family problem solving patterns

Family Conflict Resolution: 6 Worksheets & Scenarios (+ PDF)

It is perhaps unrealistic to expect that relationships remain harmonious all the time; occasional disconnections and disagreements are a fact of life that can help a family grow and move forward, accommodating change (Divecha, 2020).

Repeating patterns of conflict, however, can be damaging for family members, especially children, negatively affecting mental and physical wellbeing (Sori, Hecker, & Bachenberg, 2016).

This article explores how to resolve conflict in family relationships and introduces strategies and activities that can help.

Before you continue, we thought you might like to download our three Positive Communication Exercises (PDF) for free . These science-based tools will help you and those you work with build better social skills and better connect with others.

This Article Contains:

How to resolve conflict in family relationships, 2 examples of conflict scenarios, 3 strategies for family counseling sessions, 6 activities and worksheets to try, a note on conflict resolution for kids, 3 best games and activities for kids, resources from positivepsychology.com, a take-home message.

“Families typically develop certain basic structural characteristics and interactive patterns that they utilize to respond to internal and external stressors.”

Goldenberg, 2017, p. 4

Built on shared assumptions and narratives that exist within the family structure, family members support the group as it adapts and copes with shifting environments and life events.

Such structures, at times, may support and even promote conflict that occurs within families. Indeed, rifts, clashes, and disagreements within the family can take many forms, including physical, verbal, financial, psychological, and sexual (Marta & Alfieri, 2014).

Therapy has the potential to help a family understand how it organizes itself and maintains cohesion, while improving how it communicates and overcomes problems that lead to conflict (Goldenberg, 2017).

As psychologist Rick Hanson writes, “a bid for repair is one of the sweetest and most vulnerable and important kinds of communication that humans offer to each other” (cited in Divecha, 2020).

Crucially, families can learn to navigate the inevitable tension and disconnection that arise from falling out of sync with one another (Divecha, 2020).

Repairing ruptures resulting from miscommunication, mismatches, and failing to attune to one another is vital for parenting and maintaining family union. But how?

While there are many ways to recover from and resolve conflict, the following four steps are invaluable for authentic repair (modified from Divecha, 2020):

Acknowledge the offense Try to identify and understand the hurt you’ve caused. Whether intended and with apparent good reason or not, this is a valuable opportunity to dial down your defenses and focus on how the other person is feeling.

Acknowledging the hurt without adding caveats is a powerful way to show humanity.

It can help to check your understanding, “Did I upset you? Help me understand how.” Your approach must be open and authentic; unless heartfelt, it risks escalating emotions.

Express remorse Sometimes, simply saying, “I’m sorry,” is enough, or at least an excellent place to start.

Take care though. Adding a comment, such as, “Well, you shouldn’t have done X,” weakens your expression of remorse, especially when dealing with children. They are learning from what you do – right and wrong.

Also, don’t go overboard. Being too quick to say sorry or going over the top with an apology can make it more about yourself than the person hurt.

Offer a simple explanation If the other person is ready to listen (neither too upset nor too angry), a brief explanation can clarify the thinking behind your actions.

Remember to focus on the other person’s experience rather than a litany of excuses for poor behavior. And avoid using this as an opportunity to add grievances or assign blame for issues that have arisen recently.

Learn and practice expressing your intentions to fix the situation and stop it from happening again. Be sincere. Say that you are sorry and mean it.

There is little point in apologizing and recovering from conflict if you intend to repeat the behavior.

Conflict is often avoidable. But if it isn’t, then it is possible to recover and maintain family relationships through authentic activities that repair damage (Divecha, 2020).

Family therapy can help resolve conflicts within the family unit through multiple routes, including:

Exploring various relationships that make up the family.
Bringing couples and families together to resolve interpersonal conflicts rather than treating them separately.
Focusing on interventions with entire families rather than individuals.
Establishing the role of dysfunctional families in individual mental health problems.

Family conflict can appear in all shapes and sizes. While minor disagreements between siblings may be resolved quickly, major rifts can form between child and parent, damaging previously strong bonds.

All relationships within a family can at one time or another descend into conflict. Two such examples include (modified from Goldenberg, 2017):

Conflict over money Bob and Tess are married with two children. In therapy, Tess claims that Bob is mean with his money: checking grocery bills and yelling at the cost of their children’s birthday presents. Along with other relationship issues, conflict had led them to sleep in separate rooms.

Bob argues he works hard for his money and gives her a generous amount each month, but Tess spends beyond their means.

During therapy, it became clear that Bob comes from a working-class family and was taught from an early age to live frugally. His long-standing beliefs underpin (but do not excuse) his outbursts.

In time, therapy helps them become more supportive of one another, giving up their underlying power struggles and successfully moving away from stereotypical gender roles.

Cultural and intergenerational conflict Despite Indira and Sanjay Singh moving to the United States while they were still at preschool age, they have retained the cultural and moral values of their place of birth: India. When their two children were born, they were also taught to be compliant and respect their parents, while friends from school were discouraged.

As the children grew older, it became clear that the conflict between the old and new culture was causing a rift, dividing children and parents. Despite reluctance from the parents, in time, all four attended family therapy and began to deal with cultural differences and expectations arising from multiculturalism.

Download 3 Communication Exercises (PDF)

These detailed, science-based exercises will equip you or your clients with tools to improve communication skills and enjoy more positive social interactions with others.

Download 3 Free Communication Tools Pack (PDF)

By filling out your name and email address below.

Email Address *
Your Expertise * Your expertise Therapy Coaching Education Counseling Business Healthcare Other
Name This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Conflict in family situations can be “chronic and unresolved,” cycling through “periods of emotional distance and closeness with intense negative feelings” (Metcalf, 2011, p. 45).

In family therapy, the many theories offer different lenses through which to view the world and, most importantly, help families manage and resolve conflict (Metcalf, 2011).

The following strategies can help protect the family from or cope with conflict in its many forms.

Build an environment of connection and understanding

Divecha (2020) suggests that by building an environment of connection and understanding, you can “create a family culture where rifts are expected and repairs are welcomed.”

Encourage clients to make small but vital changes to the family setting (modified from Divecha, 2020):

Watch out for the easily missed signs that indicate a child, young adult, or partner wishes to find a way to reconnect and recover from conflict.
Normalize requests, such as, “I need a repair” and “Can we have a redo?” that tell us a family member is ready to fix a damaged relationship.
Maintain awareness. If we think we may have caused upset or harm, circle back and check in with the other person.

Building a better environment through frequent repairs can catch problems early and reduce the likelihood of escalation.

Use “I” statements

How we say something can have a significant impact on what others hear. Encourage family members to express how they feel without blaming others, such as (modified from Goldenberg, 2017):

“I am hurt by what you said last night” rather than accusations, such as, “You were out of order last night.”

Speak directly to the therapist

There may be times during a therapy session when tension between family members heightens and the emotional intensity needs to be de-escalated (Goldenberg, 2017).

A helpful communication technique is to ask the family member talking to address the therapist directly. This refocus encourages the speaker to express themselves more calmly and allows the other person time and space to listen and respond under less pressure.

The following activities focus on exploring family structures, beliefs, and problem-solving behavior to avoid or resolve conflict within the group.

Recognizing Family Narratives

Family narratives provide support for coping with upsetting events and recovering from conflict (Goldenberg, 2017).

Use the Recognizing Family Narratives worksheet to identify narratives that explain and justify the structure and interactive patterns that exist within the family.

The constructs we form can enable or inhibit how we cope with conflict and other life events within the family (Goldenberg, 2017).

Parenting With Purpose

Parenting can be difficult; it is easy to lose sight of what is important. Defining meaning and purpose for ourselves as parents and our children can offer a valuable compass for day-to-day decision-making (Hart, 2006).

The Parenting With Purpose worksheet is a helpful reminder of your values and purpose as a parent.

The answers to the questions can help you understand what kind of relationship you would like with your children and why.

What Is Working Within the Family?

While it is essential to identify and fix what is causing conflict within a family, it is equally valuable to recognize what is working.

Once we recognize where we are successful in a relationship, it can remind us that not everything is terrible. We are doing some things right, and we have something upon which we can build.

The What Is Working worksheet helps identify and share the positives in the relationships within the family.

Recognize that conflict doesn’t occur in the family all the time and encourage the activities that unite you as a group.

Meeting Our Family’s Needs

Sura Hart (2006, p. 175), former teacher and education project director for the Center for Nonviolent Communication, says that “you can find conflict in every human story, and in the conflict situation you can find the needs people are wanting to meet.”

Use the Meeting Our Family’s Needs worksheet to help each family member have their needs heard, understood, and, ultimately, accepted.

Consider Your Intentions

Words have the power to share love and anger. Without clear and conscious intention, it is possible to communicate unhelpful and even harmful messages (Hart, 2006).

Use the Consider Your Intentions worksheet to identify and understand your intentions and help you respect and care for other family members’ needs.

Perform an early check on your intentions before you engage with the other family member, especially if it has the potential to turn into conflict.

Using the answers, consider how you can show positive intentions and steer clear of harmful intentions, such as proving yourself right.

Seeing Family Conflict as a Problem to Solve

Conflict isn’t always to be avoided; clashes can be productive, stimulating learning, fostering understanding, and moving a relationship forward (Hart, 2006).

However, some conflict is unnecessary and avoidable, especially regarding daily tasks, such as tidying the house, going to bed, and completing chores.

Use the Seeing Family Conflict as a Problem to Solve worksheet to help recognize everyday actions as problems to overcome rather than points of contention.

14 Effective conflict resolution techniques – BRAINY DOSE

“Life is a series of mismatches, miscommunications, and misattunements that are quickly repaired” says family researcher Ed Tronick (cited in Divecha, 2020).

Children can learn from the family environment that conflict need not be out of proportion to the situation and may, ultimately, lead to positive change.

It helps when family relationships are overwhelmingly positive. Make sure to make “special time” available for each child, where they have control over what you do and for how long, writes Divecha (2020). Learn to show gratitude and appreciation for what the child does more readily without it becoming predictable and unthinking.

Board games such as Monopoly, Checkers, and Life can be played as a pair or a family. The children see that it’s okay to make mistakes and learn from their parents’ reaction to losing.

More physical, active games such as Tag or Hide and Seek allow the whole family to have fun, while, importantly, seeing each other having fun. Children need to experience their parents as humans with a wish to enjoy themselves. Parents benefit from experiencing their family laughing – a reminder that life is not all about duty and rules.

Quieter pastimes, including art and craft, can be a time to build and use mindfulness practices, considering colors, textures, and smells. Interactive activities such as making funny characters out of play dough or houses out of Lego is fun and beyond rules or feelings of failure.

17 Exercises To Develop Positive Communication

17 Positive Communication Exercises [PDF] to develop help others develop communication skills for successful social interactions and positive, fulfilling relationships.

Created by Experts. 100% Science-based.

Family conflict can often be avoided. The following resources help individuals gain a greater understanding of other family members’ needs and feelings.

Mind the Gap Identify and share the values you would like to exist within your family, such as love, trust, compassion, and teamwork.
Conflict at School Conflict outside the home can have an impact inside. Help your children to reflect on the relationships they have at school.

Additional reading and resources include:

Conflict Resolution in Relationships and Couples: 5 Strategies For more ideas on how to resolve conflict in other types of relationships, read our conflict resolution in relationships article.
14 Conflict Resolution Strategies & Techniques for the Workplace This article about conflict resolution in the workplace is a helpful additional read, especially where the lines between family and work is blurred – working in the family business, working from home – these all can cause conflict so be sure to have a look at this article too.

If you’re looking for more science-based ways to help others communicate better, check out this collection of 17 validated positive communication tools for practitioners. Use them to help others improve their communication skills and form deeper and more positive relationships.

It is vital that families learn to survive – and even grow – under adverse conditions. The family unit faces daily challenges from outside and conflict from within that can upset the internal stability that rests upon existing narratives, shared beliefs, and sometimes mistaken assumptions (Goldenberg, 2017).

It can become less about preventing all conflict, which is impossible, and more about creating a family environment that reduces unnecessary friction, repairs rifts and misunderstandings, grows, and moves forward.

Our communication – what we say and how we say it – remains crucial and can improve over time with practice and an improved awareness of one another’s needs. Family members can also learn skills and techniques to improve self-regulation, resilience, and coping that strengthen internal structures.

This article introduces tools and worksheets that help remove avoidable conflict and manage and resolve it within the family unit, where disagreement is inevitable. Try them out with your clients or within your own family to improve engagement, strengthen relationships, and build a more supportive and resilient family structure.

We hope you enjoyed reading this article. Don’t forget to download our three Positive Communication Exercises (PDF) for free .

American Psychological Association. (2011). Family interventions. Retrieved October 6, 2021, from https://www.apa.org/pi/about/publications/caregivers/practice-settings/intervention/family
Divecha, D. (2020, October 27). Family conflict is normal; it’s the repair that matter s. Greater Good. Retrieved October 4, 2021, from https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/family_conflict_is_normal_its_the_repair_that_matters
Goldenberg, I. (2017). Family therapy: An overview . Cengage Learning.
Hart, S. (2006). Respectful parents, respectful kids: 7 Keys to turn family conflict into co-operation . PuddleDancer Press.
Marta, E., & Alfieri, S. (2014). Family conflicts. In A. C. Michalos (Ed.), Encyclopedia of quality of life and well-being research . Springer.
Metcalf, L. (2011). Marriage and family therapy: A practice-oriented approach . Springer.
Sori, C. F., Hecker, L., & Bachenberg, M. E. (2016). The therapist’s notebook for children and adolescents: Homework, handouts, and activities for use in psychotherapy . Routledge/Taylor & Francis.

Share this article:

Article feedback

What our readers think.

Thank you for the resources on family conflict resolution. I am working with a family that is really challenged.

We have had major conflicts in the family with me, my husband, who is the stepdad, and my grown kids. One speaks to us but lives on the northern East Coast. Haven’t seen him in 5 years. The other grown child is my daughter. She has had no contact with us of any kind for 5 years. I look forward to learning how to defuse conflicts and then grow healthy relationships, with my kids especially.

Let us know your thoughts Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Conflict Resolution Training: 18 Best Courses and Master’s Degrees

All humans have some things in common. We all need air to breathe and water to stay alive. We are all social beings, and if [...]

How to Foster Positive Communication: 9 Effective Techniques

Can you recall a really good conversation you’ve had? What was memorable about it? Was it the topic, the words, or just a feeling it [...]

Communication Skills in Counseling & Therapy: 17 Techniques

Positive outcomes from therapy and counseling rely on the strength of the relationship between the mental health professional and the client. Such connections build on [...]

Comments This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

We're Hiring!
Help Center

FAMILY PROBLEM-SOLVING: HOW DO FAMILIES WITH ADOLESCENTS MAKE DECISIONS?

Abstract In the present study, we adopt an observational method for the analysis of family members' interactions during a problem-solving task. The specific focus of our work is to put the family as a whole beneath the lens of observation, as well as to analyze how the parents and the adolescent separately contribute to the task solution. Twenty-eight non-clinical families with adolescents (13 to 16 years old) were filmed in their homes during a problem-solving task.

Related Papers

Journal of Adolescence

The Analysis of Verbal Behavior

American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse

Journal of Advanced Nursing

Judith Lynam

Western journal of nursing research

Yulia Y. Semeniuk

We conducted a two-group longitudinal partially nested randomized controlled trial to examine whether young adolescent youth-parent dyads participating in Mission Possible: Parents and Kids Who Listen, in contrast to a comparison group, would demonstrate improved problem-solving skill. The intervention is based on the Circumplex Model and Social Problem-Solving Theory. The Circumplex Model posits that families who are balanced, that is characterized by high cohesion and flexibility and open communication, function best. Social Problem-Solving Theory informs the process and skills of problem solving. The Conditional Latent Growth Modeling analysis revealed no statistically significant differences in problem solving among the final sample of 127 dyads in the intervention and comparison groups. Analyses of effect sizes indicated large magnitude group effects for selected scales for youth and dyads portraying a potential for efficacy and identifying for whom the intervention may be effi...

Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences

Yeter Sahiner

Child Development

Aaron Metzger , Denise C Gettman , Nicole Campione-Barr

A sample of 118 predominantly European American families with early and middle adolescents (Mages= 12.32 and 15.18 years) and 1 parent evaluated hypothetical conflicts between adolescents’ and parents’ requests for assistance versus the other’s personal desires. Evaluations differed by level of need, but in low-need situations, adolescents viewed teens as more obligated to help parents than did parents, whereas parents rated it as more permissible for teens to satisfy personal desires than did teenagers. Justifications for helping focused on concern for others, role responsibilities, and among parents, psychological reasons. Middle adolescents reasoned about role responsibilities more and viewed satisfying personal desires as less selfish than did early adolescents, but satisfying personal desires was seen as more selfish by parents of middle than early adolescents. Implications for adolescent–parent relationships are discussed.

Family Process

Donna Bryant

Problem-Solving Family Therapy

Living reference work entry
First Online: 11 November 2017
Cite this living reference work entry

David Hale 4 &
Dale E. Bertram 5

533 Accesses

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Chubb, H. (1995). Outpatient clinic effectiveness with the MRI brief therapy model. In J. Weakland & W. Ray (Eds.), Propagations: Thirty years of influence from the Mental Research Institute (pp. 129–132). New York: The Haworth Press.

Google Scholar

Hale, D., & Frusha, C. (2016). MRI brief therapy: A tried and true systemic approach. Journal of Systemic Therapies, 35 (2), 14–24.

Article Google Scholar

Haley, J. (1987). Problem-solving therapy . San Francisco: Josey-Bass, Inc.

Haley, J. (1993). Uncommon therapy: The psychiatric techniques of Milton H. Erickson, M.D . New York: W.W. Norton & Company.

Nardone, G., & Watzlawick, P. (2007). Brief strategic therapy . New York: Aronson.

Ray, W., Schlanger, K., & Sutton, J. (2009). One thing leads to another, redux: Contributions to brief therapy from John Weakland, Ch.E., Paul Watzlawick, Ph.D. and Richard Fisch, M.D. Journal of Brief, Strategic, and Systemic Therapies, 3 , 15–37.

Weakland, J., & Ray, W. (Eds.). (1995). Propagations: Thirty years of influence from the Mental Research Institute . New York: The Haworth Press.

Weakland, J., Fisch, R., Watzlawick, P., & Bodin, A. (1974). Brief therapy: Focused problem resolution. Family Process, 13 , 141–168.

Weakland, J., Watzlawick, P., & Riskin, J. (1995). Introduction: MRI – A little background music. In J. Weakland & W. Ray (Eds.), Propagations: Thirty years of influence from the Mental Research Institute (pp. 1–15). New York: The Haworth Press.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

University of Louisiana, Monroe, LA, USA

Abilene Christian University, Abilene, TX, USA

Dale E. Bertram

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David Hale .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

The Family Institute at Northwestern, Evanston, Illinois, USA

Anthony Chambers

Douglas C. Breunlin

Section Editor information

University of Louisville, Louisville, KY, USA

Eli Karam Ph.D., LMFT

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this entry

Cite this entry.

Hale, D., Bertram, D.E. (2018). Problem-Solving Family Therapy. In: Lebow, J., Chambers, A., Breunlin, D. (eds) Encyclopedia of Couple and Family Therapy. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-15877-8_332-1

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-15877-8_332-1

Received : 06 June 2017

Accepted : 27 October 2017

Published : 11 November 2017

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-319-15877-8

Online ISBN : 978-3-319-15877-8

eBook Packages : Springer Reference Behavioral Science and Psychology Reference Module Humanities and Social Sciences Reference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Find a journal
Track your research

Family resilience: a framework for clinical practice

Affiliation.

1 School of Social Service, Administration and Department of Psychiatry, and Center for Family Health, University of Chicago, USA. [email protected]
PMID: 12698595
DOI: 10.1111/j.1545-5300.2003.00001.x

This article presents an overview of a family resilience framework developed for clinical practice, and describes its advantages. Drawing together findings from studies of individual resilience and research on effective family functioning, key processes in family resilience are outlined in three domains: family belief systems, organizational patterns, and communication/problem-solving. Clinical practice applications are described briefly to suggest the broad utility of this conceptual framework for intervention and prevention efforts to strengthen families facing serious life challenges.

Adaptation, Psychological*
Family Therapy*
Human Development
Problem Solving
Social Adjustment
Stress, Psychological / psychology

6 minute read

Problem Solving

The problem-solving process in couples and families.

Once a problem is defined, elements of the rational process can be used to seek solutions. However, the rhetoric of problem solving can be somewhat deceptive when applied to couples and families. It is important to recognize that problems in couples and families are not like math problems. There is no single correct solution. There are many different solutions that might help eliminate the negative experiences at the core of the problem. One solution might solve only part of the problem, and components may be needed. Moreover, it may not be clear in advance whether a given solution will be helpful or not. It may seem like a good idea at the time; it may not work. Furthermore, individuals, couples, and families change over time. Such changes mean that solutions that worked at one point in time may not work at a later point.

Thus, effective family problem solving is an ongoing process that involves more than pure logic and reasoning. Couples and families must have certain minimal levels of communication skills and cohesion. They must be willing to change some of their behaviors for the well-being of others. Possible solutions must be tried out to see what happens. The results must be evaluated to see how well a given solution worked and whether other parts of solutions are needed. Family members must have enough patience and willingness to persevere through negotiations that, at times, may seem tedious or unpleasant. These are endured because of the rewards associated with living in a healthy functioning family that solves its problems.

Some family problems may not have a complete solution. For example, a family in poverty may have many problems associated with not having enough resources to meet basic family needs. Or a parent may acquire a serious disability that prevents them from fulfilling their roles as spouse and parent. In such circumstances family members may have to accept that some of their goals can not be attained. It is important to acknowledge that some problems have no solution and further efforts to solve them is counterproductive (Gottman 1999). Problem solving can still be used to find ways of making the best of the situation.

The involvement of issues such as emotional regulation and power dynamics complicates the problem solving process. However, the rational model remains at the core. Teaching couples, parents, and children to use it has proven beneficial in both prevention and therapeutic applications (Vuchinich 1999). Specific issues emerge within each stage when working with couples and families. First, constructing a clear definition of a problem is often difficult. Yet this is a crucial step in starting the process. Problem definitions are often expressed initially as complaints, and complaints are often met by immediate denials or countercomplaints. In the definition stage it is important to avoid such instantaneous negative reactions that engender conflict. Complaints deserve a fair hearing and some displays of empathy. One family member may have to facilitate this and later stages.

Once a problem is defined, possible solutions are suggested. Again, there is a tendency for proposals to be met with immediate negative response. But this stage should follow a brainstorming session in which various proposals are solicited, one after another, with neither criticism nor approval. Unrealistic or humorous proposals are allowed. This format promotes novel or creative approaches to the problem and participation from everyone.

The evaluation stage is facilitated by considering the potential consequences of each realistic proposed solution. By discussing the pros and cons of each proposed solution, family members can project what implications it would have for each of them. There are still disagreements here, but they should focus more on specific details of a solution rather than direct interpersonal conflict. In some cases it is useful to have someone write down each solution and its pros and cons. In this format the most severe objections of some family members get aired and acknowledged. It usually becomes apparent that only one or two solutions have a realistic chance of working. Ideally, the final selection of one solution is a consensual decision. This is not always possible. In such cases family cohesion and commitment to solving the family problems provide the motivation for everyone to try one solution, even if it wasn't everyone's first choice. Social skills can be especially valuable in this phase in reassuring everyone that their interests will be taken into account and the solution will not exploit them.

Once a solution is chosen, a detailed implementation plan is needed to specify exactly who will do what and when they will do it. Following through with a solution may be difficult. Talk is one thing—action is another. It is essential to plan for meetings or discussions to assess how well the solution worked. Typically an initial solution is only partially implemented and is only partially effective. Later meetings are used to revisit the solution and consider adjustments that will improve it. When family members begin seeing the benefits of solving their problems, their motivation for participating in problem solving activities increases.

The extent to which formal meetings are needed for problem solving varies from family to family. Family members do need to communicate about perceived problems in some way. Where and how often they do it depends on their communication patterns. The family meeting provides an effective structured format. It is important that such meetings do not degenerate into mere "gripe sessions," and some planning and facilitation may be necessary. A family meeting should include other activities besides problem solving. This can include such activities as sharing recent positive experiences, sharing news or feelings about extended family members, playing games, or eating snacks. This involves setting aside some time for the couple or family to be together and affirm their positive bonds. This can occur before or after the problem solving and helps integrate it into other aspects of family life.

See also: C OMMUNICATION : C OUPLE R ELATIONSHIPS ; C OMMUNICATION : F AMILY R ELATIONSHIPS ; C ONFLICT : C OUPLE R ELATIONSHIPS ; C ONFLICT : F AMILY R ELATIONSHIPS ; C ONFLICT : P ARENT -C HILD R ELATIONSHIPS ; D ECISION M AKING ; F AMILY L IFE E DUCATION ; N AGGING AND C OMPLAINING ; P OWER : F AMILY R ELATIONSHIPS ; P OWER : M ARITAL R ELATIONSHIPS ; R ESOURCE M ANAGEMENT ; T HERAPY : C OUPLE R ELATIONSHIPS

Bibliography

Dewey, J. ([1910] 1982). How We Think. Lexington, MA: Heath.

Dewey, J. (1938). Logic: The Theory of Inquiry. New York: Henry Holt

Ellis, S., and Siegler, R. S. (1994). "Development of Problem Solving." In Thinking and Problem Solving, ed. R. J. Sternberg. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Forgatch, M. S., and Patterson, G. R. (1989). Family Problem Solving, part 2 of Parents and Adolescents Living Together. Eugene, OR: Castalia.

Gottman, J. M., and Silver, N. (1995). Why Marriages Succeed or Fail. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Gottman, J. M., and Silver, N. (1999). The Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work. New York: Crown.

Heavey, C. L.; Layne, C.; and Christensen, A. (1993). "Gender and Conflict Structure in Marital Interaction." Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 61:16–27.

Kurdek, L. A. (1995). "Predicting Change in Marital Satisfaction from Husbands' and Wives' Conflict Resolution Styles." Journal of Marriage and the Family 57: 153–164.

Pinker, S. (1997). How the Mind Works. New York: Norton.

Tallman, I. (1988). "Problem Solving in Families: a Revisionist View." In Social Stress and Family Development, ed. D. M. Klein and J. Aldous. New York: Guilford.

Vuchinich, S. (1999). Problem Solving in Families: Research and Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

SAM VUCHINICH

Additional topics

Problem Solving - Who Defines Couple And Family Problems?
Other Free Encyclopedias

Marriage and Family Encyclopedia Other Marriage & Family Topics Problem Solving - Emotion And Problem Solving, Who Defines Couple And Family Problems?, The Problem-solving Process In Couples And Families

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Publications
Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

Advanced Search
Journal List
HHS Author Manuscripts

Resilience as Regulation of Developmental and Family Processes

Resilience can be defined as establishing equilibrium subsequent to disturbances to a system caused by significant adversity. When families experience adversity or transitions, multiple regulatory processes may be involved in establishing equilibrium, including adaptability, regulation of negative affect, and effective problem-solving skills. The authors’ resilience-as-regulation perspective integrates insights about the regulation of individual development with processes that regulate family systems. This middle-range theory of family resilience focuses on regulatory processes across levels that are involved in adaptation: whole-family systems such as routines and sense of coherence; coregulation of dyads involving emotion regulation, structuring, and reciprocal influences between social partners; and individual self-regulation. Insights about resilience-as-regulation are then applied to family-strengthening interventions that are designed to promote adaptation to adversity. Unresolved issues are discussed in relation to resilience-as-regulation in families, in particular how risk exposure is assessed, interrelations among family regulatory mechanisms, and how families scaffold the development of children’s resilience.

In this conceptual treatise, we propose a perspective on resilience that integrates insights about the regulation of individual development, embedded in a developmental psychopathology framework (e.g., Davies & Cicchetti, 2004 ; Greenberg, 2006 ), with processes that regulate family systems. Our overall purpose is to advance a theory of resilience that focuses on multilevel analyses in the family as well as the dynamics of adaptation (see Lich, Ginexi, Osgood, & Mabry, 2013 ; Masten, 2007 ). One aim is to describe how resilience in childhood and adolescence may be a product of key regulatory processes at the level of the family, dyad (i.e., coregulation), and individual (i.e., self-regulation).A second purpose is to elucidate systems processes involved in regulation across these levels. Our third aim is to articulate how an understanding of regulatory processes within families may inform family-strengthening interventions that are designed to promote adaptation to adversity and stress. We conclude with a discussion of several unresolved issues related to resilience in the context of regulatory processes in the family.

A Family Perspective on Resilience as Regulation

Regulatory processes may take two broad forms (see Cox & Paley, 1997 ). The first is adaptive self-stabilization, in which coordinated microlevel changes compensate for changes in the environment and maintain equilibrium with respect to previously established set points. These regulatory processes are a form of maintenance. When applied to the family, specific examples include processes in the home environment that maintain the family’s sense of identity and stability ( Patterson, 2002b ), such as maintaining family traditions and daily routines. Another example is enforcing rules that maintain the family’s values and expectations of family members’ behavior in social situations. Thus, in the case of families, adaptive self-stabilization involves adjustments within the family system as well as between the family and the external environment (see Figure 1 ). In this dynamic and continuous process, behaviors such as family routines, open communication, effective problem solving, and emotional support can be both regulating (i.e., a mechanism of regulation) and regulated (i.e., an outcome of regulation).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nihms641672f1.jpg

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.

Although maintenance of what is familiar and comfortable may be functional in many circumstances ( Patterson, 2002b ), intolerance for change (i.e., inflexibility) may be maladaptive when families encounter significant life transitions or non-normative threats ( Cox & Paley, 1997 ). Adjustment to these major stressors may require adaptive self-organization, a second type of regulatory process that involves reorganization of the system in response to external forces acting on internal constraints. In this case, new equilibrium set points or patterns emerge as an adaptation to changed circumstances. As with adaptive self-stabilization, changes that result from adaptive self-organization may occur in the family’s relation to the environment, or within the family system. For example, one family member’s maladaptive response to a stressor in terms of threat appraisal and physiological arousal (e.g., Evans & Kim, 2013 ; Luecken, Appelhans, Kraft, & Brown, 2006 ), or emotion regulation and coping style ( Folkman & Moskowitz, 2004 ), may require significant changes in interpersonal flexibility or a renegotiation of roles within the family (see Table 1 for examples). These regulatory processes operate in feedback loops whereby, for example, one subsystem may be reducing variability in the system in response to a stressor (e.g., parents more closely monitor children’s activities) whereas another is amplifying variability (e.g., a child’s difficult behavior pushes parents to consider new rearing practices). In this way, subsystems or levels of the family both regulate and are regulated by one another ( Cox & Paley, 1997 ).

Examples of Family-Based Interventions to Promote Regulatory Processes

Given these definitions of regulation, resilience can then be defined as adaptive self-stabilization and self-organization following disturbances to a system caused by significant adversity. In other words, when adversity is severe, chronic, or both, it can overwhelm the family’s regulatory capacity and make the establishment of new equilibria and maintenance of functioning difficult. Thus, the process of maintaining functioning and/or thriving in the face of significant adversity constitutes resilience. In some literature, the term resilient has also been defined as a trait-like characteristic ascribed to individuals who have maintained functioning or thrived in the context of adversity, although resiliency more aptly is applied to this type of enduring attribute ( Patterson, 2002a ).

As P. A. Cowan, Cowan, and Schulz (1996) noted, it is not yet clear what a resilient family looks like. Some families that are considered resilient may have developed strong and reliable regulatory processes that aided them in responding to adversity. As implied by Figure 1 , reestablishing equilibrium often involves adaptability, regulation of negative affect, and resolution of interpersonal conflicts, which in turn requires the effective communication and problem-solving skills that often characterize healthy families ( Walsh, 2002 ). Not surprisingly, many of these same regulatory processes are central components of the stress response, including appraisal of the event, emotion regulation, and problem solving ( Greenberg, 2006 ). Our definition of resilience also accords with how individuals’ emotion regulation is viewed: in relation to context (e.g., family interactions) and in response to stress ( Cole, Martin, & Dennis, 2004 ). It is still an open question as to how resilience should best be measured. For instance, achieving equilibrium or adapting to stress could be assessed in terms of normative standards of behavior, recovery of previous levels of functioning after catastrophic adversity or trauma (i.e., self-righting), or stress resistance that entails better-than-expected adaptation ( Bonanno, 2004 ; Masten, 2007 ). However resilience is measured, the definition certainly involves regulatory processes which are strongly implicated in achieving equilibrium after adversity is experienced ( Aldwin, Skinner, Zimmer-Gembeck, & Taylor, 2011 ; Masten, 2007 ; Sameroff & MacKenzie, 2003 ).

Our purpose is to synthesize insights about individuals’ resilience with concepts related to how dynamic systems are regulated, especially family systems. Individual resilience perspectives focus on multilevel dynamics that include coregulation among individuals in relationships and family interactions ( Masten, 2007 ). Dynamic systems perspectives are characterized by an emphasis on self-organization of systems, including their rigidity versus flexibility and relations among their multiple, hierarchically structured levels ( Granic, 2005 ). A dynamic systems lens applied to families thus would emphasize adaptation to adversity that is emergent and configural – it is an evolving product of coregulatory processes among individuals, dyads, and the environment. Multiple regulatory processes in families have been mapped out, but these insights have not been systematically applied to resilience at the family level, at least not considering a dynamic systems perspective.

One attribute of a family systems perspective is that resilience is a complex, multilevel process ( Masten, 2007 ). If one simply combined a given form of adversity at one of three levels of analysis (individual, dyadic, and family system) with two types of mediating mechanisms (vulnerability and protective factors) and three domains of outcome (individual, dyadic, and family system), there would be 18 types of family risk models (cf. P. A. Cowan et al., 1996 ). This schematic is further complicated if we recognize that (a) the dyadic level of analysis includes the marital, sibling, and parent – child subsystems; (b) multiple regulatory processes may be involved (see Figure 1 and Table 1 for examples); and (c) individual outcomes may be measured with biological, social, or psychological indices. An additional layer of complexity is added when macrosystemic influences are considered: Family resilience is embedded in contextual factors such as economic policies affecting families living in poverty, stigma, and persecution that affect gay and lesbian families (e.g., Green, 2012 ), and prejudice that affects minority families (e.g., Romero, Edwards, Fryberg, & Orduña, 2014 ). These stressful social conditions undermine the mental health of all family members ( Meyer, 2007 ). This complexity in studying family resilience is consistent with the theoretical frameworks informing research on children’s resilience, which emphasize multiple levels of influence interacting transactionally over time ( Luthar, Cicchetti, & Becker, 2000 ).

Another hallmark of a family systems approach to resilience is attention to the mechanisms by which protection or vulnerability operate. In this article, we argue that regulatory mechanisms in the family often mediate the effects of specific protective or vulnerability factors. Family processes may set in motion a developmental cascade such that effective child-rearing practices result in offspring being better prepared to cope with adversity. For instance, developmental research has emerged in the last decade showing that when families promote self-regulation, children are more skilled at effortful control, which in turn is associated with developmental competence and fewer behavior problems ( Dishion & Connell, 2006 ; Eisenberg, Smith, Sadovsky, & Spinrad, 2004 ). Family regulatory processes also moderate the impact of stressors, as when marital support and effective problem-solving skills buffer parents from the deleterious effects of economic adversity ( Conger & Conger, 2002 ).

Resilient families also might be distinguished by unique profiles of regulatory mechanisms. If equifinality characterizes resilience ( Davies & Cicchetti, 2004 ), then different combinations of regulatory processes likely contribute to the family system’s equilibrium subsequent to adversity. We could find only one related study in the literature, and it clustered families based on various protective factors at one point in time. Coyle et al. (2009) studied families with a parent who had an alcohol problem and found that “well-functioning families” had higher scores on allmeasures of family regulatory processes (e.g., communication, problem solving, cohesion, adaptable roles) as well as indices of effective child rearing. Although this study suggested that family and dyadic regulatory mechanisms co-occur, it did not disentangle cause and effect because resilience (the outcome) was defined in terms of its predictors – regulatory processes that were conceptualized as protective factors (for a discussion of such tautologies, see Luthar & Zelazo, 2003 ). Also, this study did not examine the dynamic interplay of regulatory mechanisms over time as they influence the family system’s equilibrium. That is, if families achieve similar functional levels of equilibrium and self-organization by different regulatory pathways, a taxonomy of family regulatory processes might result that could be used to fine-tune interventions.

Regulatory Processes in the Family

Regulation is an integrative construct related to the healthy functioning of families and individuals within them. Given that the field lacks a middle-range theory that incorporates systems insights about regulation, family systems theory, and resilience processes, we provide an integrative framework (see Figure 1 ) that is organized by different levels of the family system (P. A. Cowan et al., 1996 ; Cox & Paley, 1997 ). Within each level of the family system, key regulatory mechanisms are identified that have been linked empirically to equilibrium or adaptation in the face of adversity. Considering that the measurement of resilience is still debated, nor have causal directions of influence between resilience and regulation been definitively established, we include prior research that investigates regulatory processes as predictors, moderators/ mediators, and outcomes of resilience. Results from intervention programs may shed light on whether these regulatory processes are causally implicated in resilience (see below).

Family-Level Regulatory Processes

The double abcx and circumplex models.

Two earlier family systems models have regulatory processes as their centerpiece: the circumplex model and the double ABCX model. Both identify adaptability as a key mechanism, suggesting that either model could be applied to family resilience. In this case, adaptability is defined as a trait-like ability to respond to change, such that some families may have a stronger baseline ability to adapt to change than others. However, only the double ABCX model ( McCubbin & Patterson, 1983 ) was specifically meant to be applied to families’ response to adversity. Among the family resources that could be used to resist crisis are several regulatory processes that include adaptability, organization, and coping strategies that are used to manage the demands of a situation. One example of family adaptability is role flexibility, or the ability to deploy strategies 1 that fit specific situational demands that may be outside the scope of what one “should” do. Coping strategies may be especially important to family resilience because they are strongly related to adaptation, depending upon whether problem-focused or escapist strategies are used, as well as emotion regulation ( Folkman & Moskowitz, 2004 ). In addition, the ability to adapt the coping strategy to situational demands, which itself involves self-regulation, may be critical ( Folkman & Moskowitz, 2004 ). Finally, appraisal mechanisms involved in the family’s subjective definition of the stressor are a form of meaning making that can affect emotion regulation ( Lazarus, 1999 ). In a reformulation of the double ABCX model, Patterson (2002b) argued that the appraisal process is critical to family resilience.

The circumplex model incorporates three family systems processes: cohesion, communication, and flexibility versus rigidity. Much research finds that balanced, flexible family systems are more functional (D. H. Olson, 2000 ), though there is a paucity of research that applies the circumplex model to resilience. In one example of a developmental cascade, family rigidity was indirectly associated with adolescents’ suicidal ideation through its effect on adolescent problem-solving skills ( Carris, Sheeber, & Howe, 1998 ). This study illustrated how two regulatory processes – family adaptability and individuals’ problem solving – may be linked in the service of resilience. In short, it is not yet clear how well the circumplex model accounts for family resilience, in part because it is more descriptive of family types than explanatory of resilience processes and in part because a global, static snapshot is taken of family functioning rather than a dynamic motion picture of interacting family processes.

Family Cohesion Versus Family Coherence

Is family cohesion a regulatory process? Within the circumplex model, cohesion is defined in terms of emotional bonding and commitment, coalitions, and shared interests (D. H. Olson, 2000 ), none of which implies dynamic regulation. It would be helpful to know how a family trait such as cohesion contributes to resilience, if indeed it does: through social control mechanisms such as shared norms, modeling, and parental supervision (e.g., Houltberg, Henry, & Morris, 2012 ); emotional support; reduced family conflict; or collaborative problem solving.

A different systems concept, coherence, may be more applicable to understanding family resilience. Sense of coherence emerged out of Antonovsky’s (1979) salutogenic model, which attempts to explain the origins of health or coping with stress. Sense of coherence (SOC) is the extent to which one sees the world as manageable, meaningful, and comprehensible. When people see problems as manageable, they are more likely to seek out resources such as social support, and when life is seen as meaningful, problems are more often actively confronted. SOC has been applied in several studies to families’ adaptation to stress (see McCubbin, Thompson, Thompson, & Fromer, 1998 ). For instance, in two studies by Olsson et al. ( Olsson & Hwang, 2002 ; Olsson, Larsman, & Hwang, 2008 ), SOC moderated the association between cumulative risk and the well-being of parents of children with an intellectual disability, and SOC also was directly related to measures of well-being and depression. The corpus of research to date thus suggests that family coherence may be an important contributor to family resilience.

Regulatory Processes and Family Resilience

The family systems literature related to resilience has recently moved from a static view of risk and protective factors to a more dynamic, process-oriented approach (P. A. Cowan et al., 1996 ). Research has focused on how family interactions may be protective stress regulators, especially those involving emotion regulation ( Gunnar, 2006 ). Emotion regulation entails problem solving and cognitive reappraisal, both of which confer multiple benefits to physical health, psychological adjustment, and interpersonal functioning (for a review, see Aldao & Nolen-Hoeksema, 2012 ). Emotional inflexibility, including rumination and avoidance, contribute to maladjustment; whereas expressive flexibility – the ability to enhance or suppress emotional expression – predicts long-term resilience to cumulative life stress ( Waugh, Thompson, & Gotlib, 2011 ; Westphal, Seivert, & Bonanno, 2010 ). The ability to assess a context and adapt emotional expression accordingly may be especially important to well-being and adaptation ( Aldao & Nolen-Hoeksema, 2012 ). For instance, emotional flexibility in the context of whole-family discussions of conflict buffers children’s regulatory abilities from the effects of negative parenting practices such as the criticism or dismissal of children’s emotions ( Lunkenheimer, Hollenstein, Wang, & Shields, 2012 ). For all of these reasons, Aldao and Nolen-Hoeksema (2012) suggested that emotion regulation interventions should help family members to accurately read contextual cues and then flexibly apply appropriate strategies.

Research on family conflict and problem solving illuminates how various forms of dys-regulation in the family may be interconnected. Cummings et al. ( Cummings, Papp, & Kouros, 2009 ; Cummings & Schatz, 2012 ; Davies, Sturge-Apple, Cicchetti, & Cummings, 2007 ) have detailed how marital conflict may spill over into the parent – child relationship and also affect children’s self-regulation and neurophysiological functioning. Higher levels of family conflict increase children’s risk for sleep disturbances, health problems, and behavior problems (for a review, see El-Sheikh & Erath, 2011 ). Some children are particularly vulnerable to family conflict because their autonomic nervous system makes them more susceptible to context and they have more difficulty marshaling an adaptive emotional or social response ( El-Sheikh & Erath, 2011 ). Conger and Conger (2002) found that parents who were resilient in the face of economic adversity experienced less marital conflict and had better problem-solving skills, and their children were more resilient during developmental transitions if the parent – child relationship was characterized by less hostility. It is for these reasons that Walsh (2002) considered open emotional sharing and collaborative problem solving to be essential elements of family resilience. Because a well-functioning family is able to manage the frustrations of unmet wants and needs, family problem solving also is an element of many family strengthening programs ( Vucinich, 1999 ).

Routines may be an underappreciated form of family regulation that influence individual and family health ( Fiese & Winter, 2010 ). Family routines may serve a protective function by promoting relationship coherence and behavior monitoring ( Spagnola & Fiese, 2007 ). For instance, family meals are predictive of adolescent well-being only when family relationships are strong ( Meier&Musick, 2014 ). Fiese (2006) emphasized that flexible approaches to family time, such as meal times, are optimal for promoting healthier families and also suggested that families create family-level emotion regulation processes through their repetitive routines and rituals. Conversely, an emerging literature on family chaos indicates that higher levels of disorganization in the family contribute to impaired self-regulation in children. For example, studies have found that chaos in the home was indirectly related to later externalizing behaviors through children’s limited inhibitory control ( Hardaway, Wilson, Shaw, & Dishion, 2012 ). Furthermore, maternal executive function attenuated the link between maternal harsh parenting and child conduct problems, but only when households were not chaotic ( Deater-Deckard, Wang, Chen, & Bell, 2012 ). All told, these studies indicate that the degree of predictability and organization in the family system may have proximal (and possibly bidirectional) effects on family members’ self-regulation and, perhaps even more important, may buffer or amplify the effects of adversity on parents and their children.

Dyadic Coregulation

Sensitive parenting.

As noted earlier, maintaining or reestablishing equilibrium in the family subsequent to adversity often involves regulation of negative affect, resolution of interpersonal conflicts, and problem solving, each of which is central to coregulation of dyadic relationships. These coregulatory processes are elemental to sensitive, responsive parent – child relationships, which are salient forces in young children’s adaptation to adversity (e.g., Gewirtz, Forgatch, &Wieling, 2008 ; Wyman et al., 1999 ; Yates, Egeland, & Sroufe, 2003 ). Of particular import is affect regulation in the parent – child dyad, which is consistently found to mediate the association between rearing practices and child outcomes (e.g., NICHD Early Child Care Research Network, 2004 ). Not surprisingly, parents’ emotion coaching predicts better emotion regulation – especially of anger – in children, which is in turn associated with lower levels of externalizing behaviors ( Shortt, Stoolmiller, Smith-Shine, Eddy, & Sheeber, 2010 ).

Conversely, uninvolved or coercive rearing practices place children at high risk for maladaptive outcomes, especially in the face of stress ( Matjasko, Grunden, & Ernst, 2007 ). For example, one study found that greater maltreatment risk in young mothers was associated with poorer self-regulation in their 3 year olds, which in turn predicted later preacademic and behavior problems at age 5 years ( Schatz, Smith, Borkowski, Whitman, & Keogh, 2008 ). In another longitudinal study, intrusive parenting in toddlerhood inversely predicted effortful control a year later, which in turn mediated the association with later ego resiliency ( Taylor, Eisenberg, Spinrad, & Widaman, 2013 ). Given that ego resiliency involves flexible problem solving as well as the ability to adapt to stress, the Taylor et al. (2013) study suggests that overcontrolling, inflexible rearing practices undermine children’s ability to adapt to adversity.

Structuring

Parents also regulate their children’s behavior through structuring. In an important way, structuring is an antonym for a chaotic family environment because it is defined as “parents’ organization of children’s environment to facilitate children’s competence” ( Grolnick & Pomerantz, 2009 , p. 167). Specific manifestations of structuring include clear rules and expectations, predictable consequences for misbehavior, firm enforcement of expectations, and behavioral control ( Grolnick & Pomerantz, 2009 ). Given that resilience typically is assessed in relation to competent functioning ( Masten, 2007 ; Masten & Coatsworth, 1995 ), structuring that is neither lax nor intrusive should promote resilience because this form of social control and guidance, if internalized by children, results in better self-regulation. Multiple studies support the conclusion that parental structuring is related to resilience. For instance, Pettit, Bates, and Dodge (1997) found that supportive parenting – assessed as use of calm discussions, guidance, and reasoning – mitigated the effects of family adversity on later behavior problems. In adolescence, parental monitoring was an important protective factor for youth living in violent communities ( Horowitz, McKay, & Marshall, 2005 ) and was linked to reductions in risky sexual behavior, substance use, and school problems ( Lohman & Billings, 2008 ). Thus, the evidence strongly supports the conclusion that resilience is nurtured when parents effectively regulate emotions in the parent – child dyad as well as guide but do not coerce children.

Dyadic Synchrony

A related research agenda focuses on dyadic regulation from a systems perspective. One goal of this line of research, exemplified by the work of Lunkenheimer and colleagues, is to understand how self-regulation arises from reciprocal influences between the child and his or her social partners. Specifically, dysregulated parent – child interactions contribute to children’s adjustment problems and behavior disorders by means of impaired emotion regulation ( Diamond & Aspinwall, 2003 ; S. L. Olson&Lunkenheimer, 2009 ). In addition, dyadic rigidity versus flexibility in parent – child interactions predicts children’s externalizing disorders ( Hollenstein, Granic, Stoolmiller, & Snyder, 2004 ; Lunkenheimer, Olson, Hollenstein, Sameroff, & Winter, 2011 ). Conversely, dyadic synchrony between young children and their parents facilitates the development of social skills (e.g., communicative competence), emotion regulation, and effectance ( Harrist&Waugh, 2002 ), all of which have been implicated in resilience. These findings suggest that stress or adversity may dysregulate parent – child interactions ( Cummings et al., 2009 ), which then compromise children’s ability to self-regulate, manifested as depression and externalizing disorders.

Sibling Coregulation

An emerging literature on sibling relationships also illustrates dyadic coregulatory processes within the family context ( McHale, Updegraff, & Whiteman, 2012 ), though studies in this area rarely focus on resilience. For example, Volling et al. ( Bedford & Volling, 2004 ; Volling, McElwain, & Miller, 2002 ) described how parent regulation of the sibling relationship is gradually internalized so that older children become more responsible for the siblings’ interpersonal regulation as well as their own emotional self-regulation. Feinberg et al.’s (2013) family systems model of sibling influences on problem behavior highlights the importance of other coregulatory processes. Siblings may learn that by escalating negative behavior, they can coerce their brother or sister into acceding to their demands, thus initiating coercive patterns with parents and teachers that contribute to antisocial behavior. Deviance training also occurs when siblings collude in opposition to parental authority, which reinforces each other’s antisocial tendencies. Also, sibling negativity has evocative effects that contributes to parental stress, depression, and disengagement; and fuels harsh rearing practices, all of which undermine children’s adjustment ( Bullock & Dishion, 2002 ; Feinberg et al., 2013 ). Feinberg et al. (2013) developed the Siblings Are Special program to modify such sibling and parent-child regulatory process – emotion communication and regulation, self-control, problem solving, parent management of sibling conflict, and family norms related to differential treatment and fairness – and found that children developed more self-control and social competence, parents were more effective at managing sibling interactions (i.e., structuring), and sibling relationships became more positive.

Individual-Level Self-Regulation

Child and adolescent self-regulation primarily emerges from other regulation in the family ( Blair & Raver, 2012 ; Galarce & Kawachi, 2013 ). In early life, regulation is externally mediated via caregivers: parents regulate behavior through coaching, monitoring, modelling of behavior, imposing sanctions for transgressions, and other control processes ( Jessor, Donovan, & Costa, 1991 ). Such social controls do contribute to resilience. For instance, in a study of low-income families, Buckner, Mezzacappa, and Beardslee (2003) found that resilient youth (i.e., high emotional well-being and mental health), as compared to their nonresilient peers, were markedly different in terms of active parental monitoring and self-regulatory skills. In early childhood, other regulation gradually gives way to self-regulation, in part, through dyadic coregulation processes whereby parent and child regulate and are regulated by one another’s affect, behavior, and physiology during face-to-face interactions. Parents may also engender self-regulation through autonomy support and mind-mindedness that promote executive functioning in children ( Bernier, Carlson, & Whipple, 2010 ).

Other regulation may also foster conscious control of behavior, as dual-process theories postulate ( Zelazo, Carlson, & Kesek, 2008 ). Dual-process theories assert that many maladaptive behaviors are the result of unconscious, automatic responses ( Sherman et al., 2008 ), and that adaptive behaviors involving self-regulation require controlled responses that in many cases are learned from agents of socialization. Thus, regulatory processes in the family are strongly implicated in achieving equilibrium after adversity is experienced, in no small measure because of the dynamic interplay between coregulation in the parent – child dyad and children’s developing self-regulation. In short, family-level coregulatory, transactional, and socializing process experienced during early childhood can either facilitate or hinder the development of self-regulation, and ultimately resilience. The quality of these experiences interacts with rapid cognitive advances associated with the capacity to internally mediate experience (e.g., inhibitory control, self-talk) to affect one’s capacity for self-regulation.

Individuals’ self-regulation is regarded as central to developmental competence in general ( Haase, Heckhausen, & Wrosch, 2013 ) as well as across multiple spheres of behavioral ( DeWall, Baumeister, Stillman, & Gailliot, 2007 ; Riggs et al., 2013 ) and physical health ( Francis & Susman, 2009 ) development. Specific forms of impaired self-regulation such as executive dysfunction ( Hofmann, Schmeichel, & Baddeley, 2012 ) may interfere with children’s and adolescents’ ability to adapt to the environment, thus leading to academic and social disturbances ( Anderson, Anderson, Jacobs, & Smith, 2008 ) as well as various behavior and mental health disorders ( Riggs & Greenberg, 2009 ). Conversely, self-regulation skills including effortful control ( Eisenberg & Spinrad, 2004 ), executive function ( Gardner, Dishion, & Connell, 2008 ; Martel et al., 2007 ), reactive control ( Martel et al., 2007 ), and emotion regulation ( Crowell, Skidmore, Rau, & Williams, 2013 ) are important factors for successful adaptation to adversity (W. Chen & Taylor, 2013 ). For example, regulatory skills serve as protective factors for children exposed to violence in low-income neighborhoods ( Bruett, Steinberg, Rabinowitz, & Drabick, 2013 ) and for adolescents exposed to peer deviance ( Gardner et al., 2008 ). In the context of high levels of family substance use and psychopathology in the community, Martel et al. (2007) found that resilient adolescents, as indicated by fewer problem behaviors and greater social competence, were characterized in childhood by moderate levels of reactive control, resourcefulness in adjusting self-control to the context, and executive functions related to cognitive and emotional control.

Given the importance of self-regulation to healthy development and successful adaptation to adversity ( Heatherton&Wagner, 2011 ), intervention efforts have been directed at improving self-regulation ( Fonagy & Target, 2002 ) and associated constructs such as executive function or effortful control ( Riggs, Greenberg, Kusché, & Pentz, 2006 ). Evidence-based strategies for promoting self-regulation include school-based social-emotional learning curricula (e.g., Promoting Alternative THinking Strategies; Kusché & Greenberg, 1994 ) and mindfulness training (e.g., Tang, Yang, Leve, & Harold, 2012 ), among others ( Boekaerts & Corno, 2005 ).

Family-Based Interventions to Optimize Regulation and Resilience

The validity of the resilience-as-regulation perspective can be assessed in part by examining the effects of family-based interventions. Is improved family functioning subsequent to adversity due to more effective regulation? As Greenberg (2006) noted, many preventive interventions focus on promoting processes related to executive function, which involves various forms of regulation such as inhibition, consequential thinking, problem-solving skills, and goal-directed behavior. At the level of family interactions, other regulatory skills that might be taught include conscious control of emotions and responses ( Cummings & Schatz, 2012 ; Diamond & Aspinwall, 2003 ) and repairs in dyadic interactions, both of which are related to abuse potential ( Skowron, Kozlowski, & Pincus, 2010 ) and the effects of marital conflict on children ( Cummings et al., 2009 ). In a more general sense, interventions may be effective if they help families and individuals move from rigidity to flexibility ( Granic, O’Hara, Pepler, & Lewis, 2007 ). To the extent that flexibility requires regulatory strategies to be employed in the face of adversity, then such interventions should promote resilience.

In the sections that follow, we first discuss interventions that are intended to prepare families for expectable transitions such as marriage, becoming a parent, or the first child entering school or becoming an adolescent. The presumption of many such interventions is that developmental change introduces the potential for disequilibrium and stress, which if it is chronic “can derail the functioning of a family system, with ripple effects to all members and their relationships” ( Walsh, 2002 , p. 131). These interventions typically focus on teaching regulatory skills that will help participants to reestablish equilibrium in the family system; stress inoculation or adaptive self-stabilization may be an emphasis. The second section concerns selective interventions targeted at high-risk families, with an emphasis on regulatory mechanisms that mitigate risk or promote protective factors.

This review of intervention programs is not comprehensive. Rather, it is meant to illustrate how regulatory mechanisms are incorporated into family strengthening programs. To be included in the sample of programs listed in Table 1 , the family-based intervention had to focus on promoting regulatory skills and at least one outcome had to involve children’s or adolescents’ later functioning, ideally their ability to adapt. Not all were embedded in a resilience framework. For instance, only one half of the interventions explicitly measured adaptation or adjustment to stress as an outcome. Also, exposure to adversity was defined differently across programs. Several programs were provided to families regardless of their own risk status, under the presumption that adolescence is inherently challenging. These included Schinke, Fang, and Cole’s (2009) substance-abuse prevention program for teen girls and their mothers, and Preparing for the Drug Free Years (see Table 1 ). Other programs were targeted at high-risk individuals, families, or neighborhoods, but these social address models were rarely translated into direct assessments of risk exposure (i.e., adversity). Finally, few of the interventions listed in Table 1 focused on the family system as a whole. Instead, marital or parent – child dyads were more often the focus, the exceptions being FOCUS, Preparing for the Drug Free Years, Parents Who Care, the Strengthening Families Program, New Beginnings, and I-FAST.

Inoculation and Family Transitions

Cowan and Cowan (C. Cowan & Cowan, 2012 ; P. A. Cowan & Cowan, 2003 ) have written eloquently about how research on major family transitions provides insights to guide resilience-promoting interventions. They observed that family transitions typically involve disequilibrium that may require reorganization of the self (e.g., sense of well-being, locus of control), revision of social roles, and renegotiated close relationships when conflict and dissatisfaction are common symptoms of such transitions. To promote adaptive self-stabilization, preventive interventions may help move families “closer to adaptive positions on their life trajectories” (P. A. Cowan & Cowan, 2003 , p. 428) by teaching them how to cope with stress and regulate their emotions, how to problem solve more effectively (e.g., during conflicts), and how to balance autonomy granting with structured guidance in child rearing. Meaning making may be another form of regulation that is important to resilience ( Walsh, 2002 ): It may account for differences between partners in how they navigate family transitions (P. A. Cowan & Cowan, 2003 ), which can fuel conflicts, and it also may contribute to maladaptive intergenerational patterns when families of origin have different ideas about what a “well-functioning” family does.

Inoculation should be an especially effective form of intervention to promote resilience in the face of expectable family transitions. Stress inoculation involves exposure to mild adversity in anticipation of similar challenges later in life ( Daskalakis, Bagot, Parker, Vinkers, & de Kloet, 2013 ). Unlike the concept in medicine, however, where immunity is conferred, psychosocial inoculation promotes resistance to stress. For example, individuals who in one longitudinal study reported some lifetime adversity had better mental health and were more resilient to adverse events than people with either no history of adversity or high levels of adversity ( Seery, Holman, & Silver, 2010 ). Other longitudinal research found that previous experience with moderate, controllable stress predicted a more successful transition to marriage as well as to parenthood, with effective problem-solving skills being a key mediating variable ( Neff & Broady, 2011 ). In contrast, high, chronic adversity in the first two decades of life compromises physiological reactivity and emotion regulation, contributing to later problem behaviors ( Lovallo, 2012 ). Often, exposure to mild stressors may be accompanied by direct instruction in coping, as when parents living in unsafe neighborhoods rehearse with their children how to avoid danger ( Jarrett, 1999 ).

A number of interventions, with a focus on regulatory processes, have been devised to help families prepare for expectable family transitions. Feinberg, Jones, Kan, and Goslin (2010) randomized couples expecting their first child into a program focused on the coparenting relationship versus a control group. In the authors’ view, the coparenting relationship serves a central regulatory function in the family because it is sensitive to parent attributes and also influences parent and child adjustment. In an example of adaptive self-stabilization, the intervention taught couples to coordinate their parenting and to manage conflict around child rearing. Significant effects were later observed on coparenting quality, parent mental health, effective rearing practices, and especially child self-regulatory behaviors. In one of C. Cowan and P. A. Cowan’s (2012) interventions, which began a year in advance of the oldest child’s transition to kindergarten, parents were taught skills related to coping with stress, conflict resolution, and problem solving. Compared to a consultation control group, children in the intervention group had higher school achievement, less aggression, and fewer symptoms of depression as a result of improved responsive parenting and decreased couple conflict. At a 10-year follow-up, the intervention group maintained higher levels of marital satisfaction and children’s adaptation (C. P. Cowan, Cowan, & Barry, 2011 ).

Comprehensive programs to teach regulatory skills have been developed for parents of adolescents, with both the Family Check-Up (FCU) and Preparing for the Drug Free Years (PDFY) interventions demonstrating benefits at the individual, dyadic, and family systems levels. Among the regulatory processes targeted by PDFY are problem solving, effective disciplinary practices, emotion regulation, and resolving family conflict (Spoth, Redmond, & Shin, 1998 ). Significant intervention effects were found for each of these regulatory processes (Kosterman, Hawkins, Spoth, Haggerty, & Zhu, 1997 ; Park et al., 2000 ) and for teen substance use trajectories. The FCU uses a tiered approach to prevention: a universal classroom-based component, a family component that promotes skilled parenting, and an indicated treatment to teach family management skills. The FCU had a significant impact on adolescents’ antisocial behavior and substance use, with these outcomes being mediated by changes in family conflict and parent monitoring (Connell, Dishion, Yasui, & Kavanagh, 2007 ; Van Ryzin & Dishion, 2012 ; Van Ryzin, Stormshak, & Dishion, 2012 ). Thus, the results from the FCU and PDFY illustrate one form of family resilience: changes in families’ regulatory skills can alter the trajectory of adolescents’ behavior such that they are more well adjusted than expected.

Communication and problem-solving skills typically are core components of couple relationship education that is intended to promote healthy marriages ( Oliver & Margolin, 2009 ). Such interventions prepare couples making the transition to marriage, or they may be directed at high-risk couples to ameliorate stress and prevent divorce ( Silliman, Stanley, Coffin, Markman, & Jordan, 2002 ). As a whole, the research on stress inoculation suggests that resilience in the face of family transitions might be promoted by earlier exposure to moderate, manageable stressors in conjunction with instruction in problem solving, communication, and emotion regulation.

Selective Interventions

If interventions for high-risk families succeed in promoting adaptive self-organization, one would expect ripple effects throughout the family system ( Walsh, 2002 ) as new set points or patterns emerge. This presumption is supported by the evidence for multifinality in the outcomes listed in Table 1 ; interventions that alter one regulatory process may confer multiple benefits across the family system. This is especially true of programs that focus on emotion regulation. For example, home visitation program effects often are mediated by parents’ emotional availability and sensitivity, which in turn promote emotion regulation and reduce behavior problems even among children who have been maltreated ( Moss et al., 2011 ; Robinson, Emde, & Korfmacher, 1997 ). Two interventions developed for military families coping with post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) also focused on teaching emotion regulation skills. Benefits accrued in terms of children’s and adults’ mental health, coping skills, relationship satisfaction, and family problem solving and communication (Fischer, Sherman, Han, & Owen, 2013 ; Lester et al., 2011 ). These programs for military families illustrate another form of family resilience: Changes in individuals’ regulatory skills can help families to recover previous levels of functioning ( Bonanno, 2004 ).

Testing for mediation by the intervention’s key mechanisms ( MacKinnon, Kisbu-Sakarya, & Gottschall, 2013 ) is one criterion for establishing a causal relation between improved regulatory processes and enhanced resilience. Several of the programs listed in Table 1 conducted such analyses, particularly when the intervention focused on parents’ use of limit setting or monitoring. For instance, the SAFE Children intervention – implemented at the transition to school – significantly increased parents’ use of consistent caregiving and limit setting, with concomitant improvements in children’s self-regulation ( Gorman-Smith et al., 2007 ; Tolan, Gorman-Smith, Henry, & Schoeny, 2009 ). The New Beginnings Program (Wolchik, Schenck, & Sandler, 2009 ) was designed to promote children’s resilience to their parents’ impending divorce, in part by teaching parents effective discipline and conflict resolution skills. Program effects on children’s behavior problems were mediated by mother – child relationship quality ( Wolchik et al., 2009 ); benefits were maintained only when children had high self-regulatory skills (Hipke, Wolchik, Sandler, & Braver, 2002 ).

The GREAT Families program recruited families of high-risk adolescents, with a focus on parents’ discipline and monitoring as well as family communication and support ( Smith et al., 2004 ). The intervention group significantly improved in the targeted parenting practices, and these changes predicted lower levels of violence exposure in the families’ high-risk neighborhoods (Matjasko, Vivolo-Kantor, Henry, Gorman-Smith, & Schoeny, 2013 ). Evaluations of interventions such as these indicate that when parents more effectively regulate their offspring’s behavior through structuring and monitoring, their children’s self-regulation and adjustment can improve. The results of such interventions also support the hypothesis that child-rearing practices are an important mediator of the effects of adversity on children ( Gewirtz et al., 2008 ).

Unresolved Issues in Resilience as Regulation in the Family

Assessing risk exposure.

What is unresolved in family resilience that might be addressed by a perspective that emphasizes regulatory processes? One issue relates to risk exposure. Rutter et al. ( Luthar et al., 2000 ; Rutter, 2012 ) have argued that in many cases, individuals who were assumed to be resilient in fact were not exposed to adversity. One potential way to determine risk exposure is to assess various aspects of dysregulation, including physiological indicators ( Blair & Raver, 2012 ; Obradović, 2012 ) such as the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis and stress hormones, as well as more subtle affective dysregulation. For instance, Schwartz and Proctor (2000) found that the effect of violence victimization on negative social outcomes was mediated by emotion dysregulation. In terms of physiological indicators, Haggerty (2013) found that the effect of the Staying Connected to Your Teen program on later substance use was mediated by HPA axis regulation, reflecting coping with stress. Although such studies indicate that self-regulation contributes to resilience, it is unclear whether there is a veridical relation between the degree of adversity and the level of dysregulation. A recent latent profile analysis suggests that resilience may be defined in part by an inverse relation between risk and biomarkers. Brody et al. (2013) found that a resilient profile was characterized by high cumulative socioeconomic status (SES) risk but low allostatic load and good adjustment in early adulthood. Perhaps resilient individuals had experienced stress inoculation, which has been shown to reduce physiological stress reactivity ( Obradović, 2012 ). Such findings suggest that stress regulation should be viewed as vulnerability or protective factors rather than as measures of risk exposure (see Figure 1 ).

Risk exposure at the family level is more challenging to assess given that families consist of multiple subsystems, each of which may have particular vulnerability and protective factors as well as unique ways of manifesting adaptation (P. A. Cowan et al., 1996 ). Individuals’ ratings of stress do not adequately represent the family’s exposure to adversity because members may differ in their appraisal of the threat ( Patterson, 2002a , 2002b ), and complex temporal dynamics and tipping points are overlooked ( Lich et al., 2013 ). One solution proposed by Lich et al. (2013) is to combine quantitative measures of risk and vulnerability/protective factors with qualitative diagrammatic frameworks that better capture system-level disequilibrium. A second approach is based on research into how stressors shape families’ lives. Repetti, Wang, and Saxbe (2009) found that individuals’ stress affected the family system in two primary ways, both of which reflected dysregulation: reduced social engagement and increased irritability. These barometers of family stress, measured with daily diaries, were reliably related to biomarkers at the individual level and had crossover effects on other family members. Self-reported family chaos is another promising way to assess family-system exposure to adversity. Family chaos is related to indicators of stress such as poverty, marital and job dissatisfaction, and depression but explains unique variance in family members’ functioning such as children’s inhibitory control ( Brown, Ackerman, & Moore, 2013 ) and parents’ responsiveness to children’s emotions ( Nelson, O’Brien, Blankson, Calkins, & Keane, 2009 ).

Crossover Effects

How are regulatory processes interrelated across family, dyadic, and individual systems, and how does resilience emerge from these linkages? This issue acknowledges that family resilience must be examined from a systems perspective because (a) resilience is a dynamic, developmental process and families are complex systems ( Lich et al., 2013 ), implying that (b) there are multiple pathways to adaptation for individuals and families ( Davies & Cicchetti, 2004 ).

Several examples of crossover effects can be highlighted in which different regulatory processes may become coupled to promote or impair adaptation. First, research finds that when parents are depressed (for a review, see Coyne, Downey, & Boergers, 1996 ), their affect regulation is compromised; they are more self-absorbed and thus disengaged from other family members; they are more demanding, inconsistent, unresponsive parents; there is more discord in the marital relationship; and family coherence is diminished. These regulatory systems may interact such that the mother’s depression compromises the father’s parenting behavior when marital conflict is high but not low (P. A. Cowan et al., 1996 ), or children may be buffered from parental depression when the spouse has good conflict resolution skills ( Papp, 2012 ) and does not have mental health problems. Second, research on divorce’s effects on children ( Wolchik et al., 2009 ) implicates regulatory processes at several levels including parental distress; reduced parental availability as a result of increased work involvement; family chaos due to changing homes, schools, and parent partners; and interparental conflict, which is bidirectionally related to parent stress. However, other regulatory processes help to protect children from the deleterious effects of divorce: a mother – child relationship characterized by warmth, positive communication, effective problem-solving skills, and low conflict; and children who are high in coping efficacy ( Wolchik et al., 2009 ).

Research has not yet revealed whether there are tipping points when families encounter adversity. How many regulatory processes must be impaired before a family system is unable to self-right? Are some regulatory mechanisms in the family so central, such as effective emotion regulation and child rearing, that their use tips the balance in favor of resilience? In relation to cumulative risk models, P. A. Cowan et al. (1996) noted that a very high risk score may be nullified by a supportive family environment. In contrast, a low risk score may result in psychopathology for children who are vulnerable. To answer such questions, dynamic epigenetic models – rather than linear, additive approaches – will need to be used that assess regulatory processes across multiple systems in high- versus low-risk families.

Scaffolding of Self-Regulation

The third issue is more speculative. We begin with the observation that self-regulation develops progressively throughout childhood and adolescence as a product of parental scaffolding, or other regulation, and children’s increased capacity for internalization of rules, self-talk, and inhibitory control ( Aldwin et al., 2011 ; Galarce & Kawachi, 2013 ). Perhaps there is a parallel in resilience. For young children who are the most vulnerable to adversity, resilience may actually reside in the family system in the form of context protection ( Jessor et al., 1991 ), recruitment of external resources, reframing (E. Chen, Miller, Lachman, Gruenewald, & Seeman, 2012 ), and other types of equilibration. Even when children are exposed to serious adversity such as violence, their self-regulatory skills may confer resilience if parents are supportive ( Houltberg et al., 2012 ) and have effective communication and affect regulation skills ( Upshur, 2011 ). This supportive scaffolding likely does not involve shielding children from adversity so much as helping them to understand and manage challenges. As Rutter (2012) said, “Protection resides not in evasion of the risk but in successful engagement with it” (p. 186). As development progresses within a healthy family environment, children internalize and master the skills that are necessary to adapt to adversity. This instruction in coping may be implicit, such as modeling, or it may be overt, such as inoculation and coaching ( Brooks, 2005 ). Parents’ preparation of their children for adversity may be one form of future-oriented coping ( Folkman & Moskowitz, 2004 ) entailing proactive planning for later challenges. Additional research is needed to delineate the implicit and deliberate ways that families prepare their children to adapt to adversity.

Conclusions

We have defined family resilience in a way that emphasizes regulatory processes within dynamic systems: establishing equilibrium in a system due to perturbations caused by significant adversity. This definition is deceptively simple, however. Consider the proximal cause of disturbances to the family system. Adversity has been defined in terms of cumulative social risks (e.g., Evans & Kim, 2013 ), exposure to trauma (e.g., Fischer et al., 2013 ), and expectable family transitions (e.g., P. A. Cowan & Cowan, 2003 ), among other stressors ( Patterson, 2002a ). Whether a given stressor in fact results in a disturbance to the family system may depend on multiple processes including family members’ appraisals ( Patterson, 2002b ) and previous experience with stress, especially in one’s family of origin ( Luecken et al., 2006 ). Earlier experiences with stress, the stress appraisal process, and a threat’s intensity and chronicity also may amplify or modulate functioning of the autonomic nervous system, specifically allostatic load, which itself may mediate the relation between adversity and adaptation (e.g., El-Sheikh & Erath, 2011 ; Obradović, 2012 ). These complex processes related to adversity imply that family members may experience adversity in divergent ways, and that the risk side of the resilience equation requires multilevel systemic measures that are sensitive to tipping points ( Lich et al., 2013 ).

Regulatory processes involving adaptive self-stabilization and adaptive self-organization establish equilibrium in the family system ( Aldwin et al., 2011 ; Masten, 2007 ), but this also is a deceptively simple claim. Regulatory processes are operationalized differently across studies, making it difficult to compare findings or to identify which forms of regulation are central to resilience. Also, regulatory processes operate within a hierarchically organized family system ( Cox & Paley, 1997 ). Each family member has a unique set of vulnerabilities and resources, each dyad has a unique relationship history and relational dynamic, and the family interacts with other social systems that may create spillover and buffering effects (P. A. Cowan et al., 1996 ). Biological mechanisms are increasingly recognized as critical to children’s vulnerability ( Evans & Kim, 2013 ; Heatherton & Wagner, 2011 ) and self-regulation, especially in the parent – child dyad ( Blair & Raver, 2012 ; Galarce & Kawachi, 2013 ) and marital dyad ( Cummings et al., 2009 ). However, research on biological mechanisms that contribute to resilience has not yet been well integrated into a family systems perspective that emphasizes probabilistic epigenesis over the life course ( Cicchetti, 2013 ). In short, if regulatory processes are a linchpin of family resilience, then future studies will need to be multilevel and longitudinal and tap into the evolving dynamics of a complex system (for examples, see Davies et al., 2007 ; Evans & Kim, 2007 ; Hardaway et al., 2012 ).

A resilience-as-regulation perspective may characterize key aspects of a dynamic system’s response to adversity – feedback loops, nonlinearities, and self-organization are notable ( Lich et al., 2013 ) – but this focus on regulatory processes does omit constructs that likely are important to resilience. Notably, certain family resources contribute to resilience: optimism, confidence, perseverance, transcendence, financial security, and social support ( Patterson, 2002a ; Walsh, 2002 ). Patterson (2002a) argued that these strength-based family traits should be labeled as family “resiliency,” to distinguish them from regulatory processes that contribute to family “resilience.” However, some resources also are involved in regulating family systems: Secure internal working models may contribute to resilience by means of emotion regulation ( Shaver & Mikulincer, 2012 ), and social support contributes to family well-being by means of emotion regulation and problem solving ( Armstrong, Birnie-Lefcovitch, & Ungar, 2005 ). We do not minimize the contribution of family strengths to resilience but instead emphasize that regulatory processes must be understood if dynamic concepts such as equilibrium, adaptive self-stabilization, and adaptive self-organization in the family system are inherent to family resilience.

Finally, a resilience-as-regulation framework has implications for family-strengthening interventions. Evaluations of interventions for at-risk families, as well as longitudinal research on resilience, have identified multiple pathways in which regulatory processes mediate the relation between adversity and adaptation. These mediational pathways often involve conflict resolution, emotion regulation, coping with stress, and effective disciplinary practices. Less common are interventions to enhance coparenting (but see Feinberg et al., 2013 ) or the marital relationship (but see C. P. Cowan et al., 2011 ) that later affect children’s adaptation. Rarer still are interventions that explicitly target whole-family regulatory processes such as adaptability or routines versus chaos, although some interventions, such as the Strengthening Families Program (Kumpfer, Whiteside, Greene, & Allen, 2010 ), have assessed family organization as an outcome. Intervention trials that aim to promote family resilience by modifying regulatory processes could yield important insights about adaptation to adversity. First, if regulatory processes reestablish equilibrium in distressed families by myriad pathways, then interventions could be tailored to families’ specific needs. In systems terms, regulatory processes represent distinct leverage points ( Lich et al., 2013 ) to enhance family resilience. More generally, family-strengthening interventions address complex problems that are embedded in social context and that are epigenetic in nature. As such, interventions that target regulatory mechanisms in families could advance systems models in prevention science more generally ( Granic et al., 2007 ; Lich et al., 2013 ) and resilience specifically ( Rutter, 2012 ).

1 The phrase “ability to deploy strategies” helps to distinguish between “adaptability” as a trait of the person or family, and “adaptation” as a dynamic process of establishing equilibrium subsequent to adversity.

References marked with an asterisk indicate studies cited in Table 1

How To Fail at Family Problem-Solving

Here are some common mistakes made in discussing mutual interactions..

Posted October 3, 2017

Engraving by C. de Passe after M. de Vos, C.C. 4.0

This post describes several common mistakes made by family members when they try to discuss repetitive dysfunctional behavior patterns with the goal of putting a stop to them. Such discussions are called metacommunication, and when done correctly, include a constructive, problem-solving exploration of both the mutual interactions and the dynamics of the family over several generations.

As readers of this blog know, I believe that metacommunication is the most effective way to solve problems and put a stop to ongoing dysfunctional interactions which trigger psychological symptoms and troublesome or self-defeating behavior. It is the "curative" part of my psychotherapy , which I call Unified Therapy .

When I discuss metacommunication on my blogs, I am usually besieged with comments saying that readers have tried this and it just doesn't work, or informing me that I cannot possibly appreciate that their family members are incapable of stopping abusive, hateful, or other provocative behavior.

I always reply that I do not blame anyone for not believing me when I say that metacommunication is both possible and effective in any family in which members are not flagrantly psychotic or victims of brain damage such as Alzheimer's disease. In fact, when I first broach these ideas with my psychotherapy patients, I frequently get this same response. Patients tell me that I couldn't possibly know how impossible their particular family is.

Oh, but I do. In fact, I have almost always seen families that are far, far worse than theirs. Every time I think I've heard everything about ways in which family members can mistreat one another, boy am I going to be in for a surprise. And it is true, I add, that metacommunication, if done poorly, can make a family problem even worse. Then I go on to say that doing it well is extremely difficult and that if it were easy, then my patient, being an intelligent human being, would have already done it.

To do it well, you have to become aware of things about your family and its members that you could not possibly have known before. This involves studying the history of the family over at least three generations within its cultural and ethnic context (the genogram ). Plus, every family and family member is different, so I can't just tell you right off the bat exactly how you can phrase interventions so that metacommunication will proceed constructively with your particular parents or other relatives. Therapy is a complex process by which the right interventions are devised before any actual attempts at implementing them.

I am currently writing a self-help book for those who come from mildly to moderately dysfunctional families that will describe how to obtain that genogram history as well as presenting many effective strategies and counter-strategies for overcoming family resistances to metacommunicative problem-solving. Many of these strategies were also described here in a previous series of blog posts about how to talk to relatives about family dysfunction. However, the kind of family dysfunction that leads to severe self-destructive behavior and personality disorders almost always requires the assistance of a therapist familiar with family dynamics.

So why do folks who have tried to talk about family issues get into trouble? Well, again, every family is different, but we can discuss some general issues. It is much easier to talk about what does not work than trying to predict what will work in a given family or with a given relative.

One issue involves something I discussed in a prior post which I call the principle of opposite behaviors —you can have the same effect on other people by behaving in exactly opposite ways (for example, never asking anyone for anything, or asking for way too much). In metacommunication, it applies to the question of how much everyone talks about a problem. Talking too much about something, especially if one always goes about it in the same way, is as futile as not talking about it at all. In either event, nothing gets resolved.

Obviously, trying to ignore an issue might work for a short time, but the issue will continue to hang over the heads of the participants like the proverbial Sword of Damocles , and things will eventually blow up. There might even be an emotional cutoff in which family members try to divorce one another. But even that does not prevent the issues from continuing to contaminate the participants' other relationships, especially among them and their lovers and children.

On the other hand, after achieving some resolution of an issue, the parties might go to the extreme of talking too much. They may continue to bicker incessantly about the problem, refusing to drop it even though, if they followed up on their initial plans, it would have been solved. In a commonly described example, some members of couples are well known for repeatedly bringing up old grievances even decades after the problematic event took place.

So what else "doesn't work?" Here is a short list: blaming, accusing, and saying some variant of "You're bad (or evil, or stupid)," "You hate me," or "You did this to me." Getting angry rather than trying to hear the other person out, and/or becoming defensive rather than being thoughtful about what might be the kernel of truth in what the other person is saying. Not giving the other person the benefit of the doubt no matter what they say.

Another big one is invalidation. There are several variants of this. One of the most obvious is the denial of events such as child abuse when both parties to the conversation know very well what happened. Telling the other person what they are feeling rather than asking them what they are feeling is another well-known example.

Another pattern that frequently derails metacommunication is when each party is so keen on making his or her points that they do not address the points that the other person is making at all. They steamroll any exchange by talking over each other, by completely ignoring what the other person has said in response to something they said, or through other ways of refusing to acknowledge the other person's point of view at all as they continue to make their additional points.

One last issue that derails metacommunication is for the involved parties to hide their true motives and intentions out of shame - by being vague and ambiguous, in deviously subtle ways, when discussing their own behavior and the reasons for it.

Interestingly, people talking about a family problem can move on to discuss a related issue without ever having come to an agreement on the initial issue that was broached—so that neither of the issues is addressed fully. Sometimes people make a big circle, bringing up one related or tangential issue after another without achieving any resolution of any one of them, and then at long last returning to the initial issue. And then starting the whole circle all over again from the beginning!

There are a lot of ways to fail.

David M. Allen, M.D. is a professor of psychiatry at the University of Tennessee and the author of the book Coping with Critical, Demanding, and Dysfunctional Parents .

Find a Therapist
Find a Treatment Center
Find a Psychiatrist
Find a Support Group
Find Teletherapy
United States
Brooklyn, NY
Chicago, IL
Houston, TX
Los Angeles, CA
New York, NY
Portland, OR
San Diego, CA
San Francisco, CA
Seattle, WA
Washington, DC
Asperger's
Bipolar Disorder
Chronic Pain
Eating Disorders
Passive Aggression
Personality
Goal Setting
Positive Psychology
Stopping Smoking
Low Sexual Desire
Relationships
Child Development
Therapy Center NEW
Diagnosis Dictionary
Types of Therapy

Understanding what emotional intelligence looks like and the steps needed to improve it could light a path to a more emotionally adept world.

Coronavirus Disease 2019
Affective Forecasting
Neuroscience

IMAGES

Family Problem-Solving Worksheet (teacher made)
The Family Tree Problem Solver by Marsha Hoffman Rising
Find A Pattern Problem Solving
Problem Solving
Problem Solving with Pattern Blocks 2 • Teacher Thrive
Problem Solving Cycle

VIDEO

Young Couples Counselling
Making and solving patterns
The Five Chinese Brothers by Claire Huchet Bishop retold by Bob
Best Toy to Learn How to Problem Solve
পারিবারিক জটিলতা থেকে মুক্তি
Day of given Date (According to Gregorian Calender) : Problem Solving

COMMENTS

Patterns and Outcome in Family Problem Solving:
Patterns and Outcome in Family Problem Solving: The Disrupting Effect of Negative Emotion This study examines the relationship between social interactional patterns of behavior and problem-solving outcome. One hundred and twenty-five two-parent families with a boy in the 4th, 7th, or 10th grade were observed as they at-
Family Conflict Resolution: 6 Worksheets & Scenarios (+ PDF)
Interventions in family therapy exist to help the individual by improving family engagement and effectiveness and reduce the adverse outcomes of caregiving (American Psychological Association, 2011). The following activities focus on exploring family structures, beliefs, and problem-solving behavior to avoid or resolve conflict within the group.
PDF The Resilience, Adaptation and Well-Being Project
The Family Problem Solving Communication (FPSC) Index was developed by Marilyn McCubbin, Hamilton McCubbin, and Anne Thompson (1988) to assess the two dominant patterns in family communication that appear to play an important part in family coping with hardships and life catastrophes.
The Nonlinear Dynamics of Family Problem Solving in Adolescence: The
The interactions were coded and compared for 3 developmental patterns of antisocial behavior: early onset, persistent; adolescence onset; and typically developing. The mean duration of conflict bouts was the only interaction pattern that discriminated the 3 groups. ... Assessment of family problem solving has benefited from early studies of ...
Solving Common Family Problems: Five Essential Steps
In today's post, I will outline five essential principles that we should keep in mind in attempting to solve any challenging problem of family life. Step 1: Take a Step Back. The first step in ...
The McMaster Approach to Families: theory, assessment, treatment and
The problem-solving dimension is defined as a family's ability to resolve problems at a level that maintains effective family functioning. A family problem is seen as an issue for which ... pattern a family adopts for handling behaviour in three types of situations. First, there are physically dangerous situationswhere the
(Pdf) Family Problem-solving: How Do Families With Adolescents Make
Rettig, K. D. (1993). Problem-solving and decision making as central processes of family life: An ecological framework for family relations and family resource management. Marriage and Family Review, 18(3/4), 187-222. Reuter, M. A., & Conger, R. D. (1995). Interaction style, problem-solving behavior, and family problem-solving effectiveness.
PDF The Family Distress Model: A conceptual and clinical application of
The FDM integrates the family problem solving research and a devel- opmental perspective (Steinglass, Bennett, Wolin, & Reiss, 1987) with a large body of empirical literature on social support and well- ... life threatening disease has on the family patterns of closeness and flexibility and suggested that couples might become closer as a result ...
Family problem-solving: how do families with adolescents ...
Family problem solving is an attempt to change the current situation, causing families to choose between different courses of action. ... while problem-solving patterns were positively associated ...
Problem-Solving Family Therapy
Outcome studies have shown a success rate of 72% in early studies (Weakland et al. 1974) to 96% in later studies (Chubb 1995; Nardone and Watzlawick 2007).There is currently a research project underway in France that intends to provide the evidence basis of the effectiveness of the problem-solving family therapy approach, the MRI Brief Therapy model specifically, or the Palo Alto model as it ...
Measures
Family Problem Solving and Communication Scale (FPSC) The Family Problem Solving Communication (FPSC) Index was developed by Marilyn McCubbin, Hamilton McCubbin, and Anne Thompson (1988) to assess the two dominant patterns in family communication that appear to play an important part in family coping with hardships and life catastrophes.
Family Dynamics
Family dynamics refer to the patterns of interactions among relatives, their roles and relationships, and the various factors that shape their interactions. Because family members rely on each other for emotional, physical, and economic support, they are one of the primary sources of relationship security or stress. Secure and supportive family relationships provide love, advice, and care ...
Family Systems Therapy
Strategic family therapy, developed by Jay Haley, Milton Erickson, and Cloe Madanes, among others, examines family processes and functions, such as communication or problem-solving patterns, by ...
Family resilience: a framework for clinical practice
This article presents an overview of a family resilience framework developed for clinical practice, and describes its advantages. Drawing together findings from studies of individual resilience and research on effective family functioning, key processes in family resilience are outlined in three domains: family belief systems, organizational ...
Family Paradigm and Family Coping: A Proposal for Linking the Family's
The Concept of the Family Paradigm Family Problem Solving and Shared Constructs For many years we have investigated several aspects of family problem solving. Initially, we used a well-controlled and pre-cise series of laboratory methods, and our interest was in distinguishing different styles or patterns of problem solving. Indeed we
Problem Solving
The extent to which formal meetings are needed for problem solving varies from family to family. Family members do need to communicate about perceived problems in some way. Where and how often they do it depends on their communication patterns. The family meeting provides an effective structured format. It is important that such meetings do not ...
Family Interventions: Basic Principles and Techniques
Family therapists tend to be more interested in the maintenance and/or solving of problems rather than in trying to identify a single cause. Some families may perceive cause-effect analyses as attempts to allocate blame to one or more individuals, with the effect that for many families, a focus on causation is of little or no clinical utility.
A Marker Method to Test a Phasing Hypothesis in Family Problem-Solving
family problem solving proceeds in a rational, stepwise manner. Two different tests, one using aggregate data from all family groups and one using the family as the unit of analysis, supported an orderly, rather than a random, sequencing of problem solving, although patterns did not per-fectly match the ideal problem-solving model.
Resilience as Regulation of Developmental and Family Processes
It is for these reasons that Walsh (2002) considered open emotional sharing and collaborative problem solving to be essential elements of family resilience. Because a well-functioning family is able to manage the frustrations of unmet wants and needs, family problem solving also is an element of many family strengthening programs (Vucinich, 1999).
3 Ways to Respond to Dysfunctional Family Patterns
3. Integrate the pattern and build something new. But there is a third way to respond to destructive family patterns. The third path is integration. The child who grew up in a family with shouting ...
How To Fail at Family Problem-Solving
This post describes several common mistakes made by family members when they try to discuss repetitive dysfunctional behavior patterns with the goal of putting a stop to them. Such discussions are ...