authored or co-authored 40 refereed journal articles, mostly on aging topics, and three book chapters. She received her Ph.D. from Virginia Tech. Craig T. Ramey is Distinguished Scholar of Human Development at the Virginia Tech Carilion 18 Research Institute and Professor of Psychology at Virginia Tech. He is a lifespan developmental psychologist who has conducted randomized controlled studies of the impact of high-quality early childhood education on the cognitive, social, and educational outcomes for vulnerable children (including the Abecedarian Project, Project CARE, and the Infant Health and Development Program). These studies have affirmed that positive early childhood experiences exert a large effect on adolescent and adult outcomes, including health and educational attainment with benefits to the entire family. He received his Ph.D. from West Virginia University. Sharon Landesman Ramey is Distinguished Scholar of Human Development at the Virginia Tech Carilion Research Institute and Professor of Psychology at Virginia Tech. She is a developmental scientist who has studied the changing American family. She has developed and tested interventions for children with developmental disabilities and with family risk conditions, often resulting in large and sustained benefits that exceed what had been predicted based on their biology and life circumstances. She also conducts research on stress and resilience effects across multiple generations. She received her Ph.D. from the University of Washington at Seattle. Karen A. Roberto is Professor and Director of the Center for Gerontology and the Institute for Society, Culture and Environment at Virginia Tech. Her research focuses on health and social support in late life and includes studies of rural older women, family relationships and caregiving, and elder abuse. She is the author of over 180 scholarly publications and the editor/author of 11 books. Dr. Roberto is a Fellow of the Gerontological Society of America and the National Council on Family Relations. She is a recipient of the Gerontological Society of America Behavioral and Social Sciences Distinguished Mentorship Award. She received her Ph.D. from Texas Tech University. Kevin M. Roy is Associate Professor in the Department of Family Science at the University of Maryland, College Park, School of Public Health. His research focuses on the life course of young men on the margins of families and the work force, as they transition into adulthood and fatherhood. He explores the intersection of policy systems, such as welfare reform, communitybased parenting programs, and incarceration, with caregiving and providing roles in kin networks. He received his Ph.D. from Northwestern University. Stacy R. Ryan is Assistant Professor in the Department of Psychiatry, Neurobehavioral Research Laboratory and Clinic at the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio. Her primary research interests center on identifying factors that influence outcomes for treatment of youth substance use and related aggressive/delinquent behavior. She is particularly interested in using this information to understand the utility of current evidence-based programs for underserved families. She received her Ph.D. from Emory University. Howard Stevenson is Constance E. Clayton Professor of Urban Education and Africana Studies at the University of Pennsylvania in the Applied Psychology and Human Development Division at the Graduate School of Education. His research interests include the development of racial socialization interventions to promote racial coping strategies that increase youth and family well-being. His latest book, Promoting racial literacy in schools: Differences that make a difference, focuses on how educators, community leaders, and parents can resolve face-to-face racially stressful encounters that undermine student achievement and health, racial profiling, and social conflicts within neighborhoods of color. He received his Ph.D. from the Fuller Graduate School of Psychology. Pamela B. Teaster is Professor at the Center for Gerontology and Department of Human Development at Virginia Tech. She previously served as Director of the Geriatric Education Center and Director and Chairperson of the Graduate Center for Gerontology/Department of Gerontology, Director of Doctoral Studies, and Associate Dean for Research for the College of Public Health at the University of Kentucky. Dr. Teaster is a member of the editorial board of the Journal of Elder Abuse and Neglect and is a Fellow of the Gerontological Society of America and the Association for Gerontology in Higher Education. She received her Ph.D. from Virginia Tech. Brad van Eeden-Moorefield is Associate Professor in the Department of Family and Child Studies at Montclair State University. He also is a Certified Family Life Educator and has previously worked as a clinical therapist. His research focuses on how the social context influences relationship processes and outcomes among diverse families, including stepfamilies and those headed by samesex couples. Much of his work uses a queer feminist lens to understand these influences. He earned his Ph.D. from the University of North Carolina at Greensboro. Damian Waters is a doctoral candidate in the Family Science Department at the University of Maryland. His research interests center around understanding the processes and contexts shaping 19 fatherhood, particularly the intersection of paternal and child health. His current project explores father involvement in pediatric caregiving among low-income, emerging adult men. He is also a Licensed Graduate Marriage and Family Therapist and coordinates fatherhood services for a teen parenting program at Children's National Medical Center. Mathilde Whalen is a doctoral candidate in Clinical and School Psychology at the University of Virginia's Curry School of Education, where she received her Master's degree in 2011. Her research focuses on behavioral outcomes of youth who have experienced the incarceration of a close family member. She has worked to revise and implement a parenting curriculum designed for incarcerated mothers at several correctional facilities across the state of Virginia. Ms. Whalen's clinical interests include forensic assessment and providing mental health interventions within the correctional system. Michael Whitehead is a doctoral student in the Couple and Family Therapy program at Michigan State University. He is currently involved in research focusing on the statewide implementation of an efficacious parenting program. He has also been involved in a number of research projects ranging from theory evaluation to intervention development. His current research focus is primarily on the experience of children in bi-racial families, and more broadly on evidence-based interventions for children and families. Joanna Will is a doctoral candidate in Clinical and School Psychology in the Curry School of Education at the University of Virginia. She is a former probation officer who has provided assessment and intervention to justice-involved individuals across a variety of community, forensic, and inpatient settings. Her research interests include domestic violence, inmate adjustment and mental health, and the impact of incarceration on the family. Donna-Marie Winn is Research Scientist at the Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Her areas of expertise include mental health and well-being, race, and culture. Dr. Winn has been involved in the development of numerous national, evidence-based programs to enhance children's social, emotional, and academic skills. She has extensive experience in conducting research on resilience in African American families. She currently leads the Research, Policy, and Practice Alliance Supporting Excellence in Black Children and the Promoting Academic Success of Boys of Color Project. She is a licensed clinical psychologist and received her Ph.D. from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Armeda Stevenson Wojciak is Assistant Professor at the University of Iowa in the Couple and Family Therapy Doctoral Program. Her research focuses on identifying and using protective factors to improve outcomes for children and families involved with the foster-care system. She received her Ph.D. from Florida State University. 20 Acknowledgments This textbook resulted from the efforts and contributions of many different people. I would like to first gratefully acknowledge Wiley Executive Editor Julia Teweles for her early input in developing this project and her encouragement to assemble an edited volume that addressed contemporary challenges and strengths among families. Thanks also to Julia Kirk, Wiley Senior Project Editor, for her excellent assistance in organizing the details of the book project and overseeing its execution. I also want to acknowledge those who assisted me in the final stages of copyediting this book and preparing it for production: Wiley staff Ian Critchley and Christopher Feeney, and Virginia Tech students Cailin Clinton, Sara Spiers, and Kendra Woodley. Most of all I would like to thank the 20 contributors of this textbook and their willingness to share their knowledge and viewpoint on vulnerable families and how best to respond to diverse family contexts of care and community. Family Problems is truly an interdisciplinary endeavor; authors represent varied academic disciplines and professional backgrounds and I appreciate the obvious effort that went into each and every chapter. Finally, this textbook is a means for me to acknowledge my own family in all their complexity. We are a resilient bunch, and it is from them that I learned to endure, and ultimately be transformed by, family problems. 21 1 Introduction and Conceptual Overview Joyce A. Arditti 22 Case Example: Nick Nick, a 16-year-old, moved with his family from a large city in the Northwestern United States to a Southern rural town during the summer before his eleventh-grade year. Nick is a secondgeneration member of a Chinese family; his grandparents immigrated during the 1950s; his father, whose job transfer caused the move, is an engineer and his mother an elementary schoolteacher. Up to the point of the move, Nick’s medical and psychological histories had been “unremarkable to date.” In his home city, he was an avid gaming enthusiast, and a natural on the baseball field. Nick was well liked by his circle of friends who accepted his bisexual orientation without judgement. In contrast to his large, racially diverse high school in his home city, his new school was small, and comprised 550 predominantly white students. Cliques among students were well formed and hard to penetrate. In his new environment, Nick had trouble making friends, was terribly homesick, and kept his sexual orientation a secret for fear of being bullied. By the end of the fall semester, Nick’s grades had dropped to an all-time low and he was spending most of his time in his room alone, either sleeping or gaming. He had not touched a baseball in months. Additionally, he was having a great deal of stomach pain and was diagnosed with a bleeding ulcer, causing him to miss a great deal of school. Nick’s family realized he was in trouble. As we can see from the case examples on pages 1 and 2, both Nick’s and Martina’s family are in trouble, and affected by an array of problems stemming from caregiver stress, economic inadequacy, adolescent development, social exclusion, and health challenges. Whether Nick or Martina and their families will be able to effectively deal with the problems they are faced with depends on a number of individual, family, and societal factors including how they define their situation, their ability to respond to family demands, resources and assets at their disposal, individual competencies and strengths, social support, and societal tolerance and understanding regarding the conditions and situations with which each family is confronted. For example, whether Nick will thrive, survive, or deteriorate during his junior year and beyond is contingent on his ability to get the help he needs, find support, and transform his experience into something that has meaning and ultimately enhances his development. How might this happen? First, Nick is lucky: he is smart and has loving and supportive parents and siblings who believe in him. Nick’s family has health insurance and financial resources and are able to get him in to see a counselor who understands the challenges Nick is facing and is nonjudgmental about Nick’s bisexuality. Nick also receives the medical attention he needs for his ulcer. He begins to feel better about himself, breaks his isolation, and with his family’s support, decides to try out for the baseball team the spring of his junior year. A new family moves in next door and Nick becomes friends with the teenage daughter, Zoe, who is also into gaming. Nick feels safe with her – she too was a city girl and a non-conformist in her politics and dress. She has a small group of gaming and political friends and Nick decides to “come out” and with his counselor’s help, Nick shares his sexual orientation with his new-found friends and joins their causes for civil rights. Between medical and psychological treatment, making the baseball team, and the support of his friends and family, Nick’s senior year looks bright. Nick’s path is one of transcendence over adversity. But he did not necessarily do it alone. 23 Case Example: Martina Mexican-born Martina is an 81-year-old widow with an array of medical needs. She has painful arthritis and is showing the early signs of dementia. Martina lives with her daughter, Lisa, and her four grandchildren aged 4 to 14. Lisa is a single mother who does shift-work at a local poultry factory near an urban center. She, Martina, and the kids live in a third story twobedroom apartment in a tough neighborhood punctuated with occasional gang-related violence. Once a caring grandmother and a help to Lisa and the children, Martina has increasingly become a “burden” to the family. Martina has trouble walking and caring for herself and personality changes include irritability and forgetfulness. For example, recently after making dinner, Martina left the stove on overnight. Now, 14-year-old Johnny is left in charge of Martina and the children while Lisa works evenings. However, Johnny has taken up with a new set of friends and rather than holding down the fort, he is out most nights on the streets leaving Martina and the younger children to fend for themselves. Lisa is at a breaking point – she is unable to carry the load of caring for her children, work, and dealing with Martina’s caregiving and health needs. Lisa is also grieving the loss of the loving mother she once had, before Martina’s dementia. While Martina has Medicare coverage, Lisa’s earnings are barely enough to get by. Based on Lisa’s commitment to keeping her family together and caring for her mother at home, Lisa has taken an extra shift on weekends to make ends meet. Perhaps Lisa, Martina and their wider family are not so lucky. Lisa is teetering on the poverty line, and without the financial resources that Nick’s family has, she will have a tough time meeting the demands of her situation. Lisa’s children are at risk of endangerment unless adequate supervision and developmentally enhancing care can be found. Martina will continue to deteriorate without the proper medical and physical care. Johnny may end up joining one of the gangs in his neighborhood without some kind of intervention to promote his well-being. It is clear he cannot handle the adultlike family responsibilities Lisa has given him. Lisa has too many responsibilities as a single-mother and caregiver to Martina. She needs support and help and since she has no kin to rely on, it will have to come from the outside. Tired and alone, Lisa, herself is at risk for burn-out. All families have problems. Some of these problems stem from change within and outside the family. Other problems are connected to developmental transitions and challenges inherent in certain caregiving arrangements, such as caring for an elder or infirm family member. Further, problems may be intensified or seemingly irresolvable due to discrimination and social inequality. Family Problems: Stress, Risk, and Resilience examines an array of critical challenges faced by contemporary families such as Nick’s and Lisa’s, and digs deep into their origins, effects, and perhaps most importantly how families may still thrive and grow in the face of adversity. Additionally, an essential question posed throughout the book is: when do family issues become “problems”? 24 What is a Family Problem? The field of family studies has long considered the issue of family problems, with particular attention to how families cope with stress related to various life transitions and difficult life events. Key trends within family science that emerged during the 1990s have been influential in how we define and conceive of family problems. These developments include a focus on individual and family resilience, as well as feminist and ethnic minority critique that has given way to recognition of the diversity of family experiences (Doherty, Boss, LaRossa, Schumm, and Steinmetz, 2008). The diverse “postmodern” family is fluid and distinct from previous generations, essentially broadening the scope of family problem definition, as well as expert interpretation of the challenges families face in their everyday lives and how best to solve these challenges. There are three broad perspectives that can be applied in thinking about family problems today and these perspectives or theories are utilized throughout the book: (1) a constructivist perspective, (2) the family stress perspective, and (3) ecological systems theory. Constructivist reflections on the nature of family problems First, a phenomenon is a family problem when it is seen as such by family members themselves or defined by a great many others in the family’s social world. This criterion is rooted in “constructivist theory,” which emphasizes how people view the relationships and situations they are involved in. For example, some of Nick’s difficulties were rooted in his concern that his bisexuality would be viewed as abnormal or different by members of his new school and community. This fear is warranted given the likelihood of negative and homophobic attitudes that more often characterize both rural and Southern regions of the United States (Eldridge, Mack, and Swank, 2006; Snively, Krueger, Stretch, Watt, and Chadha, 2004). Thus real or imagined discrimination was a force that was adding to the difficulties Nick was having in adjusting to his new life after his move. From a constructivist perspective, all knowledge systems are “ever-changing human inventions” to help people make sense of their lives (Raskin, 2006, p. 212). Constructivism also involves an increasing emphasis on understanding families in context, in their social world, with a sensitivity to the oppressive power of larger social forces. Power may be manifested to the extent to which people can get others to accept and live according to their preferred discourses. From a constructivist viewpoint, social inequality is in part a byproduct of one’s inability to gain this acceptance – thus problems signify a gap in how families experience the world and social pathologizing of that experience. At the core of constructivism is a central assumption that human beings – individually and through their relationships (e.g., Gergen, 1994), “create meaningful mental frameworks of understanding,” which are the basis for self-understanding and comprehending the surrounding world (Raskin, 2006, p. 212). By extension, families construe their interactions with the world and these constructions may serve to organize families around specific problems (Doherty and Baptiste, 2008). In contrast, a hallmark of positivistic social science was the belief that “facts” about the world and more specifically about families were givens that could produce generalizations that could be tested by gathering more facts (Doherty and Baptiste, 2008). Therefore, family health, well-being, and other specific child and family outcomes rested on a certain pattern of facts and objective conditions. Concurrently, deviations from these facts, typically defined in terms of traditional family forms, role functions, and normative developmental trajectories, were characterized as problems located within people and within families. Now, with family science’s recognition of the postmodern family, the question of whether a particular role variation, family structure, or interactional pattern is defined as a problem is more complex. Family phenomena can be defined one way within the family by its members, and defined outside the boundaries of the family by society in another manner altogether. Consider for example the controversy that swirls around the notion of the “family bed.” Is sleeping with your child a problem? Medical experts argue that co-sleeping can be physically dangerous for children, emotionally unhealthy, and compromise marital intimacy. Parent advocates cite benefits such as increased bonding and access between parents and child(ren), as well as more confident and secure children. A polarizing illustration such as the family bed illustrates how family and social definitions may be at odds. From a constructivist perspective, people are viewed as actively creating meaning – and as we see from the family-bed example, meaning systems can be wildly different among people and contexts. 25 Thus problems, sometimes defined as psychopathology or family pathology, occur not only as a result of social rejection, but when individual, familial, and cultural ways of construing are incongruent or become ineffective. Problems are inherently rooted in meaning because they involve a “felt discrepancy between the way things are and the way they are … supposed to be” (Mahoney, 2003, p. 45). Lisa’s family is a case-in-point, based on her cultural heritage she believes she should be able to take care of her mother Martina and keep her at home, yet the way things are and the necessities associated with Martina’s care is creating a great discrepancy for her which has become a source of distress. Therefore, problems can be viewed as expressions of a family’s attempt to protect itself, and pursue directions that feel “immediately satisfying” (Mahoney, 2003, p. 45). From this standpoint, problems are often attempts at solutions (Mahoney, 2003), and in this manner, important mechanisms of development and systemic reorganization. Lisa’s shift work, which takes her out of the home and leaves vulnerable family members unsupervised, is a problem, but also an attempt on her part to resolve the family’s economic inadequacies. In sum, constructivism highlights that problems are rooted in discrepant or ineffective meanings and often products of collective definition – particularly in relation to social and cultural norms pertaining to family dysfunction and deviance (Schneider, 1985). However, it is also worth noting that some family conditions fail to be identified as “social problems” and thus remain invisible to society in that they are not deemed important issues of concern (worthy of resources and intervention) (Schneider, 1985). Society and even family experts may not recognize a problem per se, and yet a certain set of conditions, behaviors, interactions, can be defined within the family, or by one of its members, as problematic. Moreover, family problems of devalued groups (such as the poor, minorities, prisoners) may be particularly invisible and thus collective definition of an issue may dominate, effectively obscuring the families’ experience. Family stress theory and family problems A second perspective applied in deciding whether an issue is a “family problem” involves the extent to which the degree of stress reaches a level that is more than the family “can handle.” Family members may become dissatisfied, compromised, or show other signs of disturbance. We can clearly see this happening in Lisa’s family. The fact that Lisa is feeling that she is “ready to snap” suggests the demands of her situation are exceeding her ability to respond to them as well as compromising the healthy functioning of the family and the well-being of its members. This perspective focuses on how change, loss, and disturbance can create stress (Boss, 2002). Lisa’s stress is further intensified by the loss she feels due to the changes in her mother’s mental and physical health. Traditional approaches to studying family problems draw heavily from a family stress framework, which historically pathologized hardship and adversity. The study of family stress began in the 1930s, during the Great Depression. Its classic formulation was embodied by Ruben Hill’s ABC-X model (1949), developed as a result of his research on war-torn families. This work established the study of families in crisis, and a conceptual and empirical tradition for the study of distressed families that remained virtually unchanged until the early 1980s. A central deficiency of Hill’s model was its static nature and dysfunctional definition of crisis. A second model of family stress was subsequently developed, the double ABC-X model (McCubbin and Patterson, 1982), which highlighted the adjustment process of the family and how an imbalance of resources and demands, as well as the family’s inability to stop change, gave rise to distress. This model of family stress became the predominant framework for considering family problems for the next decade. However, deficiencies still persisted in that the model was static and mechanistic and considered change as pathological. Personal and environmental factors were considered to exist separately and prior to their connection to the “stressor event,” and as a result, there was an overemphasis on action and reaction or cause and effect (Smith, 1984). Dynamic processes and positive adaptations were thus ignored. The Family Adjustment and Adaptation Response (FAAR) model (Patterson, 1988) represents family stress theorizing that considered active processes and varied adaptations, including the possibility of positive family adjustment. Families are viewed as actively engaging in ways to balance family demands with family capabilities. Demands can be normative (e.g., stress associated with parenting and adolescence), and non-normative (e.g., change events such as an act of violence or, as in Nick’s case, the family move across the country). Demands can also encompass ongoing family strains, which tend to be unresolved, such as Lisa’s caregiving burden, and daily hassles (e.g., minor day-to-day disruptions) (Patterson, 2002). Family capabilities include tangible (e.g., income) and intangible (psychological coping or social support) resources of the family. 26 27 Box 1.1 Daily Hassles Research has found that “normal stressors,” that is, the ongoing strains and repeated hassles of everyday life, have been found to figure more prominently in predicting negative health outcomes and pain (De Benedittis and Lorenzetti, 1992; DeLongis, Coyne, Dakof, Folkman, and Lazarus, 1982), depression in adolescents (Dumont and Provost, 1999), and certain aspects of family functioning (Crnic and Greenberg, 1990) than major life events (e.g., divorce or relocation). Hassles are the “irritating, frustrating, distressing demands” that characterize everyday life and can involve practical problems (e.g., losing things, traffic jams), disappointments, feeling as if one has “too much to do,” and stress stemming from the ongoing care of children and aged parents (Kanner, Coyne, Schaefer, and Lazarus, 1981, p. 3). Beginning in the late 1970s, Richard Lazarus and his colleagues published a series of theoretical papers proposing the significance of relatively minor stresses on health outcomes. The central ideas behind this scholarship were that minor stresses are cumulative and proximal – that is, they build up and people’s experience of them is direct and immediate (for example, think of how you felt the last time you were stuck in traffic and late for an appointment or had an argument with a family member). Some hassles may be situationally determined and infrequent (as in the case of bad weather and a canceled airline flight), while others are more repetitive because the individual remains in a context that is characterized by predictable demands – as in the case of parents with young children (Crnic and Greenberg, 1990). Protective factors such as family support, self-esteem, positive experiences and effective coping strategies help individuals tolerate or minimize the effects of daily hassles and normative stress (Dumont and Provost, 1999; Kanner et al., 1981; Lazarus, 1990). A growing emphasis on meaning and the family’s “world view” is apparent in the FAAR model. From the FAAR framework, consistent with family stress theory, the process of adapting to major stressors involves changing prior values and beliefs in order to make sense of what is affecting the family (Patterson, 1993). If family demands significantly and persistently exceed family capabilities, families experience crisis, which is a period of disorganization in which the family cannot function or carry out its normal responsibilities. Or families may poorly adapt in their attempts to strike a balance between demands and capabilities, making them vulnerable. For example, if Lisa started drinking to the point of dependence to cope with the imbalance of demands and capabilities in her family, we can predict a poor outcome and family vulnerability. The contextual model of family stress Marriage and family therapist and scholar Pauline Boss advanced a Contextual Model of Family Stress, which draws from ecological theory (next section) and also builds on elements of Hill’s original ABC-X model. Boss (2002) conceptualized family stress processes as influenced by internal and external contexts. External contexts are those components outside of the family, such as war or economic recession, over which the family has no control. According to Boss, these outside “macro” influences can profoundly affect how family members perceive, experience, and manage stress. Elements that the family can control and change to reduce stress were labeled the internal context by Boss. These include family boundaries, or definitions about who is in and out of the family, and family rules and roles. For example, a lack of clarity about whether a family member is in or out of the system (such as in the case of a parent’s incarceration, Chapter 4; a family member’s mental illness, Chapter 3, or dementia, Chapter 10; or in the case of military deployment, Chapter 13) is a source of boundary ambiguity and can cause stress to the family unit (see Boss, 1999, for more information about the concept). Family perceptions and values about stressful experiences are also elements of the internal context. According to Boss, stressor events that are ambiguous and contain a great deal of uncertainty are the most difficult to resolve and therefore cause a great deal of stress for family members. Family members’ ability to tolerate uncertainty, and empower themselves to gather information, solve problems, and move ahead, even in the face of ambiguity, are all internal contextual strengths in response to stress. In sum, more contemporary variations of family stress theory, such as the FAAR or the Contextual 28 Model of Family Stress, are flexible and have expanded to acknowledge more varied responses to adversity and crisis. Furthermore, family stress frameworks increasingly pay attention to individual, family, and community interpretations of reality (Boss, 2003). Finally, a growing recognition of enhancing and protective family processes has served to draw greater attention to family success and competence (Patterson, 2002). Modern variations of family stress theory often focus on intervening psychological and relational processes that determine in part how a particular stressor event connects with a family outcome. For example, the family stress model (K. Conger, Rueter, and Conger, 2000) focuses on how the experience of poverty (stressor event) leads to emotional distress and strained spousal relationships (intervening processes), which in turn are linked to less effective parenting (outcome). Ecological theory and family risk Ecological theory suggests the importance of environmental contexts and proximal processes in understanding behavior and patterns of adaptation (Cicchetti, 2006). Proximal processes typically involve those day-to-day relationships that are most important to the developing individual and bear directly on critical psycho-social outcomes. Psychologist Urie Bronfenbrenner (1979) conceptualized developmental contexts as resembling a set of Russian dolls, which are nested inside each other, with the smallest at the core. These contexts, or ecological layers, can be visualized as concentric circles of context set in time. Risk and protective factors unfold over time, and the contexts are continually changing. According to Bronfenbrenner, there were five contexts of development. The smallest of the contexts is labeled the microsystem, which encompasses the relationships and interaction in the child or developing individual’s immediate environment. It is within the microsystem that proximal family processes are particularly important in driving development. Mesosystems are “systems of microsystems” and involve interrelations among contexts containing the developing person. A common example would involve interaction between parents and schoolteachers. Research has found that strong and positive interactions between home and school enhance school achievement (Comer and Haynes, 1991), although this relationship varies according to race and ethnicity and is strongest for White (European American) families (Lee and Bowen, 2006). The child or developing person may not be directly involved with mesosystems, but is affected by them. Exosystems typically involve broader contexts, which affect the developing person, but with whom that person is not directly involved. The policies and practices associated with Lisa’s job (i.e. late-night shifts) indirectly affect her children and her mother. Changes in Lisa’s life stemming from her workplace impact her family. Finally, the macrosystem, or outside circle, refers to overreaching cultural prototypes. These include the attitudes and ideologies and values and customs of a particular culture or subculture. Families are embedded in a broad sociocultural network that either supports them or stigmatizes them. Stigma and discrimination are “risks” at the macrosystem level. In thinking about family problems, ecological theory gives us a framework to consider multiple influences and the balance of risk and protective factors connected to a particular individual, family, or situation. Risk factors are those features or characteristics associated with the family and its environment that contribute to vulnerability and maladaptive, psychopathological outcomes (Cicchetti, 2006). As evident in both Nick’s and Lisa’s stories, risk factors tend to co-occur rather than occur in isolation. For example, Lisa’s family is impacted by multiple risks such as living in an unsafe neighborhood, the absence of stable and high-quality care for both Martina and the children, Lisa’s work schedule and low wages, and Johnny’s and Martina’s developmental status. Risk factors are considered in light of any protective factors, which function to counterbalance the negative impact of risk factors (Luthar, 2003). Nick’s supportive relationships with his parents and counselor were important protective factors that contributed to his ability to overcome his social isolation. Lisa’s history of a loving relationship with her mother may serve to enhance the chances that she will take the necessary steps to find ways to help care for Martina. According to ecological theory, these risk and protective factors are thought to occur on multiple systemic levels or developmental contexts. Contexts represent a cluster of characteristics that may constrain or enable development; these characteristics may be subject to change or fixed. For example, age is a factor that is subject to change, while prenatal exposure to toxins is fixed. Contexts may include the family, peers, and the multiple social institutions that surround the developing individual. Societal attitudes and norms can also be thought of as a context because deviation from them gives rise to stigma, discrimination, and stereotypes. Stereotypes are false generalizations applied to all members of a particular group (Pennington, 2009). For example, like other non29 heterosexuals, Nick’s experience moving was made more difficult because of social stigma and negative stereotyping pertaining to his bisexuality, also known as “biphobia” (see Ochs and Rowley, 2005). Hence, biphobia is a contextual factor that can be thought of as constraining Nick’s development. His new friendship with Zoe, the girl next door, and the support derived from it may be thought of as enabling or enhancing his development. In sum, ecological theory helps us identify what risk and protective factors are important, why certain problems change individuals and families, and how family problems connect with developmental outcomes and family relationships. Ecological theory suggests that family relationships are best understood by examining the changing and reciprocal interactions between individuals and the multiple contexts within which they live (Lerner, Noh, and Wilson, 1998). Resilience: going beyond family problems Social and behavioral scientists who study family problems are increasingly asking questions about why “some stay healthy and do well in the face of risk … and others do not?” (Ganong and Coleman, 2002, p. 346). Family scholars have long been focused on difficulties and problems, with less attention being paid to family strengths and positive adaptations to adversity. All three perspectives or theories of family problems described above support a focus on resilience. Throughout this book, the consideration of family problems goes beyond family pathology, or what is wrong with families, and also highlights what families are doing right in the face of adversity. An emerging literature is beginning to document the resilience of parents, their children, and families as a whole. The term “resilience” refers to “patterns of positive adaptation in the context of significant risk or adversity” (Masten and Powell, 2003, p. 4) and represents two judgments about an individual. The first judgment is an inference that a person is doing “OK”; the second is that there is or has been significant adversity (Masten and Powell, 2003). A family-resilience framework extends these judgments from the individual to the family and suggests that even under extreme hardship and duress, positive family outcomes are possible (Luthar, 2006; Masten, 2001; Walsh, 2006). A family-resilience perspective identifies protective factors and processes within the family system that seem to “buffer” or lessen a family’s vulnerability to adversity, as well as enhance their ability to adapt and demonstrate competence under stress (R. Conger and Conger, 2002). For example, qualitative research on Chicago’s urban poor affirmed resilience processes among even the most “hard luck” families. Within contexts of extreme disadvantage, resilient families were characterized as very resourceful, placed a high value on the parenting role (especially motherhood), protected their children from harm and promoted their well-being, and were committed to collective responsibility and strength of character (Jarrett, 2010). Further, family boundaries in resilient families tend to be broad and flexible. This means that family members may share breadwinning and nurturing roles as needed (for example, one family member may take care of the young children of the extended family so that more members may work and pool resources). Given that many family problems are experienced within contexts of extreme disadvantage, one can infer that family resilience can help, and also, to the extent that the seeds of family strength are present in a given family, resilience may be cultivated. Lisa’s commitment to her family and cultural identity are important sources of resilience. Although she is spread thin due to her workload, if she is able to get help from neighbors, friends, schools, or agencies, it may tip things in a positive direction. Similarly, Nick’s ability to persevere in the face of change and exclusion, along with his parent’s help, is a source of resilience. 30 Overview of Book The theories discussed in this chapter are utilized throughout this book in the discussion of family problems. For example, a social construction perspective is at the heart of van Eeden-Moorefield and Benson’s chapter on gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender families: “We’re Here, We’re Queer, and We Count: Perspectives on Queer Families” (Chapter 2). An ecological perspective guides Roy et al.’s discussion of challenges faced by young, low-income fathers (Chapter 6), Dolbin-MacNab and Hayslip’s chapter on grandparents raising grandchildren (Chapter 9), and Ryan and colleagues’ chapter on multisystemic therapy with multiproblem families (Chapter 19). Family stress theory is an underlying foundation of Chapter 7 (“‘Do What You Gotta’ Do’: How Low-Income African American Mothers Manage Food Insecurity”) by Jarrett, Bahar, and McPherson. These authors focus our attention on positive family coping in response to the stress of food insecurity. Ramey, Lanzi, and Ramey (Chapter 12) provide a new way of thinking about family stress by not only specifying how various physical, social-emotional, and societal stressors contribute to poor child outcomes, but also how family stress can be an opportunity for growth. These authors remind us that stress can serve an important function in families: “without challenges to development, resilience may be virtually impossible to promote” (this volume, p. 196). In addition to these major perspectives on family problems, other theories or “lenses” are introduced to help us understand specific topics such as a typology of intimate partner violence (Hardesty and Crossman, Chapter 14), childhood adultification (Burton et al., Chapter 11), familism and the care of aging family members (Piercy, Chapter 10), adult role models and adolescent development (Kerpelman et al., Chapter 16), and a human rights lens for analyzing family policy (Anderson and Letiecq, Chapter 18). While theories help us understand family problems, no one perspective explains everything, and the authors in this collection of chapters rely on a variety of concepts to help readers understand the nature of a particular family problem or set of challenges. Part themes Chapters in this volume address the challenges and strengths of a diverse spectrum of families in varied structural arrangements, cultural orientations, socioeconomic conditions, and developmental contexts. The chapters are organized in four parts based on common themes or concerns. A brief introduction precedes each chapter in order to highlight relevant themes, substantive issues, or theoretical concepts. Social inequality and marginalization Part I critically examines how social inequality may underpin family problems, and includes chapters that illustrate how marginalization processes are an important feature of the family’s experience. Social inequality and marginalization have bearing on how challenges are defined and responded to, and outcomes pertaining to child and family well-being. Social inequality is typically reflected by disproportionality, that is, the overrepresentation of a particular group of people with certain problems, lifestyle, or sets of issues such as involvement in the child welfare system (Dunbar and Barth, 2007). This disproportionality translates into unequal patterns of goods, wealth, opportunities, rewards and punishments, or burdens. Social inequality may connect with injustice (Dorling, 2011) and different social positions (e.g., one’s occupation) or statuses (e.g., race and gender) (Grusky 2001). Marginalization is the process by which social inequality is constructed and perpetuated (Arnold, 1995). It has been said that marginalization is the most “dangerous form of oppression” (Young, 1990, p. 53). Marginalization occurs when people are systematically excluded from meaningful participation in economic, social, political, cultural, and other forms of human activity that are normally available to members of a given community and society. Marginalized persons are thus denied the opportunity to “fulfill themselves as human beings” (Jenson, 2000, p. 1). This part includes chapters that touch on the issue of social inequality, marginalization and family problems, either by virtue of the characteristics of the group of people or families being discussed, the challenges they face, or a combination of both. Topics include the stigma of mental illness by Natalie Gela and Patrick Corrigan; parental incarceration by Ann Loper and colleagues; gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered families by Brad van Eeden-Moorefield and Kristen Benson; family health disparities by Jinette Comeau and William Avison; and low-income fathers by Kevin Roy, 31 Ron Palkovitz, and Damian Waters. As you read through the chapters in Part I, ask yourself how social inequality and marginalization may undermine child and family well-being. Sometimes exclusionary practices and processes may not be readily apparent, but operate “behind the scenes” (e.g. health disparities, poverty). Also, consider the ways in which families adapt to their circumstances and find ways to transcend their circumstances and participate fully as parents, family members, and citizens within the communities that they live. Parenting and caregiving in diverse contexts Part II of the volume is focused on how family members care for each other in diverse contexts. We often hear family scholars talk about “diversity,” but what does it really mean? Historically, diversity referred to variations of the traditional family, with all other family types considered deviant or dysfunctional (van Eeden-Moorefield and Demo, 2007). Although a more contemporary focus on family diversity acknowledges the multitude of family types and processes, there is still much debate about the family due to the dramatic and widespread changes in family structure, roles, and functions that have occurred over the past few decades. Primary among these changes are the increased separation of childbearing and child-rearing from marriage – that is more children than ever before are in single-parent households, or being reared by other family members and caregivers. Single women in particular make up an increased and growing percentage of those having children. A second major change impacting families involves the aging of our society. Due to declining mortality and morbidity and advances in medicine, older people are living longer than ever before. The increased health and life expectancy of elders raises questions about their role in society, their care, and, increasingly, their ability to provide assistance to their families. In Part II, family diversity is considered as it pertains to parenting and the provision of family caregiving. Caregiving is broadly defined to encompass caring for another adult. Even a pluralistic and tolerant view of family diversity does not negate that certain family problems involving the care of children and elders exist. The chapters in this part examine the care of children and family members in a wide array of developmental contexts. Part II includes topics such as foster care by Lenore McWey and Armeda Stevenson Wojciak, caregiving for aging and disabled adults by Kathleen Piercy, grandparents raising grandchildren by Megan Dolbin-MacNab and Bert Hayslip; low-income single mothers by Robin Jarrett and colleagues; and childhood adultification by Linda Burton and colleagues. Many of us pay “lip service” to the idea of family diversity. As you read through the chapters, ask yourself what values and biases you may have about the “best family” for children and adults to live in. Consider the essential ingredients of caring family relationships and how families might compensate for less than optimal circumstances. Family challenges over the life course As we have discussed, development implies an unfolding pathway, or change of some sort and is best understood in the contexts in which it occurs. Contexts of development include family, peers, and multiple social institutions that surround the developing individual. Here we extend our view of development beyond the individual to consider how families change over time, deal with challenges associated with specific life events and intimate relationships, and locate family problems in broader socio-historical and economic systems (Bengtson and Allen, 1993). This broader view of development is the basic premise of a “life course perspective” which recognizes the structural diversity of families, the interdependence (connections) of family members, and the timing of processes and events in lives (Elder, 1984). A life course perspective also recognizes the linkages between childhood and adolescent experiences and later experiences in adulthood, although there is considerable diversity in the ways in which individuals and families may respond to experiences over time. Variation originates from the different ways in which families give meaning to their experiences, as well as by virtue of gender, race, ethnic and socioeconomic differences (Bengtson and Allen, 1993). Family scholars have become increasingly interested in how meaning is constructed around the changes that come with age, intergenerational relationships, and an array of family transitions and challenges that stem from normative events (e.g., parenting young children; adolescent development, aging) as well as the discontinuous effects of a changing social environment (e.g., military deployment during war). In Part III, “Family Challenges Over the Life Course,” we are reminded that intimate and family 32 relationships can be developmental contexts for both harm and resilience. The topics in this section include young children and parental resilience and stress, by Sharon Ramey and colleagues; resilience in military families by Adrian Blow and colleagues, intimate partner violence by Jennifer Hardesty and Kim Crossman; elder abuse by Karen Roberto and colleagues; and the challenges of romantic relationships among adolescents by Jennifer Kerpelman and colleagues. As you read through the chapters in this part, think about how social structures and norms create or uphold certain family problems. Consider how the timing of certain experiences and stressors enhances vulnerability during particular developmental periods. Conversely, what contextual factors and family processes seem to promote resilience throughout the life course? Policy and practice response to family problems The call for evidence-based policy and practice has become commonplace across a wide range of fields that connect to families such as education, child welfare, mental health, juvenile justice, youth programs, and health care (Tseng, 2012). The term “evidence-based” generally implies that policy, programs, and interventions are informed by rigorous scientific evidence. Sometimes, evidencebased policy and practice also means including clinical expertise and client perspectives so that that clinical outcomes or the quality of life can be optimized (APA Presidential Taskforce, 2006). Thus research and scholarship on family problems can be very useful to the extent that it can be translated by policymakers and practitioners and disseminated to those who work closely with atrisk youth and families. Moreover, federal, state, and local governments, as well as other funding organizations are under increased political and economic pressure to demonstrate “accountability” and effectiveness of prevention and intervention programs targeting the needs of children, youth, and families (Small, Cooney, and O’Connor, 2009). Vital connections between research, policy, and practice are necessary to ensure innovation and relevance. Suggestions to improve collaboration and inspire innovation could include the development of partnerships between researchers and community members, as well as embracing emancipatory approaches to research aimed at social change and the empowerment of vulnerable populations (see for example, Small, 2005). The chapters that follow in Part IV, “Policy and Practice Responses to Family Problems,” all utilize scientific research in the development of innovative practice and policy responses to some of the most pressing contemporary family problems. Anne Farrell, Gary Bowen, and Samantha Goodrich focus on a community capacity approach to strengthening vulnerable families. Stacy Ryan and colleagues outline a strength-based approach to multisystemic therapy for working with troubled youth in multiproblem families. Other topics include the use of community-based programs for Latino immigrant families by José Rubén Parra-Cordona and colleagues; harm-reduction approaches to addressing substance abuse by Patt Denning; and analyzing family policy from a human rights perspective by Elaine Anderson and Bethany Letiecq. As you read through the chapters, consider the ways that the social scientific research is applied to help address a specific family problem. What kind of information is most necessary in designing a program or intervention? In addition to research, think about how theories guide policy and practice. Since most family problems are multifaceted, notice how theories may be integrated and synthesized to fit a particular situation. In sum, this volume is designed to serve as a core textbook for students in an array of disciplines (family studies, sociology, psychology, social work, counseling, human services) who study families and development. The cutting-edge knowledge presented here, authored by distinguished scholars at the forefront of their field, can help inform not only how we think about family problems and family strengths, but also inform intervention, community programs, and social policy aimed at enhancing the well-being families and children. 33 References American Psychological Association (APA) Presidential Task Force. (2006). Evidence-based practice in psychology. American Psychologist, 61, 271–285. Arnold, J. (1995). Social inequality, marginalization, and economic process. In T. D. Price and G. M. Feinman (eds), Foundations of social inequality (pp. 87–103). New York: Plenum. Bengtson, V., and Allen, K. R. (1993). The life course perspective applied to families over time. In P. Boss, W. Doherty, R. LaRossa, W. Schumm, and S. Steinmetz (eds), Sourcebook of family theories and methods: A contextual approach (pp. 469–504). New York: Springer Science. Boss, P. (1999). Ambiguous loss: Learning to live with unresolved grief. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Boss, P. (2002). Family stress management: A contextual approach (2nd edn). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. doi: 10.4135/9781452233895. Boss, P. (2003). Preface. In P. Boss (ed.), Family stress: Classic and contemporary readings (pp. viii–x). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Cicchetti, D. (2006). Development and psychopathology. In D. Cicchetti and D. Cohen (eds), Developmental psychopathology, vol. 1, Theory and method (pp. 1–23). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Comer, J., and Haynes, N. (1991). Parent involvement in schools: An ecological approach. Elementary School Journal, 91, 271–277. Conger, K. J., Rueter, M. A., and Conger, R. D. (2000). The role of economic pressure in the lives of parents and their adolescents: The family stress model. In L. J. Crockett and R. J. Silbereisen (eds), Negotiating adolescence in times of social change (pp. 201–223). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Conger, R. D., and Conger, K. J. (2002). Resilience in midwestern families: Selected findings from the first decade of a prospective, longitudinal study. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 361–373. Crnic, K., and Greenberg, M. (1990). Minor parenting stresses with young children. Child Development, 61, 1628–1637. De Benedittis, G., and Lorenzetti, A. (1992). The role of stressful life events in the persistence of primary headache: Major events vs. daily hassles. Pain, 51, 35–42. DeLongis, A., Coyne, J., Dakof, G., Folkman, S., and Lazarus, R. (1982). Relationship of daily hassles, uplifts, and major life events to health status. Health Psychology, 1, 119–136. Doherty, W., and Baptiste, D. (2008). Theories emerging from family therapy. In P. Boss, W. Doherty, R. LaRossa, W. Schumm, and S. Steinmetz (eds), Sourcebook of family theories and methods: A contextual approach (pp. 505–529). New York: Springer Science. Doherty, W., Boss, P., LaRossa, R., Schumm, W., and Steinmetz, A. (2008). Family theories and methods: A contextual approach. In P. Boss, W. Doherty, R. LaRossa, W. Schumm, and S. Steinmetz (eds), Sourcebook of family theories and methods: A contextual approach (pp. 3–30). New York: Springer Science. Dorling, D. (2011). Injustice: Why social inequality persists. Portland, OR: The Policy Press. Dumont, M., and Provost, M. (1999). Resilience in adolescents: Protective role of social support, coping strategies, self-esteem, and social activities on experience of stress and depression. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 28, 343–363. Dunbar, K., and Barth, R. (2007). Racial disproportionality, race disparity, and other race-related findings in published works derived from the National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-Being. 34 Casey Family Programs. Retrieved May 30, 2014 from http://www.aecf.org/~/media/Pubs/Topics/Child%20Welfare%20Permanence/Other/RacialDisproportionalityRace Elder, G. H., Jr. (1984). Families, kin, and the life course: A sociological perspective. In R. Parke (ed.), Review of child development research, vol. 7 (pp. 215–241). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Eldridge, V., Mack, L., and Swank, E. (2006). Explaining comfort with homosexuality in rural America. Journal of Homosexuality, 51, 39–56. Ganong, L., and Coleman, M. (2002). Family resilience in multiple contexts. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 346–348. Gergen, K. J. (1994). Realities and relationships: Soundings in social construction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Grusky, D. B. (ed.) (2001). Social stratification: Class, race, and gender in sociological perspective (2nd edn). Boulder, CO: Westview. Hill, R. (1949). Families under stress. New York: Harper. Jarrett, R. L. (2010). Building strong families and communities: Lessons from the field. Research presentation at the Children, Youth, and Families at Risk Annual Conference, May 5, San Diego, California. Jenson, J. (2000, November). Thinking about marginalization: What, who, and why. CPRNBackgrounder (Web version). Canadian Policy Research Networks Inc. Retrieved May 30, 2014 from http://www.cprn.org/documents/15746_en.pdf. Kanner, A., Coyne, J., Schaefer, C., and Lazarus, R. (1981). Comparison of two modes of stress measurement: Daily hassles and uplifts versus major life events. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 4, 1–39. Lazarus, R. (1990). Theory-based stress measurement. Psychological Inquiry, 1, 3–13. Lee, J., and Bowen, N. (2006). Parent involvement, cultural capital, and the achievement gap among elementary school children. American Educational Research Journal, 43, 193–218. Lerner, R., Noh, E. R., and Wilson, C. (1998). The parenting of adolescents and adolescents as parents: A developmental contextual perspective. Paper presented at Parenthood in America conference, Madison, WI, April 19–21. Retrieved May 30, 2014 from http://parenthood.library.wisc.edu/Lerner/Lerner.html. Luthar, S. S. (2003). Resilience and vulnerability: Adaptation in the context of childhood adversities. New York: Cambridge University Press. Luthar, S. S. (2006). Resilience in development: A synthesis of research across five decades. In D. Cicchetti, and D. Cohen (eds), Developmental psychopathology, vol. 3, Risk, disorder, and adaptation (2nd edn) (pp. 739–795). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Mahoney, M. J. (2003). Constructive psychotherapy: A practical guide. New York: Guilford Press. Masten, A. S. (2001). Ordinary magic: Resilience processes in development. American Psychologist, 56, 227–238. Masten, A. S., and Powell, J. L. (2003). A resilience framework for research, policy, and practice. In S. Luthar (ed.), Resilience and vulnerability: Adaptation in the context of childhood adversities (pp. 1–26). New York: Cambridge University Press. McCubbin, H., and Patterson, J. (1982). Family adaptation to crisis. In H. McCubbin, E. Cauble, and J. Patterson (eds), Family stress, coping, and social support (pp. 26–47). Springfield, IL: Charles Thomas. Ochs, R., and Rowley, S. (eds) (2005). Getting bi: Voices of bisexuals around the world (2nd edn). Boston, MA: Bisexual Resource Center. Patterson, J. M. (1988). The Family Adjustment and Response Model, II: Applying the FAAR Model 35 to health-related issues for intervention and research. Family Systems Medicine, 6, 202–237. Patterson, J. M. (1993). The role of family meanings in adaptation to chronic illness and disability. In A. Turnbull, J. M. Patterson, S. Behr, D. L. Murphy, J. G. Marquis, and M. J. Blue-Banning (eds), Cognitive coping research and developmental disabilities (pp. 221–238). Baltimore, MD: Brookes. Patterson, J. M. (2002). Integrating family resilience and family stress theory. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 349–360. Pennington, S. (2009). Bisexuality. In J. O’Brian (ed.), Encyclopedia of gender and society, vol. 1 (pp. 68–72). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Raskin, J. D. (2006). Constructivist theories. In J. Thomas and D. Segal (eds), Comprehensive handbook of personality and psychopathology, vol. 1 (pp. 212–230). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Schneider, J. W. (1985). Social problems theory: The constructionist view. Annual Review of Sociology, 11, 209–229. Small, S. (2005). Bridging research and practice in the family and human sciences. Family Relations, 54, 320–334. Small, S., Cooney, S., and O’Connor, C. (2009). Evidence-based program improvement: Using principles of effectiveness to enhance the quality and impact of family-based prevention programs. Family Relations, 58, 1–13. Smith, S. (1984). Family stress theory: Review and critique. Paper presented at the National Conference on Family Relations, San Francis...
Purchase answer to see full attachment