Home | About Us | Supporting Children | Supporting Parents | Contact Us | Links | Site Map

 

A review of the Literature

   Resilience factors

In recent years evidence of a rather different pattern in the longer-term impact of parental alcohol misuse has started to emerge. Research has begun to highlight factors that help minimise the impact of parental alcohol misuse. It seems that some children are more resilient and do not develop problems, either when they are young or when they reach adulthood.

For example, between 1980 and 1984, a Department of Health research project interviewed in depth 244 adults aged 16-35 years: 164 were the children of problem drinkers; the remaining 80 did not have a problem drinking parent and formed a comparison group (Orford and Velleman, 1990, 1995; Velleman and Orford, 1990, 1993a, 1993b, 1999). In the late 1990s Velleman and colleagues were able to re-interview a sample of the adults who had grown up with a problem drinking parent (van Diest, 2000).

Alongside the identification of risk factors for the children of problem drinkers, Velleman and Orford’s research also pointed towards a number of what can be termed resilience factors, many of which are similar to resilience factors uncovered in other work, both substance use specific and non-specific (e.g. Beinart et al., 2002; Rutter and Quinton, 1984; Werner, 1993).

Resilience factors include the presence of a stable adult figure (usually a non problem-drinker), family cohesion and harmony, and deliberate planning by the child that their adult life would be different. If family harmony can be maintained in the face of problem drinking (or drug use, violence, mental illness) then there is a high chance that the child will not go on to have problems. The potential impact is likely to be less severe if the alcohol problem is mild, not long-lasting, family harmony is maintained (and the family stay together) and the child has good social networks, particularly with adults (Cleaver et al., 1999).

Rutter (1985) identifies protective factors as high self-esteem and confidence, a sense of self-efficacy, ability to deal with change, a good range of problem solving skills aided by a secure and stable relationship, and experience of success and achievement. Another study (Werner, 1993), identified further protective factors as being raised in a smaller family, having larger age gaps between siblings, a low level of prolonged separation from primary carer in first year of life, a close and positive bond with at least one carer (includes grandparents, siblings and other parent figures), a good support network and participation in wide range of activities.

Gender differences also appear to have an impact on children’s resilience. It seems that girls are less affected in the short-term but if problems continue then there is an increased likelihood of adverse affects (Cleaver et al., 1999). Werner (1993) also found that an individual disposition was more important for females and external support for males.

A child’s developmental stage can also contribute to a level of protection against harm caused by parental substance misuse. Cleaver et al. (1999) looked at protective factors at various ages and stages of development. They identified protective factors across seven areas – health, education and cognitive ability, identity, family and social relationships, social presentation, emotional and behavioural development and self-care skills.

While studies on resilience and protective factors have highlighted important findings, authors are advocating for more work to focus on the processes and mechanisms by which resilience works. Werner (1993) identified five additional processes - individual temperament, skills and values leading to efficient use of personal ability, characteristics and care giving styles of parents, supportive adults and opportunities at times of life transition. Werner (1993) recognised a degree of continuity in her resilient sample – “individual dispositions led them to select or construct environments that, in turn, reinforced and sustained their active, outgoing dispositions and rewarded their competencies”. Many resilient youths left home earlier and constructed their own world; this element of resilience mirrored the Velleman and Orford study (1999).