Shire Psychology and Counselling

Connecting with children, adolescents & adults

www.shirepsych.com.au 

Barry and Veronica have decided to start publishing some of their  articles, presentations & research papers  on topics that may be of interest to the counselling and psychology community and the wider community in general. We would love your feed back .

1. Therapy with Same Sex Couples: Are we really so different?

2: Resilience in the face of trauma

1: Therapy and Couples: Are Same Sex Couples so Different?

Research paper: What happens when we fall in love? Same Sex couples: Myths, Facts and Fallacies that may visit with couples that visit with you in your counselling room.

Table of Contents

1       Introduction

2       Stereotypes of gay and lesbians and their relationships: Facts & Fallacies

2.1        The reality of Gay and Lesbian relationships

2.2        What are the issues from the point of Lesbian and Gay groups?

3       How do same sex couples and heterosexual couples compare and contrast?

3.1        What are the attractors that draw people together to form a relationship?

4       What are the problems that bring couples to counselling?

4.1        Particular issues confronting gay and lesbian relationships that may visit with you in the counselling environment

5       Conclusion:

6       References

1                        Introduction

Regardless of whether we are looking at a homosexual or heterosexual relationships when humans fall in love there are a number of factors that are key to the attraction that we feel to another. Of most importance are a sense of fun and a sense of humour, intelligence and whether you are a kind, supportive and considerate person. (Felmlee, Orzechowicz, & Fortes, 2008, p. 9) While this is true for all relationships irrespective of sexual orientation a number of stereotypes have been developed within out society which label homosexuals and their relationships as deviant and debased, as sick, odd and aberrant.

While same sex couples will experience many of the issues, both positive and negative, experienced by heterosexual couples, there are a number of factors that impact on same sex couples because of their position as an often marginalised group in our society. While we, as counsellors, need to be aware of the similarities between same sex and opposite sex couples we also need to be aware of some of the particular issues that may impact on a homosexual couple because of their sexual orientation and the stereotypes and prejudice that exists in regard to that orientation.

In carrying out research for this paper I looked at a number of academic articles but I also visited several web sites run by gay and lesbian organisations. Although these sites are not peer reviewed they provide a window into the beliefs and experiences of people with a gay or lesbian orientation. Their experiences and beliefs are important as it is these, and the emotions generated as a result that impact on their life experience and will be a motivator in prompting them, either as individuals or couples, to visit us in our counselling rooms.

2                        Stereotypes of gay and lesbians and their relationships: Facts & Fallacies

A number of myths and stereotypes circulate in our society about same sex couples. These include statements such as:

©      Homosexuality is a mental illness

©      They are sick & it can be cured

©      Gay men and lesbian women are all promiscuous

©      Homosexual relationships only exist for sex

©      Gay men molest children

©      Homosexual people are not good parents as they introduce their children to their “lifestyle”

©      I’ve never spoken to a person who is gay, lesbian or bisexual

©      You can always tell homosexuals by the way they look or act

©      Gays and Lesbians don’t have long term relationships

(Brown, 2007b; Gay Straight Alliance , 2009)

These stereotypes are still prominently debated in society and the mass media with, for example, the Dr Phil show, on the 6^th May, 2009, being devoted to how intersex individuals should be treated with some commentators on the show maintaining that “sexual maladjustments”, including homosexuality and intersex individuals, could be converted to “normal heterosexuality” through therapy. Needless to say this assertion was hotly contested.

In many nations homosexuality is contested at the political level. Felmlee, et al. (2008, p. 1) cites legislative action proposed in Oregon, USA which sought to make same sex marriages unconstitutional by labelling same sex couples as “hypersexual, sexually deviant and unable to maintain long term monogamous relationships” In Australia the Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC, 2007) Inquiry into discrimination against people in same-sex relationships found 58 federal laws which discriminate against same-sex couples and their children.

Within the literature various authors identify three main stereotypes that are emphasised in our culture being the “exhibition of gender atypical traits, sexual promiscuity and sexual predatory tendencies.” (Felmlee et al., 2008, p. 2) Herek cited in Felmlee et al. (2008, p. 3), maintains that such stereotypes are “presuppositions ... based on biased cognitive processes, such as the recall of stereotype-confirming information, and therefore illustrate a form of sexual prejudice.” What we are left with is a “relationship stereotype for heterosexual couples” that “is all about love, intimacy, communication and family; while for homosexual couples the stereotype tends to be about diverse sexuality, and unusual sexual practices” (Brown, 2007a, p. 77).

2.1          The reality of Gay and Lesbian relationships

People who are gay or lesbian are generally physically indistinguishable from people with a heterosexual orientation. The truth is that we know nothing about the person who has come to see us in counselling other than what they reveal about themselves. Approaching the counselling session with any form of stereotype in mind blocks us from getting to know the reality of our clients experience and prevents us from being truly present and authentic (Egan, 2002). 

The actuality of homosexual couples relationships differ quite markedly from the picture painted by these stereotypes. Brown (2007b) cites a number of studies showing that the majority of gay and lesbian couples live in long term committed relationships. Nor is there proof that homosexuality is a form of mental illness and as such was removed from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) in 1973. Also the “literature suggests that children reared by individuals with same- versus opposite-sex sexual preferences are generally not distinguishable” from each other (Roisman et al. 2008, p.91).

When comparing same sex to heterosexual couples the evidence is that committed same sex couples “are neither less satisfied with their relationships nor report higher levels of the kinds of personal attributes that mitigate against the quality and longevity of adult relationships” (Roisman et al. 2008, p.99) In fact Gottman & Levenson found from a 12 year study of same sex relationships that:

©      “Gay/lesbian couples are more upbeat in the face of conflict. Compared to straight couples, gay and lesbian couples use more affection and humor when they bring up a disagreement, and partners are more positive in how they receive it.”

©      “Gay/lesbian couples use fewer controlling, hostile emotional tactics.”

©      “In a fight, gay and lesbian couples take it less personally.”

 (Gottman & Levenson, 2009)

As a result of these studies Gottman stated that "straight couples may have a lot to learn from gay and lesbian relationships" (Gottman & Levenson, 2009).

Kurdek cited in Roisman (2008, pp 91-92) “identified the following six key principles that govern same-sex relationships:

(a)    Many gay men and lesbians identify themselves as being involved in a committed relationship;

(b)   One salient difference between gay and lesbian relationships is that lesbians tend to be more sexually exclusive than gay men;

(c)    Gay men, and particularly lesbians, are more likely to endorse an “ethic of equality” compared with their heterosexual counterparts;

(d)   As with heterosexual relationships, gay and lesbian partnerships show reliable changes over time;

(e)    Few differences emerge when comparing global levels of satisfaction for gay, lesbian, and heterosexual couples; and

(f)    Predictors of relationship stability and satisfaction are consistent across gay, lesbian, and heterosexual couples” (emphasis added)

2.2          What are the issues from the point of Lesbian and Gay groups?

Many gay and lesbian groups have as one of their prime concerns the search for equality. The Gay & Lesbian Rights Lobby on their website urge people to “Get Involved - Become a member or volunteer and support our campaigns for equality” (Gay & Lesbian Rights Lobby, 2009)  This search for equality is stated eloquently on the Tasmanian Gay & Lesbian Rights Group website where they state that “after a nine year campaign which saw the involvement of the United Nations, Amnesty International, the Federal Government and the High Court, supporters of gay law reform have finally achieved their dream of equality before the law for all Tasmanians.” (Tasmanian Gay & Lesbian Rights Group, 1997)

Notwithstanding this 1997 statement the Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission Inquiry into discrimination against people in same-sex relationships in 2007 found 58 federal laws that discriminate against same-sex couples and their children. The inquiry heard evidence for a number of people in gay or lesbian relationships with one witness stating,

One of our lesbian friends lay ill and dying in her hospital bed.  When it came time for her to die the hospital staff prevented her partner from entering her hospital room and sitting with her at the end of her life because she was not the ‘spouse’.  Our friend died, alone. Her partner sat outside in the corridor prevented from being with her. She continues to suffer great distress that her life-time partner died without her comfort and without knowing she was there with her. (HREOC, 2007)

It is apparent from various gay and lesbian web sites that the concerns of those communities are similar to the concerns of heterosexual couples i.e. concerns for themselves, their partners and their children. It is also apparent that the quest for equality when addressing these concerns continues as is evidenced in the document “Know where you, your partner and kids stand under the law. A simple 12-point plan to asserting your relationship and parenting rights” (Gay & Lesbian Rights Lobby, 2009b). This document suggests that gay and lesbian couples, among other things, ensure that they have taken each other and their children, into account in their wills, insurance, tax affairs, employment and welfare arrangements so that they are not discriminated against (Gay & Lesbian Rights Lobby, 2009b). All of these are concerns that would resonate with heterosexual couples.

Given that many of the concerns are the same for same sex and heterosexual couples it is worth considering how both forms of relationship compare and contrast in their relationship outcomes and what prompts same sex couples to form a relationship in the first place.

3                        How do same sex couples and heterosexual couples compare and contrast?

Josephson states that “majority of authors indicate that same-sex and heterosexual couples are more similar than they are different” (2003, p. 304). When looking at the similarities and difference between couples Brown (2007b, p.287) maintains that “the love is the same – it is the intimacy that is frequently different.” Moreover, Brown identifies that when we compare same sex and heterosexual couples it is the fact that two people are in an intimate relationship that produces the similarities that we see. The differences between the two types of relationship appears to be due to the fact that people with a same sex orientation are frequently oppressed in our society (Brown, 2007b).

Ridge and Feeney, (cited in Josephson, 2003) have found, when comparing heterosexual and homosexual subjects that homosexual subjects were no more or less securely attached than heterosexual subjects. They also “found that the frequencies of the four attachment styles did not differ significantly between homosexual and heterosexual participants.”(2003, p. 304)

Irrespective of the sexual orientation of a couple the fundamental cause of relationship distress “is the lack of accessibility and responsiveness of at least one partner, and the problematic ways in which the partners deal with their insecurities when this occurs.” (Josephson, 2003, p.303)  Therefore, the aim in therapy for heterosexual and homosexual couples is “to change the ways the couple deals with their insecurities and to establish a safe haven and secure base for each partner” (Josephson, 2003, p.303)

Gottman’s research has found that “overall, relationship satisfaction and quality are about the same across all couple types” be they straight, gay or lesbian (2009). His research also supports that of earlier researchers, such as Kurdeck and Schwartz (cited in Gottman, 2009, p.1), that found “that gay and lesbian relationships are comparable to straight relationships in many ways” (Gottman, 2009, p.1). However, he also notes that while same sex couples, like straight couples, deal with the same issues encountered in any intimate relationships there are a number of issues which uniquely impact on same sex couples such as “isolation from family, workplace prejudice, and other social barriers” (Gottman, 2009, p. 1).

While some authors cite that same sex couples may have higher rates of problematic issues, such as substance abuse, others dispute this. For example Josephson (2003) states that counselors should be aware of the possibility of such issues in any couple relationship that they are presented with in practice.

3.1          What are the attractors that draw people together to form a relationship?

Studies on the factors responsible for stimulating attraction in couples show similar findings for both heterosexuals and homosexuals. The findings “emphasize mental, positive personality, and family-oriented characteristics when considering a long term romantic partner” (Felmlee et al., 2008, p. 4). In fact, Felmlee et al. (2008, p. 5) state that the “general relationship processes and functioning” are similar when comparing heterosexual and homosexual couples and that “the same variables predict relationship quality and stability”.

Specific factors that foster attraction, in men and women, are:

• “fun,
• sense of humour,
• intelligent,
• kind, supportive and considerate.”

“The qualities rated the lowest included

• the partner’s nice house,
• financial security,
• success, &
• ambitiousness,

traits that reflect material success, or the potential for such success” (Felmlee, et al., 2008, p. 9).

 “The identical general, primary attractors emerge in the analyses (e.g., extroversion, intelligence and agreeableness)” and the factors were shown to be similar for both men and women and are consistent across same sex and heterosexual couples (Felmlee et al., 2008, p. 12-13). Studies, cited by Josephson, (2003, p. 304) provide evidence that “the basic bonds of love and intimacy, factors key to attachment, are the same” for both heterosexual and homosexual couples. When both long-term homosexual and heterosexual relationships were examined it was seen “that patterns of roles, conflict and its management, decision making, and sexual and psychological intimacy” did not vary regardless of the sexual orientation of the couple (Josephson, 2003, p. 304).

4                        What are the problems that bring couples to counselling?

Romantic relationships “involve a combination of three innate behavioural systems described by Bowlby: attachment, care giving, and sex.” (Schachner, Shaver & Mikulincer, 2003, p. 18) As stated earlier the underlying basis for relationship stress “is the lack of accessibility and responsiveness of at least one partner, and the problematic ways in which the partners deal with their insecurities when this occurs” (Josephson, 2003, p.303).

 A breakdown in these systems can express themselves in Gottman’s signs of a failing relationship i.e.

• “Harsh start-up”
• “The four horsemen
• Criticism
• Contempt
• Defensiveness
• Stonewalling”
• “Flooding”
• “Body language”
• “Failed Repair Attempts”
• “Bad memories “(Gottman, 2000, p, 27-43)

 Brown identifies that when we compare same sex and heterosexual couples “some of the similarities are related directly to being in a close intimate relationship irrespective of sexuality, and many differences related to same sex couples being part of an oppressed minority.” (Brown, 2007b, p.288) Accordingly, we need to examine the particular issues that might confront gay and lesbian relationship.

 4.1          Particular issues confronting gay and lesbian relationships that may visit with you in the counselling environment

 The very fact that stereotyping, labelling and discrimination take place against homosexuals reinforces for them their sense of difference in the face of social intolerance. Cass & Maylon, (cited in Josephson, 2003, p. 312) state that when reviewing the literature on adolescent development, that it is this awareness of difference that is at the root of findings that “identity formation in gay men and lesbians [and] the sense of self is constricted by a premature foreclosure on identity exploration” They go on to state that the literature “also suggests that attachment needs are often strongly disowned, and that many aspects of self are disregarded due to shame” (Cass & Maylon cited in Josephson, 2003, p. 312).

 “Homophobia works in part and very powerfully through the medium of labels” (Barris, 2007, para 1.).Labels, like ideology and concepts of self, are socially derived and impact on how we see ourselves and how we see others. The label 'homosexual' is at times interpreted as deviant, wrong, against the natural order and that the homosexual person should not exist. These labels are internalised by some gay and lesbian individuals resulting in extremely negative & problematic views of self. (Barris, 2007)  Barris goes on to suggest that “the specter of the label 'homosexual' (or 'gay,' 'queer,' 'dyke,' 'faggot'), all on its own, can and often does terrify or appall” (Barris, 2007, para 1.).

 According to Brown (2007b) there are a number of key issues that can impact differently on homosexual couples as compared to heterosexual couples including:

1.      “Relationship stability in the context of homophobia and gay identity

2.      Social support and the process of coming out

3.      The nature of commitment and its demonstration

4.      Gender stereotypes may influence couple dynamics: Fusion and distancing

5.      Sexual practices and their management within relationships”

(Brown, 2007b, p. 295-302)

 As such Brown (2007a) goes on to cite a number of questions which might be helpful when assessing gay and lesbian couples who come for counselling with relationship issues. These address issues such as social supports, gender stereotypes and behaviour, the time frame when they came out or if one or both hide their sexuality, what is the relationship with their family of origin, are their negotiated rules around sexual activity and how do they demonstrate commitment (Brown, 2007a, pp. 79-81)

Brown (2007a, pp.81-85) also provides several strategies that might be efficacious when working with same sex couples including:

1.      “Rituals and the process of normalising the relationship by conducting couples therapy.

2.      Clarifying the nature of the emotional commitment to the relationship

3.      Managing the lack of diversity that exists with single sex couples

4.      Developing a stronger sense of self to reinforce the relationship

–        E.g. Internalised homophobia

5.      Developing social support networks for relationship

6.      Managing issues of sex in same sex relationships

7.      Dealing with the sexuality of the therapist”

However, it is apparent that as many therapeutic models lend themselves to working with homosexual couples as heterosexual couples.

5                        Conclusion:

It is apparent that a number of stereotypes exist around same sex relationships and that these stereotypes have been disproved by a significant body of research. The similarities between same sex and heterosexual committed relationship has also been clearly demonstrated. However, there are issues that impact on same sex relationships that are not experienced by heterosexual relationships and these primarily come as a result of homosexual people forming an oppressed minority within our society.

As counsellors we need to be aware of the stereotypes that can label and oppress gays and lesbians and their relationships. We also need to be awake to the issues which impact on any committed relationship which may be impacting on a same sex couple that comes to us for assistance with their relationship. However, we also need to be aware of and prepared to work with issues that may impact on same sex relationships because of the way homosexuality is viewed within our society.

6                        References

Barris, J. (2007).The Power of Homophobic Labeling: A Post-Structuralist Psychoanalytic and Marxist Explanation in Radical Psychology: A Journal of Psychology, Politics & Radicalism; 2007, Vol. 6 Issue 1, Retrieved on 27th April 2009 from http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy1.acu.edu.au/ehost/detail?vid=8&hid=103&sid=d2217cdc-1973-4b19-a3ff-67969fa9c691%40sessionmgr109&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=a9h&AN=28726647

 Brown, J. (2007a). Therapy with same sex couples: Guidelines for embracing the subjugated discourse, and Challenging the stereotypes of gay male and lesbian couples: a research perspective, in Shaw, E & Crawley, J. Couple Therapy in Australia , Issues Emerging from Practice. Melbourne : Psychoz Publications..

 Brown, J. (2007b). Challenging the stereotypes of gay male and lesbian couples: a research perspective, in Shaw, E & Crawley, J.  Couple Therapy in Australia , Issues Emerging from Practice. Melbourne : Psychoz Publications.

 Egan, G (2002) The skilled helper (7^th Ed.). Pacific Grove , Calif. : Brooks/Cole

 Felmlee, D. H., Orzechowicz, D. and Fortes, C. E. , (2008). "Fairy Tales: Attraction in Same-Sex Relationships" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association Annual Meeting 31^st July 2008, Sheraton Boston and the Boston Marriott Copley Place, Boston, MA  Retrieved  4^th March 2009 from http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p242905_index.html

 Gay & Lesbian Rights Lobby, (2009a). Retrieved on 4th March 2009 from http://glrl.org.au/index.php/Table/Get-Involved/Get-Involved/

 Gay & Lesbian Rights Lobby (2009b). Your Rights Checklist Retrieved 27th April 2009 from http://glrl.org.au/index.php/Rights/Rights/Your-Rights-Checklist

 Gay Straight Alliance (2009),  Myths & Misconceptions, Retrieved on 27^th April, 2009 from the Association of Gay, Lesbian & Bisexual Issues in Counseling of Alabama website at http://www.aglbical.org/2MYTHS.htm

Gottman, J., & Silver, N. (2000). The seven principles for making marriage work. London : Orion.

Gottman, J., & Levenson, R. (2009)12-year study of Gay & Lesbian Couples Retrieved on 27th April 2009 from http://www.gottman.com/research/gaylesbian/12yearstudy/

 HREOC Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission, (2007) Retrieved on 27^th April, 2009 from http://www.hreoc.gov.au/HUMAN_RIGHTS/gay_lesbian/

 Josephson, G. J. (2003) Using an Attachment-Based Intervention with Same-Sex Couples in Johnson, Susan M.(Editor). Attachment Processes in Couple and Family Therapy. New York , NY , USA : Guilford Publications, Incorporated,

 Malley, M. and Tasker, F. (2007)'“The Difference that Makes a Difference”: What Matters to Lesbians and Gay Men in Psychotherapy, Journal of Gay & Lesbian Psychotherapy,11:1,93 — 109..

 Roisman, G.I., Clausell, E., Holland , A., Fortuna, K., & Elieff, C. (2008) Adult Romantic Relationships as Contexts of Human Development: A Multimethod Comparison of Same-Sex Couples With Opposite-Sex Dating, Engaged, and Married Dyads in  Developmental Psychology Vol. 44, No. 1, 91–101

 Schachner, D.A.; Shaver, P.E.; Mikulincer, M. (2003) Ch 2 Adult Attachment Theory, Psychodynamics and Couple Relationships, An Overview, in Johnson, S.M.; Whiffen, V.E. (eds) Attachment Processes in Couple and Family Therapy, New York: Guildford

 Tasmanian Gay & Lesbian Rights Group, (1997) Retrieved on 27th April 2009 from http://tglrg.org/index/C0_4_1/)

2: Resilience in the Face of Trauma

Synopsis

In this paper I focus on resilience in the face of trauma. Firstly, I look at factors that foster resilience in individuals, taking into account the work of Worsley and others in developing the Resilience Doughnut. I also explore resilience factors within families and then communities - exploring along the way what are the common factors for resilience in individuals, couples and communities. I also explore how resilience can be fostered in cross cultural communities and look at one of the programs being put in place to make communities more resilient in the face of natural and man made trauma.

 Table of Contents

1          Introduction

2          What is trauma and what is resilience in the face of trauma?

3          Factors that foster resilience in the individual and the family

3.1     Optimistic Thinking – Our view of ourselves, others & situations

3.2     A healthy lifestyle

3.3     Our place in Relationship: attachment as a facilitator of resilience for individuals and families

3.4     What you have, what you are & what you can do: The Resilience Doughnut

4          Resilience and Community

5          Conclusion:

6          References

1                        Introduction

A significant body of research has been carried out in the area of resilience in the face of trauma. This research has identified a number of factors that can facilitate resilience in individuals, families and communities. Fundamentally, these factors are strength based and look at enhancing an individuals, families or communities strengths rather than identifying and cataloguing deficits and attempting to rectify them.

A number of the factors that facilitate resilience are similar regardless of whether you are looking at individuals or groups of people and focus around positive thinking, connectedness, relationship, resources, skills & education. Importantly, for organisations working with communities in the developing world, these factors appear to apply in cross cultural settings pointing the way to reducing the impact of trauma in those communities.

2                        What is trauma and what is resilience in the face of trauma?

In looking at the question of resilience in the face of trauma it prompts the exploration of what we mean by both resilience and trauma. In keeping with the definition of Briere and Scott, who build on the definition provided in the DSM-IV-TR, a traumatic event is seen to be one where there is “actual or threatened death or serious injury, or other threat to one’s” own or another’s psychical integrity or psychological integrity. (Briere & Scott, 2006, p.3-4). Trauma can be human in origin e.g. rape, assault, war, or natural, e.g. flood, fire, earthquake or accidental e.g. a plane, car or train accident. These events can impact on individuals, families or entire communities without regard to culture or economic well being even though it is often the poorest that suffer the most.

As for resilience Sandler et al state that “bereaved children who achieve high levels of competence and low levels of problems are considered to be resilient” (Sandler , Wolchik, Ayers, Tein, Coxe & Chow, 2008, p. 532). Likewise Masten describes resilience as people “succeeding in spite of serious challenges to development” (Masten, 1997, para 1). She went on to emphasise that “resilience does not mean ‘invulnerable’ or ‘unscathed!’” (Masten, 1997, para 4).

Resilience in this paper is understood to be:

the behavioral patterns, functional competence, and cultural capacities that individuals, families, and communities use under adverse circumstances and the ability to make adversity into a catalyst for growth and development (Hooyman & Kramer, 2006, p. 66).

Dr Michael Ungar, Principal Investigator with the Resilience Research Centre has a definition which emphasises the relational aspects of resilience by stating that "resilience is both an individual’s capacity to navigate to health resources and a condition of the individual’s family, community and culture to provide those resources in culturally meaningful ways" (Ungar, 2009, para. 3). The relational nature of resilience is also emphasised by Plants & Walsh who state that “resilience is produced by the interactions among a child, family, peers and community” (Plants & Walsh cited in Worsley, 2006, p.13).

In the face of various trauma events it is apparent that there is variability in how resilient individuals or communities are and people will vary in their resilience in the face of the same trauma event. (Geldard & Geldard, 2002) In fact most people faced with a traumatic event do not go onto develop trauma symptoms demonstrating that resilience in the face of trauma is largely an inherent aspect of our humanity (The Australian Centre for Posttraumatic Mental Health, 2007).

Likewise, various trauma events have the ability to affect us at a deeper level than other trauma events. In responding to the death of a child studies have shown that parents of children who have died as a result of homicide have higher levels of PTSD and lower levels of marital satisfaction, “and the least acceptance of deaths” compared to those who had lost children as a result of accident and suicide (Murphy, 2008, p.380).  In fact, “parents whose children died by suicide, compared with” parents of children who died from homicide or accident, displayed “the lowest mean scores on mental distress and PTSD and the highest mean scores on acceptance of death and marital satisfaction”(Murphy, 2008, p.380). 

3                        Factors that foster resilience in the individual and the family

 Given that resilience is variable across individuals and groups of people what are the factors that are key to having and building resilience? The factors are varied but it is worth noting that there are several key factors that, like attachment theory, revolve around how we think about and perceive ourselves and how we think about others.

3.1          Optimistic Thinking – Our view of ourselves, others & situations

Optimistic thinking has been shown to be a key factor in promoting resilience. The way a person thinks directly impacts on “many critical abilities associated with resilience including:

• “Emotional regulation
• Impulse control
• Causal analysis
• Empathy
• Maintaining realistic optimism
• Self-efficacy, and
• Reaching out to others and taking opportunities” (Worsley, 2006, p.5 ).

The optimist will see bad events as transitory, they see the events as being caused by issues that have solutions and that they are not responsible for what has happened to them. In contrast the pessimist will see themselves as somehow being responsible for the traumatic event, that every thing is bad and that the situation is unlikely to get better (Worsley, 2006; Bonanno, Boerner & Wortman, 2008; Archer & Fisher, 2008). As pointed out by Worsley this research is important because it indicates that key skills that enhance resilience can be taught and learned (2006).

 The way we think has a powerful impact on how we perceive events and how we feel and behave in response to those perceptions. Ellis and Newman maintain that pessimistic thinking as opposed to optimistic thinking styles about your life and future  can lead us to “magnify our problems and minimize our assets” limiting our ability to bounce back following a traumatic event. (1996, p.31)

 However, there are also external factors that impact on a person’s resilience in the face of trauma. Egan cites Holaday and McPhearson who suggest that “social support, cognitive skills, and psychological resources”(2002, p.359) are the prime factors in promoting resilience. Social support is seen to “include the overall values of a society towards … people in trouble” (2002, p.359) Cognitive skills & intelligence contribute to resilience as does a coping style which emphasizes use of positive thinking styles, belligerence vs. passivity, avoiding self-blame, exercising personal control and the ability to interpret experiences in a way that promotes coping rather than ceding of control and outcomes to chance. (2002, p.359). Psychological resources are the personality characteristics, such as “internal locus of control, empathy, curiosity, a tendency to seek novel experiences” 2002, p.359) as well as a sense of humor.

3.2          A healthy lifestyle

While the data is purely descriptive it is apparent that a healthy lifestyle is also a factor that is conducive to resilience. Healthy protective behaviors in this regard were taken to include “exercise, eating a healthy diet, not smoking, and moderate alcohol use.” Mothers and fathers studied post one of  their children’s death ,who were in poor health, were 3 times more likely to report trauma symptoms while unhealthy fathers were “5 times more likely to report trauma symptoms” (Murphy, 2008, p.381). 

3.3          Our place in Relationship: attachment as a facilitator of resilience for individuals and families

As mentioned earlier, the factors that foster secure attachment also foster resilience. Parkes found while investigating attachment styles in bereavement that “adults who reported having secure attachments to their parents during childhood showed less grief and distress than did those who clung to and demonstrated separation distress with parental figures during childhood”(cited in Hooyman & Kramer, 2006, p. 27).

 When the expected attachment is forthcoming “individuals are better able to reach out to and provide support for others and deal positively” with the stress of trauma. (Johnson, 2003, p. 4). For Levin, secure attachments with significant adults fosters “psychological resilience in children enabling them to develop into emotionally healthy adults.”(Levin, 2000).

 Attachments then, can be working for you or against you, regardless of whether you are an adult or child facing a traumatic event. If the members of the family are securely attached then they are more likely be resilient in the face of traumatic events. However, if the members of the family are insecurely attached, then those very insecurities of attachment may predispose those family members to being less resilient to those same traumatic events. (Kobak. & Mandelbaum, 2003) Belsky, among others, cite studies showing that the nature of attachment early in a child’s life will be an indicator of how that person will react later in life in regard to grief, stress and trauma. (Belsky, 2006; Segal & Jaffe, 2007)

 It is apparent then that attachment and relationship building capabilities in individuals have a lot to do with a family unit’s ability to cope with trauma. A lot of work has been done looking at problems that exist within families presenting for treatment, however, Dallos & Draper point out that very little work has been done looking at resilience in families that do not present with problems following exposure to similar adverse events. (Dallos& Draper, 2007)

 Dallos & Draper sought to overcome this shortfall by studying two groups, one group with a history of mental health issues and another where there was no know clinical history. While both groups had similar histories in terms of the types of early difficulties experienced the “the clinical group’s accounts indicated few resources such as emotional spare capacity in the family and practical support available. Also the clinical group showed less ability to contemplate alternative narratives (negative as well as positive) about how events may have proceeded along different paths” (Dallos& Draper, 2007, p.225). As well as highlighting the fact that a degree of resilience is inherent in individuals and families this research points back to the importance of positive thinking as an important factor in facilitating the resilience. It also emphasises attachment between individuals and the positive regard people have for each other as other key determinants of individual and group resilience in the face of trauma.

3.4          What you have, what you are & what you can do: The Resilience Doughnut

 From the above it is apparent that how we think and see our selves and others is important to resilience. Also important is a healthy lifestyle.  Worsley has refined this further and, building on the work of many others including the International Resilience Project, developed the Resilience Doughnut (see Fig.1) which is used as a tool to understand and enhance resilience. In her model resilience is seen as fundamentally strengths based concept in that it seeks to enhance strengths rather than overcome weaknesses (Worsley, 2006; Hooyman & Kramer, 2006). The International Resilience Project identified thirty six factors “that contributed to building an optimistic mindset” split into three categories of what a person has, what they are and what they can do (Worsley, 2006, p.11).

 While keeping the three categories Worsley refined the 36 factors down to seven strength factors being:

• “The parent factor: characteristics of strong and effective parenting.
• The skill factor: evidence of self-efficacy.
• The family factor: where family identity and connectedness is evident.
• The education factor: experience of connections and relationships during the learning process.
• The peer group factor: where social and moral development is enhanced through interactions with peers.
• The community factor: where the morals and values of the local community are transferred and the young person is supported.
• The money factor: where the young person develops the ability to give as well as take from society through employment and purposeful spending” (Worsley,2007, p.9)

Fig 1. (Worsley,2006, p.18)

 Worsley maintains that by enhancing three of these strength factors you can enhance the overall resilience of the individual. (Worsley, 2006, p. 109)

4                        Resilience and Community

Developing these themes and factors as facilitators of resilience there have been a number of projects undertaken by international organisations seeking to engender resilience in communities in the developing world. These groups have also sought to identify the factors that promote resilience and put them into a codified methodology so that communities might enhance their own resilience. As with resilience in individuals it is apparent that these methodologies work best when they focus on enhancing strengths rather than trying to mitigate weaknesses.

 A coalition of groups, including the International Red Cross and Red Crescent organisations, have banded together to form the Disaster Risk Reduction Interagency Coordination Group (DRRICG) and to develop the “Characteristics of a Disaster-resilient Community A Guidance Note.” This document is currently undergoing field testing in a number of communities both in Africa and the Indian sub-continent.

 The aim has been to develop an approach whereby community resilience can be enhanced “through resistance or adaptation capacity to manage, or maintain certain basic functions and structures, during disastrous events and a capacity to recover or ‘bounce back’ after an event” (Twigg, 2007, p.6).

 Page 6of the Guidance Note states y that the focus is on emphasising how community capacities can be strengthened to resist or overcome trauma rather than “concentrating on their vulnerability to disaster or their needs in an emergency.” (Twigg, 2007, p.6) This is a similar strengths based approach to what has been found effective when working to build resilience in individuals.

 The Guidance Note sets out five thematic areas of resilience and twenty seven associated components of resilience (see table one)

Table One:

Thematic area                                                            Components of resilience

(Twigg, 2007, p.9)

To determine how applicable these tools are in developing economies and in a cross cultural context, Tearfund, in association with the Disaster Risk Reduction Interagency Coordination Group, has sought to pilot the Guidance Note in a number of communities in a number of states within Africa and Asia . In one such case study Chadburn has show how it was used in a rural setting, in Dhaka , Bangladesh . The exercise showed how the characteristics were valid and applicable in such a setting. .It also showed what gaps existed in current disaster preparedness.  (Chadburn, 2007)

 In looking at the learnings from the Tearfund case study it showed the effectiveness of taking a strengths based approach rather than “looking at disaster from a negative perspective (i.e. communities are forced to reflect on their difficulties when looking at disaster mitigation and preparedness). It was found to be far more effective to view the task from a perspective that looked at what communities “want and could achieve in disaster resilience” (Chadburn, 2007, p5)

 It is interesting to note that when you compare the detail of the thematic areas of community resilience, as produced by the DRRICG with Worsley’s resilience strength factors there is a strong correlation across each area. However, there is one noticeable exception that the DRRICG thematic areas don’t seem to have a strong correlation for the strength factors identified by Worsley that are associated with family. While it is possible to read the strength aspects of family into the “Risk Management and Vulnerability Reduction” thematic area of the DRRICG document I believe that the issues of identity and connectedness fostered through family would be an interesting area for further research in enhancing community resilience..

5                        Conclusion:

Resilience is something every individual and group has to some extent. Some of these resilience factors include those that come as a result of our earliest attachments and how we have learned to think about ourselves and about others. Research has shown that increasing resilience, whether for individuals, families and communities, is about building on these strengths.

The skills, education, social support and governance structures, that support individuals or communities facing traumatic events, are all factors that can be enhanced, taught or otherwise implemented. However, the research has also shown that one of the most powerful factors in mitigating trauma is to have a positive outlook about ourselves, the resources we have and the situations we are in.

6                        References

Archer, J. & Fisher, H.. (2008) Bereavement & Reactions to Romantic Rejection: A Psychobiological Perspective in Stroebe, M.S., Hansson, R.O., Schut, H., & Stroebe, W. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of Bereavement Research and Practice: Advances in Theory and Intervention. American Psychological Association. Washington , DC

 Belsky, J. (2006). The Developmental and Evolutionary Psychology of Intergenerational Transmission of Attachment in . Attachment and Bonding : A New Synthesis. Carol Sue Carter, (ed) Cambridge , MA , USA : MIT Press.

 Bonanno, G.A., Boerner, K. & Wortman, C.B. (2008) Trajectories of Grieving in Stroebe, M.S., Hansson, R.O., Schut, H., & Stroebe, W. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of Bereavement Research and Practice: Advances in Theory and Intervention. American Psychological Association. Washington , DC

 Briere, J. & Scott, C. (2006) Principles of Trauma Therapy: A guide to Symptoms, Evaluation and Treatment, Sage Publications.

 Chadburn, O.  (2007)Application of ‘Characteristics of a Disaster-Resilient Community’ Tearfund Case Study A – Bangladesh September 2007 Exercise to Introduce the Characteristics to DRR Practitioners working in Rural Bangladesh Villages, DRAFT Version II – January 2008., Tearfund downloaded 6^th April, 2009, from http://www.proventionconsortium.org/themes/default/pdfs/characteristics/characteristics_tearfundA.pdf

 Dallos, R., & Draper, R. (2007) An introduction to Family Therapy, Systemic Theory and Practice (2^nd ed). UK : Open University Press.

 Ellis, T. & and Newman, C. (1996) Choosing to Live, How to defeat suicide through cognitive therapy, Oakland , California : New Harbinger Publications.

Egan, G. (2002) The Skilled Helper, A problem-management and Opportunity-Development Approach to Helping (7^th Edition), Pacific Grove, California, USA: Brooks/Cole.

 Geldard, K & Geldard, D (2002) Counselling Adolescents: The Pro-Active Approach, London , Sage Publications

 Hooyman, N.R., & Kramer, B.J. (2006). Living Through Loss: Interventions Across the Life Span. New York : Columbia University Press

 Johnson, S. M. (2003) . In S.M. Johnson(Ed.), Attachment Processes in Couple and Family Therapy.(pp.4-9 ).New York , NY , USA : Guilford Publications Incorporated.

 Kobak, R. & Mandelbaum, T. (2003) Caring for the Caregiver. In S.M. Johnson (Ed.), Attachment Processes in Couple and Family Therapy.(pp. 144-151 ). New York , NY , USA : Guilford Publications Incorporated.

 Levin, C., (2000) Interview with Daniel Siegel, MD downloaded 13^th Oct 2008 from http://www.mentalhelp.net/poc/view_doc.php?type=doc&id=818 Last updated,  Oct 1st 2000

 Masten, A.S. (1997). Resilience in Children at-Risk in RESEARCH/Practice. Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement, College of Education , University of Minnesota Retrieved 16 October ,2008, from http://cehd.umn.edu/carei/Reports/Rpractice/Spring97/resilience.html

 Murphy, S.A. (2008) The Loss of a child sudden death and extended illness perspectives in Parentally Bereaved Children in Stroebe, M.S., Hansson, R.O., Schut, H., & Stroebe, W. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of Bereavement Research and Practice: Advances in Theory and Intervention. American Psychological Association. Washington , DC

 Segal, J. & Jaffe, J. (2007) Attachment and Adult Relationships: How the Attachment Bond Shapes Adult Relationships. Pat Davies and Suzanne Barston (Eds.) Last modified on: 9/04/07. Downloaded 9^th October 2008 from http://www.helpguide.org/mental/eqb_social_emotional_brain.htm

 Sandler, I.N., Wolchik, S.A., Ayers, T. S., Tein, J-Y., Coxe, S. & Chow, W. (2008) Linking Theory and Intervention to Promote Resilience in Parentally Bereaved Children in Stroebe, M.S., Hansson, R.O., Schut, H., & Stroebe, W. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of Bereavement Research and Practice: Advances in Theory and Intervention. American Psychological Association. Washington , DC

 The Australian Centre for Posttraumatic Mental Health, (2007) Australian Guidelines for the Treatment of adults with Acute Stress Disorder and Posttraumatic Stress Disorder, Information for People with ASD and PTSD, their Families and Carers,, National Health and Medical Research Council, Australian Government

 Twigg, J. (2007) Characteristics of a Disaster-resilient Community A Guidance Note Version 1 (for field testing),  DFID Disaster Risk Reduction Interagency Coordination Group,  Downloaded on 6^th April, 2009 from http://www.proventionconsortium.org/themes/default/pdfs/characteristics/community_characteristics_en_lowres.pdf

 Worsley, L. (2006) The Resilience Doughnut: The Secret of Strong Kids, Sydney, Aust. Wild & Woolley.

 Worsley, 2007, The Resilience Doughnut, Family Relationships Quarterly, Issue 4. Australian Institute of Family Studies,

 Unger, M. (2009) The Resilience Project, Retrieved 31^st March, 2009) from, http://www.resilienceproject.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=text.&str_cmpID=7

[ Home ] [ Up ]

Send mail to webmaster@shirepsych.com.au with questions or comments about this web site.
Copyright © 2008 Shire Psychology and Counselling