***Part 1*** We reviewed the Key Family Processes in Family Resilience. Read this week’s journal article by Hackbarth, M., Pavkov, T., Wetchler, J., & Flannery, M. (2012)and compare and contrast the s

Further, great resource loss was hypothesized to diminish a family’s ability to cope. Four hundred fifty-two participants completed the survey. Results indicate a relationship between hope, family hardiness and spirituality, and the criterion variable, family coping.

The importance of these findings in terms of exploring family resiliency following a natu- ral disaster is discussed.

Natural disasters affect many families in the United States each year. Between the years of 1975 and 1994, natural disasters alone killed over 24,000 people in the United States and injured an additional 96,000 people (Mileti, 1999). The recent natural disaster Hurricane Katrina has been deemed one of the deadliest hurricanes to ever touch U.S. soil (Kessler, Galea, Jones, & Parker, 2006). Sadly, about 1,500 deaths are believed to be a direct result of the hurricane (Beven et al., 2008). Further, Hurricane Katrina displaced over one million people and has been estimated to have cost $100–200 billion in damage (Gard & Ruzek, 2006). While some research on individual characteristics that may predispose a person to distress following a natural disaster has been explored, the purpose of this study is to gain a more com- plete understanding of what relationship exists between family resiliency and hope, family har- diness, and spirituality following a natural disaster. The case will be made that a family who possesses hope and family hardiness and displays high levels of spirituality or religiosity will be more likely to exhibit healthy coping behaviors after experiencing the natural disaster.

LOSS AND PSYCHOLOGICAL DISTRESS FOLLOWING NATURAL DISASTERS Natural disasters are defined as ‘‘some rapid, instantaneous or profound impact of the natural environment upon the socio-economic system’’ (Alexander, 1993, p. 4). Major disasters can lead to severe disruption, trauma, and loss for individuals, families, and communities (Catherall, 1992; Moos, 1986; Walsh, 2006) and may leave victims in a state of shock and Maria Hackbarth, MS, Child and Family Therapist at ARC Community Services, Inc.; Thomas Pavkov, PhD, Associate Professor of Psychology and Director of the Institute for Social and Policy Research, Purdue University Calumet; Joseph Wetchler, PhD, Professor and Director of the Marriage and Family Therapy Program, Purdue University Calumet; Michael Flannery, MPS, Professor of Hospitality, Tourism and Management and Head of the Department of Behavioral Sciences, Purdue University Calumet. Maria Hackbarth was a Marriage and Family Therapy Master’s of Science student at Purdue University Calumet during the time period that the research took place. This work is supported by the Indiana Association for Marriage and Family Therapy through their Graduate Student Research Award Grant. We would like to further acknowledge the Institute for Social and Policy Research at Purdue University Calumet for hosting the online survey. Address correspondence to Maria Hackbarth, ARC Center for Women and Children, ARC Community Services, Inc., 1409 Emil Street, Madison, Wisconsin 53713; E-mail: [email protected] Journal of Marital and Family Therapy doi: 10.1111/j.1752-0606.2011.00227.xApril 2012, Vol. 38, No. 2, 340–351 340 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY April 2012 disbelief (Hoff, 1989). Surviving a natural disaster can come at a cost when faced with multiple losses and the task of putting one’s life and home back together (Hoff, 1989; Walsh, 2006).

Resources both lost and accessible affect an individual’s ability to cope in reaction to extreme stress (Hobfoll, Freedy, Green, & Solomon, 1996). Factors include the following: loss of physical resources, loss of roles, loss of loved ones, loss of hopes and dreams for the future, community resources and response, and one’s ability to work through the grief process. Hobfoll et al. (1996) stressed that following a disaster, the availability and preservation of resources are crucial to one’s ability to adapt to the traumatic event.

Many families who experienced Hurricane Katrina lost a great number of physical resources. These physical resources are necessary to live a normal life (Hobfoll et al., 1996).

Studies have demonstrated that substantial property loss is associated with greater negative psychological affects (Freedy, Saladin, Kilpatrick, Resnick, & Saunders, 1994; Phifer & Norris, 1989) and that the elderly are particularly at psychological risk upon experiencing such loss (Phifer & Norris, 1989). Losing a home and relocation are major factors in dealing with the stress of a natural disaster (Gerrity & Steinglass, 2003). Research has observed increased risk of depression and other forms of psychological distress among individuals who experienced both loss of property and home and families who relocated (Sattler et al., 1995).

Families who experience natural disasters may face a loss of defined work, a loss of roles in their community, and a lack of hope as they face the future. The loss of resources, daily rou- tine, a sense of control, possessions, and social support was associated with elevated levels of acute psychological distress following Hurricane Hugo (Freedy, Shaw, Jarrell, & Masters, 1992). Walsh (2006) asserts that the loss of roles, hopes and dreams, and the potential for a future is often the toughest loss of all.

Loss of a loved one represents another type of loss many victims of natural disasters face.

It has been reported that over 1,464 people are confirmed dead and about 130 people remain missing as a result of Hurricane Katrina (Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals Reports, 2006). Rubonis and Bickman (1991) found that high death rates following a disaster are associated with more frequent observable psychological problems among victims. The loss of a loved one on top of all the other losses suffered can lead to a pile-up effect (Walsh, 2006) and often requires the family to reorganize their entire family system (Walsh & McGoldrick, 1991).

When a natural disaster occurs, it is common for people to be unable to access necessary services and resources vital to their survival (Hoff, 1989; Schaefer & Moos, 1998). Research asserts that social and community resources available to natural disaster victims following a disaster may reduce the negative impacts of the catastrophe (Hobfoll et al., 1996). The ‘‘com- munity circumstances that can affect psychological response include the extent of community disruption, centrality [having members of the community affected by the natural disaster], the setting of the community (e.g., rural vs. urban), and the nature of the community’s official disaster response (e.g., adequate vs. ineffective)’’ (Hobfoll et al., 1996, p. 339). Further, some researchers have suggested that community-level resources may be more important than the actual event in predicting individuals’ psychological response to the disaster (Hobfoll et al., 1996).

Thus, for many individuals, the effects of having experienced a natural disaster can linger on long after the event has occurred and can manifest into other psychological problems (Catherall, 1992; Fullerton, Ursano, Norwood, & Holloway, 2003). Some possible mental health outcomes of experiencing a disaster include the following: posttraumatic stress disorder, acute stress disorder, major depression, substance-use disorders, generalized anxiety disorders, and adjustment disorders and further include possible difficulty with grief and increased levels of family conflict (Fullerton et al., 2003). For each individual, then, the intensity of experienc- ing a natural disaster and risk of experiencing a mental health problem is based on the overall nature of the stressful element of that particular disaster. Factors include the felt threat to one’s life, exposure to the dead or dying, any physical harm or injury endured as a result of the disaster, the loss of a loved one, loss of physical resources, and the level of difficulty in acquiring information and resources following the disaster (Berren, Beigel, & Ghertner, 1980; Green, 1990).

April 2012JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY341 FAMILY RESPONSE TO NATURAL DISASTER While researchers in the psychology realm have been studying factors that relate to individ- ual resiliency, Walsh (1996, 2003b) would argue that there has been a recent shift to focusing on what makes a family resilient. From a family systems perspective, a family and its individual members are seen as a unit that works to cope with an experienced traumatic event. In an attempt to explain the protective factors in family units that may buffer against stress following traumatic events, a theoretical framework has been established for the idea of family resiliency which ‘‘refers to the coping and adaptational processes in the family as a functional unit’’ (Walsh, 2006, p. 15).

Family adaptation is one mode through which to conceptualize and study how a family fares when faced with a stressful life event or traumatic situation. Family adaptation can be defined as ‘‘the degree to which the family system alters its internal functions (behaviors, rules, roles, perceptions) and⁄or external reality to achieve an environment fit’’ (McCubbin & Patterson, 1982, p. 38), for a system (individual or family). McCubbin and Patterson (1982) have developed a family adaptation model, the Double ABCX Model, which is an extension of Hill’s (1949) original work with military families on the issue of separation because of war and then reunification, where he developed an ABCX Model. The double ABCX model focuses on various family vulnerabilities and regenerative power in terms of a reason for why some families can better adapt to stressful events than other families (McCubbin & Patterson, 1982).

This model also takes into account how a family attempts to cope and deal with the stressful situation over a period of time.

Another framework used to conceptualize how a family responds to a traumatic event, the family resilience approach, is grounded in the notion that a crisis event and the stressors associ- ated with the event affect the entire family and pose both individual and relational risks such as family conflict or a breakdown of the family unit (Walsh, 1996, 2002, 2003a, 2003b, 2006).

As Walsh (2006) asserts, ‘‘how a family confronts and manages a disruptive experience, buffers stress, effectively reorganizes, and moves forward with life will influence immediate and long- term adaptation for every family member and for the very survival and well-being of the family unit’’ (p. 15). Thus, the family interactional pattern and mode through which the family pro- cesses the traumatic event mediates the impact felt by each family member and can influence how a crisis is handled (Walsh, 1996, 2002, 2003a, 2003b, 2006). Family interactional patterns develop over time and change as families face different events, where the family unit must adapt to the demands placed on it. Therefore, family resilience is not a stagnant and permanent thing; it changes and involves many interactive processes (Walsh, 1996, 2006). In her theory, Walsh (2002, 2003a, 2003b, 2006) has identified three key family processes—a family’s belief system, their organizational patterns, and their communication practices—to be foundational back- bones of resilient families.

HOPE, FAMILY HARDINESS, AND SPIRITUALITY IN THE CONTEXT OF NATURAL DISASTER Possessing a positive outlook has been found to be a central part of a resilient family’s belief system. A positive outlook includes not only a sense of hope or optimism during difficult situations, a focus on strengths, and the ability to accept what cannot be changed in a situation but also the ability to take control over what can be done in a difficult predicament (Walsh, 2002, 2003a, 2003b, 2006). Hope can be defined as a belief in a future good (Boss, 2006) or a belief that suffering can stop and that comfort is possible in the future. It has been found that hopeful adults experience the same amount of setbacks as other adults but have a ‘‘belief that they can adapt to challenges and cope with adversity’’ (Carr, 2004, p. 92). Further, hopeful people in the face of adversity tend to set goals for themselves, view obstacles as a challenge, and focus on their successes rather than their failures (Rodriguez-Hanley & Snyder, 2000).

Therefore, after a catastrophic event, where there are many possible psychological, social, emo- tional, and physical effects an individual may face, hope is one of the essential elements needed to help families rebuild their lives (Walsh, 2006). 342JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPYApril 2012 Family hardiness, defined as ‘‘the internal strengths and durability of the family unit which is characterized by a sense of control over the outcomes of life’s events and hardships, a view of change as beneficial and growth producing, and an active rather than passive orientation in adjusting to and managing stressful situations’’ (McCubbin & McCubbin, 1989, p. 20), has been deemed an important strength of resilient families. A family that has a high level of hardiness possesses the ability to resist stress and adapt to stressful situations (McCubbin & McCubbin, 1989) by quickly moving the problem from any one family member or external source to a problem the entire family unit must address together (Figley, 1989). Family hardiness has been shown to act as a buffer for families against negative psychological reactions after experiencing a traumatic event. Specifically, Jovanovic, Aleksandric, Dunjic, and Todorovic (2004) have shown that war victims who have low family hardiness and less social support were significantly more likely to develop PTSD, and among those subjected to political violence, high levels of family hardiness were associated with lower psychological distress and greater overall well-being in both traumatized and nontraumatized women (Khamis, 1998).

Additionally, to cope with an external crisis, such as a natural disaster, many individuals turn toward religion or a higher spiritual being for support (Carr, 2004). A recent study con- ducted after the 9⁄11 attacks found that 90% of their sample turned toward their religion for support and comfort after the traumatic event (Schuster et al., 2001). Religion often provides a coherent belief system that allows individuals to find meaning in life and hope for their future (McCubbin & Patterson, 1982). Religious belief systems for many people offer a way to make sense of difficult situations, stressors, and losses and offer direction for what is to come after death (Carr, 2004). While the relationship between spiritual⁄religious coping and stressful events is sometimes hard to untangle, this relationship remains an interesting phenomenon in the coping literature and one that requires further research (Chen & Koenig, 2006).

The aim of this study is to begin creating a knowledge base about the relationship between family resiliency and hope, family hardiness, and spirituality of families who are survivors of natural disasters, specifically in this case Hurricane Katrina. We expect the following: (a) indi- viduals reporting high levels of hope following Hurricane Katrina will be more likely to per- ceive higher levels of family resiliency; (b) individuals who perceive high levels of family hardiness will also report higher levels of family resiliency; (c) individuals reporting more spiri- tuality or religiosity will be more likely to perceive higher levels of family resiliency following Hurricane Katrina; and (d) individuals experiencing greater resource loss after Hurricane Katrina will be more likely to report lower levels of family resiliency. METHOD Participants Initially, 993 possible participants viewed the online survey, and 18 participants completed and returned a paper survey. Of the population that viewed the survey online, 645 participants completed at least part of the survey. However, 192 participants had to be removed from the data set as a result of not fully completing the online survey. All paper surveys returned were fully completed. Additionally, one 16-year-old participant was removed. Ultimately, 452 partici- pants completed either the online or paper survey and were used in analysis.

Procedure Assessments were available to participants in either a paper or online survey format. The researcher posted advertising for the study around Mississippi and New Orleans and also passed out the survey to potential respondents during a 1-week trip to the area. Each paper survey contained a self-addressed, stamped envelope for easy, no-cost return. Business cards contained the Web address of the online survey and the researcher’s name, email address, and phone number linked to a prepaid phone designated for survey use, thus allowing participants who wanted a paper survey to contact the researcher. Local businesses and agencies were asked to display the posters, business cards, and surveys in their establishments, and personal contacts were asked to distribute the survey to anyone interested.

April 2012JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY343 In addition to posting in some of the affected areas, the researcher posted the survey on a well-known New Orleans forum called NOLA. The researcher also repeatedly posted short notes in general discussions on Hurricane Katrina forums inviting families affected by Hurricane Katrina to complete the online survey. Additionally, a MySpace Webpage was cre- ated for the study where members of MySpace could read about the survey and click a link that redirected them to the online survey. The online survey link was also posted on a number of Hurricane Katrina, Louisiana, and Mississippi MySpace pages in the group forum sections.

Measures To assess the level of family resiliency of families who are survivors of Hurricane Katrina, a set of four measurements was selected. The specific measurements used include the Family Crisis Oriented Personal Evaluation Scales (F-COPES), the Adult State Hope Scale, the Family Hardiness Index (FHI), and an adapted Spirituality⁄Religiosity measurement comprised of three modified domains of the Brief Multidimensional Measure of Religiousness⁄Spirituality:

1999. Additionally, a resource loss scale was included as well as 10 separate demographic ques- tions. A description of each method used is provided in Table 1 below.

Demographic Characteristics A total of 452 usable survey responses were collected for this study. The respondents were comprised of 65.1% women and 34.9% men. The majority (87.7%) of the participants surveyed identified themselves as White, with the rest of the participants identifying as 6.9% Other, 3.4% African American, .7% Mexican American, .7% Native American, .4% Latin American, and .2% Cuban. The age of participants who completed the survey ranged from 20 to 80 years (M= 47.70,SD= 11.15). A little more than half of the respondents (56%,n= 448) identi- fied as being married, with 18.1% identifying as single and another 12.7% identifying as being divorced. When asked, ‘‘In the family with whom you live, which role best describes you?’’ 54.6% responded ‘‘Parent,’’ 16.3% responded ‘‘I am living alone,’’ 16.0% indicated ‘‘Other,’’ 4.7% indicated ‘‘Child,’’ 4.5% responded ‘‘Grandparent,’’ 2.2% indicated ‘‘Friend,’’ 1.3% responded ‘‘Aunt⁄Uncle,’’ and .4% indicated ‘‘Cousin.’’ The largest percentage of participants (31.2%) in this study identified as attending 4 years of college or receiving their bachelor’s degree. Only .9% of respondents completed their highest level of education in elementary or high school. Overall, 74.2% of the participants in this study spent at least some time in college. The religious affiliation of participants was largely Christian (57.6%), followed by Other (31.5%), then Baptist (7.8%) and Methodist (2.9%). The majority of the participants (83.5%) indicated they lived in Louisiana prior to Hurricane Katrina, whereas only 15.4% of participants stated they lived in Mississippi.

Missing Data To avoid completely disregarding the participants’ answers for scale structures having miss- ing data, an algorithm was programmed in SPSS to identify those participants who had com- pleted at least three-fourths of the questions for a particular subscale. The algorithm estimated the missing values for each participant by calculating the mean from the other variables answered in that section. Once the mean was calculated, it was then substituted in for the miss- ing variables. The algorithm was used with the F-COPES, the FHI, the Spirituality⁄Religiosity measure, and the Loss of Resources Scale. RESULTS Bivariate Analysis The bivariate results indicate a strong positive correlation between F-COPES scores and State Hope scores (r= .45,p< .01). This means that as a participant’s hope increases, his or her overall family coping increases as well. A strong positive relationship between the F-COPES scores and FHI scores (r= .56,p< .01) was also found, indicating that when family hardiness increases, there is also an increase in family coping. The results also demon- strated a strong positive correlation between F-COPES scores and Spirituality⁄Religiosity 344JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPYApril 2012 scores (r=).55,p< .01). (Note: In the Spirituality⁄Religiosity measure, lower scores indicate higher levels of Spirituality⁄Religiosity.) Finally, the analysis showed a strong negative correla- tion between family coping and resource loss (r=).26,p< .01). Thus, as a participant’s Table 1 Measures Used in This Study Measure Description Family Crisis Oriented Personal Evaluation Scale (F-COPES)The F-COPES is a 30-item assessment used to identify the family’s coping strategies and behaviors used in stressful or problematic situations (McCubbin, Olson, & Larsen, 1981). The F-COPES is comprised of five subscales: acquiring social support, reframing, seeking spiritual support, mobilizing family to acquire and accept help, and passive appraisal. The reliability (Cronbach’s alpha) for each subscale ranges from .63 to .83 (McCubbin et al., 1996), and the measure has good interval validity with an overall alpha reliability of .86 State Hope ScaleThe State Hope Scale (Snyder et al., 1996) is a six-item self-report scale used to measure a participant’s current and present state of hope on a given goal or situation. There are two subscales within this measurement, an agency subscale and a pathways subscale, each accounting for three questions on the overall measurement Family Hardiness Index (FHI)The FHI (McCubbin et al., 1986) is a 20-item questionnaire designed to assess the hardiness of a family under stress and their overall adaptive resources, which are thought to serve as a buffer to the effects of a stressful event and facilitate adaptation and adjustment following a stressor (McCubbin et al., 1996). Specifically, hardiness in this scale is thought of as a family’s sense of control and power over the outcome of daily life events and hardships (McCubbin et al., 1996). The scale has good internal reliability, with Cronbach’s alphas ranging from .65 to .81 for the three subscales.

Spirituality⁄ Religiosity measureTo concisely measure each respondent’s level of spirituality or religiousness, statistically significant portions of three of the subscales included in the Brief Multidimensional Measure of Religiousness⁄ Spirituality 1999, which was part of the 1997–1998 General Social Survey (Fetzer Institute, 1999), were used to create a 13-item questionnaire. For this study, selected questions, pulled out by the survey itself as most useful questions, from the following three domains were used: Daily Spiritual Experiences, Private Religious Practices, and Organizational Religiousness. Each domain has been found to have good reliability ranging from .72 to .91. To score the Spirituality⁄Religiousness section of the survey, the items are added together, producing a score representing the respondent’s overall level of spirituality or religiousness. Lower scores are indicative of higher levels of spirituality or religiosity Loss of Resources measureThis 24-item instrument was obtained from the Sattler et al. (2002) study on resource loss and psychological distress cross-culturally after Hurricane George. The 24 items are broken up into four types of resource losses:

loss of object resources such as food, furniture, sentimental possessions, etc.; condition resources such as family stability, companionship, stable employment, etc.; personal characteristic resources such as sense of humor, feeling you have control over your life, etc.; and energy resources such as time for adequate sleep, free time, motivation to get things done, etc. The scale is scored by adding all items together, with higher scores indicating higher resource loss. April 2012JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY345 resource loss increases, the perception of his or her family’s ability to cope decreases. All Pear- son correlations between measures are displayed in Table 2.

In the bivariate analysis, a number of statistically significant differences emerged across the categories of race and gender. Female participants’ family coping scores were significantly higher than male participants’ family coping scores,t(438) = 3.44,p= .001. Additionally, a significant difference between male and female scores of overall spirituality⁄religiosity presented, with female participants showing significantly higher levels of spirituality⁄religiosity as com- pared with male respondents,t(440) =)5.21,p= .000. Interestingly though, female partici- pants suffered a greater loss of resources as compared with male participants in this survey, t(448) = 3.15,p= .002. Further, statistically significantly higher Spirituality⁄Religiosity scores were reported by non-White respondents as compared with White respondents,t(437) =)2.86, p= .005. Results can be found in Table 3.

Multivariate Analysis Finally, to predict overall family coping, a multiple regression model was built. The multi- ple regression contained family coping, measured by the F-COPES, as the criterion variable and the State Hope Scale, FHI, Spirituality⁄Religiosity measure, Loss of Resources Scale, gen- der, race, age, state, role in the family, education level, and total household income prior to the storm as predictor variables. The model was significant [F(11, 362) = 28.25,p< .05, Adjusted R 2= .447].

This multiple regression model explains 44.7% of the variance for family coping among survey participants. Specifically, the predictor variable, family hardiness, was found to be statis- tically significant in the overall model (b= .29,p= .000). This finding indicates that when participants’ scores are elevated on the FHI, participants’ scores will also be elevated on the F-COPES. The Spirituality⁄Religiosity measure was also found to be a statistically significant predictor variable in the multiple regression model (b=).35,p= .000). Thus, participants who are more spiritual or religious (as indicated by lower overall Spirituality⁄Religiosity scores) are likely to have higher F-COPES scores. The final predictor variable that was found to be statistically significant is Hope, as measured by the State Hope Scale (b= .19,p= .001). This finding demonstrates that high State Hope scores among participants are indicative of high F-COPES scores as well. Interestingly, when the other predictor variables were factored into the multiple regression model, the Total Loss of Resources measure was no longer a statistically significant predictor of family coping. This finding indicates that while the amount of resources lost after a natural disaster is important and has an impact on individuals, it was not found to be a major determinant of the individual’s perception of his or her family’s ability to cope fol- lowing Hurricane Katrina. Linear regression results of family coping scores with covariate pre- dictors are indicated in Table 4.

Table 2 Pearson Correlations of Relationships Between Survey Measures MeasureFamily Crisis Oriented Personal Evaluation Scale (F-COPES)State Hope ScaleFamily Hardiness IndexSpirituality⁄ ReligiosityLoss of Resources F-COPES — — — — — State Hope Scale .45** — — — — Family Hardiness Index .56** .69** — — — Spirituality⁄Religiosity).55**).25**).38** — — Loss of Resources).26**).54**).49** .06 — Note.**Correlation is significant at the .01 level. 346JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPYApril 2012 DISCUSSION The purpose of this study was to explore the role of family characteristics in the overall coping process of an individual after having experienced a natural disaster. The current litera- ture on natural disaster survivors focuses on individual characteristics and response efforts that would predispose a person to either suffer psychological distress or cope effectively following a catastrophic event (Basoglu, Salcioglu, & Livanou, 2002; Briere & Elliott, 2000; Fullerton et al., 2003; Gerrity & Steinglass, 2003; Hoff, 1989; Najarian, Goenjian, Pelcovitz, Mandel, & Najarian, 2001; North & Westerhaus, 2003; Phifer, 1990; Phifer & Norris, 1989; Sattler et al., 1995). Subsequently, very little research has taken into account the possible role family charac- teristics could play in an individual’s response to having experienced a traumatic event such as a natural disaster. Thus, to begin exploring the role of family characteristics in the coping process following a natural disaster, this study observed the relationship between family Table 3 Comparison of Mean Gender and Race Response Scores MeasureGender Race Males Females White Non-White M SD M SD M SD M SD Family Crisis Oriented Personal Evaluation Scale96.59** 19.40 103.04** 18.37 65.55 16.75 69.98 17.80 State Hope Scale 31.45 11.37 39.917 10.94 31.88 11.19 32.59 11.88 Family Hardiness Index 38.72 11.03 39.25 10.55 38.75 10.73 41.45 10.32 Spirituality⁄Religiosity 46.08** 13.82 38.74** 14.24 42.04** 14.25 36.04** 15.08 Resource Loss 62.75** 18.33 67.96** 15.84 65.55 16.75 69.98 17.80 Note.In the Spirituality⁄Religiosity measure, lower scores indicate higher levels of Spirituality⁄Religiosity. **Significant atp< .01.

Table 4 Linear Regression of Family Coping Predictor variablesBSEbtSig.

Family hardiness** .53 .11 .29 4.99 .000 Total spirituality**).47 .06).35)7.78 .000 State Hope** .33 .10 .19 3.35 .001 Total loss of resources).01 .06).01).19 .849 Gender 1.53 1.68 .04 .91 .361 Race 3.33 2.39 .06 1.39 .165 Age).21 .69).01).31 .757 Home state prior to storm 1.52 2.05 .03 .74 .459 Role in family 3.31 1.58 .09 2.09 .037 Education level)2.39 1.77).05)1.36 .176 Total household income prior to storm).36 .34).05)1.06 .288 Note.In the Spirituality⁄Religiosity measure, lower scores indicate higher levels of Spirituality⁄Religiosity. **Significant at the .001 level. April 2012JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY347 resiliency in terms of overall family coping and other variables such as hope, family hardiness, spirituality⁄religiosity, loss of resources, and other demographic characteristics that may influ- ence an individual’s perception of his or her family’s ability to effectively cope after surviving Hurricane Katrina.

Hope, Family Hardiness, Spirituality⁄Religiosity, Loss of Resources, and Family Resiliency The first research question examined the impact of hope on a family’s ability to cope. As congruent with past research (Carr, 2004; Rodriguez-Hanley & Snyder, 2000), this study found hope to be associated with a family’s ability to cope after experiencing a traumatic event. It appears that individual family members who are exhibiting hopeful attitudes about the situation and the future possibilities are more likely to perceive their families as effectively coping.

The second research question explored the relationship between family hardiness and fam- ily resiliency. In Walsh’s (2002, 2003b, 2006) family resiliency framework, family hardiness is seen as a pivotal factor that helps a family successfully navigate a traumatic event when present or leads a family to feelings of hopelessness and despair over their lack of control in what has happened when absent. Results indicate in this study a positive relationship between family hardiness and family coping exists, supporting the family resilience theory.

Further, previous studies that examined the influence of family hardiness after a natural disaster or traumatic event have found higher levels of family hardiness to be associated with lower levels of psychological distress (Jovanovic et al., 2004; Khamis, 1998). In the present study, family hardiness was a strong predictor of higher levels of family coping. Hence, individ- uals in this study who focused on what they could control and viewed their family’s situation as a challenge and opportunity for growth were more likely to cope effectively, demonstrating a sense of resiliency in the face of adversity.

In the present study, a relationship emerged between age and family hardiness. Individuals who were between the ages of 40–59 had statistically higher family hardiness scores as com- pared with the older participants who were 60 years of age or older. This finding contradicts past research where both the elderly (Fullerton et al., 2003) and the middle-aged (Phifer, 1990) have found to be at risk following a natural disaster.

Research question three examined the impact of being spiritual⁄religious on an individual’s perception of his or her family’s ability to cope. In times of crisis or stress, it is not uncommon for individuals to turn toward their spiritual beliefs or religion for guidance and support (Carr, 2004; Koenig et al., 1992), and positive religious coping patterns are linked to less psychological stress following a traumatic event (Pargament, Smith, Koenig, & Perez, 1998). Similarly, in the present study, higher levels of spirituality⁄religiosity were associated with higher levels of over- all family coping. Results show that Hurricane Katrina survivors who relied on their faith or spirituality after the storm had increased levels of family coping, showing a positive connection between spirituality⁄religiosity and family resiliency.

Research question four focused on the relationship between resource loss and family resil- iency. Results show a statistically significant negative correlation between resource loss and family coping. This finding is consistent with Phifer’s (1990) finding that great loss both at the individual level and at the community level is associated with declines in overall positive affect.

However, the multivariate results suggest that after controlling for age, race, sex, hope, family hardiness, and spirituality⁄religiosity, the relationship between resource loss and inability to cope disappears. As such, it seems that these may provide a buffer against the resource loss that has occurred.

Family Resiliency Theory As discussed previously, the three main independent variables—hope, family hardiness, and spirituality—relate directly to Walsh’s Family Resiliency Theory. Walsh (2002, 2003b, 2006) asserts that one of the key processes in resiliency is a family’s belief system, which is comprised of making meaning out of crisis, having a positive or hopeful outlook on the future, and having a sense of spirituality. Making meaning out of a crisis involves a family’s ability to grasp what has happened, gain some sense of control over their lives, and view this experience in a meaning- ful light, to see the traumatic experience as a new challenge (Walsh, 2002, 2003b, 2006). The 348JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPYApril 2012 results of this study support the prediction that making meaning out of crisis, as measured by the FHI, is positively related to effective family coping. As indicated by the results, high family hardi- ness scores were positively related to high family coping scores of Hurricane Katrina victims.

Another key component of a family’s belief system in Walsh’s Family Resilience Theory is having hope or a positive outlook following a traumatic event. According to the theory, a sense of hope is critical to the rebuilding process after a natural disaster (Walsh, 2006). The linear regression analysis found support for hope as a predictor of family coping, where a statistically significant positive relationship existed between participant hope scores and family coping scores. The results indicate that participants with high levels of hope also reported high levels of family coping.

The third component of a family’s belief system according to the Family Resilience Theory is spirituality (Walsh, 2002, 2003b, 2006). Walsh (2006) emphasizes that looking to a higher power in times of distress can offer many individuals a sense of comfort and support. The results of the linear regression analysis in this study show support for the theory’s component of spirituality. The findings indicate a statistically significant relationship between a partici- pant’s level of spirituality or religiosity and his or her family coping score, where more spiritual or religious participants are coping more effectively following Hurricane Katrina. Thus, overall, this study found all three variables related to a family’s belief system to be statistically signifi- cant in predicting family resiliency. These findings reinforce Walsh’s framework for family resiliency and show that individual family members under stress are utilizing these avenues to effectively cope after a natural disaster. LIMITATIONS The timing of this research can be seen in both a positive and negative light when viewing the findings. Families affected by Hurricane Karina were clearly faced with different challenges at different points in their journey toward recovery. The research in this study took place from July 2007 to September 2007, which is close to 2 years after the hurricane hit. The strength of this research is that it is testing family coping in the aftermath of a disaster, focusing on the long-term effects of a hurricane. The limitation is the way in which families viewed the trau- matic event possibly changes over time and the way in which a family is coping a few days or months after the storm may be different from how they are coping a year and a half to 2 years after the storm. Therefore, more research immediately after a natural disaster has happened would be required to test out the findings in this study.

A further limitation of this study is the makeup of the sample population. The majority of the participants in this study were Caucasian, were affluent, had attended at least some years in college, and were in their middle adulthood years. The demographics of the affected areas in New Orleans especially, as well as in Mississippi, show a much different picture where many families are living below the poverty line and of ethnic backgrounds other than Caucasian.

More variability of Hurricane Katrina survivors or future natural disaster survivors in terms of their ethnicity, income level, religious background, educational level, and place of residence should be considered. Additionally, there may be some participant bias, as the researcher on her trip accessed participants who were still living in affected areas. The Internet portion of the survey did allow for families affected by Hurricane Katrina who had relocated to another state an opportunity to complete the survey, but it seems that many of the participants were families still living in the affected areas. CONCLUSION Many families’ lives were changed the day Hurricane Katrina touched U.S. soil. For some, houses were destroyed and sentimental belongings ruined. For others, their community was in a state of shock and utter disarray. Even worse, other families and friends were mourning the loss of a loved one who died that day or in the days to come. Hurricane Katrina left its mark, but it did not take away many families’ sense of hope, their ability to make meaning out of the situation, or their faith in God. April 2012JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY349 Looking at the participants in this study shows the vast amount of resilience that exists in sur- vivors of Hurricane Katrina. The topic of family resiliency has only recently been brought to the attention of researchers and clinicians and warrants much more consideration. Natural disasters are a part of life, and Hurricane Katrina will not be the last natural disaster to affect families. We in the field have an opportunity to take a closer look at the variables that may help foster effective coping skills within families who are dealing with the aftermath of a disaster. An exploration of the variables deemed significant in promoting family coping, hope, family hardiness, and spiritual- ity, as well as other important variables, should be further explored. REFERENCES Alexander, D. E. (1993).Natural disasters. New York: Chapman & Hall.

Basoglu, M., Salcioglu, E., & Livanou, M. (2002). Traumatic stress response in earthquake survivors in Turkey.

Journal of Traumatic Stress,15, 269–276.

Berren, M. R., Beigel, A., & Ghertner, S. (1980). A typology for the classification of disasters.Community Mental Health Journal,16, 103–111.

Beven, J. II, Avila, L., Blake, E., Brown, D., Franklin, J., Knabb, R., et al. (2008). Atlantic hurricane season of 2005.Monthly Weather Review,136, 1109–1173.

Boss, P. (2006).Loss, trauma and resilience: Therapeutic work with ambiguous loss. New York: W. W. Norton.

Briere, J., & Elliott, D. (2000). Prevalence, characteristics, and long-term sequelae of natural disaster exposure in the general population.Journal of Traumatic Stress,13, 661–679.

Carr, A. (2004).Positive psychology: The science of happiness and human strengths. New York: Routledge.

Catherall, D. R. (1992).Back from the brink: A family guide to overcoming traumatic stress. New York: Bantam Books.

Chen, Y. Y., & Koenig, H. G. (2006). Traumatic stress and religion: Is there a relationship? A review of empiri- cal findings.Journal of Religion and Health,45, 371–381.

Fetzer Institute. (1999).Multidimensional measurement of religiousness⁄spirituality for use in health research: A report of the Fetzer Institute⁄National Institute on Aging Working Group. Kalamazoo, MI: Fetzer Institute.

Figley, C. R. (1989).Helping traumatized families. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Freedy, J. R., Saladin, M. E., Kilpatrick, D. G., Resnick, H. S., & Saunders, B. E. (1994). Understanding acute psychological distress following natural disaster.Journal of Traumatic Stress,7, 257–273.

Freedy, J. R., Shaw, D., Jarrell, M. P., & Masters, C. (1992). Towards an understanding of the psychological impact of natural disaster: An application of the conservation resources stress model.Journal of Traumatic Stress,5, 441–454.

Fullerton, C. S., Ursano, R. J., Norwood, A. E., & Holloway, H. H. (2003). Trauma, terrorism and disaster. In R. J. Ursano, C. S. Fullerton, & A. E. Norwood (Eds.),Terrorism and disaster: Individuals and community mental health interventions(pp. 1–20). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Gard, B. A., & Ruzek, J. I. (2006). Community mental health response to crisis.Journal of Clinical Psychology, 62, 1029–1041.

Gerrity, E. T., & Steinglass, P. (2003). Relocation stress following catastrophic events. In R. J. Ursano, C. S.

Fullerton, & A. E. Norwood (Eds.),Terrorism and disaster: Individual and community mental health interven- tions(pp. 259–286). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Green, B. L. (1990). Defining trauma: Terminology and generic dimensions.Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 20, 1632–1642.

Hill, R. (1949).Families under stress: Adjustment to the crisis of war separation and reunification. New York:

Harper & Row. (Reprinted by Greenwood Press, Westport, CT, 1971) Hobfoll, S. E., Freedy, J. R., Green, B. L., & Solomon, S. D. (1996). Coping in reaction to extreme stress: The roles of resource loss and resource availability. In M. Zeidner & N. S. Endler (Eds.),Handbook of coping (pp. 322–349). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Hoff, L. A. (1989).People in crisis: Understanding and helping(3rd ed.). Redwood City, CA: Addison-Wesley.

Jovanovic, A. A., Aleksandric, B. V., Dunjic, D., & Todorovic, V. S. (2004). Family hardiness and social support as predictors of post-traumatic stress disorder.Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 11, 263–268.

Kessler, R. C., Galea, S., Jones, R. T., & Parker, H. A. (2006). Mental illness and suicidality after Hurricane Katrina.Bulletin of the World Health Organization,84(12). Retrieved December 12, 2006, from http:// www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/84/12/06-033019ab/en/index.html Khamis, V. (1998). Psychological distress and well-being among traumatized Palestinian women during the intifada.Social Science Medicine,46, 1033–1041.

Koenig, H. G., Cohen, H. J., Blazer, D. G., Pieper, C., Meador, K. G., Shelp, F., et al. (1992). Religious coping and depression in elderly hospitalized medically ill men.American Journal of Psychiatry,149, 1693–1700. 350JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPYApril 2012 Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals. (2006).Reports of missing deceased. Retrieved December, 2, 2006, from http://www.dhh.louisiana.gov/offices/page.asp?ID=192&Detail=5248 McCubbin, M. A., & McCubbin, H. I. (1989). Theoretical orientations to family stress and coping. In C. R. Figley (Ed.),Treating stress in families(pp. 3–43). New York: Brunner⁄Mazel.

McCubbin, M. A., McCubbin, H. I., & Thompson, A. I. (1986). Family Hardiness Index (FHI). In H. I. McCubbin, A. I. Thompson, & M. A. McCubbin (Eds.), (1996).Family assessment: Resiliency, coping and adaptation— Inventories for research and practice(pp. 239–301). Madison: University of Wisconsin System.

McCubbin, H. I., Olson, D., & Larsen, A. (1981). Family Crisis Oriented Personal Evaluation Scales (F-COPES). In H. I. McCubbin, A. I. Thompson, & M. A. McCubbin (Eds.), (1996).Family assessment: Resiliency, coping and adaptation—Inventories for research and practice(pp. 455–507). Madison: University of Wisconsin System.

McCubbin, H. I., & Patterson, J. M. (1982). Family adaptation to crises. In H. I. McCubbin, A. E. Cauble, & J. M. Patterson (Eds.),Family stress, coping, and social support(pp. 26–47). Springfield, IL: Charles C.

Thomas.

McCubbin, H. I., Thompson, A. I., & McCubbin, M. A. (1996).Family assessment: Resiliency, coping and adaptation—Inventories for research and practice. Madison: University of Wisconsin System.

Mileti, D. S. (1999).Disasters by design: A reassessment of natural hazards in the United States. Washington, DC:

Joseph Henry Press.

Moos, R. H. (1986). Coping with unusual crises. In R. H. Moos (Ed.),Coping with life crises(pp. 289–294). New York: Plenum Press.

Najarian, L. M., Goenjian, A. K., Pelcovitz, D., Mandel, F., & Najarian, B. (2001). The effect of relocation after a natural disaster.Journal of Traumatic Stress,14, 511–526.

North, C. S., & Westerhaus, E. T. (2003). Applications from previous disaster research to guide mental health interventions after the September 11 attacks. In R. J. Ursano, C. S. Fullerton, & A. E. Norwood (Eds.), Terrorism and disaster: Individual and community mental health interventions(pp. 93–106). New York:

Cambridge University Press.

Pargament, K. I., Smith, B. W., Koenig, H. G., & Perez, L. (1998). Patterns of positive and negative religious coping with major life stressors.Journal for Scientific Study of Religion,37, 710–724.

Phifer, J. F. (1990). Psychological distress and somatic symptoms after natural disaster: Differential vulnerability among older adults.Psychology and Aging,5, 412–420.

Phifer, J. F., & Norris, F. H. (1989). Psychological symptoms in older adults following natural disaster: Nature, timing, duration, and course.Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences,44, 207–217.

Rodriguez-Hanley, A., & Snyder, C. R. (2000). The demise of hope: On losing positive thinking. In C. R. Snyder (Ed.),Handbook of hope: Theory, measures, and applications(pp. 39–54). San Diego: Academic Press.

Rubonis, A. V., & Bickman, L. (1991). Psychological impairment in the wake of disaster: The disaster-psychopa- thology relationship.Psychological Bulletin,109, 384–399.

Sattler, D. N., Preston, A., Kaiser, C. F., Olivera, V. E., Valdez, J., & Schlueter, S. (2002). Hurricane Georges:

A cross-national study examining preparedness, resource loss, and psychological distress in the U.S. Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, Dominican Republic, and the United States.Journal of Traumatic Stress,15, 339– 350.

Sattler, D. N., Sattler, J. M., Kaiser, C. F., Hamby, B. A., Adams, M. G., Love, L., et al. (1995). Hurricane Andrew:

Psychological distress among shelter victims.International Journal of Stress Management,2(3), 133–143.

Schaefer, J. A., & Moos, R. H. (1998). The context for posttraumatic growth: Life crises, individual and social resources, and coping. In R. G. Tedeschi, C. L. Park, & L. G. Calhoun (Eds.),Posttraumatic growth:

Positive changes in the aftermath of crisis(pp. 99–125). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Schuster, M. A., Stein, B. D., Jaycox, L. H., Collins, R. L., Marshall, G. N., Elliott, M. N., et al. (2001). A national survey of stress reactions after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.New England Journal of Medicine,345 , 1507–1512.

Snyder, C. R., Sympson, S. C., Ybasco, F. C., Borders, T. F., Babyak, M. A., & Higgins, R. L. (1996). Develop- ment and validation of the State Hope Scale.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,2, 321–335.

Walsh, F. (1996). The concept of family resilience: Crisis and challenge.Family Process,35, 261–281.

Walsh, F. (2002). Family resilience: Strengths forged through adversity. In F. Walsh (Ed.),Normal family process (pp. 399–423). New York: Guilford Press.

Walsh, F. (2003a). Crisis, trauma, and challenge: A relational resilience approach for healing, transformation, and growth.Smith College Studies in Social Work,74, 49–71.

Walsh, F. (2003b). Family resilience: A framework for clinical practice.Family Process,42, 1–18.

Walsh, F. (2006).Strengthening family resilience(2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.

Walsh, F., & McGoldrick, M. (1991). Loss and the family: A systemic perspective. In F. Walsh & M.

McGoldrick (Eds.),Living beyond loss(pp. 1–29). New York: W. W. Norton. April 2012JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY351