Family Communication Patterns Predict Anticipatory Resilience and the Enactment of Resilience Processes

ABSTRACT

The communication theory of resilience (CTR; Buzzanell, 2010, 2019) proposes that resilience is cultivated via interactions and enacted through five processes. When individuals encounter times of disruption, they draw from anticipatory resilience – discursive and material resources cultivated over time – to enact resilience processes. Hopeful memorable messages (MMs) that offer a sense of positivity and efficacy about getting through future hardships can constitute one form of communication that builds anticipatory resilience. These recalled MMs can be influenced by one’s familial environment growing up. This study tested associations between family communication patterns (FCP), the positivity/efficacy of MMs about getting through hard times, and CTR resilience processes. Findings suggest conversation and conformity orientations were positively associated with memorable message (MM) positivity/efficacy, which predicted enactment of resilience processes during a recent disruption. Furthermore, MM positivity/efficacy mediated the relationships between FCP and resilience processes. Theoretical implications for CTR are discussed.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1. To diversify the sample in terms of race/ethnicity as well as education, we used quota sampling by opening batches in which only participants who identified as something other than “white” or whose highest level of education attained was “high school or GED equivalent” were eligible. Despite these efforts, the sample still was still not entirely representative of the U.S. population. Census data, for example, show that 28% of adults 18 years and older report their highest level of education as high school/GED equivalent (US Census Bureau, 2021).

2. Some data presented here have been reported before (see Wilson et al., 2021, Study 3). That study reported associations between CTR resilience processes and well-being (e.g., mental health). However, no data on FCP or MM positivity/efficacy were reported in Wilson et al. (2021), as they focused on associations between resilience processes and outcomes whereas this study explores associations between antecedents (i.e., FCP) to MM positivity/efficacy as well as resilience processes.

3. On average, participants reported being 23.8 years old (SD = 12.9 years, Md = 22) when they first heard the MM. Most were either adolescents (younger than 18) or emerging adults (18-29 years old) when they first heard the MM; specifically, 71% (n = 186) were 29 or younger when they first heard it. By subtracting the age at which a participant first heard the MM from their current age, we determined the length of time that had elapsed since initially hearing the MM. On average, participants reported that they first heard their MM 15.37 years ago (SD = 14.11, range = 0-61 years), with 87% (n = 228) reporting that they first heard it two or more years ago but 13% (n = 34) reporting hearing it first within the past two years. For these latter participants, it is unclear if they initially heard the MM about getting through tough times before the recent disruptive life event they subsequently described. Given this possibility, we re-ran the structural model testing the hypotheses after deleting the 34 participants who reported first hearing their MMs within the past two years. Results were largely consistent with those from the full sample, and hence we retained the 34 participants in the final sample. Most participants reported thinking about their MM “sometimes” (n = 86, 33%), “often” (n = 97, 37%), or “very often” (n = 61, 23%). Most also reported that they recall the message “somewhat accurately” (n = 74, 28%) or “very accurately” (n = 181, 69%).

4. Most participants (n = 186, 71%) reported that someone they knew told them the MM about getting through hard times directly; common sources included parents, grandparents, extended family, friends, and teachers. A smaller number said they heard the MM from media (n = 53, 20%, e.g., books, television programs, social media) or inferred it from another person’s actions (n = 23, 9%, e.g., parents, friends). Given that it can be argued that FCP should primarily influence direct MMs from interpersonal sources, we re-ran the structural model testing the hypotheses after deleting the 76 participants whose MMs came from media or were inferred from others’ actions. Results were largely consistent with those from the full sample and hence we retained these 76 participants in the final sample. For detailed results of these analyses, please contact the first author.

5. ECOS dimensions also were positively associated with MM positivity/efficacy at the zero-order level (see Table 2).