Resilience As Regulation of Developmental and Family Processes

David MacPhee, Erika Lunkenheimer, and Nathaniel Riggs Colorado State University
Resilience as Regulation of Developmental

and Family Processes
Resilience can be defined as establishing about the regulation of individual development,

equilibrium subsequent to disturbances to embedded in a developmental psychopathol-
a system caused by significant adversity. ogy framework (e.g., Davies & Cicchetti, 2004;
When families experience adversity or tran- Greenberg, 2006), with processes that regu-
sitions, multiple regulatory processes may be late family systems. Our overall purpose is to
involved in establishing equilibrium, including advance a theory of resilience that focuses on
adaptability, regulation of negative affect, and multilevel analyses in the family as well as
effective problem-solving skills. The authors’ the dynamics of adaptation (see Lich, Ginexi,
resilience-as-regulation perspective integrates Osgood, & Mabry, 2013; Masten, 2007). One
insights about the regulation of individual aim is to describe how resilience in childhood
development with processes that regulate family and adolescence may be a product of key reg-
systems. This middle-range theory of family ulatory processes at the level of the family,
resilience focuses on regulatory processes dyad (i.e., coregulation), and individual (i.e.,
across levels that are involved in adaptation: self-regulation). A second purpose is to elucidate
whole-family systems such as routines and systems processes involved in regulation across
sense of coherence; coregulation of dyads these levels. Our third aim is to articulate how
involving emotion regulation, structuring, and an understanding of regulatory processes within
reciprocal influences between social partners; families may inform family-strengthening inter-
and individual self-regulation. Insights about ventions that are designed to promote adaptation
resilience-as-regulation are then applied to to adversity and stress. We conclude with a dis-
family-strengthening interventions that are cussion of several unresolved issues related to
designed to promote adaptation to adversity. resilience in the context of regulatory processes
Unresolved issues are discussed in relation to in the family.
resilience-as-regulation in families, in particu-
lar how risk exposure is assessed, interrelations
among family regulatory mechanisms, and how A Family Perspective on Resilience
families scaffold the development of children’s as Regulation
resilience. Regulatory processes may take two broad forms
(see Cox & Paley, 1997). The first is adap-
In this conceptual treatise, we propose a per- tive self-stabilization, in which coordinated
spective on resilience that integrates insights microlevel changes compensate for changes
in the environment and maintain equilibrium
with respect to previously established set points.
Department of Human Development & Family Studies,
These regulatory processes are a form of main-
Colorado State University 1570, Fort Collins, CO 80523 tenance. When applied to the family, specific
([email protected]). examples include processes in the home envi-
Key Words: resilience, regulation, family systems, theory, ronment that maintain the family’s sense of
human development. identity and stability (Patterson, 2002b), such
Family Relations 64 (February 2015): 153 – 175 153
DOI:10.1111/fare.12100
154 Family Relations
as maintaining family traditions and daily rou- 1997). Adjustment to these major stressors may
tines. Another example is enforcing rules that require adaptive self-organization, a second type
maintain the family’s values and expectations of regulatory process that involves reorganiza-
of family members’ behavior in social situation of the system in response to external forces
tions. Thus, in the case of families, adaptive acting on internal constraints. In this case, new
self-stabilization involves adjustments within equilibrium set points or patterns emerge as an
the family system as well as between the family adaptation to changed circumstances. As with
and the external environment (see Figure 1). In adaptive self-stabilization, changes that result
this dynamic and continuous process, behaviors from adaptive self-organization may occur in
such as family routines, open communication, the family’s relation to the environment, or
effective problem solving, and emotional sup- within the family system. For example, one
port can be both regulating (i.e., a mechanism family member’s maladaptive response to a
of regulation) and regulated (i.e., an outcome of stressor in terms of threat appraisal and phys-
regulation). iological arousal (e.g., Evans & Kim, 2013;
Although maintenance of what is familiar Luecken, Appelhans, Kraft, & Brown, 2006), or
and comfortable may be functional in many cir- emotion regulation and coping style (Folkman
cumstances (Patterson, 2002b), intolerance for & Moskowitz, 2004), may require significant
change (i.e., inflexibility) may be maladaptive changes in interpersonal flexibility or a renego-
when families encounter significant life transi- tiation of roles within the family (see Table 1 for
tions or non-normative threats (Cox & Paley, examples). These regulatory processes operate
FIGURE 1. Model of Resilience-as-Regulation Involving (A) Vulnerability, Risk, and Protective Factors at
Different Levels of the Family; (B) Exposure to Environmental Risks (i.e., Adversity) and Resources across
Time; and (C) Regulatory Dynamics across Levels of the Family that are Implicated in Family Resilience, as
Measured by Individual and Family Adaptation.
Resilience as Regulation 155
Table 1. Examples of Family-Based Interventions to Promote Regulatory Processes
Regulatory Process Level Outcome Intervention Program
Emotion Regulation Infant less disorganization Moss et al. (2011)Str

Child fewer behavior problems Moss et al. (2011)Str
Robinson, Emde, & Korfmacher (1997)Str
Triple-P (Sanders, 2008; Sanders et al.,
2004)Tr, Str
FOCUS (Lester et al., 2011)Str
Teen less substance use Preparing for the Drug Free Years
(Kosterman, Hawkins, Spoth, Haggerty, &
Zhu, 1997; Spoth, Redmond, & Shin,
2001)Tr
Parents Who Care (Haggerty, Skinner,
MacKenzie, & Catalano, 2007)Tr
Teen less stress Staying Connected with Your Teen
(Haggerty, 2013)Tr
Teen less parent-youth conflict Preparing for the Drug Free YearsTr
Teen family problem solving REACH (Fischer, Sherman, Han, & Owen,
2013)Str
Teen family communication REACHStr
Parent greater sensitivity Moss et al. (2011)Str
Robinson et al. (1997)Str
Parent less depression & anxiety FOCUSStr
Parent coping with PTSD & quality of REACHStr
life
Communication Child self-regulation Family Foundations (Feinberg, Jones, Kan,
& Goslin, 2010)Tr
Teen lower violence exposure GREAT Families (Matjasko, Vivolo-Kantor,
Henry, Gorman-Smith, & Schoeny,
2013)Tr
Parent monitoring & discipline GREAT FamiliesTr
Strengthening Families Program (Kumpfer,
Whiteside, Greene, & Allen, 2010; Spoth,
Redmon, & Shin, 2001)Tr
Family organization Strengthening Families ProgramTr
Conflict; Problem Solving Child adjustment to school C. P. Cowan, Cowan, & Barry (2011)Tr
Child coping skills FOCUSStr
Child self-regulation New Beginnings (Hipke, Wolchik, Sandler,
& Braver, 2002)Str
Child less externalizing New Beginnings (Wolchick, Schenck, &
Sandler, 2009)Str
Teen less substance use Preparing for the Drug Free Years (Park
et al., 2000)Tr
Family Check-Up (Connell, Dishion, Yasui,
& Kavanagh, 2007; Van Ryzin,
Stormshak, & Dishion, 2012)Tr, Str
Teen less antisocial behavior Family Check-UpTr, Str
Teen parent monitoring Family Check-UpTr, Str
Family marital satisfaction Becoming a Family (P. A, Cowan & Cowan,
1990)Tr
Family parent-child relationship C. P. Cowan et al. (2011)Tr
Table 1. Continued
Regulatory Process Level Outcome Intervention Program
Flexibility Child less problem behavior I-FAST (Lee et al., 2009)Tr

Family adaptability I-FASTTr
Meaning Making Family communication & support Saltzman, Pynoos, Lester, Layne, &
Beardslee (2013)Str
Limit Setting; Structuring Child less aggression, externalizing SAFE Children (Tolan, Gorman-Smith,
Henry, & Schoeny, 2009)Tr
Fast Track (Conduct Problems Prevention
Group)Str
DARE to be You (Mohajeri-Nelson,
McPhee, Henry, & Swaim, in press)Str
New BeginningsStr
Child greater attention SAFEChildrenTr
Child self-regulation New Beginnings (Hipke et al., 2002)Str
Child coping efficacy New Beginnings (Wolchick et al., 2009)Str
Teen less substance use Preparing for the Drug Free YearsTr
Family organization SAFEChildrenTr
Family less parent – youth conflict Preparing for the Drug Free YearsTr
Monitoring; Involvement Teen less substance use Kristjansson, James, Allegrante,
Sigfusdottir, & Helgason (2010)Tr
Teen problem-solving skills Schinke, Fang, & Cole (2009)Tr
Teen knowledge of family rules Schinke et al. (2009)Tr
Family parent – teen communication Schinke et al. (2009)Tr
Tr = a program provided in advance of a family transition or developmental stage, without regard to families’ exposure to
adversity or current duress.

Str = a program provided to individuals and/or families under stress or experiencing adversity.
in feedback loops whereby, for example, one resiliency more aptly is applied to this type of
subsystem may be reducing variability in the enduring attribute (Patterson, 2002a).
system in response to a stressor (e.g., parents As P. A. Cowan, Cowan, and Schulz (1996)
more closely monitor children’s activities) noted, it is not yet clear what a resilient family
whereas another is amplifying variability (e.g., a looks like. Some families that are considered
child’s difficult behavior pushes parents to con- resilient may have developed strong and reliable
sider new rearing practices). In this way, subsys- regulatory processes that aided them in respond-
tems or levels of the family both regulate and are ing to adversity. As implied by Figure 1, reestab-
regulated by one another (Cox & Paley, 1997). lishing equilibrium often involves adaptability,
Given these definitions of regulation, regulation of negative affect, and resolution of
resilience can then be defined as adaptive self- interpersonal conflicts, which in turn requires
stabilization and self-organization following the effective communication and problem-
disturbances to a system caused by significant solving skills that often characterize healthy
adversity. In other words, when adversity is families (Walsh, 2002). Not surprisingly, many
severe, chronic, or both, it can overwhelm the of these same regulatory processes are central
family’s regulatory capacity and make the estab- components of the stress response, including
lishment of new equilibria and maintenance of appraisal of the event, emotion regulation,
functioning difficult. Thus, the process of main- and problem solving (Greenberg, 2006). Our
taining functioning and/or thriving in the face definition of resilience also accords with how
of significant adversity constitutes resilience. In individuals’ emotion regulation is viewed: in
some literature, the term resilient has also been relation to context (e.g., family interactions)
defined as a trait-like characteristic ascribed to and in response to stress (Cole, Martin, &
individuals who have maintained functioning Dennis, 2004). It is still an open question as to
or thrived in the context of adversity, although how resilience should best be measured. For
instance, achieving equilibrium or adapting to contextual factors such as economic policies

stress could be assessed in terms of normative affecting families living in poverty, stigma, and
standards of behavior, recovery of previous persecution that affect gay and lesbian families
levels of functioning after catastrophic adver- (e.g., Green, 2012), and prejudice that affects
sity or trauma (i.e., self-righting), or stress minority families (e.g., Romero, Edwards, Fry-
resistance that entails better-than-expected berg, & Orduña, 2014). These stressful social
adaptation (Bonanno, 2004; Masten, 2007). conditions undermine the mental health of all
However resilience is measured, the definition family members (Meyer, 2007). This complexity
certainly involves regulatory processes which in studying family resilience is consistent with
are strongly implicated in achieving equilibrium the theoretical frameworks informing research
after adversity is experienced (Aldwin, Skinner, on children’s resilience, which emphasize multi-
Zimmer-Gembeck, & Taylor, 2011; Masten, ple levels of influence interacting transactionally
2007; Sameroff & MacKenzie, 2003). over time (Luthar, Cicchetti, & Becker, 2000).
Our purpose is to synthesize insights about Another hallmark of a family systems
individuals’ resilience with concepts related to approach to resilience is attention to the mech-
how dynamic systems are regulated, especially anisms by which protection or vulnerability
family systems. Individual resilience perspec- operate. In this article, we argue that regulatory
tives focus on multilevel dynamics that include mechanisms in the family often mediate the
coregulation among individuals in relation- effects of specific protective or vulnerability
ships and family interactions (Masten, 2007). factors. Family processes may set in motion a
Dynamic systems perspectives are characterized developmental cascade such that effective child-
by an emphasis on self-organization of systems, rearing practices result in offspring being better
including their rigidity versus flexibility and prepared to cope with adversity. For instance,
relations among their multiple, hierarchically developmental research has emerged in the last
structured levels (Granic, 2005). A dynamic decade showing that when families promote
systems lens applied to families thus would self-regulation, children are more skilled at
emphasize adaptation to adversity that is emer- effortful control, which in turn is associated
gent and configural – it is an evolving product with developmental competence and fewer
of coregulatory processes among individuals, behavior problems (Dishion & Connell, 2006;
dyads, and the environment. Multiple regulatory Eisenberg, Smith, Sadovsky, & Spinrad, 2004).
processes in families have been mapped out, Family regulatory processes also moderate the
but these insights have not been systematically impact of stressors, as when marital support
applied to resilience at the family level, at least and effective problem-solving skills buffer par-
not considering a dynamic systems perspective. ents from the deleterious effects of economic
One attribute of a family systems perspective adversity (Conger & Conger, 2002).
is that resilience is a complex, multilevel pro- Resilient families also might be distinguished
cess (Masten, 2007). If one simply combined by unique profiles of regulatory mechanisms.
a given form of adversity at one of three lev- If equifinality characterizes resilience (Davies
els of analysis (individual, dyadic, and family & Cicchetti, 2004), then different combinations
system) with two types of mediating mecha- of regulatory processes likely contribute to
nisms (vulnerability and protective factors) and the family system’s equilibrium subsequent to
three domains of outcome (individual, dyadic, adversity. We could find only one related study
and family system), there would be 18 types in the literature, and it clustered families based
of family risk models (cf. P. A. Cowan et al., on various protective factors at one point in time.
1996). This schematic is further complicated if Coyle et al. (2009) studied families with a par-
we recognize that (a) the dyadic level of analysis ent who had an alcohol problem and found that
includes the marital, sibling, and parent – child “well-functioning families” had higher scores on
subsystems; (b) multiple regulatory processes all measures of family regulatory processes (e.g.,
may be involved (see Figure 1 and Table 1 for communication, problem solving, cohesion,
examples); and (c) individual outcomes may be adaptable roles) as well as indices of effective
measured with biological, social, or psycholog- child rearing. Although this study suggested
ical indices. An additional layer of complexity that family and dyadic regulatory mechanisms
is added when macrosystemic influences are co-occur, it did not disentangle cause and effect
considered: Family resilience is embedded in because resilience (the outcome) was defined
in terms of its predictors – regulatory pro- be used to resist crisis are several regulatory
cesses that were conceptualized as protective processes that include adaptability, organization,
factors (for a discussion of such tautologies, see and coping strategies that are used to manage
Luthar & Zelazo, 2003). Also, this study did the demands of a situation. One example of
not examine the dynamic interplay of regulatory family adaptability is role flexibility, or the
mechanisms over time as they influence the ability to deploy strategies1 that fit specific situ-
family system’s equilibrium. That is, if families ational demands that may be outside the scope of
achieve similar functional levels of equilibrium what one “should” do. Coping strategies may be
and self-organization by different regulatory especially important to family resilience because
pathways, a taxonomy of family regulatory they are strongly related to adaptation, depend-
processes might result that could be used to ing upon whether problem-focused or escapist
fine-tune interventions. strategies are used, as well as emotion regulation
(Folkman & Moskowitz, 2004). In addition, the
ability to adapt the coping strategy to situational
Regulatory Processes in the Family demands, which itself involves self-regulation,
Regulation is an integrative construct related to may be critical (Folkman & Moskowitz, 2004).
the healthy functioning of families and individ- Finally, appraisal mechanisms involved in the
uals within them. Given that the field lacks a family’s subjective definition of the stressor
middle-range theory that incorporates systems are a form of meaning making that can affect
insights about regulation, family systems theory, emotion regulation (Lazarus, 1999). In a refor-
and resilience processes, we provide an integra- mulation of the double ABCX model, Patterson
tive framework (see Figure 1) that is organized (2002b) argued that the appraisal process is
by different levels of the family system (P. A. critical to family resilience.
Cowan et al., 1996; Cox & Paley, 1997). Within The circumplex model incorporates three
each level of the family system, key regulatory family systems processes: cohesion, commu-
mechanisms are identified that have been linked nication, and flexibility versus rigidity. Much
empirically to equilibrium or adaptation in the research finds that balanced, flexible family sys-
face of adversity. Considering that the mea- tems are more functional (D. H. Olson, 2000),
surement of resilience is still debated, nor have though there is a paucity of research that applies
causal directions of influence between resilience the circumplex model to resilience. In one
and regulation been definitively established, example of a developmental cascade, family
we include prior research that investigates rigidity was indirectly associated with adoles-
regulatory processes as predictors, modera- cents’ suicidal ideation through its effect on ado-
tors/mediators, and outcomes of resilience. lescent problem-solving skills (Carris, Sheeber,
Results from intervention programs may shed & Howe, 1998). This study illustrated how two
light on whether these regulatory processes are regulatory processes – family adaptability and
causally implicated in resilience (see below). individuals’ problem solving – may be linked
in the service of resilience. In short, it is not yet
clear how well the circumplex model accounts
Family-Level Regulatory Processes for family resilience, in part because it is more
The Double ABCX and Circumplex Models. descriptive of family types than explanatory
Two earlier family systems models have reg- of resilience processes and in part because a
ulatory processes as their centerpiece: the global, static snapshot is taken of family func-
circumplex model and the double ABCX model. tioning rather than a dynamic motion picture of
Both identify adaptability as a key mechanism, interacting family processes.
suggesting that either model could be applied
to family resilience. In this case, adaptability Family Cohesion Versus Family Coherence. Is
is defined as a trait-like ability to respond to family cohesion a regulatory process? Within the
change, such that some families may have a circumplex model, cohesion is defined in terms
stronger baseline ability to adapt to change than
others. However, only the double ABCX model 1 The phrase “ability to deploy strategies” helps to dis-
(McCubbin & Patterson, 1983) was specifically tinguish between “adaptability” as a trait of the person or
meant to be applied to families’ response to family, and “adaptation” as a dynamic process of establish-
adversity. Among the family resources that could ing equilibrium subsequent to adversity.
of emotional bonding and commitment, coali- resilience to cumulative life stress (Waugh,
tions, and shared interests (D. H. Olson, 2000), Thompson, & Gotlib, 2011; Westphal, Seivert,
none of which implies dynamic regulation. It & Bonanno, 2010). The ability to assess a con-
would be helpful to know how a family trait such text and adapt emotional expression accordingly
as cohesion contributes to resilience, if indeed may be especially important to well-being and
it does: through social control mechanisms such adaptation (Aldao & Nolen-Hoeksema, 2012).
as shared norms, modeling, and parental super- For instance, emotional flexibility in the context
vision (e.g., Houltberg, Henry, & Morris, 2012); of whole-family discussions of conflict buffers
emotional support; reduced family conflict; or children’s regulatory abilities from the effects
collaborative problem solving. of negative parenting practices such as the
A different systems concept, coherence, may criticism or dismissal of children’s emotions
be more applicable to understanding family (Lunkenheimer, Hollenstein, Wang, & Shields,
resilience. Sense of coherence emerged out of 2012). For all of these reasons, Aldao and
Antonovsky’s (1979) salutogenic model, which Nolen-Hoeksema (2012) suggested that emo-
attempts to explain the origins of health or cop- tion regulation interventions should help family
ing with stress. Sense of coherence (SOC) is the members to accurately read contextual cues and
extent to which one sees the world as manage- then flexibly apply appropriate strategies.
able, meaningful, and comprehensible. When Research on family conflict and problem
people see problems as manageable, they are solving illuminates how various forms of dys-
more likely to seek out resources such as social regulation in the family may be interconnected.
support, and when life is seen as meaningful, Cummings et al. (Cummings, Papp, & Kouros,
problems are more often actively confronted. 2009; Cummings & Schatz, 2012; Davies,
SOC has been applied in several studies to Sturge-Apple, Cicchetti, & Cummings, 2007)
families’ adaptation to stress (see McCubbin, have detailed how marital conflict may spill
Thompson, Thompson, & Fromer, 1998). For over into the parent – child relationship and
instance, in two studies by Olsson et al. (Olsson also affect children’s self-regulation and neu-
& Hwang, 2002; Olsson, Larsman, & Hwang, rophysiological functioning. Higher levels of
2008), SOC moderated the association between family conflict increase children’s risk for sleep
cumulative risk and the well-being of parents disturbances, health problems, and behavior
of children with an intellectual disability, and problems (for a review, see El-Sheikh & Erath,
SOC also was directly related to measures 2011). Some children are particularly vulnera-
of well-being and depression. The corpus of ble to family conflict because their autonomic
research to date thus suggests that family coher- nervous system makes them more suscepti-
ence may be an important contributor to family ble to context and they have more difficulty
resilience. marshaling an adaptive emotional or social
response (El-Sheikh & Erath, 2011). Conger
Regulatory Processes and Family Resilience. and Conger (2002) found that parents who
The family systems literature related to were resilient in the face of economic adversity
resilience has recently moved from a static view experienced less marital conflict and had better
of risk and protective factors to a more dynamic, problem-solving skills, and their children were
process-oriented approach (P. A. Cowan et al., more resilient during developmental transitions
1996). Research has focused on how family if the parent – child relationship was charac-
interactions may be protective stress regulators, terized by less hostility. It is for these reasons
especially those involving emotion regulation that Walsh (2002) considered open emotional
(Gunnar, 2006). Emotion regulation entails sharing and collaborative problem solving to be
problem solving and cognitive reappraisal, both essential elements of family resilience. Because
of which confer multiple benefits to physical a well-functioning family is able to manage
health, psychological adjustment, and inter- the frustrations of unmet wants and needs,
personal functioning (for a review, see Aldao family problem solving also is an element of
& Nolen-Hoeksema, 2012). Emotional inflex- many family strengthening programs (Vucinich,
ibility, including rumination and avoidance, 1999).
contribute to maladjustment; whereas expressive Routines may be an underappreciated form of
flexibility – the ability to enhance or suppress family regulation that influence individual and
emotional expression – predicts long-term family health (Fiese & Winter, 2010). Family
routines may serve a protective function by of externalizing behaviors (Shortt, Stoolmiller,

promoting relationship coherence and behav- Smith-Shine, Eddy, & Sheeber, 2010).
ior monitoring (Spagnola & Fiese, 2007). For Conversely, uninvolved or coercive rearing
instance, family meals are predictive of adoles- practices place children at high risk for mal-
cent well-being only when family relationships adaptive outcomes, especially in the face of
are strong (Meier & Musick, 2014). Fiese (2006) stress (Matjasko, Grunden, & Ernst, 2007). For
emphasized that flexible approaches to family example, one study found that greater mal-
time, such as meal times, are optimal for pro- treatment risk in young mothers was associ-
moting healthier families and also suggested that ated with poorer self-regulation in their 3 year
families create family-level emotion regulation olds, which in turn predicted later preacademic
processes through their repetitive routines and and behavior problems at age 5 years (Schatz,
rituals. Conversely, an emerging literature on Smith, Borkowski, Whitman, & Keogh, 2008).
family chaos indicates that higher levels of dis- In another longitudinal study, intrusive parenting
organization in the family contribute to impaired in toddlerhood inversely predicted effortful con-
self-regulation in children. For example, studies trol a year later, which in turn mediated the asso-
have found that chaos in the home was indirectly ciation with later ego resiliency (Taylor, Eisen-
related to later externalizing behaviors through berg, Spinrad, & Widaman, 2013). Given that
children’s limited inhibitory control (Hardaway, ego resiliency involves flexible problem solving
Wilson, Shaw, & Dishion, 2012). Furthermore, as well as the ability to adapt to stress, the Taylor
maternal executive function attenuated the link et al. (2013) study suggests that overcontrolling,
between maternal harsh parenting and child con- inflexible rearing practices undermine children’s
duct problems, but only when households were ability to adapt to adversity.
not chaotic (Deater-Deckard, Wang, Chen, &
Bell, 2012). All told, these studies indicate that Structuring. Parents also regulate their chil-
the degree of predictability and organization in dren’s behavior through structuring. In an
the family system may have proximal (and pos- important way, structuring is an antonym for a
sibly bidirectional) effects on family members’ chaotic family environment because it is defined
self-regulation and, perhaps even more impor- as “parents’ organization of children’s envi-
tant, may buffer or amplify the effects of adver- ronment to facilitate children’s competence”
sity on parents and their children. (Grolnick & Pomerantz, 2009, p. 167). Specific
manifestations of structuring include clear rules
and expectations, predictable consequences for
Dyadic Coregulation misbehavior, firm enforcement of expectations,
and behavioral control (Grolnick & Pomerantz,
Sensitive Parenting. As noted earlier, main- 2009). Given that resilience typically is assessed
taining or reestablishing equilibrium in the in relation to competent functioning (Masten,
family subsequent to adversity often involves 2007; Masten & Coatsworth, 1995), structuring
regulation of negative affect, resolution of inter- that is neither lax nor intrusive should promote
personal conflicts, and problem solving, each resilience because this form of social control
of which is central to coregulation of dyadic and guidance, if internalized by children, results
relationships. These coregulatory processes are in better self-regulation. Multiple studies sup-
elemental to sensitive, responsive parent – child port the conclusion that parental structuring is
relationships, which are salient forces in young related to resilience. For instance, Pettit, Bates,
children’s adaptation to adversity (e.g., Gewirtz, and Dodge (1997) found that supportive par-
Forgatch, & Wieling, 2008; Wyman et al., 1999; enting – assessed as use of calm discussions,
Yates, Egeland, & Sroufe, 2003). Of particular guidance, and reasoning – mitigated the effects
import is affect regulation in the parent – child of family adversity on later behavior problems.
dyad, which is consistently found to mediate In adolescence, parental monitoring was an
the association between rearing practices and important protective factor for youth living
child outcomes (e.g., NICHD Early Child Care in violent communities (Horowitz, McKay, &
Research Network, 2004). Not surprisingly, par- Marshall, 2005) and was linked to reductions in
ents’ emotion coaching predicts better emotion risky sexual behavior, substance use, and school
regulation – especially of anger – in children, problems (Lohman & Billings, 2008). Thus, the
which is in turn associated with lower levels evidence strongly supports the conclusion that
resilience is nurtured when parents effectively reinforces each other’s antisocial tendencies.
regulate emotions in the parent – child dyad as Also, sibling negativity has evocative effects
well as guide but do not coerce children. that contributes to parental stress, depression,
and disengagement; and fuels harsh rearing
Dyadic Synchrony. A related research agenda practices, all of which undermine children’s
focuses on dyadic regulation from a systems adjustment (Bullock & Dishion, 2002; Feinberg
perspective. One goal of this line of research, et al., 2013). Feinberg et al. (2013) developed
exemplified by the work of Lunkenheimer and the Siblings Are Special program to modify such
colleagues, is to understand how self-regulation sibling and parent-child regulatory process –
arises from reciprocal influences between the emotion communication and regulation, self-
child and his or her social partners. Specif- control, problem solving, parent management
ically, dysregulated parent – child interactions of sibling conflict, and family norms related to
contribute to children’s adjustment problems and differential treatment and fairness – and found
behavior disorders by means of impaired emo- that children developed more self-control and
tion regulation (Diamond & Aspinwall, 2003; social competence, parents were more effective
S. L. Olson & Lunkenheimer, 2009). In addition, at managing sibling interactions (i.e., structur-
dyadic rigidity versus flexibility in parent – child ing), and sibling relationships became more
interactions predicts children’s externalizing dis- positive.
orders (Hollenstein, Granic, Stoolmiller, & Sny-
der, 2004; Lunkenheimer, Olson, Hollenstein, Individual-Level Self-Regulation. Child and
Sameroff, & Winter, 2011). Conversely, dyadic adolescent self-regulation primarily emerges
synchrony between young children and their par- from other regulation in the family (Blair &
ents facilitates the development of social skills Raver, 2012; Galarce & Kawachi, 2013). In
(e.g., communicative competence), emotion reg- early life, regulation is externally mediated via
ulation, and effectance (Harrist & Waugh, 2002), caregivers: parents regulate behavior through
all of which have been implicated in resilience. coaching, monitoring, modelling of behavior,
These findings suggest that stress or adver- imposing sanctions for transgressions, and
sity may dysregulate parent – child interactions other control processes (Jessor, Donovan, &
(Cummings et al., 2009), which then compro- Costa, 1991). Such social controls do con-
mise children’s ability to self-regulate, mani- tribute to resilience. For instance, in a study of
fested as depression and externalizing disorders. low-income families, Buckner, Mezzacappa,
and Beardslee (2003) found that resilient youth
Sibling Coregulation. An emerging literature (i.e., high emotional well-being and men-
on sibling relationships also illustrates dyadic tal health), as compared to their nonresilient
coregulatory processes within the family con- peers, were markedly different in terms of active
text (McHale, Updegraff, & Whiteman, 2012), parental monitoring and self-regulatory skills. In
though studies in this area rarely focus on early childhood, other regulation gradually gives
resilience. For example, Volling et al. (Bedford way to self-regulation, in part, through dyadic
& Volling, 2004; Volling, McElwain, & Miller, coregulation processes whereby parent and
2002) described how parent regulation of the child regulate and are regulated by one another’s
sibling relationship is gradually internalized so affect, behavior, and physiology during face-to-
that older children become more responsible for face interactions. Parents may also engen-
the siblings’ interpersonal regulation as well as der self-regulation through autonomy support
their own emotional self-regulation. Feinberg and mind-mindedness that promote executive
et al.’s (2013) family systems model of sibling functioning in children (Bernier, Carlson, &
influences on problem behavior highlights the Whipple, 2010).
importance of other coregulatory processes. Other regulation may also foster conscious
Siblings may learn that by escalating nega- control of behavior, as dual-process theories
tive behavior, they can coerce their brother postulate (Zelazo, Carlson, & Kesek, 2008).
or sister into acceding to their demands, thus Dual-process theories assert that many mal-
initiating coercive patterns with parents and adaptive behaviors are the result of unconscious,
teachers that contribute to antisocial behavior. automatic responses (Sherman et al., 2008), and
Deviance training also occurs when siblings col- that adaptive behaviors involving self-regulation
lude in opposition to parental authority, which require controlled responses that in many cases
are learned from agents of socialization. Thus, Given the importance of self-regulation to
regulatory processes in the family are strongly healthy development and successful adaptation
implicated in achieving equilibrium after adver- to adversity (Heatherton & Wagner, 2011), inter-
sity is experienced, in no small measure because vention efforts have been directed at improv-
of the dynamic interplay between coregulation ing self-regulation (Fonagy & Target, 2002) and
in the parent – child dyad and children’s devel- associated constructs such as executive function
oping self-regulation. In short, family-level or effortful control (Riggs, Greenberg, Kusché,
coregulatory, transactional, and socializing & Pentz, 2006). Evidence-based strategies for
process experienced during early childhood can promoting self-regulation include school-based
either facilitate or hinder the development of social-emotional learning curricula (e.g., Pro-
self-regulation, and ultimately resilience. The moting Alternative THinking Strategies; Kusché
quality of these experiences interacts with rapid & Greenberg, 1994) and mindfulness training
cognitive advances associated with the capacity (e.g., Tang, Yang, Leve, & Harold, 2012), among
to internally mediate experience (e.g., inhibitory others (Boekaerts & Corno, 2005).
control, self-talk) to affect one’s capacity for
self-regulation.
Individuals’ self-regulation is regarded as Family-Based Interventions to Optimize
central to developmental competence in gen- Regulation and Resilience
eral (Haase, Heckhausen, & Wrosch, 2013) as The validity of the resilience-as-regulation per-
well as across multiple spheres of behavioral spective can be assessed in part by examin-
(DeWall, Baumeister, Stillman, & Gailliot, ing the effects of family-based interventions.
2007; Riggs et al., 2013) and physical health Is improved family functioning subsequent to
(Francis & Susman, 2009) development. Spe- adversity due to more effective regulation? As
cific forms of impaired self-regulation such as Greenberg (2006) noted, many preventive inter-
executive dysfunction (Hofmann, Schmeichel, ventions focus on promoting processes related
& Baddeley, 2012) may interfere with children’s to executive function, which involves various
and adolescents’ ability to adapt to the envi- forms of regulation such as inhibition, conse-
ronment, thus leading to academic and social quential thinking, problem-solving skills, and
disturbances (Anderson, Anderson, Jacobs, & goal-directed behavior. At the level of family
Smith, 2008) as well as various behavior and interactions, other regulatory skills that might
mental health disorders (Riggs & Greenberg, be taught include conscious control of emo-
2009). Conversely, self-regulation skills includ- tions and responses (Cummings & Schatz, 2012;
ing effortful control (Eisenberg & Spinrad, Diamond & Aspinwall, 2003) and repairs in
2004), executive function (Gardner, Dishion, dyadic interactions, both of which are related
& Connell, 2008; Martel et al., 2007), reactive to abuse potential (Skowron, Kozlowski, & Pin-
control (Martel et al., 2007), and emotion reg- cus, 2010) and the effects of marital conflict on
ulation (Crowell, Skidmore, Rau, & Williams, children (Cummings et al., 2009). In a more gen-
2013) are important factors for successful adap- eral sense, interventions may be effective if they
tation to adversity (W. Chen & Taylor, 2013). help families and individuals move from rigidity
For example, regulatory skills serve as protec- to flexibility (Granic, O’Hara, Pepler, & Lewis,
tive factors for children exposed to violence in 2007). To the extent that flexibility requires reg-
low-income neighborhoods (Bruett, Steinberg, ulatory strategies to be employed in the face of
Rabinowitz, & Drabick, 2013) and for adoles- adversity, then such interventions should pro-
cents exposed to peer deviance (Gardner et al., mote resilience.
2008). In the context of high levels of family In the sections that follow, we first discuss
substance use and psychopathology in the com- interventions that are intended to prepare fam-
munity, Martel et al. (2007) found that resilient ilies for expectable transitions such as marriage,
adolescents, as indicated by fewer problem becoming a parent, or the first child entering
behaviors and greater social competence, were school or becoming an adolescent. The presump-
characterized in childhood by moderate levels tion of many such interventions is that develop-
of reactive control, resourcefulness in adjust- mental change introduces the potential for dis-
ing self-control to the context, and executive equilibrium and stress, which if it is chronic
functions related to cognitive and emotional “can derail the functioning of a family sys-
control. tem, with ripple effects to all members and
their relationships” (Walsh, 2002, p. 131). These self-stabilization, preventive interventions may
interventions typically focus on teaching regula- help move families “closer to adaptive posi-
tory skills that will help participants to reestab- tions on their life trajectories” (P. A. Cowan &
lish equilibrium in the family system; stress Cowan, 2003, p. 428) by teaching them how to
inoculation or adaptive self-stabilization may be cope with stress and regulate their emotions,
an emphasis. The second section concerns selec- how to problem solve more effectively (e.g.,
tive interventions targeted at high-risk families, during conflicts), and how to balance autonomy
with an emphasis on regulatory mechanisms that granting with structured guidance in child rear-
mitigate risk or promote protective factors. ing. Meaning making may be another form of
This review of intervention programs is not regulation that is important to resilience (Walsh,
comprehensive. Rather, it is meant to illus- 2002): It may account for differences between
trate how regulatory mechanisms are incorpo- partners in how they navigate family transitions
rated into family strengthening programs. To be (P. A. Cowan & Cowan, 2003), which can fuel
included in the sample of programs listed in conflicts, and it also may contribute to maladap-
Table 1, the family-based intervention had to tive intergenerational patterns when families
focus on promoting regulatory skills and at least of origin have different ideas about what a
one outcome had to involve children’s or ado- “well-functioning” family does.
lescents’ later functioning, ideally their ability Inoculation should be an especially effective
to adapt. Not all were embedded in a resilience form of intervention to promote resilience in
framework. For instance, only one half of the the face of expectable family transitions. Stress
interventions explicitly measured adaptation or inoculation involves exposure to mild adversity
adjustment to stress as an outcome. Also, expo- in anticipation of similar challenges later in life
sure to adversity was defined differently across (Daskalakis, Bagot, Parker, Vinkers, & de Kloet,
programs. Several programs were provided to 2013). Unlike the concept in medicine, how-
families regardless of their own risk status, under ever, where immunity is conferred, psychoso-
the presumption that adolescence is inherently cial inoculation promotes resistance to stress.
challenging. These included Schinke, Fang, and For example, individuals who in one longitudi-
Cole’s (2009) substance-abuse prevention pro- nal study reported some lifetime adversity had
gram for teen girls and their mothers, and Prepar- better mental health and were more resilient to
ing for the Drug Free Years (see Table 1). adverse events than people with either no his-
Other programs were targeted at high-risk indi- tory of adversity or high levels of adversity
viduals, families, or neighborhoods, but these (Seery, Holman, & Silver, 2010). Other longi-
social address models were rarely translated into tudinal research found that previous experience
direct assessments of risk exposure (i.e., adver- with moderate, controllable stress predicted a
sity). Finally, few of the interventions listed more successful transition to marriage as well
in Table 1 focused on the family system as a as to parenthood, with effective problem-solving
whole. Instead, marital or parent – child dyads skills being a key mediating variable (Neff &
were more often the focus, the exceptions being Broady, 2011). In contrast, high, chronic adver-
FOCUS, Preparing for the Drug Free Years, Par- sity in the first two decades of life compromises
ents Who Care, the Strengthening Families Pro- physiological reactivity and emotion regulation,
gram, New Beginnings, and I-FAST. contributing to later problem behaviors (Lovallo,
2012). Often, exposure to mild stressors may
Inoculation and Family Transitions. Cowan be accompanied by direct instruction in coping,
and Cowan (C. Cowan & Cowan, 2012; P. A. as when parents living in unsafe neighborhoods
Cowan & Cowan, 2003) have written eloquently rehearse with their children how to avoid danger
about how research on major family transitions (Jarrett, 1999).
provides insights to guide resilience-promoting A number of interventions, with a focus on
interventions. They observed that family transi- regulatory processes, have been devised to help
tions typically involve disequilibrium that may families prepare for expectable family transi-
require reorganization of the self (e.g., sense of tions. Feinberg, Jones, Kan, and Goslin (2010)
well-being, locus of control), revision of social randomized couples expecting their first child
roles, and renegotiated close relationships when into a program focused on the coparenting rela-
conflict and dissatisfaction are common symp- tionship versus a control group. In the authors’
toms of such transitions. To promote adaptive view, the coparenting relationship serves a
central regulatory function in the family because Communication and problem-solving skills
it is sensitive to parent attributes and also influ- typically are core components of couple rela-
ences parent and child adjustment. In an example tionship education that is intended to promote
of adaptive self-stabilization, the intervention healthy marriages (Oliver & Margolin, 2009).
taught couples to coordinate their parenting and Such interventions prepare couples making the
to manage conflict around child rearing. Signif- transition to marriage, or they may be directed
icant effects were later observed on coparenting at high-risk couples to ameliorate stress and pre-
quality, parent mental health, effective rearing vent divorce (Silliman, Stanley, Coffin, Mark-
practices, and especially child self-regulatory man, & Jordan, 2002). As a whole, the research
behaviors. In one of C. Cowan and P. A. on stress inoculation suggests that resilience in
Cowan’s (2012) interventions, which began a the face of family transitions might be promoted
year in advance of the oldest child’s transition to by earlier exposure to moderate, manageable
kindergarten, parents were taught skills related stressors in conjunction with instruction in prob-
to coping with stress, conflict resolution, and lem solving, communication, and emotion regu-
problem solving. Compared to a consultation lation.
control group, children in the intervention group
had higher school achievement, less aggression, Selective Interventions. If interventions for
and fewer symptoms of depression as a result of high-risk families succeed in promoting adap-
improved responsive parenting and decreased tive self-organization, one would expect ripple
couple conflict. At a 10-year follow-up, the effects throughout the family system (Walsh,
intervention group maintained higher levels of 2002) as new set points or patterns emerge. This
marital satisfaction and children’s adaptation presumption is supported by the evidence for
(C. P. Cowan, Cowan, & Barry, 2011). multifinality in the outcomes listed in Table 1;
Comprehensive programs to teach regula- interventions that alter one regulatory process
tory skills have been developed for parents of may confer multiple benefits across the family
adolescents, with both the Family Check-Up system. This is especially true of programs that
(FCU) and Preparing for the Drug Free Years focus on emotion regulation. For example, home
(PDFY) interventions demonstrating benefits visitation program effects often are mediated by
at the individual, dyadic, and family systems parents’ emotional availability and sensitivity,
levels. Among the regulatory processes tar- which in turn promote emotion regulation and
geted by PDFY are problem solving, effective reduce behavior problems even among children
disciplinary practices, emotion regulation, and who have been maltreated (Moss et al., 2011;
resolving family conflict (Spoth, Redmond, & Robinson, Emde, & Korfmacher, 1997). Two
Shin, 1998). Significant intervention effects interventions developed for military families
were found for each of these regulatory pro- coping with post traumatic stress disorder
cesses (Kosterman, Hawkins, Spoth, Haggerty, (PTSD) also focused on teaching emotion
& Zhu, 1997; Park et al., 2000) and for teen regulation skills. Benefits accrued in terms of
substance use trajectories. The FCU uses a children’s and adults’ mental health, coping
tiered approach to prevention: a universal skills, relationship satisfaction, and family
classroom-based component, a family compo- problem solving and communication (Fischer,
nent that promotes skilled parenting, and an Sherman, Han, & Owen, 2013; Lester et al.,
indicated treatment to teach family management 2011). These programs for military families
skills. The FCU had a significant impact on illustrate another form of family resilience:
adolescents’ antisocial behavior and substance Changes in individuals’ regulatory skills can
use, with these outcomes being mediated by help families to recover previous levels of
changes in family conflict and parent moni- functioning (Bonanno, 2004).
toring (Connell, Dishion, Yasui, & Kavanagh, Testing for mediation by the intervention’s
2007; Van Ryzin & Dishion, 2012; Van Ryzin, key mechanisms (MacKinnon, Kisbu-Sakarya,
Stormshak, & Dishion, 2012). Thus, the results & Gottschall, 2013) is one criterion for estab-
from the FCU and PDFY illustrate one form of lishing a causal relation between improved
family resilience: changes in families’ regula- regulatory processes and enhanced resilience.
tory skills can alter the trajectory of adolescents’ Several of the programs listed in Table 1 con-
behavior such that they are more well adjusted ducted such analyses, particularly when the
than expected. intervention focused on parents’ use of limit
setting or monitoring. For instance, the SAFE subtle affective dysregulation. For instance,
Children intervention – implemented at the Schwartz and Proctor (2000) found that the
transition to school – significantly increased effect of violence victimization on negative
parents’ use of consistent caregiving and limit social outcomes was mediated by emotion
setting, with concomitant improvements in dysregulation. In terms of physiological indi-
children’s self-regulation (Gorman-Smith et al., cators, Haggerty (2013) found that the effect
2007; Tolan, Gorman-Smith, Henry, & Schoeny, of the Staying Connected to Your Teen pro-
2009). The New Beginnings Program (Wolchik, gram on later substance use was mediated by
Schenck, & Sandler, 2009) was designed to HPA axis regulation, reflecting coping with
promote children’s resilience to their parents’ stress. Although such studies indicate that
impending divorce, in part by teaching par- self-regulation contributes to resilience, it is
ents effective discipline and conflict resolution unclear whether there is a veridical relation
skills. Program effects on children’s behavior between the degree of adversity and the level
problems were mediated by mother – child rela- of dysregulation. A recent latent profile anal-
tionship quality (Wolchik et al., 2009); benefits ysis suggests that resilience may be defined in
were maintained only when children had high part by an inverse relation between risk and
self-regulatory skills (Hipke, Wolchik, Sandler, biomarkers. Brody et al. (2013) found that
& Braver, 2002). a resilient profile was characterized by high
The GREAT Families program recruited cumulative socioeconomic status (SES) risk but
families of high-risk adolescents, with a focus low allostatic load and good adjustment in early
on parents’ discipline and monitoring as well as adulthood. Perhaps resilient individuals had
family communication and support (Smith et al., experienced stress inoculation, which has been
2004). The intervention group significantly shown to reduce physiological stress reactivity
improved in the targeted parenting practices, and (Obradović, 2012). Such findings suggest that
these changes predicted lower levels of violence stress regulation should be viewed as vulnerabil-
exposure in the families’ high-risk neigh- ity or protective factors rather than as measures
borhoods (Matjasko, Vivolo-Kantor, Henry, of risk exposure (see Figure 1).
Gorman-Smith, & Schoeny, 2013). Evalua- Risk exposure at the family level is more
tions of interventions such as these indicate challenging to assess given that families consist
that when parents more effectively regulate of multiple subsystems, each of which may have
their offspring’s behavior through structuring particular vulnerability and protective factors as
and monitoring, their children’s self-regulation well as unique ways of manifesting adaptation
and adjustment can improve. The results of (P. A. Cowan et al., 1996). Individuals’ ratings
such interventions also support the hypothesis of stress do not adequately represent the family’s
that child-rearing practices are an important exposure to adversity because members may
mediator of the effects of adversity on children differ in their appraisal of the threat (Patterson,
(Gewirtz et al., 2008). 2002a, 2002b), and complex temporal dynamics
and tipping points are overlooked (Lich et al.,
2013). One solution proposed by Lich et al.
Unresolved Issues in Resilience as Regulation (2013) is to combine quantitative measures
in the Family of risk and vulnerability/protective factors
Assessing Risk Exposure. What is unresolved with qualitative diagrammatic frameworks that
in family resilience that might be addressed better capture system-level disequilibrium. A
by a perspective that emphasizes regulatory second approach is based on research into
processes? One issue relates to risk exposure. how stressors shape families’ lives. Repetti,
Rutter et al. (Luthar et al., 2000; Rutter, 2012) Wang, and Saxbe (2009) found that individ-
have argued that in many cases, individuals who uals’ stress affected the family system in two
were assumed to be resilient in fact were not primary ways, both of which reflected dys-
exposed to adversity. One potential way to deter- regulation: reduced social engagement and
mine risk exposure is to assess various aspects increased irritability. These barometers of fam-
of dysregulation, including physiological indi- ily stress, measured with daily diaries, were
cators (Blair & Raver, 2012; Obradović, 2012) reliably related to biomarkers at the individ-
such as the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal ual level and had crossover effects on other
(HPA) axis and stress hormones, as well as more family members. Self-reported family chaos is
another promising way to assess family-system conflict; and children who are high in coping
exposure to adversity. Family chaos is related efficacy (Wolchik et al., 2009).
to indicators of stress such as poverty, marital Research has not yet revealed whether there
and job dissatisfaction, and depression but are tipping points when families encounter
explains unique variance in family members’ adversity. How many regulatory processes must
functioning such as children’s inhibitory con- be impaired before a family system is unable to
trol (Brown, Ackerman, & Moore, 2013) and self-right? Are some regulatory mechanisms in
parents’ responsiveness to children’s emotions the family so central, such as effective emotion
(Nelson, O’Brien, Blankson, Calkins, & Keane, regulation and child rearing, that their use tips
2009). the balance in favor of resilience? In relation
to cumulative risk models, P. A. Cowan et al.
Crossover Effects. How are regulatory processes (1996) noted that a very high risk score may
interrelated across family, dyadic, and individ- be nullified by a supportive family environ-
ual systems, and how does resilience emerge ment. In contrast, a low risk score may result
from these linkages? This issue acknowledges in psychopathology for children who are vul-
that family resilience must be examined from nerable. To answer such questions, dynamic
a systems perspective because (a) resilience is epigenetic models – rather than linear, additive
a dynamic, developmental process and families approaches – will need to be used that assess
are complex systems (Lich et al., 2013), imply- regulatory processes across multiple systems in
ing that (b) there are multiple pathways to adap- high- versus low-risk families.
tation for individuals and families (Davies &
Cicchetti, 2004). Scaffolding of Self-Regulation. The third issue
Several examples of crossover effects can is more speculative. We begin with the observa-
be highlighted in which different regulatory tion that self-regulation develops progressively
processes may become coupled to promote throughout childhood and adolescence as a prod-
or impair adaptation. First, research finds that uct of parental scaffolding, or other regulation,
when parents are depressed (for a review, see and children’s increased capacity for internal-
Coyne, Downey, & Boergers, 1996), their ization of rules, self-talk, and inhibitory control
affect regulation is compromised; they are more (Aldwin et al., 2011; Galarce & Kawachi,
self-absorbed and thus disengaged from other 2013). Perhaps there is a parallel in resilience.
family members; they are more demanding, For young children who are the most vulnerable
inconsistent, unresponsive parents; there is to adversity, resilience may actually reside in the
more discord in the marital relationship; and family system in the form of context protection
family coherence is diminished. These regula- (Jessor et al., 1991), recruitment of external
tory systems may interact such that the mother’s resources, reframing (E. Chen, Miller, Lach-
depression compromises the father’s parenting man, Gruenewald, & Seeman, 2012), and other
behavior when marital conflict is high but not types of equilibration. Even when children are
low (P. A. Cowan et al., 1996), or children may exposed to serious adversity such as violence,
be buffered from parental depression when their self-regulatory skills may confer resilience
the spouse has good conflict resolution skills if parents are supportive (Houltberg et al., 2012)
(Papp, 2012) and does not have mental health and have effective communication and affect
problems. Second, research on divorce’s effects regulation skills (Upshur, 2011). This supportive
on children (Wolchik et al., 2009) implicates scaffolding likely does not involve shielding
regulatory processes at several levels including children from adversity so much as helping them
parental distress; reduced parental availability to understand and manage challenges. As Rutter
as a result of increased work involvement; (2012) said, “Protection resides not in evasion
family chaos due to changing homes, schools, of the risk but in successful engagement with it”
and parent partners; and interparental con- (p. 186). As development progresses within a
flict, which is bidirectionally related to parent healthy family environment, children internalize
stress. However, other regulatory processes and master the skills that are necessary to adapt
help to protect children from the deleterious to adversity. This instruction in coping may be
effects of divorce: a mother – child relationship implicit, such as modeling, or it may be overt,
characterized by warmth, positive communica- such as inoculation and coaching (Brooks,
tion, effective problem-solving skills, and low 2005). Parents’ preparation of their children for
adversity may be one form of future-oriented interacts with other social systems that may
coping (Folkman & Moskowitz, 2004) entailing create spillover and buffering effects (P. A.
proactive planning for later challenges. Addi- Cowan et al., 1996). Biological mechanisms are
tional research is needed to delineate the implicit increasingly recognized as critical to children’s
and deliberate ways that families prepare their vulnerability (Evans & Kim, 2013; Heatherton
children to adapt to adversity. & Wagner, 2011) and self-regulation, especially
in the parent – child dyad (Blair & Raver, 2012;
Galarce & Kawachi, 2013) and marital dyad
Conclusions (Cummings et al., 2009). However, research
We have defined family resilience in a way on biological mechanisms that contribute to
that emphasizes regulatory processes within resilience has not yet been well integrated
dynamic systems: establishing equilibrium into a family systems perspective that empha-
in a system due to perturbations caused by sizes probabilistic epigenesis over the life
significant adversity. This definition is decep- course (Cicchetti, 2013). In short, if regulatory
tively simple, however. Consider the proximal processes are a linchpin of family resilience,
cause of disturbances to the family system. then future studies will need to be multilevel
Adversity has been defined in terms of cumu- and longitudinal and tap into the evolving
lative social risks (e.g., Evans & Kim, 2013), dynamics of a complex system (for examples,
exposure to trauma (e.g., Fischer et al., 2013), see Davies et al., 2007; Evans & Kim, 2007;
and expectable family transitions (e.g., P. A. Hardaway et al., 2012).
Cowan & Cowan, 2003), among other stressors A resilience-as-regulation perspective may
(Patterson, 2002a). Whether a given stressor characterize key aspects of a dynamic system’s
in fact results in a disturbance to the family response to adversity – feedback loops, nonlin-
system may depend on multiple processes earities, and self-organization are notable (Lich
including family members’ appraisals (Patter- et al., 2013) – but this focus on regulatory
son, 2002b) and previous experience with stress, processes does omit constructs that likely are
especially in one’s family of origin (Luecken important to resilience. Notably, certain family
et al., 2006). Earlier experiences with stress, the resources contribute to resilience: optimism,
stress appraisal process, and a threat’s intensity confidence, perseverance, transcendence, finan-
and chronicity also may amplify or modulate cial security, and social support (Patterson,
functioning of the autonomic nervous system, 2002a; Walsh, 2002). Patterson (2002a) argued
specifically allostatic load, which itself may that these strength-based family traits should
mediate the relation between adversity and be labeled as family “resiliency,” to distinguish
adaptation (e.g., El-Sheikh & Erath, 2011; them from regulatory processes that contribute
Obradović, 2012). These complex processes to family “resilience.” However, some resources
related to adversity imply that family members also are involved in regulating family systems:
may experience adversity in divergent ways, Secure internal working models may contribute
and that the risk side of the resilience equation to resilience by means of emotion regulation
requires multilevel systemic measures that are (Shaver & Mikulincer, 2012), and social support
sensitive to tipping points (Lich et al., 2013). contributes to family well-being by means of
Regulatory processes involving adaptive emotion regulation and problem solving (Arm-
self-stabilization and adaptive self-organization strong, Birnie-Lefcovitch, & Ungar, 2005). We
establish equilibrium in the family system do not minimize the contribution of family
(Aldwin et al., 2011; Masten, 2007), but this strengths to resilience but instead emphasize
also is a deceptively simple claim. Regulatory that regulatory processes must be understood if
processes are operationalized differently across dynamic concepts such as equilibrium, adaptive
studies, making it difficult to compare findings self-stabilization, and adaptive self-organization
or to identify which forms of regulation are in the family system are inherent to family
central to resilience. Also, regulatory processes resilience.
operate within a hierarchically organized fam- Finally, a resilience-as-regulation framework
ily system (Cox & Paley, 1997). Each family has implications for family-strengthening inter-
member has a unique set of vulnerabilities and ventions. Evaluations of interventions for at-risk
resources, each dyad has a unique relationship families, as well as longitudinal research on
history and relational dynamic, and the family resilience, have identified multiple pathways in
which regulatory processes mediate the rela- Antonovsky, A. (1979). Health, stress, and coping.
tion between adversity and adaptation. These San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
mediational pathways often involve conflict res- Armstrong, M. I., Birnie-Lefcovitch, S., & Ungar,
olution, emotion regulation, coping with stress, M. T. (2005). Pathways between social sup-
and effective disciplinary practices. Less com- port, family well being, quality of parenting,
and child resilience: What we know. Journal
mon are interventions to enhance coparenting of Child and Family Studies, 14, 269 – 281.
(but see Feinberg et al., 2013) or the mari- doi:10.1007/s10826-005-5054-4
tal relationship (but see C. P. Cowan et al., Bedford, V., & Volling, B. L. (2004). A dynamic eco-
2011) that later affect children’s adaptation. logical systems perspective on emotion regulation
Rarer still are interventions that explicitly tar- development within the sibling relationship con-
get whole-family regulatory processes such as text. In F. R. Lang & K. L. Fingerman (Eds.),
adaptability or routines versus chaos, although Growing together: Personal relationships across
some interventions, such as the Strengthening the lifespan (pp. 76 – 102). New York: Cambridge
Families Program (Kumpfer, Whiteside, Greene, University Press.
& Allen, 2010), have assessed family organiza- Bernier, A., Carlson, S. M., & Whipple, N. (2010).
tion as an outcome. Intervention trials that aim From external regulation to self-regulation: Early
parenting precursors of young children’s executive
to promote family resilience by modifying reg- functioning. Child Development, 81, 326 – 339.
ulatory processes could yield important insights doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01397.x
about adaptation to adversity. First, if regulatory Blair, C., & Raver, C. (2012). Child development in
processes reestablish equilibrium in distressed the context of adversity: Experiential canalization
families by myriad pathways, then interventions of brain and behavior. American Psychologist, 67,
could be tailored to families’ specific needs. 309 – 318. doi:10.1037/a0027493
In systems terms, regulatory processes repre- Boekaerts, M., & Corno, L. (2005). Self-regulation in
sent distinct leverage points (Lich et al., 2013) the classroom: A perspective on assessment and
to enhance family resilience. More generally, intervention. Applied Psychology, 54, 199 – 231.
family-strengthening interventions address com- doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.2005.00205.x
plex problems that are embedded in social con- Bonanno, G. A. (2004). Loss, trauma, and human
resilience: Have we underestimated the human
text and that are epigenetic in nature. As such,
capacity to thrive after extremely aversive events?
interventions that target regulatory mechanisms American Psychologist, 59, 20 – 28. doi:10.1037/
in families could advance systems models in pre- 0003-066X.59.1.20
vention science more generally (Granic et al., Brody, G. H., Yu, T., Chen, Y., Kogan, S. M., Evans,
2007; Lich et al., 2013) and resilience specifi- G. W., Beach, S. H., … Philibert, R. A. (2013).
cally (Rutter, 2012). Cumulative socioeconomic status risk, allostatic
load, and adjustment: A prospective latent pro-
file analysis with contextual and genetic protective
References
factors. Developmental Psychology, 49, 913 – 927.
References marked with an asterisk doi:10.1037/a0028847
indicate studies cited in Table 1 Brooks, R. B. (2005). The power of parenting. In S.
Aldao, A., & Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (2012). The Goldstein & R. B. Brooks (Eds.), Handbook of
influence of context on the implementation of resilience in children (pp. 297 – 314). New York:
adaptive emotion regulation strategies. Behavior Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
Research and Therapy, 50, 493 – 501. doi:10.1016/ Brown, E. D., Ackerman, B. P., & Moore, C. A.
j.brat.2012.04.004 (2013). Family adversity and inhibitory control for
Aldwin, C. M., Skinner, E. A., Zimmer-Gembeck, economically disadvantaged children: Preschool
M. J., & Taylor, A. L. (2011). Coping and relations and associations with school readiness.
self-regulation across the life span. In K. L. Fin- Journal of Family Psychology, 27, 443 – 452.
german, C. A. Berg, J. Smith, & T. C. Antonucci doi:10.1037/a0032886
(Eds.), Handbook of life-span development (pp. Bruett, L., Steinberg, E., Rabinowitz, J., & Drabick,
561 – 587). New York: Springer. D. A. G. (2013, April). Emotion regulation mod-
Anderson, V., Anderson, P. J., Jacobs, R., & Smith, erates the relation between community violence
M. (2008). Development and assessment of execu- exposure and anxiety among low-income, urban
tive function: From preschool to adolescence. In V. children. Poster presented at the biennial meeting
Anderson, R. Jacobs, P. J. Anderson (Eds.), Exec- of the Society for Research in Child Development,
utive functions and the frontal lobes: A lifespan Seattle, WA.
perspective (pp. 123 – 154). Philadelphia, PA: Tay- Buckner, J. C., Mezzacappa, E., & Beardslee, W. R.
lor & Francis. (2003). Characteristics of resilient youths living
in poverty: The role of self-regulatory processes. *Cowan, C. P., Cowan, P. A., & Barry, J. (2011).
Development and Psychopathology, 15, 139 – Couples’ groups for parents of preschoolers:
162. doi:10.1017/S0954579403000087 Ten-year outcomes of a randomized trial. Journal
Bullock, B., & Dishion, T. J. (2002). Sibling collu- of Family Psychology, 25, 240 – 250. doi:10.1037/
sion and problem behavior in early adolescence: a0023003
Toward a process model for family mutuality. Jour- Cowan, P. A., & Cowan, C. (1990). Becoming a
nal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 30, 143 – 153. family: Research and intervention. In I. E. Sigel &
doi:10.1023/A:1014753232153 G. H. Brody (Eds.), Methods of family research:
Carris, M. J., Sheeber, L., & Howe, S. (1998). Family Biographies of research projects, Vol. 1: Normal
rigidity, adolescent problem-solving deficits, and families (pp. 1 – 51). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
suicidal ideation: A mediational model. Journal Cowan, P. A., & Cowan, C. (2003). Normative family
of Adolescence, 21, 459 – 472. doi:10.1006/jado. transitions, normal family processes, and healthy
1998.0170 child development. In F. Walsh (Ed.), Normal fam-
Chen, E., Miller, G. E., Lachman, M. E., Gruenewald, ily processes: Growing diversity and complexity
T. L., & Seeman, T. E. (2012). Protective fac- (3rd ed., pp. 424 – 459). New York: Guilford.
tors for adults from low-childhood socioeconomic Cowan, P. A., Cowan, C. P., & Schulz, M. S. (1996).
circumstances: The benefits of shift-and-persist Thinking about risk and resilience in families. In E.
for allostatic load. Psychosomatic Medicine, 74, M. Hetherington & E. A. Blechman (Eds.), Stress,
178 – 186. doi:10.1097/PSY.0b013e31824206fd coping, and resiliency in children and families (pp.
Chen, W., & Taylor, E. (2013). Resilience and 1 – 38). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
self-control impairment. In S. Goldstein & R. B. Cox, M. J., & Paley, B. (1997). Families as sys-
Brooks (Eds.), Handbook of resilience in children tems. Annual Review of Psychology, 48, 243 – 267.
(2nd ed., pp. 215 – 237). New York: Springer. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.48.1.243
doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-3661-4_13 Coyle, J. P., Nochajski, T., Maguin, E., Safyer,
Cicchetti, D. (2013). Annual research review: A., DeWit, D., & Macdonald, S. (2009). An
Resilient functioning in maltreated children – Past, exploratory study of the nature of family resilience
present, and future perspectives. Journal of Child in families affected by parental alcohol abuse.
Psychology and Psychiatry, 54, 402 – 422. Journal of Family Issues, 30, 1606 – 1623.
Cole, P. M., Martin, S. E., & Dennis, T. A. (2004). doi:10.1177/0192513X09339478
Emotion regulation as a scientific construct: Coyne, J. C., Downey, G., & Boergers, J. (1996).
Methodological challenges and directions for Depression in families: A systems perspective.
child development research. Child Develop- In D. Cicchetti & S. L. Toth (Eds.), Develop-
ment, 75, 317 – 333. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624. mental perspectives on depression (pp. 211 – 249).
2004.00673.x Rochester, NY: University of Rochester.
Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. Crowell, S. E., Skidmore, C. R., Rau, H. K., &
(2011). The effects of the Fast Track preven- Williams, P. G. (2013). Psychological stress,
tive intervention on the development of conduct emotion regulation, and resilience in adoles-
disorder across childhood. Child Development, cence. In W. T. O’Donohue, L. T. Benuto, & L.
82, 331 – 345. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010. Woodward Tolle (Eds.), Handbook of adolescent
01558.x health psychology (pp. 129 – 141). New York:
Conger, R. D., & Conger, K. J. (2002). Resilience Springer-Verlag. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-6633-8
in midwestern families: Selected findings from the Cummings, E., Papp, L. M., & Kouros, C. D. (2009).
first decade of a prospective, longitudinal study. Regulatory processes in children’s coping with
Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 361 – 373. exposure to marital conflict. In S. L. Olson & A. J.
doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2002.00361.x Sameroff (Eds.), Biopsychosocial regulatory pro-
*Connell, A. M., Dishion, T. J., Yasui, M., & cesses in the development of childhood behavioral
Kavanagh, K. (2007). An adaptive approach problems (pp. 212 – 237). New York: Cambridge
to family intervention: Linking engagement in University Press.
family-centered intervention to reductions in ado- Cummings, E., & Schatz, J. N. (2012). Family con-
lescent problem behavior. Journal of Consulting flict, emotional security, and child development:
and Clinical Psychology, 75, 568 – 579. doi:10. Translating research findings into a prevention
1037/0022-006X.75.4.568 program for community families. Clinical Child
Cowan, C., & Cowan, P. A. (2012). Prevention: Inter- and Family Psychology Review, 15, 14 – 27.
vening with couples at challenging family tran- doi:10.1007/s10567-012-0112-0
sition points. In A. Balfour, M. Morgan, & C. Daskalakis, N. P., Bagot, R. C., Parker, K. J., Vinkers,
Vincent (Eds.), How couple relationships shape C. H., & de Kloet, E. R. (2013). The three-
our world: Clinical practice, research, and pol- hit concept of vulnerability and resilience:
icy perspectives (pp. 1 – 14). London, England: Toward understanding adaptation to early-life
Karnac. adversity outcome. Psychoneuroendocrinology,
38, 1858 – 1873. doi:10.1016/j.psyneuen.2013.06. *Feinberg, M. E., Jones, D. E., Kan, M. L., & Goslin,
008 M. C. (2010). Effects of family foundations on
Davies, P. T., & Cicchetti, D. (2004). Toward an inte- parents and children: 3.5 years after baseline.
gration of family systems and developmental psy- Journal of Family Psychology, 24, 532 – 542.
chopathology approaches. Development and Psy- doi:10.1037/a0020837
chopathology, 16, 477 – 481. doi:10.1017/S0954 Feinberg, M. E., Solmeyer, A. R., Hostetler, M. L.,
579404004626 Sakuma, K., Jones, D., & McHale, S. M. (2013).
Davies, P. T., Sturge-Apple, M. L., Cicchetti, D., Siblings are special: Initial test of a new approach
& Cummings, E. M. (2007). The role of child for preventing youth behavior problems. Journal
adrenocortical functioning in pathways bet- of Adolescent Health, 53, 166 – 173. doi:10.1016/
ween interparental conflict and child maladjust- j.jadohealth.2012.10.004
ment. Developmental Psychology, 43, 918 – 930. Fiese, B. H. (2006). Family routines and rituals. New
doi:10.1037/0012-1649.43.4.918 Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Deater-Deckard, K., Wang, Z., Chen, N., & Bell, M. Fiese, B. H., & Winter, M. A. (2010). The dynam-
(2012). Maternal executive function, harsh par- ics of family chaos and its relation to children’s
enting, and child conduct problems. Journal of socioemotional well-being. In G. W. Evans &
Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 53, 1084 – 1091. T. D. Wachs (Eds.), Chaos and its influence on
doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2012.02582.x children’s development: An ecological perspective
DeWall, C. N., Baumeister, R. F., Stillman, T. F., & (pp. 49 – 66). Washington, DC: American Psycho-
Gailliot, M. T. (2007). Violence restrained: Effects logical Association. doi:10.1037/12057-004
of self-regulation and its depletion on aggression. *Fischer, E. P., Sherman, M. D., Han, X., & Owen,
Journal of Experimental and Social Psychology, R. R. (2013). Outcomes of participation in the
43, 62 – 76. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2005.12.005 REACH multifamily group program for veterans
Diamond, L. M., & Aspinwall, L. G. (2003). Emotion with PTSD and their families. Professional Psy-
regulation across the life span: An integra- chology, 44, 127 – 134. doi:10.1037/a0032024
tive perspective emphasizing self-regulation, Folkman, S., & Moskowitz, J. T. (2004). Coping: Pit-
positive affect, and dyadic processes. Motivation falls and promises. Annual Review of Psychology,
and Emotion, 27, 125 – 156. doi:10.1023/A:10245 55, 745 – 774.
21920068 Fonagy, P., & Target, M. (2002). Early interven-
Dishion T. J., & Connell, A. (2006). Adolescents’ tion and the development of self-regulation. Psy-
resilience as a self-regulatory process: Promising choanalytic Inquiry, 22, 307 – 335. doi:10.1080/
themes for linking intervention with developmen- 07351692209348990
tal science. Annals of the New York Academy of Francis, L. A., & Susman, E. J. (2009). Self-regulation
Sciences, 1094, 125 – 138. and rapid weight gain in children from age 3 to
Eisenberg, N., Smith, C. L., Sadovsky, A., & Spin- 12 years. Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent
rad, T. L. (2004). Effortful control: Relations with Medicine, 163, 297 – 302.
emotion regulation, adjustment, and socialization Galarce, E. M., & Kawachi, I. (2013). Social determi-
in childhood. In R. F. Baumeister & K. D. Vohs nants of self-regulation development. In P. A. Hall
(Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation: Research, the- (Ed.), Social neuroscience and public health (pp.
ory, and applications (pp. 259 – 282). New York: 215 – 232). New York: Springer.
Guilford. Gardner, T. W., Dishion, T. J., & Connell, A. M.
Eisenberg, N., & Spinrad, T. L. (2004). Emotion- (2008). Adolescent self-regulation as resilience:
related regulation: Sharpening the definition. Child Resistance to antisocial behavior within the deviant
Development, 75, 334 – 339. doi:10.1111/j.1467- peer context. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychol-
8624.2004.00674.x ogy, 36, 273 – 284.
El-Sheikh, M., & Erath, S. A. (2011). Family con- Gewirtz, A., Forgatch, M., & Wieling, E. (2008).
flict, autonomic nervous system functioning, and Parenting practices as potential mechanisms for
child adaptation: State of the science and future child adjustment following mass trauma. Journal
directions. Development and Psychopathology, 23, of Marital and Family Therapy, 34, 177 – 192.
703 – 721. doi:10.1017/S0954579411000034 doi:10.1111/j.1752-0606.2008.00063.x
Evans, G. W., & Kim, P. (2007). Childhood poverty *Gorman-Smith, D., Tolan, P., Henry, D. B., Quin-
and health: Cumulative risk exposure and tana, E., Lutovsky, K., & Leventhal, A. (2007).
stress dysregulation. Psychological Science, 18, Schools and families educating children: A
953 – 957. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.02008.x preventive intervention for early elementary
Evans, G. W., & Kim, P. (2013). Childhood poverty, school children. In P. Tolan, J. Szapocznik, &
chronic stress, self-regulation, and coping. Child S. Sambrano (Eds.), Preventing youth substance
Development Perspectives, 7, 43 – 48. doi:10. abuse: Science-based programs for children and
1111/cdep.12013 adolescents (pp. 113 – 135). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037 *Hipke, K., Wolchik, S. A., Sandler, I. N., &
/11488-005 Braver, S. L. (2002). Predictors of children’s
Granic, I. (2005). Timing is everything: Developmen- intervention-induced resilience in a parenting pro-
tal psychopathology from a dynamic systems per- gram for divorced mothers. Family Relations, 51,
spective. Developmental Review, 25, 386 – 407. 121 – 129. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3729.2002.00121.x
Granic, I., O’Hara, A., Pepler, D., & Lewis, M. Hofmann, W., Schmeichel, B. J., & Baddeley, A. D.
D. (2007). A dynamic systems analysis of (2012). Executive functions and self-regulation.
parent-child changes associated with successful Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16, 174 – 180.
‘real-world’ interventions for aggressive children. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2012.01.006
Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 35, 845 – Hollenstein, T., Granic, I., Stoolmiller, M., & Sny-
857. doi:10.1007/s10802-007-9133-4 der, J. (2004). Rigidity in parent-child interac-
Green, R. (2012). Gay and lesbian family life: Risk, tions and the development of externalizing and
resilience, and rising expectations. In F. Walsh internalizing behavior in early childhood. Jour-
(Ed.), Normal family processes: Growing diversity nal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 32, 595 – 607.
and complexity (4th ed., pp. 172 – 195). New York: doi:10.1023/B:JACP.0000047209.37650.41
Guilford. Horowitz, K., McKay, M., & Marshall, R. (2005).
Greenberg, M. T. (2006). Promoting resilience in chil- Community violence and urban families: Experi-
dren and youth: Preventive interventions and their ences, effects, and directions for intervention.
interface with neuroscience. Annals of the New American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 75,
York Academy of Sciences, 1094, 139 – 151. 356 – 368. doi:10.1037/0002-9432.75.3.356
Grolnick, W. S., & Pomerantz, E. M. (2009). Issues Houltberg, B. J., Henry, C. S., & Morris, A. (2012).
and challenges in studying parental control: Family interactions, exposure to violence, and
Toward a new conceptualization. Child Devel- emotion regulation: Perceptions of children and
opment Perspectives, 3, 165 – 170. doi:10.1111/ early adolescents at risk. Family Relations, 61,
j.1750-8606.2009.00099.x 283 – 296. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3729.2011.00699.x
Gunnar, M. (2006). Social regulation of stress in Jarrett, R. L. (1999). Successful parenting in high-risk
neighborhoods. The Future of Children, 9(2),
early child development. In K. McCartney & D.
45 – 50. doi:10.2307/1602704
Phillips (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of early child-
Jessor, R., Donovan, J. E., & Costa, F. M. (1991).
hood development (pp. 106 – 125). Malden, MA:
Beyond adolescence: Problem behavior and young
Blackwell.
adult development. New York: Cambridge Univer-
Haase, C. M., Heckhausen, J., & Wrosch, C. (2013).
sity Press.
Developmental regulation across the life span:
*Kosterman, R., Hawkins, J., Spoth, R., Haggerty,
Toward a new synthesis. Developmental Psychol- K. P., & Zhu, K. (1997). Effects of a preventive
ogy, 49, 964 – 972. doi:10.1037/a0029231;10. parent-training intervention on observed family
1037/a0029231.supp interactions: Proximal outcomes from Preparing
*Haggerty, K. P. (2013). Long-term effects of Stay- for the Drug Free Years. Journal of Community
ing Connected with Your Teen: Exploring race Psychology, 25, 337 – 352. doi:10.1002/(SICI)
differences and biological mechanisms of family 1520-6629(199707)25:4<337::AID-JCOP3>3.0.
preventive interventions. Unpublished doctoral CO;2-R
dissertation, University of Washington, Seattle. Kristjansson, A., James, J. E., Allegrante, J. P., Sig-
Haggerty, K. P., Skinner, M. L., MacKenzie, E. P., fusdottir, I., & Helgason, A. R. (2010). Ado-
& Catalano, R. F. (2007). A randomized trial lescent substance use, parental monitoring, and
of Parents Who Care: Effects on key outcomes leisure-time activities: 12-year outcomes of pri-
at 24-month follow-up. Prevention Science, 8, mary prevention in Iceland. Preventive Medicine,
249 – 260. doi:10.1007/s11121-007-0077-2 51, 168 – 171. doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2010.05.001
Hardaway, C. R., Wilson, M. N., Shaw, D. S., & Dish- *Kumpfer, K. L., Whiteside, H. O., Greene, J., &
ion, T. J. (2012). Family functioning and exter- Allen, K. (2010). Effectiveness outcomes of four
nalizing behavior among low-income children: age versions of the Strengthening Families Pro-
Self-regulation as a mediator. Infant and Child gram in statewide field sites. Group Dynamics, 14,
Development, 21, 67 – 84. doi:10.1002/icd.765 211 – 229. doi:10.1037/a0020602
Harrist, A. W., & Waugh, R. M. (2002). Dyadic Kusché, C.A., & Greenberg, M. T. (1994). The PATHS
synchrony: Its structure and function in chil- (Promoting Alternative THinking Strategies) cur-
dren’s development. Developmental Review, 22, riculum. South Deerfield, MA: Channing-Bete.
555 – 592. Lazarus, R. S. (1999). Stress and emotion: A new
Heatherton, T. F., & Wagner, D. D. (2011). Cog- synthesis. New York: Springer.
nitive neuroscience of self-regulation failure. Lee, M., Greene, G. J., Hsu, K., Solovey, A., Grove,
Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15, 132 – 139. D., Fraser, J., … Teater, B. (2009). Utilizing
doi:10.1016/j.tics.2010.12.005 family strengths and resilience: Integrative family
and systems treatment with children and adoles- Martel, M. M., Nigg, J. T., Wong, M. M., Fitzgerald,
cents with severe emotional and behavioral prob- H. E., Jester, J. M., Puttler, L. I., … Zucker, R.
lems. Family Process, 48, 395 – 416. doi:10.1111/ A. (2007). Childhood and adolescent resiliency,
j.1545-5300.2009.01291.x regulation, and executive functioning in relation to
*Lester, P., Mogil, C., Saltzman, W., Woodward, K., adolescent problems and competence in a high-risk
Nash, W., Leskin, G., … Beardslee, W. (2011). sample. Development and Psychopathology, 19,
Families overcoming under stress: Implementing 541 – 563. doi:10.1017/S0954579407070265
family-centered prevention for military families Masten, A. S. (2007). Resilience in developing sys-
facing wartime deployments and combat opera- tems: Progress and promise as the fourth wave
tional stress. Military Medicine, 176, 19 – 25. arises. Development and Psychopathology, 19,
Lich, K. H., Ginexi, E. M., Osgood, N. D., & Mabry, 921 – 930. doi:10.1017/S0954579407000442
P. L. (2013). A call to address complexity in pre- Masten, A. S., & Coatsworth, J. D. (1995). The
vention science research. Prevention Science, 14, development of competence in favorable and unfa-
279 – 289. doi:10.1007/s11121-012-028 vorable environments: Lessons from research on
Lohman, B. J., & Billings, A. (2008). Protective successful children. American Psychologist, 53,
and risk factors associated with adolescent boy’s 205 – 220. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.53.2.205
early sexual debut and risky sexual behaviors. Matjasko, J. L., Grunden, L. N., & Ernst, J. L. (2007).
Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 37, 723 – 735. Structural and dynamic process family risk factors:
doi:10.1007/s10964-008-9283-x Consequences for holistic adolescent functioning.
Lovallo, W. R. (2012). Early life adversity reduces Journal of Marriage and Family, 69, 654 – 674.
stress reactivity and enhances impulsive behav- doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2007.00398.x
ior: Implications for health behaviors. Interna- *Matjasko, J. L., Vivolo-Kantor, A. M., Henry, D.
tional Journal of Psychophysiology, 90, 8 – 16. B., Gorman-Smith, D., & Schoeny, M. E. (2013).
doi:10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2012.10.006 The relationship between a family-focused preven-
Luecken, L. J., Appelhans, B. M., Kraft, A., & Brown, tive intervention, parenting practices, and expo-
A. (2006). Never far from home: A cognitive- sure to violence during the transition to adoles-
affective model of the impact of early-life cence: Testing a mediational model. Journal of
family relationships on physiological stress Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 22, 45 – 66.
responses in adulthood. Journal of Social and Per- doi:10.1080/10926771.2013.743947
sonal Relationships, 23, 189 – 203. doi:10.1177/ McCubbin, H. I., & Patterson, J. M. (1983). The
0265407506062466 family stress process: The double ABCX model of
Lunkenheimer, E. S., Hollenstein, T., Wang, J., & adjustment and adaptation. Marriage and Family
Shields, A. M. (2012). Flexibility and attractors Review, 6, 7 – 37. doi:10.1300/J002v06n01_0
in context: Family emotion socialization patterns McCubbin, H. I., Thompson, E. A., Thompson, A. I.,
and children’s emotion regulation in late child- & Fromer, J. E. (1998). Stress, coping, and health
hood. Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology, and Life in families: Sense of coherence and resiliency.
Sciences, 16, 269 – 291. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lunkenheimer, E. S., Olson, S. L., Hollenstein, T., McHale, S. M., Updegraff, K. A., & Whiteman, S.
Sameroff, A. J., & Winter, C. (2011). Dyadic flex- D. (2012). Sibling relationships and influences in
ibility and positive affect in parent – child coreg- childhood and adolescence. Journal of Marriage
ulation and the development of child behavior and Family, 74, 913 – 930.
problems. Development and Psychopathology, 23, Meier, A., & Musick, K. (2014). Variation in asso-
577 – 591. doi:10.1017/S095457941100006X ciations between family dinners and adolescent
Luthar, S. S., Cicchetti, D., & Becker, B. (2000). The well-being. Journal of Marriage and Family, 76,
construct of resilience: A critical evaluation and 13 – 23. doi:10.1111/jomf.12079
guidelines for future work. Child Development, 71, Meyer, I. H. (2007). Prejudice and discrimination as
543 – 562. social stressors. In I. H. Meyer & M. E. Northridge
Luthar, S. S., & Zelazo, L. B. (2003). Research (Eds.), The health of sexual minorities: Public
on resilience: An integrative review. In S. S. health perspectives on lesbian, gay, bisexual, and
Luthar (Ed.), Resilience and vulnerability: Adap- transgender populations (pp. 242 – 267). New
tation in the context of childhood adversities York: Springer Science + Business Media.
(pp. 510 – 549). Cambridge, England: Cambridge Mohajeri-Nelson, N., MacPhee, D., Henry, K., &
University Press. Swaim, R. (in press). Mediational effects of parent-
MacKinnon, D. R., Kisbu-Sakarya, Y., & Gottschall, ing on oppositional behaviors: Testing causal links.
A. C. (2013). Developments in mediation analysis. Developmental Psychology.
In T. D. Little (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of quan- *Moss, E., Dubois-Comtois, K., Cyr, C., Tarabulsy,
titative methods: Vol. 2. Statistical analysis (pp. G. M., St-Laurent, D., & Bernier, A. (2011).
338 – 360). New York: Oxford University Press. Efficacy of a home-visiting intervention aimed
at improving maternal sensitivity, child attach- *Park, J., Kosterman, R., Hawkins, J., Haggerty, K. P.,
ment, and behavioral outcomes for maltreated chil- Duncan, T. E., Duncan, S. C., & Spoth, R. (2000).
dren: A randomized control trial. Development Effects of the ‘Preparing for the Drug Free Years’
and Psychopathology, 23, 195 – 210. doi:10.1017/ curriculum on growth in alcohol use and risk
S0954579410000738 for alcohol use in early adolescence. Preven-
Neff, L. A., & Broady, E. F. (2011). Stress resilience tion Science, 1, 125 – 138. doi:10.1023/A:1010
in early marriage: Can practice make perfect? 021205638
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, Patterson, J. M. (2002a). Integrating family resilience
1050 – 1067. doi:10.1037/a0023809 and family stress theory. Journal of Marriage and
Nelson, J. A., O’Brien, M., Blankson, A., Calkins, Family, 64, 349 – 360. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.
S. D., & Keane, S. P. (2009). Family stress and 2002.00349.x
parental responses to children’s negative emotions: Patterson, J. M. (2002b). Understanding family
Tests of the spillover, crossover, and compensatory resilience. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 58,
hypotheses. Journal of Family Psychology, 23, 233 – 246. doi:10.1002/jclp.10019
671 – 679. doi:10.1037/a0015977 Pettit, G. S., Bates, J. E., & Dodge, K. A. (1997). Sup-
NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. (2004). portive parenting, ecological context, and child-
Affect dysregulation in the mother-child relation- ren’s adjustment: A seven-year longitudinal study.
ship in the toddler years: Antecedents and conse- Child Development, 68, 908 – 923.
quences. Development and Psychopathology, 16, Repetti, R., Wang, S., & Saxbe, D. (2009). Bringing it
43 – 68. doi:10.1017/S0954579404044402 all back home: How outside stressors shape fam-
Obradović, J. (2012). How can the study of physiolog- ilies’ everyday lives. Current Directions in Psy-
ical reactivity contribute to our understanding of chological Science, 18, 106 – 111. doi:10.1111/
adversity and resilience processes in development? j.1467-8721.2009.01618.x
Development and Psychopathology, 24, 371 – 387. Riggs, N. R., & Greenberg, M. T. (2009). Neurocog-
doi:10.1017/S0954579412000053 nition as a moderator and mediator in adoles-
Oliver, P. H., & Margolin, G. (2009). Communication/ cent substance misuse prevention. American Jour-
problem-solving skills training. In W. T. nal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 35, 209 – 213.
O’Donohue & J. E. Fisher (Eds.), General prin- doi:10.1080/00952990903005940
ciples and empirically supported techniques of Riggs, N. R., Greenberg, M. T., Kusché, C. A., &
cognitive behavior therapy (pp. 199 – 206). Pentz, M. A. (2006). The mediational role of
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. neurocognition in the behavioral outcomes of a
Olson, D. H. (2000). Circumplex model of marital social-emotional prevention program in elemen-
and family systems. Journal of Family Therapy, tary school students: Effects of the PATHS cur-
22, 144 – 167. doi:10.1111/1467-6427.00144 riculum. Prevention Science, 7, 91 – 102. doi:10.
Olson, S. L., & Lunkenheimer, E. S. (2009). Expand- 1007/s11121-005-0022-1
ing concepts of self-regulation to social relation- Riggs, N. R., Tate, E. B., Ridenour, T. A., Reynolds,
ships: Transactional processes in the development M. D., Zhai, Z. W., Vanyukov, M. M., & Tarter,
of early behavioral adjustment. In A. Sameroff R. E. (2013). Longitudinal associations from neu-
(Ed.), The transactional model of development: robehavioral disinhibition to adolescent risky sex-
How children and contexts shape each other (pp. ual behavior in boys: Direct and mediated effects
55 – 76). Washington, DC: American Psychologi- through moderate alcohol consumption. Journal of
cal Association. doi:10.1037/11877-004 Adolescent Health, 53, 465 – 470.
Olsson, M. B., & Hwang, C. P. (2002). Sense *Robinson, J. L., Emde, R. N., & Korfmacher,
of coherence in parents of children with dif- J. (1997). Integrating an emotional regulation
ferent developmental disabilities. Journal of perspective in a program of prenatal and early
Intellectual Disability Research, 46, 548 – 559. childhood home visitation. Journal of Community
doi:10.1046/j.1365-2788.2002.00414.x Psychology, 25, 59 – 75. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1520-
Olsson, M. B., Larsman, P., & Hwang, P. C. (2008). 6629(199701)25:1<59::AID-JCOP5>3.0.CO;2-Y
Relationships among risk, sense of coherence, and Romero, A. J., Edwards, L. M., Fryberg, S. A., &
well-being in parents of children with and with- Orduña, M. (2014). Resilience to discrimination
out intellectual disabilities. Journal of Policy and stress across ethnic identity stages of development.
Practice in Intellectual Disabilities, 5, 227 – 236. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 44, 1 – 11.
doi:10.1111/j.1741-1130.2008.00184.x doi:10.1111/jasp.12192
Papp, L. M. (2012). Longitudinal associations Rutter, M. (2012). Resilience as a dynamic concept.
between parental and children’s depressive Development and Psychopathology, 24, 335 – 344.
symptoms in the context of interparental relation- doi:10.1017/S0954579412000028
ship functioning. Journal of Child and Family *Saltzman, W. R., Pynoos, R. S., Lester, P., Layne,
Studies, 21, 199 – 207. doi:10.1007/s10826-011- C. M., & Beardslee, W. R. (2013). Enhanc-
9463-2 ing family resilience through family narrative
co-construction. Clinical Child and Family Psy- R. F. Levant, & J. H. Bray (Eds.), Family psychol-
chology Review, 16, 294 – 310. doi:10.1007/ ogy: Science-based interventions (pp. 123 – 146).
s10567-013-0142-2 Washington, DC: American Psychological Associ-
Sameroff, A. J., & MacKenzie, M. J. (2003). Research ation. doi:10.1037/10438-007
strategies for capturing transactional models of Skowron, E. A., Kozlowski, J. M., & Pincus, A. L.
development: The limits of the possible. Devel- (2010). Differentiation, self – other representa-
opment and Psychopathology, 15, 613 – 640. tions, and rupture – repair processes: Predicting
doi:10.1017/S0954579403000312 child maltreatment risk. Journal of Counsel-
Sanders, M. R. (2008). Triple P-Positive Parenting ing Psychology, 57, 304 – 316. doi:10.1037/a00
Program as a public health approach to strengthen- 20030
ing parenting. Journal of Family Psychology, 22, Smith, E., Gorman-Smith, D., Quinn, W. H., Rabiner,
506 – 517. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.22.3.506 D. L., Tolan, P. H., & Winn, D. (2004).
Sanders, M. R., Pidgeon, A. M., Gravestock, F., Con- Community-based multiple family groups to
nors, M. D., Brown, S., & Young, R. W. (2004). prevent and reduce violent and aggressive behav-
Does parental attributional retraining and anger ior: The GREAT Families program. American
management enhance the effects of the Triple Journal of Preventive Medicine, 26(Suppl 1),
P-Positive Parenting Program with parents at risk 39 – 47. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2003.09.01
of child maltreatment? Behavior Therapy, 35, Spagnola, M., & Fiese, B. H. (2007). Family rou-
513 – 535. doi:10.1016/S0005-7894(04)80030-3 tines and rituals: A context for development in
Schatz, J. N., Smith, L. E., Borkowski, J. G., Whit- the lives of young children. Infants and Young
man, T. L., & Keogh, D. A. (2008). Maltreatment Children, 20, 284 – 299. doi:10.1097/01.IYC.
risk, self-regulation, and maladjustment in at-risk 0000290352.32170.5a
children. Child Abuse & Neglect, 32, 972 – 982. *Spoth, R., Redmond, C., & Shin, C. (1998). Direct
doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2008.09.001 and indirect latent-variable parenting outcomes of
*Schinke, S. P., Fang, L., & Cole, K. C. (2009). two universal family-focused preventive interven-
Preventing substance use among adolescent girls: tions: Extending a public health-oriented research
1-year outcomes of a computerized, mother – base. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychol-
daughter program. Addictive Behaviors, 34, ogy, 66, 385 – 399. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.66.2.
1060 – 1064. doi:10.1016/j.addbeh.2009.06.007 385
Schwartz, D., & Proctor, L. J. (2000). Community Spoth, R., Redmond, C., & Shin, C. (2001). Ran-
violence exposure and children’s social adjustment domized trial of brief family interventions for gen-
in the school peer group: The mediating roles eral populations: Adolescent substance use out-
of emotion regulation and social cognition. Jour- comes 4 years following baseline. Journal of Con-
nal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68, sulting and Clinical Psychology, 69, 627 – 642.
670 – 683. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.68.4.670 doi:10.1037/0022-00
Seery, M. D., Holman, E., & Silver, R. (2010). What- Tang, Y., Yang, L., Leve, L. D., & Harold, G. T.
ever does not kill us: Cumulative lifetime adver- (2012). Improving executive function and its neu-
sity, vulnerability, and resilience. Journal of Per- robiological mechanisms through a mindfulness-
sonality and Social Psychology, 99, 1025 – 1041. based intervention: Advances within the field of
doi:10.1037/a0021344 developmental neuroscience. Child Development
Shaver, P. R., & Mikulincer, M. (2012). Attachment Perspectives, 6, 361 – 366.
theory. In P. M. Van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, & E. Taylor, Z. E., Eisenberg, N., Spinrad, T. L., &
Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psy- Widaman, K. F. (2013). Longitudinal relations of
chology (Vol. 2, pp. 160 – 179). Thousand Oaks, intrusive parenting and effortful control to ego-
CA: Sage. resiliency during early childhood. Child Develop-
Sherman, J. W., Gawronski, B., Gonsalkorale, K., ment, 84, 1145 – 1151. doi:10.1111/cdev.12054
Hugenberg, K., Allen, T. J., & Groom, C. J. (2008). *Tolan, P. H., Gorman-Smith, D., Henry, D., &
The self-regulation of automatic associations and Schoeny, M. (2009). The benefits of booster inter-
behavioral impulses. Psychological Review, 115, ventions: Evidence from a family-focused preven-
314 – 335. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.115.2.314 tion program. Prevention Science, 10, 287 – 297.
Shortt, J., Stoolmiller, M., Smith-Shine, J. N., Eddy, doi:10.1007/s11121-009-0139-8
J. M., & Sheeber, L. (2010). Maternal emotion Upshur, E. D. (2011). Effects of maladaptive fam-
coaching, adolescent anger regulation, and sib- ily functioning on child emotion regulation: A
lings’ externalizing symptoms. Journal of Child study among children and mothers who have expe-
Psychology and Psychiatry, 51, 799 – 808. doi: rienced domestic violence. Unpublished doctoral
10.1111/j.1469-7610.2009.02207.x dissertation, City University, New York.
Silliman, B., Stanley, S. M., Coffin, W., Markman, H. Van Ryzin, M. J., & Dishion, T. J. (2012). The
J., & Jordan, P. L. (2002). Preventive interventions impact of a family-centered intervention on
for couples. In H. A. Liddle, D. A. Santisteban, the ecology of adolescent antisocial behavior:
Modeling developmental sequelae and trajectories Westphal, M., Seivert, N. H., & Bonanno, G. A.
during adolescence. Development and Psy- (2010). Expressive flexibility. Emotion, 10, 92 –
chopathology, 24, 1139 – 1155. doi:10.1017/ 100. doi:10.1037/a0018420
S0954579412000582 *Wolchik, S. A., Schenck, C. E., & Sandler, I.
*Van Ryzin, M. J., Stormshak, E. A., & Dishion, T. J. N. (2009). Promoting resilience in youth from
(2012). Engaging parents in the Family Check-Up divorced families: Lessons learned from exper-
in middle school: Longitudinal effects on family imental trials of the New Beginnings program.
conflict and problem behavior through the high Journal of Personality, 77, 1833 – 1868. doi:10.
school transition. Journal of Adolescent Health, 1111/j.1467-6494.2009.00602.x
50, 627 – 633. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2011.10. Wyman, P. A., Cowen, E. L., Work, W. C., Hoyt-
255 Meyers, L., Magnus, K. B., & Fagen, D. B. (1999).
Volling, B. L., McElwain, N. L., & Miller, A. L. Caregiving and developmental factors differentiat-
(2002). Emotion regulation in context: The jeal- ing young at-risk urban children showing resilient
ousy complex between young siblings and its rela- versus stress-affected outcomes: A replication
tions with child and family characteristics. Child and extension. Child Development, 70, 645 – 659.
Development, 73, 581 – 600. doi:10.1111/1467- doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00047
8624.00425 Yates, T. M., Egeland, B., & Sroufe, L. A. (2003).
Vuchinich, S. (1999). Problem solving in families: Rethinking resilience: A developmental process
Research and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. perspective. In S. S. Luthar (Ed.), Resilience and
Walsh, F. (2002). A family resilience framework: vulnerability: Adaptation in the context of child-
Innovative practice applications. Family Relations, hood adversities (pp. 243 – 266). New York: Cam-
51, 130 – 137. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3729.2002. bridge University Press.
00130.x Zelazo, P. D., Carlson, S. M., & Kesek, A. (2008). The
Waugh, C. E., Thompson, R. J., & Gotlib, I. H. development of executive function in childhood.
(2011). Flexible emotional responsiveness in trait In C. Nelson & M. Luciana (Eds.), Handbook of
resilience. Emotion, 5, 1059 – 1067. doi:10.1037/ developmental cognitive neuroscience (2nd ed., pp.
a0021786. 553 – 574). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Resilience As Regulation of Developmental and Family Processes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Resilience As Regulation of Developmental and Family Processes

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Resilience As Regulation of Developmental and Family Processes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

David MacPhee, Erika Lunkenheimer, and Nathaniel Riggs Colorado State University

Resilience as Regulation of Developmental

Resilience can be defined as establishing about the regulation of individual development,

Table 1. Examples of Family-Based Interventions to Promote Regulatory Processes

Regulatory Process Level Outcome Intervention Program

Emotion Regulation Infant less disorganization Moss et al. (2011)Str

Regulatory Process Level Outcome Intervention Program

Flexibility Child less problem behavior I-FAST (Lee et al., 2009)Tr

adversity or current duress.

instance, achieving equilibrium or adapting to contextual factors such as economic policies

routines may serve a protective function by of externalizing behaviors (Shortt, Stoolmiller,

You might also like